|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Dec 22, 2020 23:27:17 GMT -6
The game, I believe, currently classifies any BB going above 30 knots as BC, which is not very convincing...
The Iowa class had a design speed of 33 knots and USS New Jersey had a top speed of 35.2 knots at one point. The Richelieu class could go at 32 knots and the Bismark class 30.8 knots.
So my question is, why can't I have a 33 knots going BB and why does the game believe that it must be a BC?
Is there a way to tell the game "No, I do not want my design to be classified as a BC and I would like it to remain a BB design"?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 23, 2020 0:45:47 GMT -6
The game, I believe, currently classifies any BB going above 30 knots as BC, which is not very convincing... Because arbitrary lines in the sand have to be drawn somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by nutty31 on Dec 23, 2020 5:14:21 GMT -6
Just think of the BBs as the comparatively slower ones (Vanguard, Yamato, Littorio, etc) and the BCs as the fastest of them (Iowa, Richelieu, etc). It doesn't really matter how they are classified if they have practically the same specs besides one being slightly faster.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 23, 2020 10:18:47 GMT -6
The game, I believe, currently classifies any BB going above 30 knots as BC, which is not very convincing... The Iowa class had a design speed of 33 knots and USS New Jersey had a top speed of 35.2 knots at one point. The Richelieu class could go at 32 knots and the Bismark class 30.8 knots. The argument that the Richelieus, and even moreso the Iowas, were really BCs is quite strong. Both were faster than any BC ever completed, and the Iowas' armor scheme was uncomfortably light for their gun caliber. Even Richelieu had less than an inch more belt armor than Hood, and of the three you mentioned, she had the thickest belt. Bismarck's deck was uncomfortably thin for the WWII era, too. Furthermore, neither the USN nor the French Navy had, to my knowledge, ever completed a BC as such, and so the institutional inertia towards designating anything as a BB instead of a BC was probably very strong. Does it really matter? For Fast BBs (those over 27 knots, as I recall) the difference between a BB and a BC in gameplay terms is pretty much nil, as the battle generator will select either type for both battle line and cruiser missions.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 23, 2020 10:25:42 GMT -6
I think the Alaska class of large cruisers probably were battle cruisers. They had 4 inch deck armor, 9 in. belt with 12 inch guns. It might a stretch, but I think they qualify. They could sail at 33 knots and had a 12,000 mi. range at 15 knots. Sounds like a Fisher battle cruiser to me.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 23, 2020 11:49:20 GMT -6
I think the Alaska class of large cruisers probably were battle cruisers. They had 4 inch deck armor, 9 in. belt with 12 inch guns. It might a stretch, but I think they qualify. They could sail at 33 knots and had a 12,000 mi. range at 15 knots. Sounds like a Fisher battle cruiser to me. Personally, I don't regard 12" as a capital ship caliber in the WWII era. I regard both the Alaskas and the Scharnhorsts as exceptionally heavy heavy cruisers (which is how the navy classified the Alaskas). They would have been eaten for lunch by any post-treaty capital ship built or planned. I'd put the line between capital ship and cruiser at somewhere around 35,000 tons and 13 or 14" weapons. I'm really doubtful about whether the Dunkerques even qualified, and I'd rule them out entirely if any single other capital ship class in service during the war had been built with an inch higher caliber guns than it was historically. I'd rule out even the KGVs if the US had been a bit quicker about deciding to pull out of the treaty after Japan did, and the SDs had accordingly been built to a design with tonnage closer to the Iowas, or if any second power had built an 18" class.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 23, 2020 12:07:14 GMT -6
I think the Alaska class of large cruisers probably were battle cruisers. They had 4 inch deck armor, 9 in. belt with 12 inch guns. It might a stretch, but I think they qualify. They could sail at 33 knots and had a 12,000 mi. range at 15 knots. Sounds like a Fisher battle cruiser to me. Personally, I don't regard 12" as a capital ship caliber in the WWII era. I regard both the Alaskas and the Scharnhorsts as exceptionally heavy heavy cruisers (which is how the navy classified the Alaskas). They would have been eaten for lunch by any post-treaty capital ship built or planned. I'd put the line between capital ship and cruiser at somewhere around 35,000 tons and 13 or 14" weapons. I'm really doubtful about whether the Dunkerques even qualified, and I'd rule them out entirely if any single other capital ship class in service during the war had been built with an inch higher caliber guns than it was historically. I'd rule out even the KGVs if the US had been a bit quicker about deciding to pull out of the treaty after Japan did, and the SDs had accordingly been built to a design with tonnage closer to the Iowas, or if any second power had built an 18" class. I disagree. Those ships and guns were perfectly capable of handling these missions: Trade warfare and protection, shore bombardment, scouting for carriers and carrier protection. Quote from Navweaps on those guns. This gun was a major improvement over the 12"/50 (30.5 cm) Mark 7 guns used on the USS Wyoming (BB-33) class and was of a simpler, lighter construction. Designed to fire the new "super-heavy" AP projectiles, their side belt armor penetration at 20,000 to 30,000 yards (18,290 to 27,430 m) was almost identical to and the deck plate penetration better than the larger 14"/50 (35.6 cm) guns used on U.S. pre-treaty battleships. Most of the battleships at the Battle of Surigao Straits were equipped with 14 inch guns and these were superior. They would have been valuable at Samar also.
