|
Post by nimrod on Nov 10, 2021 14:32:25 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. To go along with this and Director's point - what most nations didn't realize pre-WWII was the cost of not having adequate anti-air capabilities (be it CAP or ship based AAA). The loss of the Bizmark is attributed to a lucky torpedo hit, loss of POW is attributed to a lucky torpedo hit, etc. etc. etc. The other thing most nations didn't put a heavy emphasis on, was the role of recon aircraft detering enemy submarine operations - making them submerge during the day and thus lose operational range.
The most useful anti-air system was ultimately seen as fleet based fighters, due to the rapid deployment and general inability of them to "not show up". To the point that adding single launch Hurricanes to catapults to provide fighter support to convoys was instituted by the British, while the Japanese did BB / CVL hybrids using a similar system and they also created floatplane fighters as well.
The hard lesson for most large navies in WWII was that it was far more costly to not supply fighter protection than to do so. The fighter cover and ASW value of the helios are very large parts for why the vast majority of every blue water (Med included) capable navy operates at least VTOL capable ships - Brazil, India, Japan, China, Italy, Egypt, Spain, Thailand, Turkey (sea trials), South Korea along with the USA and Russia. I would argue VTOL capable ships are just "multi-role" CVLs in modern guise, and they really took off when the Harriers did a bang up job in the CAP role in the Falkland war...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 12, 2021 8:36:33 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. To go along with this and Director's point - what most nations didn't realize pre-WWII was the cost of not having adequate anti-air capabilities (be it CAP or ship based AAA). The loss of the Bizmark is attributed to a lucky torpedo hit, loss of POW is attributed to a lucky torpedo hit, etc. etc. etc. The other thing most nations didn't put a heavy emphasis on, was the role of recon aircraft detering enemy submarine operations - making them submerge during the day and thus lose operational range.
The most useful anti-air system was ultimately seen as fleet based fighters, due to the rapid deployment and general inability of them to "not show up". To the point that adding single launch Hurricanes to catapults to provide fighter support to convoys was instituted by the British, while the Japanese did BB / CVL hybrids using a similar system and they also created floatplane fighters as well.
The hard lesson for most large navies in WWII was that it was far more costly to not supply fighter protection than to do so. The fighter cover and ASW value of the helios are very large parts for why the vast majority of every blue water (Med included) capable navy operates at least VTOL capable ships - Brazil, India, Japan, China, Italy, Egypt, Spain, Thailand, Turkey (sea trials), South Korea along with the USA and Russia. I would argue VTOL capable ships are just "multi-role" CVLs in modern guise, and they really took off when the Harriers did a bang up job in the CAP role in the Falkland war...
I totally agree. The USN had only 18 fighters on board at the beginning of the war. However, they issued a memorandum to increase that to one more squadron before the Bombing of Pearl Harbor. At Coral Sea, it was 18 and in the AAR's it was criticized. At Midway, there were about 36 fighters. Eventually, it was 64 or four squadrons of 18. In the issue of ASW, dive bombers like the SBD could be and were used for anti-torpedo bombing scouting around the fleet and ASW. I have the documents showing all the fleet aircraft allocations for the carriers. I will try to get one up on this forum to illustrate. Update: fy-1941_compressed.pdf (393.8 KB) This is the fy-1941 allocation of aircraft in the US Navy. Fiscal Year ends in September and starts in October. This is close to the actual locations of aircraft at the time of Pearl Harbor. I have all of these documents for the the 1940's and Vietnam era.
