DLC, an Italy AAR

[nimrod]

I'm not sure just how many CVls are being considered here... I assume I missed that section...

Even if the converted ships lack offensive or defensive capabilities in a few years, they can still have a role in the far reaches of the empire or training new recruits. (Personally, I convert slower (22-23 knot) CVLs and keep them as training ships down the road usually in the late 30s through the mid 40s.)

I also can't support the expenditure of extra funds for a purpose built ship based on an untested technique and which has a very notable speed discrepancy from the battle line. If a new build CVL is decided upon; it would have, in my mind, the prerequisite for faster support / escorting ships - so new BC or CA class along with a new ocean going DD class (looks like some modern CLs are building - the Nino's). Which would really start to decouple the fleet from the slow BBs... and... well... I think that is a giant leap of faith for an un-tested ship type... The real value of the purpose built CVL as I see it, is that it has a modern torpedo protection system and could be converted to a decent raider if adequate armor was allotted to it from the start...

I'm voting for a converted da Vincis or two due to the speed synergies with the BBs and lower cost for an un-tested ship type. With remaining funds, I would normally suggest focusing on building modern light forces (CLs and DDs while the carrier experiment commences). Given the longer lead time, I would probably lay down a BC / CA or two or three in the 28+ knot range over the light forces; and I would be ready to institute a crash program for building the light forces if tensions rose above 7 or allies departed us. The BC need is based on the slow BB speeds - they would satisfy the need for a scouting and or raiding / anti-raiding force... They would also form a nucleus, upon which to build a faster / modern fleet around if the converted CVL experiment doesn't pan out as hoped for...

[prophetinreverse]

May I humbly request a design study for what a Vettor Pisani conversion to CVL would look like? I notice that there are two surviving members of the class, and I suspect that despite being 300 tons lighter than the Da Vinci class battleships, carrying armor half as thick and being designed initially for a three knot higher speed might mean more than 18 aircraft at 21 knots, or 18 aircraft at a faster speed - making them superior choices for conversion.

[garrisonchisholm]

Nov 12, 2021 23:27:02 GMT -6 prophetinreverse said:

May I humbly request a design study for what a Vettor Pisani conversion to CVL would look like? I notice that there are two surviving members of the class, and I suspect that despite being 300 tons lighter than the Da Vinci class battleships, carrying armor half as thick and being designed initially for a three knot higher speed might mean more than 18 aircraft at 21 knots, or 18 aircraft at a faster speed - making them superior choices for conversion.

In fact the result is 18 aircraft at 5 knots faster, though with the limitation of being short ranged.  Still, it is a possibility worth noting.

(I would redesign it, or else this would be the Grotesque Tongue Depressor class.  ...though, I wonder if that sounds better in Italian...)

[garrisonchisholm]

At last, as promised, the quasi-realistic flavor-text stats, though without any individual write-ups.

[prophetinreverse]

A much faster ship built 4 months quicker and for only 3 million more than the Da Vinci conversion, and still with the armor to survive being hit by the main guns of most ships faster than it. I would not hesitate to call this the superior conversion, if I wasn’t afraid of that short range… how fatal is it? Can the carrier even leave the Med and go to the Indian Ocean or Southeast Asia? And if so, how far from the shoreline can it stray? If its effective range is no better than what is covered by the land airbases, then it’s useless, but if it can project power outside of that, then it’s the best move Italy has.

[fenisse]

Nov 12, 2021 23:52:36 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

(I would redesign it, or else this would be the Grotesque Tongue Depressor class.  ...though, I wonder if that sounds better in Italian...)

I'm not entirely sure "Grottesco Abbassalingua" does sound that much better... Though to be honest we Italians have a good track record for giving things weird names, so that wouldn't be far off from reality. Railway engine nicknames are especially hilarious, with examples such as the Ironing Board (Ferro da stiro), the Coffee Maker (Caffettiera), the Big Moustache (Baffone), the Broken Nose (Naso Rotto), and my personal favourite, the Cagabasso, which I'll refrain from translating.