|
|
|
Post by bobert on Dec 23, 2020 15:19:38 GMT -6
I know it's subjective, but I think my late game BC's get 3x the battles that my BB's do.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Dec 23, 2020 16:06:07 GMT -6
I think the Alaska class of large cruisers probably were battle cruisers. They had 4 inch deck armor, 9 in. belt with 12 inch guns. It might a stretch, but I think they qualify. They could sail at 33 knots and had a 12,000 mi. range at 15 knots. Sounds like a Fisher battle cruiser to me. I didn't think their was any doubt that they were designed as Battle Cruisers. Don't forget the initial designation was CC, which was the US designation for Battle Cruiser, it was later changed to CB or large cruiser.
Also to quote WIKI - "The Alaskas' percentage of armor tonnage, 28.4%, was slightly less than that of fast battleships; the British King George V class, the American Iowa class, and the battlecruiser/fast battleship HMS Hood all had armor percentages between 32 and 33%, whereas the Lexington-class battlecruiser design had a nearly identical armor percentage of 28.5%".
Post treaty, there were a lot of conflicting doctrines, theories and concepts waiting to be implemented and tested. Their was a notable move pre-WWII towards 11-12" gunned battle cruisers / raiders / pocket battleships / etc. The classifications meshed differently in each navy and likewise most navies viewed them differently though the development process and wartime experiences as CV's and ever larger fleets become dominate. Ultimately for the navies of the world to start with a Battle Cruiser and end up seeing it as a Large Cruiser or a raider or fast battle ship after it had seen active service isn't surprising.
A Rose by any other name is just as thorny.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 23, 2020 16:28:05 GMT -6
I think the Alaska class of large cruisers probably were battle cruisers. They had 4 inch deck armor, 9 in. belt with 12 inch guns. It might a stretch, but I think they qualify. They could sail at 33 knots and had a 12,000 mi. range at 15 knots. Sounds like a Fisher battle cruiser to me. I didn't think their was any doubt that they were designed as Battle Cruisers. Don't forget the initial designation was CC, which was the US designation for Battle Cruiser, it was later changed to CB or large cruiser.
Also to quote WIKI - "The Alaskas' percentage of armor tonnage, 28.4%, was slightly less than that of fast battleships; the British King George V class, the American Iowa class, and the battlecruiser/fast battleship HMS Hood all had armor percentages between 32 and 33%, whereas the Lexington-class battlecruiser design had a nearly identical armor percentage of 28.5%".
Post treaty, there were a lot of conflicting doctrines, theories and concepts waiting to be implemented and tested. Their was a notable move pre-WWII towards 11-12" gunned battle cruisers / raiders / pocket battleships / etc. The classifications meshed differently in each navy and likewise most navies viewed them differently though the development process and wartime experiences as CV's and ever larger fleets become dominate. Ultimately for the navies of the world to start with a Battle Cruiser and end up seeing it as a Large Cruiser or a raider or fast battle ship after it had seen active service isn't surprising.
A Rose by any other name is just as thorny.
