RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message

RevRick -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (4/25/2013 4:09:31 PM)

How are you doing with Plan 8-8-8? I am still fiddling with the Alt History Grand Unified Pacific Cataclysm scenario (This time with the FAA getting control of their own aircraft in 1930 or so, and not having to put up with RAF interference of budgetary strangulation)

IJN has possible 20 CV, 22 BB, in addition to the rest of the other class ships in the Iron Man fleet combined with the DaBigBabes mess of thips.
RN has 8 CV between 41-45 (most late war), 21 possible BB's
USN has 2 Lex, 2 Wasp (enlarged) 6 YKTN (enlarged 2 completing after 07DEC4) 6 Essex (all after 1941)and
10 Ticos after 1943.
The BB's are listed in post above.

Obviously, when FDR and Whitehall realized that the IJN was not going to play fair during the WNT, along with building some more ships to keep the work force active (and skills active) they also put some construction types to work building some larger ways and drydocks along with the Coulee and Hoover dams, and the TVA. The IJN decided they needed more ways to, and added them to the economy to increase the work force. Other things come into play as well to make "public works" spending more palatable to the Isolationists - IJA atrocities in China are reported a little more, and some of the information about IJN plans as opposed to their announcements creeps into some more perspicacious hands with a sense of national interest and security at heart, etc., etc., etc. (Some willing suspension of disbelief [good old Sci/Fi term] as well as a visiting ROB might have to be invoked since my exploration of the actual personal histories of some of the actors on this stage was suspended by postgraduate work in another rather intensively focused area.)

This time, I have managed to get a few turns into the game without having something pop up which makes me crazy because I missed something in the editing process, etc., etc.




GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (4/26/2013 2:43:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

How are you doing with Plan 8-8-8?


Oh, haven't made a whole lot of progress. I was all gung ho about getting some rule books from GHQ Microarmor a while back to try to get stats for my new tanks and the books came and there was nothing I could use in them. So I sort of set it aside for a while but I think I'll come back to it now. John 3rd PMed me for some ship art recently and that sort of got me back into WITP, thanks for ruining my life again John! [:D]



GaryChildress -> Back to cruisers (4/27/2013 12:09:26 AM)

OK. So I've been doodling around with all kinds of alternative cruiser art. I'm coming to realize that I can just fabricate pretty much anything and everything. So I feel like there is no rhyme or reason to my alternative cruiser designs. I feel like I'm just doodling in vain. What I really need is some sort of idea of what cruisers might have looked like had there been no naval limitation treaties. From there I need to either figure out spring sharp or else see if Juan G's offer to look up a few cruiser designs for me is still good.

So what would cruisers have looked like? So far I have figured that they would probably evolve to the point where the line between cruiser and capital ship begins to fade. Larger guns, larger ships, etc. But there would still be a need for various "in-between" calibers and sizes I would think. The 6" cruiser design became a standard during WWII despite the lack of naval treaties. My hunch is that even though some large cruisers might mount anything from 9"-12", there would still be a plethora of smaller cruiser designs to fill the gaps, everything from 5" AAA to 8", and especially the 6" for the Allies. So how would alternative cruiser design progress? Would the Americans start out with something like the 6" Omaha class, maybe then go to 8", then 10" or 12" and then mix it up with some more 6" designs? Might the Allies develop "pocket battleships" themselves?

Does anyone have any ideas on an alternative building program for cruisers?



GaryChildress -> RE: Back to cruisers (4/27/2013 1:08:00 AM)

I suppose one way to start out is to come up with an idea of what sorts of missions cruisers are designed to undertake. Then from there come up with what characteristics best serve that role.

1. Scouting - for the main battle fleet was a major role for cruisers as originally conceived but with the advent of longer and longer range aircraft, that role seemed to be pretty non-existent during WWII. Far eaiser and less dangerous to use some PBY's or carrier based planes to find the enemy. Although cruiser float planes did play a major role in fleet scouting too.
2. Commerce raiding - was of course a major role the Germans saw in cruisers but, again, with the availability of land based aircraft that role becomes more and more dangerous. Plus submarines are far more efficient at commerce raiding.
3. Trade protection - The British built a lot of puny 6" cruisers to fulfill the role of protecting their far flung assets around the globe. In this respect cruisers were like a cheap substitute when no battleships were available.
4. Shore bombardment - pretty much every warship type filled this role at some point in the war, given the large number of amphibious operations. If cruisers are good for nothing else, they would still be used in pounding the enemy shore lines.
5. Surface combat - Cruisers found themselves engaging in surface combat without the back up of battleships. During the Solomons campaign cruisers often fulfilled the role of "capital ship" in night battles and other engagements where they were the biggest warships either side had available. In this respect they sort of served as a cheaper substitute for battleships, while the big battleships mainly either styed in port where they still looked good or else stayed with the carriers to provide AAA cover.
6. Destroyer leader- Not a very prominent role either for cruisers during WWII, unless I'm mistaken. I don't think there was a whole lot of need for this role. Destroyers were often mixed with larger ships anyway to provide ASW protection for task forces. So having a flotilla flagship was sort of redundant to having the TF flagship.




GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (4/27/2013 1:55:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Some comments on the new stuff;

Battleships and building schedules
As was mentioned before, spreading out the US builds might make more sense. Personally I would suggest cutting the South Dakota and Lexington classes to 4 ships each, and then build a new class of battleship or battlecruiser in the late 20s or early 30s, based upon one of the many design proposals from the time.

Cruisers and guns
I like the cruiser lineups, apart from the fact that the gun calibers are all over the place. Every nation seems to jump back and forth between 8", 10" and occasionally larger weapons, with no regard for standardization. Likewise, the 'heavy' light cruisers like the Brooklyn and Mogami probably would not have taken shape in this reality, being something of a product of the treaties (though admittedly one that turned out rather well as a nightfighter and bombardment platform). Lastly, the Italian Zara class with a mixed main battery seems like something more appropriate for 1902 than 1942.

I would suggest redoing the cruisers somewhat; in a reality like the one you propose I can see 3 'sizes' of cruisers emerge;
'Escort' cruisers, around the 4000-6000ton mark, with 5-7in guns; intended for convoy duty, warding off destroyers and later in the war maybe AA work.
'Light' cruisers around the 10000ton mark, with 7-10in guns, intended as cruiser hunters, and leaders of smaller cruiser groups.
'Heavy' cruisers around the 14-18000ton mark, with 10-12in guns, intended as general purpose vessels also capable of taking part in the battleline.

Obviously, each nation will build things suited to their requirements, and put their own 'spin' on these categories, such as German raiders, etc.

So for example, with regards to Japan, I might suggest something like this, beginning with Furutaka;

4x CL Furutaka (4x2 8in) ~9500t / 32knts
4x CL Myoko (4x2 9.2in) ~10500t / 34knts
2x CL Chokai (3x3 9.2in) ~12000t / 34knts
2x CA Maya (2x2 12.2in) ~14500t / 34knts
4x CE Agano (4x2 6in) ~6000t / 29knts
4x CL Mogami (3x3 9.2in) ~12000t / 35knts
4x CA Tone (2x2 12.2in) ~15000t / 34knts
2x CE Oyodo (3x3 6in) ~6500t / 30knts
2x CA Kasuga (3x2 12.2in) ~16500t / 34knts

Destroyers
The same applies here, though you're likely to see more variation in gun caliber simply because of the easier logistics. Most likely national design philosophy will determine the majority of things here. However, some general categories I can see arising;

Destroyer 'Leaders', as a replacement to that role being fulfilled by CLs in certain navies historically. Larger than regular DDs by some 25-50% (so 2500-3000t for a 2000t flotilla), possibly with larger caliber weapons or more of them (latter makes more sense to me) and/or more torpedoes.

'Large' Destroyers, built mainly for anti-surface work; high speed (35knts+), heavy gun or torpedo batteries, probably in the 2500-3500t range (think Shimakaze or Sumner historically). Possibly later designs split into torpedo based ones for ASuW, and gun based with DP guns into an AA escort role.

'Fleet' Destroyers, built as an all purpose platform with good range; moderate-high speed (~32knts), decent weaponry possibly with a focus on guns over torpedoes, tonnage 1500-2500t. Probably the first type to mount DP weapons.

'Escort' Destroyers, built for anti-sub and (later) anti-air work; moderate speed (~30knts), mixed weaponry though possibly lighter on the torpedoes. Tonnage around 1000-2000t.

In addition, specialist designs like lighter torpedo destroyers (something of a souped up TB), dedicated ASW escorts, etc. might appear depending on how development goes. Once again, national preferences are a big influence here.

Designs and numbers
Lastly, if you would like any help with estimates/design stuff for any of these, I can help out (from stuff like 'if it has these guns, this protection and this speed, then how heavy is it gonna be' to 'if it needs these guns and this speed but cant exceed x tonnage, how much armour can you put on?'). Let me know here or in PM, I can post examples if needed.


