|
|
Post by raymart999 on Feb 10, 2024 3:25:05 GMT -6
"By 1911 Germany had built battlecruisers of her own, and the superiority of the British ships could no longer be assured. Moreover, the German Navy did not share Fisher's view of the battlecruiser. In contrast to the British focus on increasing speed and firepower, Germany progressively improved the armour and staying power of their ships to better the British battlecruisers."
So, in RTW3, if I want to build BCs to fight other BCs and survive,
is the German doctrine of Armor+Speed>Firepower better to use or is the British Firepower+Speed>Armor much better for the battles in this game?
|
|
|
|
Post by raymart999 on Feb 10, 2024 6:00:10 GMT -6
Anyways I'm asking this because I'm torn on what next BC class I should build, a 8x12 inch armed BC with 11-13 inches of belt armor or a 6x15 inch armed BC with 7-9 inches of belt armor like the British Renown class.
I don't have the money to build both or a design that incorporates both for a 30k-35k ton range BC
|
|
|
|
Post by spitfire97 on Feb 10, 2024 6:16:59 GMT -6
Well first generation British battlecruisers weren't built to fight other battlecruisers, they were designed as armoured cruiser killers and only armoured against cruiser guns which allowed them to prioritise firepower and speed. German designs however called for their battlecruisers to engage other battlecruisers right from the outset. So if you want to build your battlecruisers to fight other battlecruisers I would recommend you follow the German lines
|
|
|
|
Post by cheatereater on Feb 10, 2024 7:27:22 GMT -6
I think it really depends on what year you're looking at. Checking a 1915 save, 12" guns can pen CA armor (5.5") at basically any range, and at this point I think many of the AI nations stop investing in CAs and only a little in CLs. Defeating 9" guns (Q0) takes 8-9" of belt armor, 1.5" deck. If you want to resist 12" guns it gets tough, 10-12" of belt armor and 2" of deck would be reasonable, and for 14" guns closer to 13-14" belt and 2.5" deck. Here's examples of two different BCs, one with 14" guns and the other with 12" guns but more armor. Ultimately they're pretty balanced against each other.  It depends a lot of what gun qualities you get too, if you get a higher quality big gun I would go for that because the advantages of Q0vsQ-1 outweigh anything else.
Against CAs, I go for more smaller-caliber guns and armor against 10" shells. Try and fish for crits at range to slow down enemy cruisers so you can bring them to battle; also tends to be cheaper. You can push speed a bit more, which I find keeps them relevant later. You can always run from stronger ships then!
Against BCs in cruiser action, I'd say go for bigger guns. You can fight at longer ranges then and hopefully slow down the enemy; the AI tends to run, so you have to get your shots in and slow them down.
In a fleet action, I'd prefer armor. You'll have to withstand BB guns and try to run away, and defend your BBs against enemy BCs. I'm not a fan of BCs in fleet combat though.
I'd say go for bigger guns. They also have more advantages in keeping pace with technology, as guns and be refit, directors improved, AP shells get better, so on... but your armor will be basically set at construction.
And 9" of armor is inadequate for anything but anti-CA action IMO, check what guns the enemy is equipping.
|
|
|
|
Post by raymart999 on Feb 10, 2024 9:36:13 GMT -6
I think it really depends on what year you're looking at. Checking a 1915 save, 12" guns can pen CA armor (5.5") at basically any range, and at this point I think many of the AI nations stop investing in CAs and only a little in CLs. Defeating 9" guns (Q0) takes 8-9" of belt armor, 1.5" deck. If you want to resist 12" guns it gets tough, 10-12" of belt armor and 2" of deck would be reasonable, and for 14" guns closer to 13-14" belt and 2.5" deck. Here's examples of two different BCs, one with 14" guns and the other with 12" guns but more armor. Ultimately they're pretty balanced against each other. It depends a lot of what gun qualities you get too, if you get a higher quality big gun I would go for that because the advantages of Q0vsQ-1 outweigh anything else.
Against CAs, I go for more smaller-caliber guns and armor against 10" shells. Try and fish for crits at range to slow down enemy cruisers so you can bring them to battle; also tends to be cheaper. You can push speed a bit more, which I find keeps them relevant later. You can always run from stronger ships then!
Against BCs in cruiser action, I'd say go for bigger guns. You can fight at longer ranges then and hopefully slow down the enemy; the AI tends to run, so you have to get your shots in and slow them down.
In a fleet action, I'd prefer armor. You'll have to withstand BB guns and try to run away, and defend your BBs against enemy BCs. I'm not a fan of BCs in fleet combat though.
I'd say go for bigger guns. They also have more advantages in keeping pace with technology, as guns and be refit, directors improved, AP shells get better, so on... but your armor will be basically set at construction.
And 9" of armor is inadequate for anything but anti-CA action IMO, check what guns the enemy is equipping.