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Nov 19, 2021 16:51:39 GMT -6
So I'm using Seawolf's 1922 UK start without any treaties combined with his AI templates which produce bigger and stronger enemy ships. I'm in early 24 right now with budget to spare and have noticed the AI building several 70k ton monsters. Germany, America, and Japan are all building them mixed between BB's and BC's. I don't currently have specs on any of them and the first due for completion isn't until very late in 25 so unless I get some spy intel I'm not going to be able to be certain what they have. I'm assuming they're going to be relatively similar to the N3 and G3 vessels the UK starts off with in their build queue with the exception being Japan is the only country other than myself that currently holds the tech to match the 18 inch guns of the N3 main battery. Both America and Germany are building ships out of Japanese yards but those ships are all under 60k tons and all of their 70k ton ships are being built in domestic yards. Which means the best the 70k German and American ships will be fielding will be their home grown 16 inch guns, though their smaller Japanese built ships may be using the 18 inchers... Plus Japan's home grown 70k BBs (they're not building any BC's that size yet) are all likely to be 18 inchers. Now the N3 and G3 ships that are less than a year away from completion are great ships and will easily be the most powerful ships afloat for at least a year though the completion of some of these other ships may alter that equation a bit. It's with that in mind that I'm currently developing my first "fast battleships" coming in at 66k tons to challenge them. My Hercules class will be slower than my G3's coming in at only 27 knots but that's still 4 knots faster than my N3's so essentially splitting the difference and still qualifying as a fast battleship. I stuck with the 18 inchers of the N3 class though I reduced a barrel from the midships turret so it'll only have 8 rather than the 9 gun broadside of it's predecessor though it does retain the full 6 gun forward superfiring armament. In addition to that I've increased the main belt armor by a full inch and the deck armor by half an inch, including armor improvements to the turrets and an increased 4" DP tertiary though I've sacrificed conning tower armor and some of my secondary 6" armament to do it. All in all it looks to be a really strong ship that I should be able to improve on over time. Without knowing the exact specifications of the ships it'll have to compete with it's difficult to anticipate any weaknesses though it possesses an immunity range against it's own guns from 15k-30k yards. I anticipate it'll be slower than my opponent's fast battleships as earlier designs I have gained intel on seem to be coming in at 30 knots for at least 1 Japanese design with 18" guns and I can only assume their newer designs will follow suit. So while they'll be able to dictate the range, they'll have a difficult time finding a range that's more favorable to them as that speed will prevent them from armoring their ships as well as mine are. I considered designs that utilized smaller 16" guns but couldn't justify doing so unless I could bring my armament up to 12 guns from the 9 the predecessor ships possessed without forcing further sacrifices to my armor (as they currently benefit from all forward armament weight savings) to do it which would have left my ship more vulnerable to potential 18" enemy ships while still not affording me any increases in speed to counter them. As it is losing the single barrel while retaining my strength and protection seemed the better choice. I'm curious what other's opinions about the ship considering those circumstances are. The one change I'm currently debating is to sacrifice 5 rounds per gun in order to allow me to fill out my AA armament better though it's still too early for air power to be much of a threat.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 19, 2021 19:13:42 GMT -6
I would be reluctant to reduce the ammunition stowage - your armor scheme looks like it's intended for a roughly 15,000- to 25,000- or maybe 30,000-yard engagement range, so the hit rates I'd expect to see aren't going to be very high even later in the game with better fire control systems than Improved Directors, and on top of that big, heavily-armored ships tend to be pretty resilient against gunfire unless you hit something that makes them blow up.
I don't consider a 7" armor deck to be particularly valuable in the game; 25,000 yards is near the upper limit of what I consider to be practical for in-game engagement range even with full fire control technology and advanced radar, and as such I think you could probably get away with 5" or 6" of deck armor even against 20" guns. If it's meant for protection against heavy bombs, I don't feel that making that consideration is particularly realistic in the early- to mid-'20s - level bombers have a lot of difficulty hitting a ship and dive bombers, if they yet exist, probably won't carry 1,000-pound or heavier bombs until the late '30s at the earliest. That said, 7" deck armor is not especially unrealistic considering that both the G3s and the N3s were supposed to have deck armor up to 8" thick, the cancelled South Dakotas were supposed to have deck armor up to 6" thick, and the Nelsons had deck armor up to a bit over 6" thick.
As to cutting back somewhere to improve the AA defenses, I don't think it'd be especially historically accurate for the period - 8 medium and 4 light AA guns strikes me as 'about right' for mid-'20s by historical standards and sixteen 4" DP guns is very heavy for the period (I'd expect more like four to six or maybe eight) - but if you're not too concerned about historical verisimilitude then the area I'd be most inclined to make cuts is in the secondary battery. Gun for gun, 6" is probably better than 4" against the 1,000-ton and larger destroyers that are beginning to dominate destroyer forces in the early 1920s, but a 6" battery on a battleship such as this doesn't really serve any purpose other than to discourage destroyer attack, and just six guns per flank isn't much of a disincentive. Reducing the caliber to 5" (or perhaps cutting the secondary battery entirely in favor of a 4" DP secondary battery, possibly with another eight guns) or dropping the secondary armor to 1" or 1.5" (which is still splinter-resistant, though not splinter-proof like 2"+) probably wouldn't cost you anything significant and will buy you some tonnage for an increased LAA/MAA battery if you want it.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Nov 19, 2021 20:07:50 GMT -6
I am by no means an expert on this game, having just started playing, but I do wonder if 7in deck is necessary at this point. Personally, I would drop .5 to 2in deck to open up weight to use on other things, such as
getting a few more rounds per gun and more AA, or even upping Q turret to a triple. Is Q turret included in all forward armament? I assume so, but if not, you may want to switch to L or C.
