|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 25, 2021 4:05:33 GMT -6
Battle for Norway
‘King George V’ and ‘Anson’ were dispatched alongside ‘Nelson’ and ‘Collingwood’ to escort a troop convoy bound for Norway in late-November. The convoy arrived without incident, but E-8 successfully attacked the German battleship ‘Deutschland’ while traversing the Bight during the night. Unfortunately, the torpedo struck the modern battleship’s torpedo protection system and caused only minor damage. Unbeknownst to either side, during the night they had passed within 10nm of one another!
Five of the six emergency programme escorts and minesweepers were launched that month, with the escorts being put straight to work alongside the ‘Greltoria-Class’ convoy sloops. ‘HMS Euphrates’ was attacked by a U-boat but was able to return to port for repairs which would take her out of operations for the next two months. Six merchants were lost to German U-boats, but British ASW efforts saw their first big victory of the war, sinking three U-boats. The ‘HMS Jed’ was laid down as the second ‘Kennet-Class’ destroyer.
8 December would see the flotilla leader cruisers ‘Delhi’ and ‘Dragon’ lead a sweep of the Broad Fourteens. The two cruisers and their destroyers encountered a German battlecruiser in the evening mist at 1539Z. Presented with an incredible opportunity to sink an unescorted German capital ship, the commander of ‘Delhi’ pushed the attack.
Unfortunately, it turned out that ‘Delhi’s’ spotters had misidentified the ship, with it actually being confirmed to be the lone cruiser ‘Bremen’. Still, a small German light cruiser operating alone was an irresistible target. ‘Delhi’ took two 6-inch shells to the engine rooms at 1620Z and was forced to turn back with the ‘Ettrick’, ‘Dragon’ taking the lead and continuing the chase.
German Light Cruiser 'Bremen'.
‘Bremen’ had been crippled, slowing rapidly and taking hit after hit from the 5-inch guns of ‘Dragon’. By 1650Z she had been reduced to a charred, drifting hulk, and ‘Dragon’ fired three torpedoes to finally send the German ship to the bottom, followed by three more from the opposite tubes. ‘Eden’ also launched torpedoes, scoring the third successful torpedo hit on the German vessel before ‘Dragon’ signalled the remaining ships to cease fire. ‘Bremen’ sank at 1737Z.
'Bremen' crippled and helpless against 'Dragon'
‘HMS Ensemble’ joined the fleet that month, as did the remaining trawler-minesweeper ‘HMS Sabia’. Meanwhile, tests in the Solent had demonstrated the first successful launch of a depth-charge by a side ‘projector’ or ‘K-gun’. Furthermore, the DNC informed the Admiralty that thanks to experience gained from ‘Inflexible’ and the smaller carriers, he was ready to design a large, dedicated aircraft carrier, referred to as a ‘Fleet Carrier’.
December was a slow month for the Battle of the Atlantic, U-boats sinking only three British merchants. One British sub was lost.
January 1927 started with ‘HMS Indefatigable’ being called into Rosyth for her rebuild and the laying down of two more Kennet-Class destroyers: ‘Nith’ and ‘Afridi’. ‘Renown’ returned to the fleet. The Air Ministry selected the Vickers Gannet to replace the Hawker Hart as the main fighter. ‘E9’ successfully torpedoed a German battleship, though she failed to sink her. The convoy sloop ‘Swan River’ struck a mine and sank. In the Battle of the Atlantic, two British merchants were sunk in exchange for one U-boat, and it seemed as though the German anti-shipping campaign was winding down.
There was no surface action in February, as the BVM refused all opportunities to interfere with British supplies and convoys through the North Sea to the Dominions and Norway, where the German fortifications were holding up the BEF’s advance. Meanwhile, ‘Renown’ struck a mine operating off the fjords, taking her out of action until the Summer. ‘Trafalgar’ finally joined the Navy and began sea trials, as intel revealed that the Germans were in the process of building another ‘Seydlitz-Class’ battlecruiser, named the ‘Graf Spee’. This caused considerable confusion, as the Admiralty believed ‘Graf Spee’ had been sunk the previous August. It was eventually concluded that either someone had failed to pass this report on pre-war or someone had mistaken the ‘Lutzow’ (then under construction) for a sister ship which had been sunk months earlier! An AA fire control director was successfully developed that month.
The errant 'Graf Spee' report.
Four more ‘Kennets’ would be laid down in March.
On 11 March, ‘HMS Usk’ led a Destroyer flotilla to intercept a German troop convoy making for Trondheim. Contact was made at 1223Z. The British had the rear of the German convoy almost totally-undefended. The tactics were simple: charge straight in amongst the convoy, heedless of what few escorts were present, and fill the ocean with torpedoes. A lone ‘S22-Class’ Destroyer, the ‘V25’, attempted to interfere and suffered a tremendous pounding from the sizeable British attackers, who successfully got in amongst the convoy and wrought havoc.
Wolves set amongst the sheep. 8th Flotilla charges the convoy, with only 'V25' standing in their path.
By 1333Z, five German merchants had sunk, two more were ablaze, and an eighth was adrift, presumed sinking. Meanwhile, the British destroyers had sighted the cruiser ‘Hamburg’ and seaplane carrier ‘Ehrenfels’ amongst the escorts. ‘Kale’ launched torpedoes, hitting ‘Hamburg’ and driving her back while the rest of the squadron chased after ‘Ehrenfels’.
'Kale' hits 'Hamburg' with a torpedo, while the rest of the flotilla hunts down the 'Ehrenfels'. The destroyers wreak utter carnage amongst the transports.
By 1407Z, ‘Ehrenfels’ was jammed in a hard turn to starboard, burning, and surrounded by British destroyers. ‘Hamburg’, meanwhile, was drifting helplessly and only a handful of freighters remained afloat. ‘Cherwell’ had become separated from the main action and set about pulling German survivors from the water, while ‘Usk’ withdrew towards Scapa with heavy damage.
'Ehrenfels' loses rudder control and is circling directly in the path of the British destroyers, helpless.
With the ‘Ehrenfels’ apparently sinking, the British force turned to run down the three remaining transports attempting to flee to the NE.
The action had essentially ended by 1646Z, with British focus turning to search and rescue. No sign was found of ‘Ehrenfels’ before darkness.
A scene of total carnage - the sea littered with flotsam, splinters, oil slicks, and, ominously, shredded life rafts.
The ‘Battle of Alesund’ was a stunning victory for the British, with the entire convoy wiped out. The British destroyers pulled over 1000 survivors from the freezing Arctic waters, though no survivors could be found from the ‘Ehrenfels’. ‘Cherwell’ recovered the lion’s share of the German survivors: 622. So cramped was she that her captain ordered the main guns transferred off to the ‘Kale’ and a Red Cross was draped over the sides and on deck to avoid attack while the ship made its own way with the survivors to port.
Later in March, the sloop ‘Greyfvale’ was sunk by U-24 in a gunnery duel, while ‘Inflexible’ struck a mine and was put out of action for two months. While ‘Inflexible’ was laid up, in irritated Allington did an end-run around the rest of the Admiralty and straight to Tyrwhitt, “get those 8-inchers off Inflexible!” The 8-inch guns were removed and replaced with a formidable suite of sixteen 4.5-inch dual purpose guns in twin turrets. The barbette and magazine space was opened into the hangar, allowing an additional three aircraft to be embarked, and two AA directors were fitted fore and aft on the conning tower. Three more Oerlikons and a pom-pom were also mounted.
