Why can't I have a 33 knot BB?

[director]

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.

Agreed, emphatically.

The sorting starts with Royal Navy classifications (which partly determined captain's pay) and continues with the US Navy's two-letter ID system. Once you start using it then everything has to fit into a category, or have a category made for it (IE CV for cruiser aviation). Then you get the straitjacket black-and-white legal definitions of the Washington Treaties - which would have considered Scharnhorst and Alaska to be capital ships...

So while it is useful to categorize warships - if I refer to a protected cruiser or a post-treaty fast battleship then people know generally what I'm talking about - but in practice it is best to accept that ships have functions. Nobody thought the main use of an Iowa class would be to provide AA fire, or thought of classifying a carrier as a refueling ship - but those ships did serve those purposes.

I do wonder to what degree navy rank determines what a ship gets called? In other words, a DD can be captained by a Commander whereas a big ship requires a Captain. And there are some politics involved since the 'premier' commands in the Navy are carriers, amphib ships and subs.

[janxol]

Dec 24, 2020 12:18:42 GMT -6 director said:

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.

I'd add the kongos to that list. They may have been "up-armored" and reclassified, but they were built on battlecruiser hulls and even after the refit they were rather light-weight as far as armor is concerned.

And even then the designation can be tricky. I can certainly see Alaskas being classified as BCs, especially if forced to used an arbitrary system like in the game. It feels like it's just the navies trying to fit ships into classification already in use or desperately trying to avoid using a certain term because of certain connotations or implications, like connection to Jutland or Hood. And then there's the "large light cruisers".

[director]

I take your point: it is a matter of where you draw the line... I will concede that Renown and Repulse were used as fast capital-ship carrier escorts (or as a capital ship in SE Asia) so perhaps I should withdraw that exception and put them in the fast battleship pool as well.

if forced to used an arbitrary system like in the game. It feels like it's just the navies trying to fit ships into classification already in use or desperately trying to avoid using a certain term because of certain connotations or implications

My point exactly. It is trying to shoehorn the Deutschlands, the Alaskas, the Scharnhorsts, the Italian 'cruisers' and French 'destroyers', the Worcesters and Des Moines classes into preset categories that creates the trouble. And frankly any classification that tries to put Arkansas and Yamato together, or Hood and Alaska together, or an Italian Capitani Romani and Worcester together, is seriously flawed.

[forget83]

The Ticos are only cruiser because they have the extra Command Facility and vls cells. Replace them with something like the ROKN Sejong-class or the JMSDF Maya/Atago/Kongou-class (all considered Destroyer) there would be minimal issue. All this to say that these classifications are arbitrary and discussion about whether Large Cruiser/Panzerschiffe = Battlecruiser will likely go nowhere.

[zoomar]

Historically, by 1920 difference between battleships and battlecruisers had basically become one of operational use and speed. Battlecruisers were as big or bigger, expensive, powerfully armed and about as well protected as battleships. They had become just very fast capital ships intended to serve in a fast division in fleet battles or on independent cruiser or escort operations. I think allowing the player to override the game's automatic classification BB/BC cutoff. would be a good idea and allow them to rate any fast capital ship as a BC rather than to force it into a BB category just because of its high speed. Its not unheard of that a navy might want to deemphasize traditional cruisers and instead employ its fastest, most powerful, and most heavily armored ships in cruiser-like missions rather than in the battle line, especially against an enemy AI that has built a large number of powerful armored cruisers. That way, when the game dials up a "cruiser battle" there might be a good chance for some fast battlecruisers to be there instead of a couple of paltry light cruisers. In fact, in WW2,most of the "fast battleships" (Bismarck, KGV, Nor Cal, SO Dak, Yamato, Littorio, Richelieu, etc) could all have been classified as battlecruisers based on their speed.

[oldpop2000]

The speeds of of the fastest battleships were generally in shallow water lightly loaded. There was an overpower function where you could use for a while, but generally not for very long or it would damage the turbines. A formula I use is hull speed is approximately equal to 1.34 x Sq. Root of the length at the water line. It isn't entirely accurate because of weight and other variables but it is close.

