|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 7, 2021 16:35:05 GMT -6
THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN NAVY HAS REQUESTED THAT WE DESIGN A SUPER BATTLESHIP. WE ARE DUMFOUNDED BY THIS REQUEST, SINCE THEY CANNOT AFFORD EVEN A COUPLE OF CANOES FOR THE DANUBE. BUT WE HAVE FOLLOWED ORDERS. GREAT BRITAIN IS AMAZED BUT SAYS IT CAN BUILD THE SHIP IN IRELAND.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 7, 2021 17:14:43 GMT -6
THE GERMAN NAVY HAS SEEN THE DESIGN OF THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN'S AND OF COURSE, THEY WANT ONE ALSO. SO HERE IS THEIR DESIGN. THIS IS REALLY GETTING BORING, I AM GOING TO WATCH FOOTBALL.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Nov 8, 2021 1:34:50 GMT -6
Both of these are so cursed.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Nov 8, 2021 2:40:27 GMT -6
These super BB projects remind me that the build time of a warship should be lengthened if there is an excessive variety of turret types in her (in this case: quadruple fore and triple aft) due to the time required to develop both types. For the same reason, the construction time could be shortened in new types of ships that use turrets already installed in previous ships, i.e. if there is some standardization across the navy.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Nov 8, 2021 3:50:33 GMT -6
Well, these aren't even super-BBs, they're just 50 ktons of displacement.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Nov 8, 2021 7:26:55 GMT -6
Speaking of build times, it would be cool if you could recycle lengthy lead time objects like turrets, guns and maybe armour belts. Vanguard famously upcycled her MA and Repulse (IIRC) reused some belt from Eagle? Plus the standard idea of using old guns for coast defence...
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Nov 9, 2021 8:19:01 GMT -6
<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> THE GERMAN NAVY HAS SEEN THE DESIGN OF THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN'S AND OF COURSE, THEY WANT ONE ALSO. SO HERE IS THEIR DESIGN. THIS IS REALLY GETTING BORING, I AM GOING TO WATCH FOOTBALL. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> Those AA directors might be more useful if they had some DP guns to direct.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 9, 2021 8:22:06 GMT -6
<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> THE GERMAN NAVY HAS SEEN THE DESIGN OF THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN'S AND OF COURSE, THEY WANT ONE ALSO. SO HERE IS THEIR DESIGN. THIS IS REALLY GETTING BORING, I AM GOING TO WATCH FOOTBALL. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> Those AA directors might be more useful if they had some DP guns to direct. Oh yea, thanks. I will check on that in my next designs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 10, 2021 11:13:45 GMT -6
Moving on to the design of carriers, my issue is that geography could or should dictate whether a nation needs carriers. Again I am using real history and geography for my conclusions; my bad. Here are my ideas on this.
Nations that need or don't need carriers.
USA - Yes Great Britain - Yes Japan - Yes
Italy - No - Generally it is only 250 miles either east or west to France, North Africa or Austria-Hungary. It would be better to build medium bombers with range than the expense of carriers. Possibly AMC's converted to light carriers or just light carriers for trade protection.
Austria- Hungary- No but the same reason as Italy. Maybe one or two converted light carriers.
Germany- Maybe
Russia - Maybe
Any thoughts? Yes I am aware that this is a game, a virtual game but I am just trying to be careful in my spending.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Nov 10, 2021 11:35:32 GMT -6
Don't forget Italy and AH fleets and convoys do have a need for fighter protection; especially if or when they operate close to enemy airfields (Malta being a big thorn for Italy). The lack of fighter escort and to a lesser degree rapid scouting were major issues for fleet operations and for supplying African bound troops in WWII.
The Germans haven't produced a carrier that I'm aware of... I really doubt that fixed wing carriers make sense in the Baltic given the prevailing weather conditions and confined deep water. Their are much more pressing needs for establishing a blue water navy - what good is a CV or CVL if you can't protect it... Now if you have the High Sea Fleet pre-Jutland, than yes a carrier makes a lot of sense - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_I_(1915).
I would argue that France is a solid Yes on needing carriers - same reason as the Italians in the Med along with force projection in the pre-WWII empire.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Nov 10, 2021 12:18:34 GMT -6
In the interwar period there was much discussion about whether the Italian navy should build aircraft carriers or not. Leaving aside the rivalries between navy and air force (Adm. Cavagnari, a skeptic, said: "you will see that the aviators will want to command our ships"), there were also serious reflections on the subject. Some thought that Italy could not afford to build more than a couple of CVs, which would be the first target of the enemy's attacks and relied on the fact that all peninsular and insular Italy was a large aircraft carrier. Others doubted, it was later found with reason, the ability of the Regia Aeronautica to intervene promptly. This was also demonstrated in some fleet exercises, as Adm. Bernotti, a supporter of aircraft carriers, recounts in his biography. After the Cape Matapan disaster, the conversion of two transatlantic liners into carriers (Aquila and Sparviero) was hastily undertaken, and it was also thought of converting the heavy cruiser Bolzano into a one-shot launcher of some fighter planes by means of catapults.
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Nov 10, 2021 12:35:45 GMT -6
I would argue the question is not whether a nations should build carriers, since arguably they all should, but rather how many and what types. For Italy and Austria-Hungary, they might be able to get away with 1 fleet carrier if they don't plan on an offensive war against anyone else.
Even in the case of Italy and Austria-Hungary, when they fight they are usually in range of more of the other nation's airfields than their own. Aircraft carriers are ultimately airfields you can bring into the enemy's territory.
Germany is interesting. In WWII, their fleet consisted of raiders, subs, and a fleet-in-being rather than a more standard surface fleet. They also were mostly a land power. If you want to play Germany the way that Germany has historically acted and its leadership felt, build a minimal navy and ally Great Britain. Prior to both World Wars, many in Germany were downright desperate for an alliance with Great Britain, and it was the British alliances with other powers that pitted them against one another.
Thought experiment: What is a "minimum navy"? Presumably, the foundation upon which your allies can add upon. And since you don't know for sure what you'll get from your ally, guess what ship you should build: Carriers! The brits/americans will probably throw you a CA or Battleship, but you need to guarantee whatever they give you for battle survives enemy air attack, so you should actually build small carrier fleets. And destroyers. Lots of destroyers. With the battle generator, I'd thrown in at least a couple Heavy Cruisers. Seriously, the Heavy Cruiser is the workhorse with the current battle generator.
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Nov 10, 2021 12:38:39 GMT -6
<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN NAVY HAS REQUESTED THAT WE DESIGN A SUPER BATTLESHIP. WE ARE DUMFOUNDED BY THIS REQUEST, SINCE THEY CANNOT AFFORD EVEN A COUPLE OF CANOES FOR THE DANUBE. BUT WE HAVE FOLLOWED ORDERS. GREAT BRITAIN IS AMAZED BUT SAYS IT CAN BUILD THE SHIP IN IRELAND. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> I think I'm in love. It's a great ship. I hope the King enjoys sleeping on it, since we had to sell the Palace in order to buy it...
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 10, 2021 13:20:40 GMT -6
Carriers are essential if your navy needs air cover by fighters.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Nov 10, 2021 13:36:06 GMT -6
I'd say that unlike in real life, a weaker navy wants carrier superiority much more than a stronger one, due to LBA being...unreliable, to say the least, and TBs being **the** threat to battleships, especially older super-dreads with TDS 1-2. If I'm playing as a strong power, I'm building BBs until the 1940s at least, but if I'm Italy or AH, I'll heavily prioritise carriers.
|
|