'Invincible's' rebuild, 1927.
On 24 April, another German troop convoy would come under British destroyer attack, this time in the Skagerrak. The two escorting destroyers completely abandoned their charges in the face of seven British ships, and night approached before any rescue operations could commence, the British force turning for home. All fifteen German transports were sunk, with no survivors.
The scene following another massacre...
The shocking loss of life at Alesund and in the Skagerrak was the final straw. The Spartacist government recalled all its support for Romania and called for an immediate ceasefire.
In an enormously frustrating turn of events for Allington, who had been determined to liberate Norway in the resulting Treaty of Athens, the Baldwin Government agreed to a peace without cessions. Allington would write later: “The decision to leave Norway in the hands of the Germans was the most dishonourable display of cowardice the world has ever known! All blame for Norwegian suffering from that moment on lies firmly at our feet.”
Peace...
...without honour.
In the post-war reductions, four old destroyers and the cruisers ‘Psyche’, ‘President’, ‘Pheonix’, ‘Calypso’, ‘Pallas’, ‘Badger’, and ‘Beacon’ were sold off as worn out, as was the venerable Battlecruiser ‘Indomitable’. With Britain comfortably in a surplus of battleships compared to the next largest power, the United States, it was also decided to dispose of the four 12-inch armed dreadnoughts, with ‘HMS Temeraire’ being expended as a gunnery target.
Work immediately began on designing a new class of large aircraft carrier, only 1,000 tons heavier than ‘Inflexible’ but carrying twice as many aircraft. It would be the largest aircraft carrier in the world at that time: ‘Ark Royal’.
Design sketch for 'HMS Ark Royal', May 1927.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 7:23:30 GMT -6
The ‘Cruiser’ Years
The sudden decision to build four ‘Warspite’s’ and ‘HMS Trafalgar’ some years earlier had completely derailed the attempt to modernise Britain’s cruiser forces. By mid-1927, Britain still had the Armoured Cruisers ‘Aboukir’, ‘Bacchante’, ‘Hogue’, and ‘Euryalus’ – also derogatorily called ‘About ‘ere’, ‘But Auntie!’, ‘Fogey’, and ‘Yuri Hopeless’ – the youngest of which was still 25 years old! Their time had well and truly passed, with many battleships now capable of keeping up with them, but the Navy had scant few ships to replace them. And these were not even the only ‘veteran’ cruisers in the fleet – of the 44 cruisers in active Royal Navy service in 1927, fourteen dated from before 1910, and another two were approaching twenty years old.
Allington resolved to take immediate steps to control the situation. Designs had been prepared before the war with Germany for a new low-cost cruiser to boost the fleet cruisers but had been postponed by the outbreak of hostilities. Wartime experience and development were integrated into the design and work restarted in May, this time for a cruiser of 6,000 tons for foreign station duties.
Allington also revisited the Imperial Naval Plan. While Jellicoe had envisioned four fast cruiser squadrons concentrated across each quarter of the globe, experience during the Virgin Islands crisis of 1925 had shown that Britain was easily capable of dispatching large cruiser and battlecruiser forces to the Americas and the Mediterranean when the need arose. Allington thus resolved to cut the four ‘flying squadrons’ called for by Jellicoe to two: the Home Fleet in Britain and the Pacific Fleet, to be based at Singapore. This would put them within easy reach of India, Canada, Hong Kong, and the South Pacific. For the time being, the Pacific Fleet would consist of ‘Australia’, ‘New Zealand’, ‘Hermes’, and four ‘E-Class’ cruisers, while the Jamaica and Central Pacific Squadrons would be broken up and the older ships recalled for refits before being sent on general patrol duties.
On the matter of wartime losses, the submarine arm had suffered during the war, going from fourteen vessels in 1926 to nine by the end of the conflict. Replacements had been ordered during the war, and Allington now supplemented these with a further four boats.
Just as May turned to June, ‘Indefatigable’ emerged from her refit and entered the reserve as part of the reductions.
In June, three of the ‘Birminghams’ would enter the yards for their overhauls. The opportunity was taken to remove two of their forward 6-inch guns and relocate the other two to the centreline, one firing over the other, replacing the entire battery with more modern weapons in general. Their secondary battery was also replaced with 4.5-inch dual-purpose guns in four twin-mounts for eight guns overall. Their torpedo flats were removed and plated over, and two triple launchers placed on-deck to either beam. An AA director was fitted along with modern main gunnery directors, five 2pdr pom-poms, and eleven 20mm Oerlikons to complete the AA fit. Beyond the overhaul, the engines were unchanged, although the two middle funnels were trunked together into a single stack as an experiment. ‘Liverpool’, ‘Manchester’, and ‘Sheffield’ would all receive the modernisation.
The following month, the first two new cruisers would be laid down as ‘HMS Carysfort’ and ‘HMS Constance’. The two were a leap ahead compared to the recent ‘E-Class’, with six 6-inch guns mounted in three two-gun turrets, two in a superfiring pair forward and the third aft. Eight 4.5-inch dual-purpose guns combined with five pom-poms and eleven Oerlikons were directed by two high-angle fire control positions fore and aft to pose a formidable anti-aircraft armament. Six torpedo tubes in two triple launchers on either beam rounded out the armament. The seaplane capabilities were expanded, with a hangar added abaft the catapult. This necessitated moving the funnel for the aft engine rooms even further aft, giving the ships a distinctive appearance.
British Light Cruiser 'HMS Carysfort'.
‘Ark Royal’ laid down in September 1927, expected to arrive in July of 1929. Her keel-laying came just as ‘Inflexible’ finished her rebuild to remove her 8-inch guns, alongside the three modernised ‘Birminghams’. ‘Sheffield’ would return to the Caribbean to deputise for ‘Leeds’, which had been stranded in Jamaica with condenser problems, so she could receive her rebuild. ‘Manchester’ and ‘Liverpool’ would replace ‘Aboukir’ on general patrol duties.
British Fleet Aircraft Carrier 'HMS Ark Royal', the first purpose-built large aircraft carrier in the world.
‘Kennet’ began sea trials in November, with her seven sister ships only six months behind her. Already a revised design was being considered by the Admiralty with six 4.5-inch guns in twin turrets and fitted with depth charge projectors. ‘Albion’ also joined the fleet, with ‘Ocean’ expected to follow in May after several months of delay caused by the war.
December 1927 would see Stanley Baldwin’s government lose a General Election. Public confidence had been shaken by the handling of the Irish rebellion and what was increasingly seen as the abandonment of the Norwegians to the Germans, leading to a victory for the Labour-Liberal coalition government of the Welshman David Lloyd George and Scotsman Ramsay MacDonald. The priorities of the new government were the expansion of municipal housing, the settling of the ‘Irish Question’ permanently, reforming the National Insurance Act, and the prevention of war. Inevitably the navy came under the spectre of cuts, though Allington was not too concerned given the international situation was calm and Britain’s position not seriously threatened by anyone. ‘E-19’ joined the submarine force just before Christmas.
Vickers presented the Mk.II Gannet in February. The Mk.II was a modest improvement on the Mk.I in terms of speed and range, both viewed positively by the Navy ahead of ‘Albion’s’ entry into active service. ‘Leeds’ rejoined the fleet, allowing her and ‘Sheffield’ to be released to general cruising duties in place of ‘Bacchante’.