[jwsmith26]

Jan 28, 2021 16:19:07 GMT -6 zoomar said:

Historically, by 1920 difference between battleships and battlecruisers had basically become one of operational use and speed. Battlecruisers were as big or bigger, expensive, powerfully armed and about as well protected as battleships. They had become just very fast capital ships intended to serve in a fast division in fleet battles or on independent cruiser or escort operations. I think allowing the player to override the game's automatic classification BB/BC cutoff. would be a good idea and allow them to rate any fast capital ship as a BC rather than to force it into a BB category just because of its high speed. Its not unheard of that a navy might want to deemphasize traditional cruisers and instead employ its fastest, most powerful, and most heavily armored ships in cruiser-like missions rather than in the battle line, especially against an enemy AI that has built a large number of powerful armored cruisers. That way, when the game dials up a "cruiser battle" there might be a good chance for some fast battlecruisers to be there instead of a couple of paltry light cruisers. In fact, in WW2,most of the "fast battleships" (Bismarck, KGV, Nor Cal, SO Dak, Yamato, Littorio, Richelieu, etc) could all have been classified as battlecruisers based on their speed.

zoomar , I believe that you misunderstand how the game handles fast BBs. A fast BBs is treated the same as a BC for determining which ships will be involved in a cruiser battle and when determining which ships will be placed in a Scout Force. The game already follows history after about 1920 by making the two types interchangeable above a certain speed. There is no need to allow you to classify a fast capital ship as a BC because the game already does that - it makes all fast BBs act like BCs.

In fact, within the game, my navy usually follows a strategy similar to the one that you suggest might be reasonable - I deemphasize cruisers and build no BCs at all once fast BBs are possible, precisely so my navy will "employ its fastest, most powerful, and most heavily armored ships in cruiser-like missions rather than in the battle line". With no BCs or CAs for the battle generator to tap into, I often find my fast BBs pitted against enemy BCs or CAs in cruiser battles.

[alant]

Why not just design your ships without regard to BB/BC designation? Build BC's named Iowa, NJ, WI and MO.

Beginning in the mid/late 1920's I design two capitol ships. One is a BB with 4x triple 16" turrets. The other is a BC with 3x triple 16" turrets. Otherwise there are very close in tonnage, secondary, armor. The difference is speed and how many turrets in their main battery.

BB Ohio 


BC George Washington

[oldpop2000]

Jan 30, 2021 10:42:03 GMT -6 alant said:

Why not just design your ships without regard to BB/BC designation? Build BC's named Iowa, NJ, WI and MO.

Beginning in the mid/late 1920's I design two capitol ships. One is a BB with 4x triple 16" turrets. The other is a BC with 3x triple 16" turrets. Otherwise there are very close in tonnage, secondary, armor. The difference is speed and how many turrets in their main battery.

BB Ohio 
View Attachment

BC George Washington
View Attachment

Reduce  the conning tower to 3 inches. That extra protection reduction will give you more speed. As main batteries increased in caliber, the ranges increased, so the number hits decreased, and most of the hits struct the deck or turrets. It was only with smaller guns, shorter ranges, that you would get shots in flat trajectories.

[wlbjork]

One could just as much argue that the Alaska class (and Deutschland class) ships were closer to the original Armoured Cruiser concept, just mounting more powerful armaments than were traditional.

*edit* missed half a page of discussion, just revisiting!


Ok, now to try and get my thoughts in order.

Battleships underwent several changes in design philosophy during the 20th century.

Pre-dreadnoughts generally mounted large calibre guns in fore and aft twin turrets backed up by a large secondary battery.

Dreadnoughts initially mounted multiple turrets of heavy guns, often in some unusual positions with a much weaker secondary battery. By the end of their era, they had switched to a general design closer to the pre-dreadnoughts (due to wing and midship turrets interfering with arrangements on lower decks), albeit with double or more the number of larger calibre guns.