[boomboomf22]

Nov 11, 2021 20:09:06 GMT -6 prophetinreverse said:

Nov 10, 2021 18:03:13 GMT -6 boomboomf22 said:

From Personal inclination I would perhaps take the largest of the available predreadnought battleships in hand for conversion to aircraft carrying warships, as otherwise there is naught use for those hulls but the scrapyard, and it is a great pity to send an already paid for warship to the breakers yard. I have in my own experience found that it is not impossible to convert smaller predreadnoughts into perfectly usable AVs to provide scouting for the fleet, a role they answer to for low cost and good effectiveness.

While I too have had success converting pre-dreadnoughts into light aircraft carriers, they usually were the ones I built between 1903-1906 that had like 16-18,000 tons. All of his remaining pre-dreadnoughts are those 13,100 ton Da Vinci class ships, and seeing as how that class was designed with 6 9-inch guns and 12 1/2-inch thick belt armor, I really doubt that you can get a good carrier out of that.

As crazy as it sounds, I’d make a light carrier with the same number of planes and a fraction of the cost from an old cruiser, then take one or two of those Lepantos in hand for conversion to a regular carrier when the time comes.

I've made a usable CVL out of a 13,000 ton CVL.  At the least it will provide a functional CVL for the purposes of letting the game research further CV tech.  It does need a engine refit and ripping all the guns out.  Remember CVLs have iirc a 20kt minimum speed rather than the 24kts of a full CV.  In fact, as an older ship she will have more tonnage wrapped up in her engines than a newer vessel of the same speed.  Thought an old armored cruiser if there is one big enough and available to be converted is possibly a better choice.

As for short range in a CVL conversion.  Well it would be usable in the med, but short range very much restricts how often a ship will show up in battles further from port, so expect her to only really show up reliably in battle close in to Italian ports.  It would also mean were the ship deployed to say the Indian ocean, it would be stuck there come war.

[garrisonchisholm]

Oct 27, 2021 4:39:35 GMT -6 vonfriedman said:

Putting the robes of the Roman centurion in Monty Python's "Brian of Nazareth"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lczHvB3Y9s

I must correct you: Ducis Ludovici Classis

AAR expectamus legere tuum.

For folks who are unfamiliar with exactly why this scene was so nicely done, I found this erudite fellow on YouTube, and as he says; "Jokes are always funnier when you have to explain them."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfH6gjxTTgE

[garrisonchisholm]

Although as we can see here by use of the All Relations graph there is no significant threat for hostilities on the horizon, if Italy were to categorize their most likely future opponents they would most likely be France, Austria, & Japan.  I thought it would be worthwhile to examine these 3 potential opponents.

As we recall, while Italy stands comparably to the world in battleships, the world has found a way to invest mightily in battlecruisers, a class of vessel not yet vested in by the Regia Marina.  The most recent such ships laid down by the 3 nations identified on the antagonists list can be seen below-

These ships seem to favor firepower to protection or speed, rather than trying to balance the three.  As such and utilizing a larger hull a design study might indicate that a vessel such as the 'GG' below would be more than a match for them.

It should be noted that if the 13 inch gun were selected a requisite additional step would be maximizing innovation in AP rounds.  While it is true penetration is inferior, long institutional table-top experience at the Naval Academy has led The Abruzzi to feel that a superior number of shells on target positively affects battle outcomes more often than a small number of larger shells.

We again face the issue of economy however.  In 8 months the first 8 Bari class will be fitting out, and at that time we will need to begin a very prudent assessment of new construction priorities, as we project we will only be able to afford 1 major vessel at a time.

-----

It may be noted that the world's navies are quite large, larger than a typical play-through for my test games.  I'll attribute this to the global war against Germany, where everyone worldwide should have been able to enhance their economies universally by their defeat.  I should not be the only nation needing to very carefully grow new units, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

[maxnacemit]

Oof, these Latouche-Trevilles are scary. I highly doubt the potential value of a 13''-armed BC which would be incapable of fighting true battleships(and it should be expected to do it, because it's large and Italy isn't Britain). I'd cut the speed to 31-32 kts and increase the gun caliber to 14'' at least. Also, why are you using magazine box?