March would see the laying down of the cruisers ‘Arethusa’ and ‘Amphion’ to the ‘Carysfort’ design, along with the completion of the last two ‘Kennets’. With ‘Ocean’ due to complete, attention returned to the battleship programme, with the design of ‘Camperdown’ prepared pre-war updated on the basis of wartime experience and technical improvements.
‘Ocean’ began her sea trials in May.
In July, the Air Ministry unveiled the new bomber aircraft Bristol Beaufort, with a range of nearly 500 miles and a payload of up to 2000lbs in bombs! While impressive, this was of far more concern to the RAF than to the Navy, who were more interested in the US torpedo bomber then entering service; the Republic Commando, reputed to be faster than the veteran Swordfish.
August 1928 saw the keel-laying for ‘Camperdown’. Compared to ‘Trafalgar’, she would be 5kn faster, 1,000 tons lighter, better armoured (with a magazine box 16-inches thick, providing 8 inches of protection to the machinery, and an armoured deck and turret roofs 7-inches thick). She would carry two seaplanes in her hangar to the stern, with a catapult on the quarterdeck. Her AA suite comprised of sixteen 4.5-inch dual-purpose guns in armoured turrets, seventeen 2pdr pom-poms, and 31 20mm cannon, operated by two AA fire control directors. While there were concerns over their magazine box protection, Allington defended the move, pointing out an adequate full-length belt would make the ship far too costly to build in usable numbers, and that a thinner belt and deck which were more affordable would be far too vulnerable to, among other things, plunging fire at practical battle ranges. “He who protects everything, protects nothing.”
British Battleship 'HMS Camperdown'.
The cruisers ‘Nottingham’, ‘Portsmouth’, and ‘Stoke’ were released to general patrol to allow for the withdrawal of ‘Hogue’ and ‘Euryalus’, marking the end of the Victorian Armoured Cruiser in British service.
September would see the decision made to scrap all 31 surviving ships of the ‘Doon-Class’, despite this cutting the Destroyer force in half. The intention was to continue building new destroyers, with four more ‘Kennets’ laying down that month. Supermarine would approach the Admiralty with their prototype ‘Skua’ floatplane, which the Admiralty agreed to adopt as at 116kn at was faster than the Gloster Goblin, and had longer range at 150nm, as well as being capable of carrying a 500lb bomb in addition to the Goblin’s 250lb bomb.
With the ‘Bradford’ and ‘Kingston-Upon-Hull’ both approaching their first overhauls, the two were brought in early for a modernisation. Their engines were not considered in need of replacement. Like the ‘Birminghams’, their four forward guns were replaced with a single superfiring pair. Their eight secondaries were replaced by four 4.5-inch dual-purpose twin turrets, their forward funnels trunked into a single stack and the after funnel rerouted to provide deck space for a single 6-inch gun amidships in place of the two after wing guns. The saved weight was put into fitting modern directors, including a single AA director, increasing the torpedo fit from two twins to triples, and mounting eight pom-poms and nine Oerlikons.
As 1928 drew to a close, the ‘Constance’ began her sea trials ahead of ‘Carysfort’ in the new year. January would also witness the return of ‘Bradford’, the scrapping of ‘Calliope’, and the adoption of the new Torpedo Bomber to counter the Republic Commando: the Supermarine Gauntlet.
March 1929 saw ‘Kingston’ return to the fleet, while agreement was secured for Vickers to procure the American 8-inch/50-calibre naval gun. With ‘Kingston’ back in service, the cruiser ‘Pelorus’ was scrapped. The battleship ‘Finisterre’ was laid down to follow ‘Camperdown’.
‘Cordelia’ and ‘Comus’ were taken in hand in May, receiving the now-familiar remedy of replacing the forward guns with a superfiring pair and removing the wing turrets entirely. The aft-midships gun was moved into a superfiring position on the quarterdeck, and eight 4.5-inch dual-purpose mounts were installed with director, 6 pom-poms, and 10 Oerlikons. The torpedo armament was abolished entirely.
‘Ark Royal’ joined the fleet in July, with an air group of 24 Gannets and 36 Swordfish waiting to embark for training.
In August, ‘Amphion’ and ‘Arethusa’ started sea trials while ‘Cordelia’ returned to patrol. ‘Comus’ was supposed to join her, but a miscommunication led to her being broken up in place by mistake! Someone had apparently gotten overenthusiastic about scrapping the ‘old rustbuckets’ and not realised ‘Comus’ had just been modernised! ‘Battle’ was retired as well, this time intentionally. A second ‘Ark Royal’ was ordered as ‘HMS Courageous’. The Supermarine Gannet Mk.III was introduced.
‘Ark Royal’ left Portsmouth in October for her first deployment, relieving ‘Hermes’ in the Pacific.
Construction began on two new destroyers of the ‘Tartar-Class’ in November. These ships carried six 4.5-inch guns in three twin mounts – a superfiring pair forward and one aft – as well as equipping a single AA Director and four depth charge projectors. This came at the cost of one knot compared to the Kennets, but the trade was seen as worthwhile for the extra firepower. Also that month, Royal Ordnance had been considering dual purpose mounts suitable for use on Destroyers.
British Destroyer 'HMS Tartar'.
In April 1930, King Alexander II of Serbia was assassinated by the Bulgarian IMRO (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation) terrorist Vlado Chernozemski in Marseilles, France. Chernozemski shot the King twice with a Mauser C96 semi-automatic pistol before being beaten to death by French police. The French Foreign Minister was also killed by a stray bullet fired by one of the French officers. Bulgaria publicly protested the extrajudicial killing of their citizen, incurring censure from both Serbia – who naturally objected to the murder of their King – and France, who objected to a foreign king being assassinated by foreign terrorists on their soil in an attack which saw their foreign minister killed. When asked about the incident by Lloyd George, Allington said only, “The Balkans are like a wasp’s nest – only an idiot sticks their hand in it.”
May would see the new budget come into effect. In it, the Air Ministry were asked to make cuts. The Air Ministry in turn requested to take over several Naval Air Stations. Allington agreed to a compromise where the RAF and Navy would share responsibility for all airbases, agreeing to rationalise the Navy’s land-based air requirements to accommodate RAF Bomber Command.
The Naval Air Stations at Grimsby and Rosyth were closed, while it was decided to relocate Royal Naval Air Station Roborough near Plymouth to Castlemartyr, County Cork. Overseas bases also came under fire, with RNAS Freeport, Grand Bahama; RNAS Hamilton; and RNAS Weihaiwei all being closed. The Admiralty successfully argued to maintain the Midway base, but on condition that it be reduced to a seaplane base exclusively. In return, the RAF agreed to finance the expansion of RAF Lossiemouth to take in the Navy units normally stationed on the various fields near Scapa Flow so those could also be closed.
As a result, airbases at Lossiemouth, Martlesham Heath, Boscombe Down, and Kingston were all expanded for their new joint purposes. The entire programme would take several months.
In July, the Government successfully negotiated the Anglo-Russian Entente, a non-aggression treaty designed to ensure continued peace between the two empires, with the Navy’s encouragement.
August 1930 saw the former Syndicalist Benito Mussolini appointed Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Italy amid major political unrest. Among Mussolini’s policies was the concept of ‘Mare Nostrum’, which proposed Italian naval dominance in the Mediterranean. With the Suez Canal being the essential lifeline for the Empire, this in particular caused Allington concern, and he successfully lobbied the Air Ministry to support new airbases at Malta and Alexandria, perhaps helped by the introduction of the Bristol Beaufort Mk.II that month. To recoup costs, the 23rd MTB Flotilla was disbanded, as were two of the 6-inch coastal batteries in Britain and a further two in Canada.