Thanks for the great reply,I'll keep this in mind when BCs finally come around in my new playthrough, I'll go build them to fight against BCs, but just survivable enough against BB grade weapons, fighting against actual Battleships is a real Battleships job after all. |
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Feb 10, 2024 11:38:27 GMT -6
Anyways I'm asking this because I'm torn on what next BC class I should build, a 8x12 inch armed BC with 11-13 inches of belt armor or a 6x15 inch armed BC with 7-9 inches of belt armor like the British Renown class. I don't have the money to build both or a design that incorporates both for a 30k-35k ton range BC 12 inch guns are good for your 1st generation of battlecruisers, but after everyone has their own BCs you should consider guns up to 16 inches. An eight gun broadside is preferable to a six gun broadside. Since CAs are limited to 9.5 inches of belt armor BCs should mount more armor. Anymore than 12 inches is getting into G3 territories and is a waste of materiel, funds and time. The sweet spot for BCs should be 11 to 12 inches of belt armor. Here's a 1919 save with quality 1 13 inch guns. 14 and 15 inch guns were available in quality 0 while 16 inch guns were only available in quality -1. The 13 inch guns were chosen for their quality (along for roleplay reasons).  A CA armed with the largest guns possible and quality to match (10 inch quality 1) would be unable to penetrate the BC at ranges from 5,000 yards to 19,000 yards. A BB or BC armed with quality 1 12 inch guns would be be unable to defeat the BC's armor at ranges from 11,000 yards to 19,000 yards. The ship has an immunity zone from 15,000 yards to 18,000 yards against it's own guns. I'll cut it here before I toot my horn anymore, but this lovely design should be more than able to handle any and all CAs and the earliest designed BBs and BCs. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Feb 13, 2024 6:14:48 GMT -6
It depends what you want.
BC with high firepower become dangerous ship even much later (see HMS Repulse and HMS Renown, they were still match for Scharnhorst and Gneisenau 25 years later), however armor help them to survive. There is not best answer it is matter of your preference.
Do you expect to BC fight with enemy battleships? Than they need to survive with reasonable armour. Do you expect that your BC will evade enemy battleships and just support your battle fleet. Than you need speed and firepower.
It is balance of firepower, armour protection and speed in specified displacement. When I build battlecruisers at same time as battleships before fast battleship can be a thing (usually end of 10s), I sacrifice 1 turret compared to battleships and put same caliber of guns. If my best guns are not at least quality zero, than I can make sacrifice and use lower caliber as it will not hurt penetration, only the damage of penetrating hits. Usually I am not going very fast, 27-28 max. for second generation of battlecruisers is enough sometimes 27 is really enough. This will ensure that your battlecruiser will be faster than enemy battleships till fast battleships appears and 1 knot between fleet does not matter to much. But at that time (end of the first decade and half of 10s) every knot is quite expensive. Sometimes I even make different armour scheme, having only narrow belt but with almost same thickness for whole length of ship. The battlecruiser needs to be fast and it lost very quickly by hits at the end of ships even if citadel is not penetrated. With sloped deck in mind you can have reasonable light thickness of the belt to have still vitals protected and 10" belt with 2.5" deck can be enough against ship that have not 16" guns.
About 1915 you can design ship about 37000 tons to have everything at reasonable level: - speed 28 knots - 8x15" guns - 12.5" belt with 2.5-3" deck
Such ship will be a little worse protected than battleship but with firepower of battleship and speed of battlecruiser and still having protection better than most of the battleships except the most modern ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Feb 13, 2024 9:56:11 GMT -6
I have the view that actions involving BCs vs BCs - at least in the early days - are going to see poor accuracy due to the speeds involved. As such, I think you need to focus on more guns rather than bigger guns. More guns translates to more hits - at least, within effective range - and more hits translates to more chance to cripple them or even get the ultimate 'golden BB' of a flash-fire destroying the entire ship.
The size constrained AI ships also seem to take the British version of sacrificing armour for bigger guns which also has the disadvantage of increasing the chance of a pass-through hit for the bigger guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Mar 6, 2024 21:16:57 GMT -6
I have the view that actions involving BCs vs BCs - at least in the early days - are going to see poor accuracy due to the speeds involved. Close. Lack of fire control. oldpop once linked to an article on the square law of firepower. In a gun on gun fight, ignoring DD torps and air attacks, the relationship of a ships ability is the square of its firepower. Doubling the number of guns is 4 times (2x2) the odds in a fight. It thus promotes building ever larger gun line ships. My own take is the square-cube law which brings in the missing torpedo and air threats. The surface area comes up at the square but the "value" defended of cost by the cube. At first you want bigger ships for more belt armor, torp defense and especially deck space for AA weapons. At some point there is tipping over that more guns get less defense per gun. You need volume of displacement, thus cost, to mount another big gun but can't bring in the proportion of deck space or torpedo defenses. This promotes an efficient size not just the biggest possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Mar 7, 2024 1:13:45 GMT -6
I have the view that actions involving BCs vs BCs - at least in the early days - are going to see poor accuracy due to the speeds involved. According to the game manual, "ships at full speed and above 25 knots will suffer vibrations that give a gunnery penalty". As such, my first BCs have a designed speed of 27 knots and combined with an eight gun broadside they're pretty accurate in combat when traveling at 25 knots without suffering from vibrations. |
|