[garrisonchisholm]

Nov 15, 2021 12:40:21 GMT -6 maxnacemit said:

Oof, these Latouche-Trevilles are scary. I highly doubt the potential value of a 13''-armed BC which would be incapable of fighting true battleships(and it should be expected to do it, because it's large and Italy isn't Britain). I'd cut the speed to 31-32 kts and increase the gun caliber to 14'' at least. Also, why are you using magazine box?

To save weight, because I thought I could build a ship that would best all of these in speed armor and shells on target.  I did not order the design prepared though, it remains only a study.

I am waiting for an issue to be addressed in the next bug fix, so it will probably be a week or 10 days before I have Luigi make a decision and start the ball rolling again.  I also intend to outline the intentions of Italy's foreign policy, at least as seen by the King.

[prophetinreverse]

If the aft superimposed turret was also reduced to two guns, would the savings in weight/cost be enough to justify an increase to 14” guns, or a more reliable engine?

And I’m beginning to see why there’s always like 30 variations for every design study of a capital ship in real life.

[nimrod]

Nov 17, 2021 10:05:07 GMT -6 prophetinreverse said:

If the aft superimposed turret was also reduced to two guns, would the savings in weight/cost be enough to justify an increase to 14” guns, or a more reliable engine?

And I’m beginning to see why there’s always like 30 variations for every design study of a capital ship in real life.

Totally agree on dropping a barrel and trying some things with the design - especially to get 14" guns on her.

First, the anti-air setup seems a little off to me.

If you can't fit the 14" guns by dropping a barrel I would also suggest a quick look at what a max tertiary battery of 4" DP (24) with how ever many 5" guns you could fit as secondaries. It should provide for better HAA as well as a little heavier punch on surface ships. Some surplus displacement might be warranted for anti-air directors once those become available, or you may be taking out the LAA or MAA to provide space / weight for the directors. Ultimately in universe, I would spin it towards a heavier and unified DP system with left over space for future advancements in fire control.

2ndly, (after considering revised main armament and HAA layout) if you have bit of surplus weight and 13" guns, I would look at any surplus weight going into additional shells. Each shell does less damage on target than larger shells and the priority is on getting more hits over a given time relative to the larger caliber guns (I'm putting the following into my own words:"While it is true penetration is inferior, long institutional table-top experience at the Naval Academy has led The Abruzzi to feel that a superior number of shells on target positively affects battle outcomes more often than a small number of larger shells."). Usually I try (not a hard or fast rule) to have about 125 shells min for 12"-13", 110 shells for 14"-16", and 100 for 17" and larger. I have run out of shells in a number of good visibility battles.

For example, if you subtract a barrel but get 10 more rounds per gun your total round count decreases by 10 but you can stay in the fight longer; if you get more than an additional 10 rounds per barrel than you are increasing your total shell count...

[garrisonchisholm]

While I'm waiting I thought I'd address two points of the above/above-above. As far as dropping a barrel to raise the caliber, alas no. There is not enough savings in that. We could go 4x2 at 14", but I really prefer more guns and 13". It was a wrench to even drop it to 11 guns from 12, but given the energetic nature of Luigi and Italy's love-affair with speed I had to try to keep it at 34 knots.

Is this most wise from a game-play perspective? "Most wise", no, but bear in mind I am first and foremost creating a story, and part of that is putting enjoyable idiosyncrasies into my ships. This also affects the AAA suite. It is not the most efficient possible for us at this time-stamp, but to my knowledge there hasn't been a serious massed air attack on ships anywhere in the world yet either. I'm not sure Italy 'in canon' would think it was reasonable to max the anti-aircraft capabilities yet.

All that being said, an even *more* capable BC would be an all forward-design, but I've just checked and no-one has launched an all-forward design yet, or to my intelligence chief laid down even. I don't want to say that in this whole game I will never innovate anything as Italy, but I don't yet see the cause to do so. Over half the BCs floating world-wide in the game are 12" gunned ships of half GG's tonnage, so though the design is at the limit I still think it is rational canonically.