March 1931 saw the ‘HMS Camperdown’ enter service. At the same time, the Lloyd George ministry demanded another budget cut from the Navy. Allington once again complied, begrudgingly. Meanwhile, the Fleet Air Arm adopted the De Havilland Demon as a Dive Bomber aircraft. With two 16-inch gun battleships in service, the old battleships of the ‘King George V-Class’ were withdrawn and scrapped.
‘Courageous’ began sea trials in May, prompting the laying down of the third ‘Camperdown-Class’ Battleship: St. Vincent. A convention had clearly emerged for naming the 16-inch armed battleships after famous naval battles.
In July, the independence movement in Iceland contacted the Royal Navy asking for support in toppling the pro-Danish Union government. Aware of Iceland’s strategic position in the mid-Atlantic, and it’s utility in blocking German commerce raiding, Allington agreed. The coup was successful and Iceland declared independence from Denmark, violating the Danish-Icelandic Act of Union, and agreeing to grant the UK basing rights out of Reykjavik. RAF and Royal Navy personnel took over the airfield at Selfoss. The British Government came under heavy fire internationally for the act, and Allington was accused in several papers of still ‘fighting the war’ with Germany even after several years of peace.
‘Finisterre’ joined the fleet in September. November would see the laying down of ‘HMS Ushant’ after Vickers-Armstrong offered to build the ship in good time at a lower cost. ‘Iron Duke’ was scrapped in light of ‘Finisterre’s’ completion. Work also commenced on designing a new aircraft carrier to follow the ‘Ark Royals’.
Yeah, nothing can go wrong with invading Iceland! Nothing at all! Feedback appreciated!
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 10:39:55 GMT -6
Imperial Naval Plan, 1932We now take a slight diversion from the progress of the Royal Navy to investigate a series of memorandums and notes collected by Admiral Allington's Private Secretary - the so-called 1932 'Imperial Naval Plan'. Allington was concerned by a number of issues which had emerged under Jellicoe and during the Norwegian Campaign. These were:- The ageing nature of the Cruiser Fleet.
- The need to replace much of the Battlefleet.
- The fact that much of the fleet had anti-aircraft defences were minimal to non-existent.
- The fact that every other navy had built a considerable number of large heavy cruisers with 10-inch guns (and were continuing to do so in larger numbers than British Battlecruisers).
- The need to replace almost the entire destroyer fleet.
- The need to replace and expand the minesweeping and convoy escort fleets.
These problems indicated a need to, essentially, redesign the entire Fleet. While Allington would at no stage put this 'plan' into a coordinated policy document, he did circulate a number of design concepts, inviting feedback from the rest of the Admiralty and a selection of trusted sea commanders, which he would discuss privately with the incoming Third Sea Lord, Admiral Reginald Henderson; and the Director of Naval Construction. It is these concepts we shall examine in the following sections.
Largely because I'm at a bit of a loss where to take the designs at this point, I wanted to practice my superstructure-fu, and a little structure has always helped me with this AAR.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 26, 2021 11:20:26 GMT -6
I might've been more reluctant to take Iceland than you; it's not very useful to Britain within the game. Still, with tensions as low prior to the coup as they appear to be in your screenshot, I don't think too much trouble should come of it.
Personally, I prefer my destroyers to be a little slower but more heavily armed than yours are; at this stage of the game, mine are usually capable of ~32 knots and are armed with either five or six 5" or seven or eight 4" guns, and the classes between developing DP guns and developing DP main guns for destroyers somewhat often also carry a four- or six-gun 3" DP secondary battery.
As to the battleship design, I consider anything much over 20,000 yards to be impractically long range within the game, so insofar as armoring a ship for gunnery engagements is concerned I don't regard deck armor in excess of four or maybe five inches as necessary. I will also mention that magazine box affects the deck armor as well as the belt armor, so while it's 7" over the magazines it's only 3.5" elsewhere.
As to the cruiser rebuilds, if I go to the trouble of rearming the ships I tend to like superfiring over chasers (12B) rather than a superfiring pair forward since an extra gun forward is, relatively speaking, more significant than an extra gun on the broadside and since the chasers don't count against the centerline position limit, though my older cruisers also tend to have more guns than yours do. I might also have prioritized AA directors, mine rails, and perhaps additional DP guns over light and medium AA guns, as these are relatively small, slow cruisers and thus I would consider strategic utility and effectiveness in the fleet escort role to be more important than point defense capability, but on the other hand even stripping off all the light and medium AA guns probably wouldn't have freed up all that much tonnage for other uses anyways. If you have 5" DP guns, it might also have been worth discarding the 6" main and 4" secondary batteries entirely in favor of a 5" DP main battery.
As to Ark Royal's air group, bomber-heavy is period-appropriate, but I tend to prefer relatively fighter-heavy air groups, especially later in the 1930s or on small-wing carriers.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 11:31:40 GMT -6
Section 1: Battleships
This was one of the areas of least concern to Allington. With the completion of 'St. Vincent' and 'Ushant', Britain would have a force of five 16-inch armed battleships to only three American ships of similar calibre, although Russia boasted the 'Izmail' with an armament of twelve 15-inch guns, and the 'USS Nevada' then under construction had ten 16-inch guns.
Modernisation of the Revenge-Class and Admiral-Class was briefly considered - with the main issue being that such rebuilds would cost a sizeable portion of what it would take to build whole new ships, and would not be able to keep up with the 'Camperdowns', a problem 'Trafalgar' also shared. Instead, Allington favoured replacing the Revenge-Class entirely and limiting the modernisations of the Admirals to replacing their 14-inch guns with 50-calibre weapons and fitting new directors and AA armament, with an option being sounded as modernising the Warspite-Class Battlecruisers and redesignating them as Battleships to accelerate the replacement of the 21kn battle line. Allington circulated two designs aimed at this requirement.
Battleship Design A1 would mount nine 16-inch guns in three triple turrets, with a superfiring pair forward and a single aft. Sixteen dual-purpose 4.5-inch guns in shielded twin mountings and a sizeable AA battery rounded out the armament. Allington called for a box-configuration as in the Camperdowns, with the armour reduced to half-thickness around the machinery spaces, which were separated out for survivability. Interestingly, despite being 1,000 tons heavier than the Camperdowns and not using an all-forward armament arrangement, the design worked out only marginally more-expensive to build.
There was also a drawing titled 'Super' Battleship A1. This design was slightly-less armoured and sacrificed four 4.5-inch guns, but carried twelve 16-inch guns in four triples (superfiring pairs fore and aft). Allington was himself unconvinced of the need for such a large battleship, concerned by the much greater cost and poorer anti-aircraft armament.
And by 'unconvinced', I of course mean 'heart says yes, brain says dear God no!, and wallet just gets it over with and jumps over the side railing. ' Also, yes, I do like transom sterns. Why do you ask?
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 11:50:28 GMT -6
I might've been more reluctant to take Iceland than you; it's not very useful to Britain within the game. Still, with tensions as low prior to the coup as they appear to be in your screenshot, I don't think too much trouble should come of it.