I hope you find my suggestions useful!
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Nov 19, 2021 20:09:28 GMT -6
Appreciate the feedback! This is actually my first time trying a later start, and probably the first time I've made it to this time period in general due to usually sticking to 1900 starts with tech gain lowered so I don't really have much knowledge for how battle distances are reflected in game at this point. The deck strength and such is based primarily on the fact that the N3 design Seawolf's 1922 no treaty start begins with under construction had 6.5 already so it's only a marginal bump from that precedence. Not trying to be super gamey about it otherwise though admittedly my tertiary was probably motivated by that. I think the big thing for me is I'm not entirely certain what to expect from Seawolf's enhanced ship designs. I know they tend to be behemoths, matching and even exceeding player designs as evidenced by their 70k ton ships when my biggest possible is 66k, and I'm assuming part of what makes those designs better is that they're likely more future proofed, so ultimately I think my consideration is that I don't want my designs to be left behind. I'm pretty sure the N3's and G3's that he added to this start are probably a good overall template for what to expect and both of those start with 32 MAA. I've gotten intel on some of their ships with over 50 MAA and 70 LAA, separately, not combined, but still an indication of what they're doing and part of my motivation is to try to match that as much as possible. Of course that's for an AI design meant to counter human players that rush for air superiority so you're probably right that it's not necessary for me at this point in time. My other consideration is that I'm not actually certain how many more weight savings I can possibly get in order for future retrofits to add anything new to the ship. A glimpse through the tech tree suggests I've already hit nearly all of them, so I'm a little worried that if I don't add some spare remaining weight for future retrofits to add AA then it's entirely possible I just won't have any. At that point I think my own real option will be to do away with my secondary to make room for them. I didn't really want to reduce my secondary from the 16 initial guns from the base ship designs I was working from, but I couldn't find an easy way to keep them with the displacement I had available while still hitting my speed and armor baselines. Something basically had to be sacrificed so it was 1 main caliber gun and 6 secondary guns that bore the brunt of it. lol Anyway, thanks again. I'm still trying to decide how the final design is going to go but it's good to hear information about what to expect from it performance wise by those that have played these years to know. Edit: And yes, Q is included in all forward armament.
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Nov 19, 2021 20:57:52 GMT -6
I am by no means an expert on this game, having just started playing, but I do wonder if 7in deck is necessary at this point. Personally, I would drop .5 to 2in deck to open up weight to use on other things, such as getting a few more rounds per gun and more AA, or even upping Q turret to a triple. Is Q turret included in all forward armament? I assume so, but if not, you may want to switch to L or C. I hope you find my suggestions useful! Definitely useful! I think you guys are right and I've decided to reduce my deck by .5 and used that space to restore my secondary back to 16 guns, increase rounds per gun by 10, and 20 LAA/31 MAA so all in all I think it's an improvement. I lost 29k-30k as immunity ranges but as aeson pointed out the accuracy at those ranges isn't likely to make them viable threats anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Nov 19, 2021 21:57:57 GMT -6
I'd do almost anything to get this thing up to 28 knots, since 28+ knots is the breaking point between BBs and Fast BBs - and I'd really love to get something like this into fights with AI BCs
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Nov 19, 2021 22:05:15 GMT -6
I'd do almost anything to get this thing up to 28 knots, since 28+ knots is the breaking point between BBs and Fast BBs - and I'd really love to get something like this into fights with AI BCs I thought 27 knots was the breaking point? That was the entire point behind designing it this way so if the old wiki information which says it's 27 is wrong then I'm going to have to redesign this thing to fix it. The entire point was for this to qualify as a fast BB. Edit: Found an earlier ship I had proposed where aeson replied encouraging me to increase the speed to 27 knots to qualify as a fast BB so that backs up what the wiki states and I'm just hopeful it's right. An expensive ship with a lot going into engines for it to wind up not doing what I want it to do. lol
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Nov 20, 2021 1:58:08 GMT -6
Well just got an intelligence report on the Japanese 70k battleship and this is what I'm going to have to be able to beat. lol. Outside of the obvious speed disadvantage I'm pretty confident in my ability to handle it. Only real issue is that it looks like I'm about to go to war with them and this ship will be coming out sometime in the next year or so but my Hercules is likely to be 2 years behind that. Of course I'll have my slower but just about as strong N3's coming out in just a couple of months so I should be just fine. I also went and designed a new BC class Incomparable which downgraded the guns to 3x3x16" and skimmed .5 of belt and deck plus a little turret armor to boot but still basically just a super fast battleship and once those come into service they will likely be able to stand against these as well while also being able to keep pace. Likely 3 years wait for those though.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Nov 20, 2021 2:38:11 GMT -6
I'd say that this thing is unlikely to have good TDS because it's the 20s and the builder is Japan. And its turret layout isn't the best. I'd use small BBs to bait it and then have screening DDs torpedo the living hell out of it. If you have CVLs, even better.