No one in the Navy like to call these two ships Battle Cruisers due to the implications of Jutland and Hood. They were built on heavy cruiser hulls, so they just called them large cruisers...Dumb.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 23, 2020 18:50:44 GMT -6
I disagree. Those ships and guns were perfectly capable of handling these missions: Trade warfare and protection, shore bombardment, scouting for carriers and carrier protection. What they *weren't* capable of handling was standing in the line of battle against post-treaty battleships. Sure, they could stand in the line of battle against WWI BBs, but without the treaty, those would all have been scrapped as obsolete by the time of WWII.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 23, 2020 19:17:37 GMT -6
I disagree. Those ships and guns were perfectly capable of handling these missions: Trade warfare and protection, shore bombardment, scouting for carriers and carrier protection. What they *weren't* capable of handling was standing in the line of battle against post-treaty battleships. Sure, they could stand in the line of battle against WWI BBs, but without the treaty, those would all have been scrapped as obsolete by the time of WWII. By the time of the design and building of these large cruisers, there was no real "line of battle". It was carrier warfare with battleships protecting the carriers and bombarding the islands or any other usage for amphibious landings. In fact, I believe the battleships at Pearl Harbor should have been scrapped, along time before. Too old, used too much fuel and were too slow.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 24, 2020 8:16:31 GMT -6
There are some excellent documentaries on You tube about the search for the Hood and Bismarck wrecks. Just search for Hunt for the Hood. There is one about The Battle of the Hood and Bismarck. The Hunt for the Hood is the documentary about the search for the wreck which is interesting and informative.
|
|
|
Post by director on Dec 24, 2020 12:18:42 GMT -6
I would argue that after WW1 the battlecruiser disappears... the only survivors were 'Renown' and 'Repulse'. Everything else is a fast battleship or, in the case of the Alaska class, really heavily-armed ship with cruiser protection: a large cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Dec 24, 2020 12:50:16 GMT -6
I didn't think their was any doubt that they were designed as Battle Cruisers. Don't forget the initial designation was CC, which was the US designation for Battle Cruiser, it was later changed to CB or large cruiser.
Also to quote WIKI - "The Alaskas' percentage of armor tonnage, 28.4%, was slightly less than that of fast battleships; the British King George V class, the American Iowa class, and the battlecruiser/fast battleship HMS Hood all had armor percentages between 32 and 33%, whereas the Lexington-class battlecruiser design had a nearly identical armor percentage of 28.5%".
Post treaty, there were a lot of conflicting doctrines, theories and concepts waiting to be implemented and tested. Their was a notable move pre-WWII towards 11-12" gunned battle cruisers / raiders / pocket battleships / etc. The classifications meshed differently in each navy and likewise most navies viewed them differently though the development process and wartime experiences as CV's and ever larger fleets become dominate. Ultimately for the navies of the world to start with a Battle Cruiser and end up seeing it as a Large Cruiser or a raider or fast battle ship after it had seen active service isn't surprising.
A Rose by any other name is just as thorny.
No one in the Navy like to call these two ships Battle Cruisers due to the implications of Jutland and Hood. They were built on heavy cruiser hulls, so they just called them large cruisers...Dumb. Agreed on the politics - think they were trying to frame budget discussions as well. The end decision to call the Alaskans large cruisers fits the evolved USN doctrine and deployment of them, the design though was to fill the initial BC role and the USN was very open about it at the start.
I'll put my personal view into a sentence, as my earlier post might have been a little wordy. Ships can fit multiple classifications or fulfill multiple roles at the same time, actual in fleet usage and or doctrine being the deciding factor as to the ships "real world" classification.
"Real world" doesn't directly relate to what the ship is capable of performing / designed to do. Authorial intent matters just as much as "real world" usage, as it dictates such things as armor and armament layouts, reserve buoyancy, fuel load and range, machinery type and layout, etc. - the Alaskans were designed and built as a BC but were used as a large cruiser and there is nothing wrong with that. The needs of navies change and moving a ship between classes help to frame the current capabilities of the ship... Moving a ship into a different classification / role helps to keep it (in this case a cruiser be it BC, CA, CB, etc.) in positions to do the most good - such as provide close support to CV's or out of battle lines.
I can't watch the video right now but www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVWtKOZ0sFI ends on a good discussion of the classification dilemma of the Alaskans. A good chunk on the classification discussion is on authorial and "real world" intent.
A modern example the DD1000 Zumwalt at 14-15000 long tons is much bigger than the USN current Ticonderoga Cruisers at 9-10000 long tons. Why are the DD1000s classified as a DD rather than being classed as some sort of Cruiser when it could fill some cruiser roles - I think it is because of politics, but also because it is actually being used to in the DD role even though it has the technology and displacement to be a decent cruiser. Other examples exist, but the best example might be the multi-role Freedom and Independence classes - not that they are good ships, but they illustrate the concept that when taken to the extreme you start getting "multi-role" classifications.
|
|