Personally, I prefer my destroyers to be a little slower but more heavily armed than yours are; at this stage of the game, mine are usually capable of ~32 knots and are armed with either five or six 5" or seven or eight 4" guns, and the classes between developing DP guns and developing DP main guns for destroyers somewhat often also carry a four- or six-gun 3" DP secondary battery.
As to the battleship design, I consider anything much over 20,000 yards to be impractically long range within the game, so insofar as armoring a ship for gunnery engagements is concerned I don't regard deck armor in excess of four or maybe five inches as necessary. I will also mention that magazine box affects the deck armor as well as the belt armor, so while it's 7" over the magazines it's only 3.5" elsewhere.
As to the cruiser rebuilds, if I go to the trouble of rearming the ships I tend to like superfiring over chasers (12B) rather than a superfiring pair forward since an extra gun forward is, relatively speaking, more significant than an extra gun on the broadside and since the chasers don't count against the centerline position limit, though my older cruisers also tend to have more guns than yours do. I might also have prioritized AA directors, mine rails, and perhaps additional DP guns over light and medium AA guns, as these are relatively small, slow cruisers and thus I would consider strategic utility and effectiveness in the fleet escort role to be more important than point defense capability, but on the other hand even stripping off all the light and medium AA guns probably wouldn't have freed up all that much tonnage for other uses anyways. If you have 5" DP guns, it might also have been worth discarding the 6" main and 4" secondary batteries entirely in favor of a 5" DP main battery.
As to Ark Royal's air group, bomber-heavy is period-appropriate, but I tend to prefer relatively fighter-heavy air groups, especially later in the 1930s or on small-wing carriers.
Yeah, the destroyers I'm sticking with 4-inch because I have DP mounts for those and they've proven to still be useful. Once I unlock 5-inch DP guns, I'll be switching to those (this is also an issue the RN had IRL - the Tribals only had 4.5s as I recall, not the larger 5.25s used on the Dido-Class and KGVs). And yeah, the deck armour issue was something I pegged fairly recently. But, I believe I went with the 7-inch deck not due to extreme-range gunnery concerns, but to get the splinter protection on the machinery spaces with magazine box while still getting a net displacement benefit. Possibly a false economy. Most of the cruiser rebuilds were more aimed at keeping the ships in useable service on colonial stations without being utterly worthless in war, and I pretty much looked almost solely at making the designs lighter and cheaper-to-maintain as opposed to pure combat power, but you raise a good point, which I'll remember for the future. I did look at converting some of the older and smaller cruisers to AA cruisers as you suggest. The main issue there was they were relatively slow and too small for the job while mounting anywhere near a decent DP armament with 4-inch guns. There was also a bit of historical precedence involved - four twin 4.5-inch secondaries seems to have been pretty popular on British cruisers of the period. Again, I'm more concerned with keeping these 'rust-buckets' on foreign stations while I replace the 'sink-by-themselves' squadrons, so DP armament for fleet support wasn't as big a priority. I should have fitted mines though. I completely forgot about it. On the 'Comus' especially, since I had well-over 500 tons free displacement and four points of deck space left. 'Ark Royal's' Air Group can change, especially with Dive Bombers in play. Mainly this is going off the fact that so far my carriers haven't once come under air attack. Got another carrier trial planned though, so we'll see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 13:40:02 GMT -6
Section 2: Battle and Heavy Cruisers
This section covers two proposals of different thought processes. France had, since the 'Gloire-Class' of the late 1910s, built seven heavy cruisers of which five were armed with between eight and twelve 10-inch guns, and every other power save Germany had built five (with Germany having four). The German and Italian navies had thus far capped their heavy cruisers at 8- and 9-inch guns respectively, but everyone else had standardised on 10-inch guns. Concerned that these ships would clearly make short work of even the latest British light cruisers, and there was no practical way the 'Warspites' could be everywhere at once, Allington proposed two schemes to provide a new 'station cruiser' to confront the French (and other) heavy cruisers in the North Sea and the Pacific.
French Heavy Cruiser 'Pothuau' of 1932, the second and latest ship of the 'Latouche-Treville-Class'.
The concept for Station Cruiser B2 (B1) had been in Allington's desk drawer for some time, as a proposal for new larger cruisers to relieve the armoured cruisers and provide the most global coverage for the least number of hulls. Even then, in 1928, Allington was concerned by the size of opposing heavy cruiser guns. B2 was a development on this concept to meet the problem directly - not as flagships like the Warspites, but as cruiser-killers. The design would maximise end-on firepower by locating all main guns forward in two quadruple turrets, for eight 13.5-inch guns.
Heavy Cruiser A1 was intended less to overpower the foreign heavy cruisers, but to match them.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 13:57:36 GMT -6
Section 3: Light Cruisers Along with the Heavy Cruisers, Allington was concerned with recent developments in the USA with the 'Raleigh-Class' Light Cruisers. While Britain had just built four cruisers with six 6-inch guns in twin turrets, the US were now upstaging them with 9,000 ton cruisers armed with twelve 6-inch guns in triple turrets. With the threat of the US still real, despite the damage to the American economy following the Anglo-American War, Allington was determined that Britain must answer the Raleighs and their presumed smaller counterparts the 'Columbia-Class' (displacing 7,500 tons) with British vessels of similar capabilities.
US Light Cruiser 'USS Milwaukee' of the Raleigh-Class.
Design A1 was aimed at matching the American capabilities as closely as possible while maintaining the long-range cruising and seaplane-derived scouting capability of other British cruisers. This meant a 10,000 ton design with twelve 6-inch guns and a comparatively-heavy AA armament. Due to the marginal nature of cruiser armour to begin with, these ships (and the B-series of designs) would return to a full armoured belt.
Design B1 was to be a lighter ship, sacrificing one gun turret, one seaplane (although the hangar was retained) and range. This did not yield a serious saving in cost, however, and Allington was thus inclined to entertain alternative cost-saving measures.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 14:20:44 GMT -6
Section 4: Destroyers and Sloops This section was based on a need for replacements rather than any foreign design. Since scrapping half the destroyer fleet some years earlier, Allington had noted that the other half was also in need of replacement before the first had been replaced itself! To deal with this issue, while not committing to another series of modified designs as with the Kennet and Tartar Classes, Allington proposed a series of 'Standard' destroyers based on a common hull.
Design A1 would have been armed with six dual-purpose 4.5-inch guns in twin mounts, four depth charge projectors, and eight torpedo tubes.
B1 would fit eight 4.5-inch dual-purpose guns in exchange for losing one quadruple torpedo launcher.
Allington was inclined to encourage debate on this. A1 was more in line with current destroyer doctrine, but B1 was clearly a superior fleet escort. The issue was whether the destroyers would serve primarily as screening forces or offensive forces.
As well as the need for more destroyers, almost all the convoy sloops ordered under Jellicoe were now worn out. This time, Allington wanted a more centralised approach to avoid having to order wartime corvette conversions as much as possible.
Convoy sloop A1 would be a large and fast (for a convoy sloop) anti-submarine escort. Their ASW fit was identical to a destroyer's, but on a much smaller and cheaper hull. Two of these could be built for every one standard destroyer. Four 4.5-inch guns would also give it some capability against surface raiders such as destroyers, and a token defence against enemy aircraft (it was hoped that a number of escorts in a single convoy might provide enough AA firepower combined to ward off air attacks).