Post-dreadnoughts don't have a formal definition (just like fast battleships ). The most distinctive changes were switching from casemated secondaries to turreted secondaries, a (necessary) increase in AA armament, thicker deck armour and an increase in speed.


Trying to define Renown, Repulse and Hood as Battleships - even the unofficial Fast Battleships definition - glosses over their reduced and unprotected secondary armaments, plus there were weaknesses in other aspects of Hood's protection.

[fleet5]

I wish the game had battle speed as a different mechanic. Going past the design speed but paying for it in refit would be a nice feature.

[oldpop2000]

I will remind all, that all ships are a balance between protection and speed. If you increase protection, you will increase weight and that means speed. In refits, most ships were provided with new boilers, and turbines to increase the power to compensate for more protection. In the game, you have to examine which areas don't really need the extra armor protection. The conning tower is one area due to the fall of shot in the higher gun caliber's and less likely that a shot will hit the conning tower. In most cases, deck armor is more important. You have to just adjust all the protection to gain the speed and sometimes remove or lower the gun caliber and turrets. Its a balancing act.

[thomasmacmoragh]

My 2 cents. practically, since you can armor and arm a BC just as heavy as you can a BB it really does not make much difference in the way you play, But I do think at some point Fast Battleships should obsolete the battle cruiser much as HMS Dreadnought did with the older battleships. Why build a battle courser? for its speed to get that speed you give up Armor or weapons, or both. But why would any one build them once you can build a battleship that goes form 28-30+ knots. yet still has all the armor and weapons of the battle ship? in some cases more of both then the old supper dreadnoughts. I am really not sure what the best way to handle that would be. and given the fact that your ships can go back and forth between BC, BB, and back a gain. seems a little odd to me? I mean think about it, was a BC ever refitted into a BB or the other way around? the only Example I could think of might be hood.

[f105d]

    Seeing as how this has developed into a debate over Battleships and Battlecruisers. My personal actions at least in regards to making such ships in game and in springsharp then drawing them out is I treat Battlecruisers more like Fast Battleships even before things like Hood in the 1920s. They either have less firepower or armor comparatively or their just a bit bigger. Though the more I look at it I just make a Battleship class and then just jack up the speed by 3 knots minimum maybe shave off some armor and firepower if needed to get it to fit in the docks. Creating a sort of 2 doors of either for a capital ship class of it being faster with less armor or firepower or it being the heavier option that is the slower option. And that sort of fits the way the game does these things given how you can have a 30 knot Fast Battleship Montana but can't have a 33 knot Iowa Fast Battleship but its a "Battlecruiser". 

[aeson]

Feb 21, 2021 22:08:34 GMT -6 f105d said:

And that sort of fits the way the game does these things given how you can have a 30 knot Fast Battleship Montana but can't have a 33 knot Iowa Fast Battleship but its a "Battlecruiser". 

I think a reasonable case could be made that the Iowas are battlecruisers, given how their speed compares to that of the other American fast battleships: The North Carolina class was ~28 knots, the South Dakota class was ~28 knots, the Iowa class was ~33 knots, and the Montana class was supposed to be ~28 knots. One of these things is not like the others.

Additionally, 33 knots is to 28 knots roughly what 25 knots (Invincible, Von der Tann) or 26 knots (Indefatigable, Moltke) is to the 21 or 22 knots of British and German dreadnoughts contemporary with the aforementioned battlecruisers. You could argue that the Iowas aren't making the same trade-offs as the WWI-era battlecruisers... but in both armor protection and armament they're lighter than the Montanas (by, interestingly enough, about 25% of the belt armor thickness and one main battery turret, which is pretty similar to how a lot of First World War-era British battlecruisers compare to contemporary British battleships), while compared to the South Dakotas or North Carolinas they make basically the same trade-off that Hood did compared to the Queen Elizabeths or the Rs: they're considerably larger and more expensive for roughly the same level of armor protection and firepower.