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Nov 20, 2021 3:51:01 GMT -6
I'd say that this thing is unlikely to have good TDS because it's the 20s and the builder is Japan. And its turret layout isn't the best. I'd use small BBs to bait it and then have screening DDs torpedo the living hell out of it. If you have CVLs, even better. Well while I play on captain mode, I only do it to give myself the penalty to warscore for using it. For all intents and purposes I only play on Admiral mode and restrict myself to only controlling the lead fleet element and allowing everyone else to do their jobs. That makes it more difficult to pull off maneuvers like you're describing. Besides I'm England! Gonna punch 'em in the face! I'm pretty sure my designed ships can take them.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 20, 2021 7:44:26 GMT -6
So I'm using Seawolf's 1922 UK start without any treaties combined with his AI templates which produce bigger and stronger enemy ships. I'm in early 24 right now with budget to spare and have noticed the AI building several 70k ton monsters. Germany, America, and Japan are all building them mixed between BB's and BC's. I don't currently have specs on any of them and the first due for completion isn't until very late in 25 so unless I get some spy intel I'm not going to be able to be certain what they have. I'm assuming they're going to be relatively similar to the N3 and G3 vessels the UK starts off with in their build queue with the exception being Japan is the only country other than myself that currently holds the tech to match the 18 inch guns of the N3 main battery. Both America and Germany are building ships out of Japanese yards but those ships are all under 60k tons and all of their 70k ton ships are being built in domestic yards. Which means the best the 70k German and American ships will be fielding will be their home grown 16 inch guns, though their smaller Japanese built ships may be using the 18 inchers... Plus Japan's home grown 70k BBs (they're not building any BC's that size yet) are all likely to be 18 inchers. Now the N3 and G3 ships that are less than a year away from completion are great ships and will easily be the most powerful ships afloat for at least a year though the completion of some of these other ships may alter that equation a bit. It's with that in mind that I'm currently developing my first "fast battleships" coming in at 66k tons to challenge them. My Hercules class will be slower than my G3's coming in at only 27 knots but that's still 4 knots faster than my N3's so essentially splitting the difference and still qualifying as a fast battleship. I stuck with the 18 inchers of the N3 class though I reduced a barrel from the midships turret so it'll only have 8 rather than the 9 gun broadside of it's predecessor though it does retain the full 6 gun forward superfiring armament. In addition to that I've increased the main belt armor by a full inch and the deck armor by half an inch, including armor improvements to the turrets and an increased 4" DP tertiary though I've sacrificed conning tower armor and some of my secondary 6" armament to do it. All in all it looks to be a really strong ship that I should be able to improve on over time. Without knowing the exact specifications of the ships it'll have to compete with it's difficult to anticipate any weaknesses though it possesses an immunity range against it's own guns from 15k-30k yards. I anticipate it'll be slower than my opponent's fast battleships as earlier designs I have gained intel on seem to be coming in at 30 knots for at least 1 Japanese design with 18" guns and I can only assume their newer designs will follow suit. So while they'll be able to dictate the range, they'll have a difficult time finding a range that's more favorable to them as that speed will prevent them from armoring their ships as well as mine are. I considered designs that utilized smaller 16" guns but couldn't justify doing so unless I could bring my armament up to 12 guns from the 9 the predecessor ships possessed without forcing further sacrifices to my armor (as they currently benefit from all forward armament weight savings) to do it which would have left my ship more vulnerable to potential 18" enemy ships while still not affording me any increases in speed to counter them. As it is losing the single barrel while retaining my strength and protection seemed the better choice. I'm curious what other's opinions about the ship considering those circumstances are. The one change I'm currently debating is to sacrifice 5 rounds per gun in order to allow me to fill out my AA armament better though it's still too early for air power to be much of a threat. My version of your ship, I had to use an older game to get close.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Nov 20, 2021 9:51:48 GMT -6