Minesweeping sloop A1 was based on a serious lack of minesweepers in Royal Navy service, and demonstrated by the losses to mines in even the short war of 1926-27. Allington recalled that Grimsby trawlers had been trialled as auxiliary minesweepers in the Long War and proposed a series of dedicated minesweepers built on trawler-inspired hulls. Their shallow draught and (preferably) wooden hulls would protect them from the mostly-magnetic sea mines in use at the time while mine-sweeping nets, decoys, and other equipment was dragged behind the stern, like on a trawler. Allington also entertained ideas of using Drifters to Lowestoft or Gt. Yarmouth designs, but this was dismissed initially on the grounds of seaworthiness and that Drifters would need to remain largely stationary.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 26, 2021 14:34:46 GMT -6
Most of the cruiser rebuilds were more aimed at keeping the ships in useable service on colonial stations without being utterly worthless in war Fair enough. For my part, I usually only go to the trouble of rearming cruisers if I'm intending to keep them in a more front line role, which is why I brought up looking at a more escort-oriented refit; my feeling is that most of the ships I expect to fight in secondary theaters are older ships, which my own older ships should be at least adequately able to engage without going to the expense of rearming. I'm not terribly concerned about the deck armor, honestly; 3.5" only really becomes marginal against 16" guns close to 20,000 yards, which means it's good enough for most engagements even if a little extra armor would be nice to push the immunity envelop just a bit further out. I just thought I'd bring it up since it sounded like the armor scheme was designed primarily for gunnery engagements and I also had the impression that you might've thought that magazine box applied only to the armor belt. I will say that I've had mixed experiences with magazine-boxed capital ships that get into gunnery engagements and so tend to use that kind of scheme only for the economy option, though of course there's obviously some potential for a negative feedback loop there and of course even the USA, with relatively minor colonial commitments and at times upwards of double Britain's budget in the later stages of the game, can struggle to pay for all-up fast battleships that make little to no sacrifices on the altar of economy.
I don't believe that any British cruiser had a secondary battery of eight 4.5" guns, and I think that the 4x2 secondary arrangement only really appeared in the mid-'30s with the Town class and County refits, though I could of course be mistaken. I think the secondary batteries on the Emeralds, Leanders, and Arethusas, Yorks, and Counties as built were 4x1x4"; on the Towns and Crown Colonies and on refitted Counties were 4x2x4"; on the wartime Minotaurs were 5x2x4"; on the planned-but-unbuilt Neptunes were to have been 6x2x4.5"; on the planned-but-unbuilt Minotaurs were to have been 8x2x3"; and on the post-war Tigers as built were 3x2x3". A couple of the Didos did end up with a 4x2x4.5" main battery and I think some of the older cruisers might've ended up with one or two 4.5" mounts during wartime refits, but otherwise the 4.5" gun I think mostly appeared on destroyers, carriers, and capital ships.
That all being said, there's nothing wrong with a 4x2x4" secondary battery on a small cruiser; it's a decent-enough DP armament for something whose primary mission is independent or small-group action against other cruisers and isn't really meant to be a fleet escort or operating in areas where it's likely to face concentrated, heavy air attacks; by historical standards it may even be a fairly heavy AA armament for decade-plus-year-old cruisers in the late '20s or early '30s.
As to the two new battleship designs, I like both of them well enough, though I will say again that my experiences with magazine-boxed capital ships that get into gunnery engagements has been somewhat mixed. I think the ammunition stowage on both designs is perhaps a bit extravagant, especially on Battleship A1 - I generally provide ~130 rounds per gun for 6x15-16" 'economy' capital ships and ~115 rounds per gun for more typical 8-10x15-16" designs - but on the other hand a plentiful ammunition supply isn't exactly what I'd describe as a disadvantage in and of itself. I personally would prefer a larger DP battery - especially on Super Battleship A1, since the difference in cost between its current configuration and one enlarged to fit at least an 8x2x4" or preferably a 10-12x2x4" DP battery probably isn't that significant - but on the other hand Battleship A1's 8x2x4" secondary battery does not appear to me too unreasonable by historical standards for an early-'30s design and the only ambivalence about Super Battleship A2's secondary battery that I have by the same metric is that I think that if you were only going to put a dozen 4" guns on a large capital ship then at this point in time you'd probably also have around eight or twelve 5" or 6" SP (maybe nominally DP, as on Richelieu or Yamato) secondary guns for anti-destroyer work.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 15:58:43 GMT -6
As to the two new battleship designs, I like both of them well enough, though I will say again that my experiences with magazine-boxed capital ships that get into gunnery engagements has been somewhat mixed. I think the ammunition stowage on both designs is perhaps a bit extravagant, especially on Battleship A1 - I generally provide ~130 rounds per gun for 6x15-16" 'economy' capital ships and ~115 rounds per gun for more typical 8-10x15-16" designs - but on the other hand a plentiful ammunition supply isn't exactly what I'd describe as a disadvantage in and of itself. I personally would prefer a larger DP battery - especially on Super Battleship A1, since the difference in cost between its current configuration and one enlarged to fit at least an 8x2x4" or preferably a 10-12x2x4" DP battery probably isn't that significant - but on the other hand Battleship A1's 8x2x4" secondary battery does not appear to me too unreasonable by historical standards for an early-'30s design and the only ambivalence about Super Battleship A2's secondary battery that I have by the same metric is that I think that if you were only going to put a dozen 4" guns on a large capital ship then at this point in time you'd probably also have around eight or twelve 5" or 6" SP (maybe nominally DP, as on Richelieu or Yamato) secondary guns for anti-destroyer work.
Yeah, that's all fair. I'm sorta attached to 'dreadnoughts don't have tertiary armaments', even though I realise that A) massively held back the Royal Navy with rubbish 3" secondaries until someone finally kicked Fisher out and let someone less 'tempestuous' have a go; and B) wasn't even that true outside of the Royal Navy. At the same time, the 4" guns seem to do pretty well for now, and I've always felt if destroyers are getting close enough to be engaged by my BBs' secondaries, somethings definitely gone disastrously wrong with the screening force. They'll be upgraded to 5" guns when they become available. I'm not super-serious about the super-battleship. I just put the displacement up to 45,000 to see what I could get and started working back towards the actual Battleship A1 design. There really isn't any need for the super as yet. No one is building large numbers of battleships (in fact, the AI really isn't building much of anything except CVLs and CAs, which is weird - America's only just started a dedicated CV and I'm looking at my third). The American 10x16" monster I know of is the only other 16" battleship, then you have the 6x16" BCs everyone started building almost simultaneously with the Warspites. It's just the older BBs aren't even protected against their own guns anymore, let alone the 15"-gunned Deutschland Germany put out (and their are four Wettins of a similar spec). So I'm sorta just looking at a replacement for those with an eye to getting my foot in the door if the US or France start ramping up BB construction again. I just thought I'd open the Super-BB up for discussion - if only for the laughs. I'll take your advice regarding the shells, though. It might let me get more DP secondaries on, since I really don't mind this ship being a massive AA barge. Any thoughts on the rest of the designs, if you get a chance to look over them?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 26, 2021 16:16:20 GMT -6
I think 13" guns are perhaps a bit awkward for a cruiser-killer - they feel unnecessarily heavy against cruisers, especially given that you only need to defeat a ~5" belt, but at the same time I don't think that they're heavy enough to be effective against a modern capital ship. Thus, I might look into the feasibility of fitting, say, a 2x3x16" battery onto the same displacement with similar armor protection, if you want to give it a heavy punch to throw at an opposing capital ship despite its glass jaw, or at cutting costs or maybe improving speed or armor protection by reducing the main battery to 11" or 12" guns. There's a big step in tonnage costs between Torpedo Protection 2 and Torpedo Protection 3, so I would probably cut a corner there to either cut costs or improve the design's likely survivability in a gunnery duel with another 10" cruiser, especially if this is meant more as an overseas ship than a home-waters design. I might also suggest using the 9" gun instead of the 10" gun as in my experience the 9" gun is adequate, and anyways this seems to be the 'economy' option compared to Station Cruiser B2/B1; another option might be to switch from the superfiring-pair-forward+1-aft 3x3x10" main battery to an all-forwards or perhaps a balanced 2x4x10" battery.