Oh, & as to shell count, yes I personally prefer 135 as the "normal" load but again, I had to make hard compromises to try to maintain my numbers.  I think if even I would have had to compromise a further 1/2" of deck armor or 10 rounds per gun I wouldn't have published the exploration, this is really on the edge of the vision I was shooting for.  Now I know this ship would be a risky bet in 1934, but for 1924 and without armchair foresight I think it is, as I say above, rational canonically.

I wish I had had the thought about AARing this game during the recent war with France, because all those damage reports would have been great flavor by which to judge further construction.  But, alas, it didn't strike me as a story possibility until I realized this very turn exactly how much building has to somehow get done.

[nimrod]

Thanks for the update, I appreciate your level of attention to the AAR and the time you are allotting to it.

No arguments from me and I wasn't trying to go outside of universe in my comments. I'll go a little out of universe here, but I'll still try to be mindful... So my intent is just to put some thoughts out their for the unholy combination of Bear Grylls and Grand Moff Tarkin to consider; he knows his universe much better than I.

Edited to add: To be clear Luigi (and play testing / bug catching) certainly warrant unique designs and combinations. My comments are made in response to Garrison's: "So I invite comment and critique, and in some-days time The Abruzzi will weigh all the data in hand, and all the opinions expressed, and decide what should be built first."... I found it a bit extraordinary that Garrison responded to a number of prophets and my points... Hence this edit, as I personally don't see a need for discussion with Garrison (his game, play testing, etc.), and I wanted to make note that I'm happily eating my peanuts and making a mess with the shells (reference to "comments from the peanut gallery") while waiting for the bug fix and subsequent update to the AAR.

If Luigi requires a min of 34 knots than its a very good design. (I've built some similar ships at 31-33 knots with 14" guns and a bit less armor and with TP 3 in the base game - the design should be functional into the 40s; at least in the currently released game and I do play Captains mode which changes the dynamic).

The anti-air comments on my end were not well composed as I was writing them in terms of a main caliber conversion... (Again, play testing is a completely valid reason for weird combos... So I'm not trying to force a change in design; just trying to partake in the AAR.)

The anti-air seems weird to me as:

1. I'm not sure what the 3" DP battery is on the ship for - anti-DD or HAA? (I'm assuming the 3" DP is for HAA and my last two sentences are from that assumption.)
2. That there is a decent amount of weight and deck space put into DP guns and LAA and MAA, which from a story standpoint is a little weird as their hasn't been a massed air attack...

So I'm a bit confused as to why their are two batteries of DP guns with each battery weighing roughly 25% more than a single purpose mounting, weight is at a premium, air attacks aren't a major concern and they are low caliber / not great for anti-ship duties (particularly the 3") - so I'm not seeing much value apart from the HAA value.

If Luigi were to drop the 3" DP and standardize on 4" DP the ship would likely have better anti-DD capabilities, simplified logistics and probably better HAA. By this I mean ships get accuracy penalties with each battery that fires on a ship - so multiple batteries can hurt a bit in terms of hit rate. Two dual DP batteries also reduce the full value per unit of the HAA value as well. Personally for those efficiency reasons, I suggest a standardization on a 2ndary / tertiary caliber to be maxed out and then put remaining deck space into another caliber - based on a separation of roles, so anti-ship 6"or 5" with 4" or 3" DP? (Normally, I put a lot of weight / deck-space into single purpose 5" or
6" guns through the 20's / early 30's and then move the guns down a
caliber and convert to DP for anti-air duties during a refit; if warranted as I play with slow AC development and varied tech... AC might not be a major issue by the DDs and CLs with torps invariably are a major threat in a night battle.)

Has Luigi given consideration to a 8-12 gun 5" secondary battery with remaining weight and deck space going to 3" DP or dropping the DP of either the 3" or 4" to try and squeeze extra ammo for the main guns? That might increase anti-ship capabilities and provide some additional shore bombardment capabilities as well???