So I'm using Seawolf's 1922 UK start without any treaties combined with his AI templates which produce bigger and stronger enemy ships. I'm in early 24 right now with budget to spare and have noticed the AI building several 70k ton monsters. Germany, America, and Japan are all building them mixed between BB's and BC's. I don't currently have specs on any of them and the first due for completion isn't until very late in 25 so unless I get some spy intel I'm not going to be able to be certain what they have. I'm assuming they're going to be relatively similar to the N3 and G3 vessels the UK starts off with in their build queue with the exception being Japan is the only country other than myself that currently holds the tech to match the 18 inch guns of the N3 main battery. Both America and Germany are building ships out of Japanese yards but those ships are all under 60k tons and all of their 70k ton ships are being built in domestic yards. Which means the best the 70k German and American ships will be fielding will be their home grown 16 inch guns, though their smaller Japanese built ships may be using the 18 inchers... Plus Japan's home grown 70k BBs (they're not building any BC's that size yet) are all likely to be 18 inchers. Now the N3 and G3 ships that are less than a year away from completion are great ships and will easily be the most powerful ships afloat for at least a year though the completion of some of these other ships may alter that equation a bit. It's with that in mind that I'm currently developing my first "fast battleships" coming in at 66k tons to challenge them. My Hercules class will be slower than my G3's coming in at only 27 knots but that's still 4 knots faster than my N3's so essentially splitting the difference and still qualifying as a fast battleship. I stuck with the 18 inchers of the N3 class though I reduced a barrel from the midships turret so it'll only have 8 rather than the 9 gun broadside of it's predecessor though it does retain the full 6 gun forward superfiring armament. In addition to that I've increased the main belt armor by a full inch and the deck armor by half an inch, including armor improvements to the turrets and an increased 4" DP tertiary though I've sacrificed conning tower armor and some of my secondary 6" armament to do it. All in all it looks to be a really strong ship that I should be able to improve on over time. Without knowing the exact specifications of the ships it'll have to compete with it's difficult to anticipate any weaknesses though it possesses an immunity range against it's own guns from 15k-30k yards. I anticipate it'll be slower than my opponent's fast battleships as earlier designs I have gained intel on seem to be coming in at 30 knots for at least 1 Japanese design with 18" guns and I can only assume their newer designs will follow suit. So while they'll be able to dictate the range, they'll have a difficult time finding a range that's more favorable to them as that speed will prevent them from armoring their ships as well as mine are. I considered designs that utilized smaller 16" guns but couldn't justify doing so unless I could bring my armament up to 12 guns from the 9 the predecessor ships possessed without forcing further sacrifices to my armor (as they currently benefit from all forward armament weight savings) to do it which would have left my ship more vulnerable to potential 18" enemy ships while still not affording me any increases in speed to counter them. As it is losing the single barrel while retaining my strength and protection seemed the better choice. I'm curious what other's opinions about the ship considering those circumstances are. The one change I'm currently debating is to sacrifice 5 rounds per gun in order to allow me to fill out my AA armament better though it's still too early for air power to be much of a threat. My version of your ship, I had to use an older game to get close. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> A few questions for you: 1. What do you mean by older game? If that's really 1952 tech, it would be a lot more advanced than w2c's game, to the point where any comparisons are somewhat invalid. 2. Why do you use magazine box? Most people I've seen don't put it on capital ships, so I am wondering why you use it. 3. Also, what's up with Unit machinery? I thought that it was considered to be mostly useless, and a waste of weight. 4. 150 rpg is an awful lot! It would make sense to me if you had a 6-8 gun broadside, but with 12, it just seems a little too much. I'm guessing that you would use this ship as a long range sniper, as it doesn't have the armor to stand up to much punishment.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 20, 2021 10:31:18 GMT -6
My version of your ship, I had to use an older game to get close. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> A few questions for you: 1. What do you mean by older game? If that's really 1952 tech, it would be a lot more advanced than w2c's game, to the point where any comparisons are somewhat invalid. 2. Why do you use magazine box? Most people I've seen don't put it on capital ships, so I am wondering why you use it. 3. Also, what's up with Unit machinery? I thought that it was considered to be mostly useless, and a waste of weight. 4. 150 rpg is an awful lot! It would make sense to me if you had a 6-8 gun broadside, but with 12, it just seems a little too much. I'm guessing that you would use this ship as a long range sniper, as it doesn't have the armor to stand up to much punishment. "The unit system of machinery was a method of arranging a ship's propulsion machinery into separate units that could each operate autonomously in case of damage to the ship. ... Ideally each "unit" should have an additional compartment between them to further reduce the risk." I like lots of ammunition to finish the mission. A magazine box is protective. I also balance protection with fire power. It's an older game that has been finished. I use these games to build advanced warships. I build warships based on the traditional idea of firepower, protection, speed, and reliability. Sometimes you have trade speed for protection like the Navy has had to do in some of its smaller warships.
|
|