Having said this, my experience with cruiser-killer type battlecruisers and heavy cruisers is relatively limited, as I don't usually build either type; I prefer a more Renown-like "economy" battlecruiser (except with battleship-grade armor over at least the magazines and turrets instead of the more historical moderately-heavy cruiser armor that they were built with or the slightly higher standard of armor to which they were improved) and answer the question of computer-built heavy cruisers by handling my 5" and 6" light cruisers aggressively - AI-designed heavy cruisers with four- or five-inch armor belts don't stand up to close-range 6" fire that well, and while they're a bit more resistant to 5" gunfire enough hits will sink anything; on top of that, standing off generally favors the ship carrying the heavier guns - and hoping I'll have two or three of them against one heavy cruiser when push comes to shove. I also don't particularly care to design specific counters as I find it's fairly often the case that they'll never show up in the situation for which they were designed, especially if the thing that they were specifically meant to counter is relatively rare or adequately answered by other elements of the fleet. Either of these is in my opinion fine, though I usually forego torpedo protection on light cruisers and probably wouldn't go above TP1 even on a late-game 12,000t CL; I might also drop from Long to Medium range on the twelve-gun design for either more turret armor or a larger secondary battery, and cut the ammunition allowance on the B1 design from 200 to 160-170 rounds per gun as, at least until deploying autoloaders, I don't find more ammunition than that to be necessary for a 6" SP battery. I personally would probably go with a magazine box armor scheme and use the tonnage saved to fit more guns onto the A design or cut costs on the B design, but then I tend to favor firepower and economy over armor on CLs on the theory that they're at best marginally resistant to 6" armaments anyways and so are better served by hitting as hard as they possibly can than by being as resilient as they can be made to be.
I might look at something halfway between the A and B designs, because I don't really like dropping to four torpedoes on the B design but would rather have a heavier gun armament than the six 4" guns on the A design - 7x4" in a 3x2+1 configuration with six or seven torpedo tubes is probably viable on 1,500 tons and would be more in line with existing destroyer designs while still representing an improvement in fleet escort capability; it might also be capable to combine the 4x2 main battery of the B design with the eight torpedo tubes of the A design if you're willing and able to increase the displacement to 1,600 or perhaps 1,700 tons, though of course that would come with increased unit costs.
From the perspective of playing the game, I would prefer to go with the minesweeper (and an ASW derivative thereof), as I consider the speed and armament of a corvette to be almost entirely irrelevant within the game and thus the greater cost of the convoy sloop is ill-justified.
From a more role-playing perspective, the sloop is what I would prefer to build if I had an unlimited budget while the minesweeper is more in line with what I would likely build given financial constraints; if old, small destroyers have been retained then I might also look into refitting them for service in the minesweeping and ASW roles. Another thing that I might do under fiscal constraints is go for a compromise that satisfies nobody and build essentially a second-class fleet destroyer of about a thousand tons, on which I could hopefully fit four 4" guns, six torpedo tubes, and either minesweeping gear or a full ASW outfit while maintaining a design speed fast enough to work with existing fleet destroyers, or failing that then at least with the heavier warships, which could then be used as a fleet destroyer, a minesweeper, or an ASW unit as required, even though its lesser size and armament would leave it less satisfactory as a fleet destroyer than a 1,500-ton vessel such as you proposed earlier in this section while its greater costs compared to slower, more lightly-armed purpose-built minesweeping and ASW corvettes would leave it less satisfactory in those roles, and of course there would also be the issue of the number of ships built, as you could end up in a situation where you're trying to fulfill three distinct missions while only really having enough suitable ships for one or two of them. Which, of course, isn't exactly ahistorical.
Edit: Looks like we've been posting across each other all afternoon - you post something, then I start on a reply to what you wrote and find that I've taken long enough for you to post something else, then I start work on a response to that, post it, and find you've responded to my previous post. I prefer the single-caliber SP or DP secondary batteries of most British and American ships to the mixed-caliber SP or SP & HAA secondary/tertiary batteries of a number of French, German, Italian, and Japanese ships, myself, and frequently use 4" DP batteries even after 5" DP becomes available since it's lighter and still reasonably effective, but I thought I'd bring it up since a dozen 4" guns feels a bit light compared to historical practice, given that the 4" DP battery was the only secondary armament on the ship.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 17:34:22 GMT -6
I think 13" guns are perhaps a bit awkward for a cruiser-killer - they feel unnecessarily heavy against cruisers, especially given that you only need to defeat a ~5" belt, but at the same time I don't think that they're heavy enough to be effective against a modern capital ship. Thus, I might look into the feasibility of fitting, say, a 2x3x16" battery onto the same displacement with similar armor protection, if you want to give it a heavy punch to throw at an opposing capital ship despite its glass jaw, or at cutting costs or maybe improving speed or armor protection by reducing the main battery to 11" or 12" guns. There's a big step in tonnage costs between Torpedo Protection 2 and Torpedo Protection 3, so I would probably cut a corner there to either cut costs or improve the design's likely survivability in a gunnery duel with another 10" cruiser, especially if this is meant more as an overseas ship than a home-waters design. I might also suggest using the 9" gun instead of the 10" gun as in my experience the 9" gun is adequate, and anyways this seems to be the 'economy' option compared to Station Cruiser B2/B1; another option might be to switch from the superfiring-pair-forward+1-aft 3x3x10" main battery to an all-forwards or perhaps a balanced 2x4x10" battery.
Having said this, my experience with cruiser-killer type battlecruisers and heavy cruisers is relatively limited, as I don't usually build either type; I prefer a more Renown-like "economy" battlecruiser (except with battleship-grade armor over at least the magazines and turrets instead of the more historical moderately-heavy cruiser armor that they were built with or the slightly higher standard of armor to which they were improved) and answer the question of computer-built heavy cruisers by handling my 5" and 6" light cruisers aggressively - AI-designed heavy cruisers with four- or five-inch armor belts don't stand up to close-range 6" fire that well, and while they're a bit more resistant to 5" gunfire enough hits will sink anything; on top of that, standing off generally favors the ship carrying the heavier guns - and hoping I'll have two or three of them against one heavy cruiser when push comes to shove. I also don't particularly care to design specific counters as I find it's fairly often the case that they'll never show up in the situation for which they were designed, especially if the thing that they were specifically meant to counter is relatively rare or adequately answered by other elements of the fleet. Either of these is in my opinion fine, though I usually forego torpedo protection on light cruisers and probably wouldn't go above TP1 even on a late-game 12,000t CL; I might also drop from Long to Medium range on the twelve-gun design for either more turret armor or a larger secondary battery, and cut the ammunition allowance on the B1 design from 200 to 160-170 rounds per gun as, at least until deploying autoloaders, I don't find more ammunition than that to be necessary for a 6" SP battery. I personally would probably go with a magazine box armor scheme and use the tonnage saved to fit more guns onto the A design or cut costs on the B design, but then I tend to favor firepower and economy over armor on CLs on the theory that they're at best marginally resistant to 6" armaments anyways and so are better served by hitting as hard as they possibly can than by being as resilient as they can be made to be.