I mean think about it, was a BC ever refitted into a BB or the other way around? the only Example I could think of might be hood.

The Imperial Japanese Navy re-rated the Kongo class from battlecruisers to battleships in the 1920s following some refits.

Hood to my knowledge was never rated as a battleship by the Royal Navy, though I would not be terribly surprised if that was in large part because Hood was mostly expected to work with Renown, Repulse, and Tiger (which were notably inferior to contemporary battleships in armor protection and main armament and so probably would have retained a separate classification from the battleships even if Hood had been officially reclassified as a battleship), making reclassification as a battleship undesirable since Hood wouldn't be working with the other battleships but rather with the battlecruisers, and then blew up soon after the first British battleships fast enough to more or less keep up with her started entering service, making reclassification as a battleship to reflect a potential new role as a member of the fast battle squadron rather than as the most powerful member of the battlecruiser squadron irrelevant.

Renown and Repulse could arguably count as battleships 'refitted' into battlecruisers since they started out as R-class battleships but were redesigned while under construction and completed as battlecruisers following the outbreak of the First World War, as an expedient to more rapidly get additional battlecruisers into the fleet.

The Conte di Cavour and Andrea Doria classes look something like you might expect modernized c.1910-1912 battlecruisers to look after their 1930s reconstructions into fast battleships and so might be argued to be another case of battleships being refitted into battlecruisers, especially since they're clearly lighter warships than the modern fast battleships or most of the remaining American, British, and Japanese First World War-era battleships; they were however not reclassified as such by the Regia Marina

As to other examples, what other examples could there be? The only battlecruisers to survive the First World War, its immediate aftermath, and the Washington Naval Treaty as all-big-gun capital ships were Hood, Renown, Repulse, Tiger, the four Kongos and Yavuz Sultan Selim (Goeben); as to the other side of the question, only Italy rebuilt their older battleships to achieve notably higher speeds* than they had originally been built for because no one else thought that doing so would be worth the cost, but even after reconstruction the Conte di Cavours and Andrea Dorias only reach the lower end of plausible c.1911 battlecruiser speeds. Even if the speed disparity is overlooked, Tiger, Renown, and Repulse were probably never going to be reclassified as battleships by the British due to their lighter main armament compared to contemporary battleships and especially due to their light armor, and since they - not the battleships - are the ships with which Hood would most likely be operating up until the Second World War-era King George Vs start entering service (and really even after that, since in an ideal world you'd probably have the KGVs as one fast squadron and the old battlecruisers as another fast squadron) that creates a pretty strong incentive to keep Hood classified as a battlecruiser regardless of what else you might think about Hood's capabilities; the Kongos were reclassified as battleships in the 1920s since their speeds were by that time more in line with what the Japanese wanted for the battle line than with what they wanted out of battlecruisers and anyways wasn't all that much greater than what the Nagatos or, eventually, the refitted Fusos and Ises could achieve, and they kept the battleship designation after the 1930s refits which pushed their speeds up to around 30 knots. As to Yavuz, it was already starting to look obsolete during and was in poor condition after the First World War and was largely inoperable during the 1920s; by the time it was returned to a serviceable condition in the 1930s there really aren't that many modern capital ships to which it could legitimately be considered to be more than very loosely comparable - it's really just the Dunkerques, the Alaskas, and the unbuilt cruiser-killers and super-cruisers of the various major navies, and even then it's slow, small, and poorly armed (especially in the anti-aircraft department).

* Yes, Japan rebuilt the Fuso and Ise classes in the '30s and in so doing improved their speeds, but only from ~23 knots to ~25 knots. Additionally, while Conte di Cavour is a c.1910 design and Andrea Doria is a c.1912 design, Fuso is a c.1912 design and Ise is a c.1915 design and thus the post-refit ~25-knot speed for the Japanese ships is less plausible for a modernized battlecruiser of similar age than the post-refit ~26- or ~27-knot speeds of the Italian battleships.