I might look at something halfway between the A and B designs, because I don't really like dropping to four torpedoes on the B design but would rather have a heavier gun armament than the six 4" guns on the A design - 7x4" in a 3x2+1 configuration with six or seven torpedo tubes is probably viable on 1,500 tons and would be more in line with existing destroyer designs while still representing an improvement in fleet escort capability; it might also be capable to combine the 4x2 main battery of the B design with the eight torpedo tubes of the A design if you're willing and able to increase the displacement to 1,600 or perhaps 1,700 tons, though of course that would come with increased unit costs.
From the perspective of playing the game, I would prefer to go with the minesweeper (and an ASW derivative thereof), as I consider the speed and armament of a corvette to be almost entirely irrelevant within the game and thus the greater cost of the convoy sloop is ill-justified.
From a more role-playing perspective, the sloop is what I would prefer to build if I had an unlimited budget while the minesweeper is more in line with what I would likely build given financial constraints; if old, small destroyers have been retained then I might also look into refitting them for service in the minesweeping and ASW roles. Another thing that I might do under fiscal constraints is go for a compromise that satisfies nobody and build essentially a second-class fleet destroyer of about a thousand tons, on which I could hopefully fit four 4" guns, six torpedo tubes, and either minesweeping gear or a full ASW outfit while maintaining a design speed fast enough to work with existing fleet destroyers, or failing that then at least with the heavier warships, which could then be used as a fleet destroyer, a minesweeper, or an ASW unit as required, even though its lesser size and armament would leave it less satisfactory as a fleet destroyer than a 1,500-ton vessel such as you proposed earlier in this section while its greater costs compared to slower, more lightly-armed purpose-built minesweeping and ASW corvettes would leave it less satisfactory in those roles, and of course there would also be the issue of the number of ships built, as you could end up in a situation where you're trying to fulfill three distinct missions while only really having enough suitable ships for one or two of them. Which, of course, isn't exactly ahistorical.
Edit: Looks like we've been posting across each other all afternoon - you post something, then I start on a reply to what you wrote and find that I've taken long enough for you to post something else, then I start work on a response to that, post it, and find you've responded to my previous post. I prefer the single-caliber SP or DP secondary batteries of most British and American ships to the mixed-caliber SP or SP & HAA secondary/tertiary batteries of a number of French, German, Italian, and Japanese ships, myself, and frequently use 4" DP batteries even after 5" DP becomes available since it's lighter and still reasonably effective, but I thought I'd bring it up since a dozen 4" guns feels a bit light compared to historical practice, given that the 4" DP battery was the only secondary armament on the ship.
I've noted a few of your points and will investigate acting on them tomorrow (it's evening where I am). Just felt I should clarify regarding the sloops: I'd be building minesweepers as well as convoy escorts, not either or. As far as the heavy armament on the convoy sloop goes, that's partly to try to represent the convoy sloops (later termed Frigates) the RN actually used in WWII (Black Swan, River, Loch classes, etc), which were sort of intended to at least get in the way of small surface raiders as well as guarding against sub attacks, and I've had these kind of corvettes show up in battle before. Even if I lose four in a battle, if they sink one or two DDs, they've inflicted a similar amount of economic loss on the enemy - and there's also of course the fact that just the presence of these and their mediocre firepower might deter attacking DDs enough to let me get DDs to support or to get the merchants out of immediate danger. That's being optimistic, I admit. It's for RP reasons more than anything. That said, I'm still going to look at an 'Escort' or small Destroyer like you suggest, maybe emulating the Hunt-Class. And since writing this design section I've investigated converting some of the older DDs to escorts and I think it should be doable.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 27, 2021 6:16:18 GMT -6
Imperial Naval Plan, 1932 (Cont.)
Following the initial round of design sketches, Allington circulated a series of revisions based on the comments of the Board and trusted Captains:
Allington resolved to put the Super-battleship to one side for the time being and focus on improving the regular battleship concept. A2 saw a refinement of the armour scheme by reducing the thickness on the turret roofs (still effective out to 26,000 yards) and strengthening the maximum thickness of the armoured deck. Furthermore, two more dual-purpose turrets were added and the armament arrayed in two levels. Further weight savings by revising the ammunition allowances allowed the conning tower armour to be increased to 5 inches - protective against most cruiser guns - and the secondary turrets were increased to 3.5 inches to resist destroyer-calibre gunfire.
The Station Cruiser B3 design (now frequently being referred to as a Battlecruiser) reduced the main armament to 12-inch guns, allowing a slight increase in armour and the addition of two more secondary gun mounts. An extra knot of speed was also available. Despite these changes, the overall cost per unit did not noticeably increase.
Heavy Cruiser A2 revised the main armament to twelve 9.2-inch guns and saved weight by reducing the underwater protection system. A hangar was provided for the seaplane allocation, which was increased from one aircraft to two. Unit costs actually increased due to the increase in number of guns, but Allington was prepared to accept this, feeling this presented a much better balance in design.
Revisions of Light Cruiser A1 had not managed to make any serious savings to justify compromises in capability, but B2 would improve on B1 by implementing an armoured magazine box and rationalising the ammunition allowance considerably. The result was a significantly lighter and cheaper hull. Allington was seriously considering a high-low mix of A Cruisers for squadron duties (raider hunting and fleet operations) and B Cruisers for independent cruising.
Standard Destroyer C1 was an effort to combine the firepower of design B with the torpedo capabilities of design A. The X mount would be reduced to a single gun from the B design, while the two torpedo launchers from the A design were each reduced by one tube.
In response to concerns over the utility of the Escort Sloop design, the Admiralty investigated the possibility of a small 'Escort Destroyer' design. Design A1 would have a top speed of 30kn and mount six torpedo tubes, four 4.5-inch dual-purpose guns, four sets of depth charge throwers and two racks. An A2 design was also being considered, with accepted a speed of 28kn for reduced unit costs.
For reference, the main issue with reducing the range on CL-A1 was that it didn't save enough weight or cost to justify the reduced anti-raider capability (and there are still plenty of colonial powers to worry about), and I didn't want to sacrifice the splinter protection over the machinery spaces by implementing a magazine box. I don't mind running that risk with the economy cruisers, but if these ships are going to fight the Americans, I'd rather they not have to fight their own engines too.
|
|
|
Post by prophetinreverse on Feb 28, 2021 10:00:32 GMT -6
First, lovely job cranking out the high quality content at a fast pace. I have been reading this with great interest.
Second, if I may weigh in on the battlecruiser/heavy cruiser debate, it occurs to me that at present, the cost difference between the B2 and A2 is roughly that of an 81:55 ratio, such that for the cost of five battlecruisers, you could get eight heavy cruisers. I don’t know for sure what the dispositions of the other powers are, but I would think that quantity would have to be a bit more important than quality to Britain as it has so much of the map to defend and an increasingly smaller budget ratio to the other powers as the game goes on. Parity in many areas might be preferable over supremacy in a few.
|
|