Hmmm. Digging back in my own thread a little I had forgotten about this excellent post. Think I'll do a little dwelling on this and try to come up with some ideas.



Symon -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (4/27/2013 9:34:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Some comments on the new stuff;

I agree with JuanG completely. In the absence of the Treaty, the cruiser classes everybody knows oh so well, would not have existed. The provenance is protected cruisers and armored cruisers. I think you need to go back and analyze the missions that the various hulls were constructed for, in the period immediately preceding the Treaty, and go from there in a rational way. You want to make a scenario where the Treaty wasn't present, so why are you concerned about Japanese 8" CAs? Was it me, for every Takao you make, I'll make an Alaska. 10k ton, 8" gun cruisers are Treaty artifacts. If you don't have a treaty, you are on your own.



Terminus -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (4/27/2013 9:44:35 PM)

Also, you're assuming there's no Great Depression, right? Otherwise, where in the cloaca is the money coming from?



Don Bowen -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (4/27/2013 10:31:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Also, you're assuming there's no Great Depression, right? Otherwise, where in the cloaca is the money coming from?



A cloaca (pron.: /kloʊˈeɪkə/) is the posterior opening that serves as the only opening for the intestinal, reproductive, and urinary tracts of certain animal species.

Google: a place were the undereducated can try and keep up with Terminus.




Terminus -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (4/27/2013 10:32:56 PM)

I'm just a guy who's watched Steve Irwin and Mike Rowe on the television...



GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Destroyer Design Theory (4/28/2013 1:09:24 AM)

Yep Terminus, no Great Depression, see the short storyline in the OP. I have the basic tennets of the mod laid out there.

@JWE: Seeing how the Hawkins class CA was the basis for the definition of "heavy cruiser" for the WNT in 1922, it seems like cruiser design for the next 15 years was stuck in a time capsule, unable to really evolve much. The Hawkins had 7.5" guns so I'm thinking I should start out in 1922 with some 8" cruisers and from there start escalating up to maybe 12"-14" just prior to 1940 maybe? As 1940 approaches the early 8-10" cruisers would become 2nd line cruisers, early escort cruisers would probably be scrapped by 1940, there wouldn't be many of them as mass production escort ships will be more of a wartime thing.

I like JuanG's general distinction between "escort", "light" and "heavy" cruiser designs. The only thing I would do for the purposes of fitting them into the designation categories available in WITP would be to give the following designations for the different ships:

1. "Escort" cruiser = "CL": 5-7" guns, 4000-8000 tons, 30-35kts: Duties would primarily be trade protection or convoy duty. would also serve as escort leaders for convoys.
2. "Light" cruiser = "CA": 7-10" guns, 8000-14000 tons, 30-34kts: commerce raiding, light surface combat, also these would include obsolete "heavy" designs originally laid down in the 1920s. As the war progresses some of these might be upgraded for primary AA duties.
3. "Heavy" cruiser = "CB": 10-14" guns, 14000-25000 tons, 27-33kts: general purpose/power projection, capable of operating on it's own, sort of a cheaper, more numerous version of the battleship or battlecruiser. Primary duties would be surface combat, although it will of course evolve with greater and greater AA ability.



GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/28/2013 5:16:47 AM)

OK. So here's a kind of alternative history of US cruiser building 1922-1945. Please let me know what you think.

No treaties are in effect to retard cruiser development, and no Gread Depression to constrain budgets as the major powers compete with each other to see who can build the biggest baddest navy.

So I have the US starting out in 1922 with the Omaha class light cruisers as was historical. In the late 1930s they get reboilered and the funnels are reduced from 4 to 2 in order to make room for float planes. In the late 1920s the US experiments a little with the 8" gun on their cruisers, with the timid Pensacola class. 1930 sees more development on the 8" gun. The Northampton class is a vast improvement on the Pensacolas with much more firepower. After laying down the Northamptons there's a kind of short sabbatical in which the 10" gun cruiser is developed, this being in response to a cruiser race among the major naval powers. First the US pumps out the New Orleans class. These being somewhat unsatisfactory, due to the size of the hull which limited the guns to twin turrets. So then the Brooklyn class "large cruisers" are built incorporating a larger hull in which tripple 10" turrets can be mounted. Finally when WW2 breaks out in Europe in 1939, the first of the Baltimore class is laid down as a response to the increasing hostilities. Also in 1939 the first Cleveland class "escort cruisers" with enhanced AA capability are laid down. As it becomes more and more apparent that aircraft are going to play a major role in the war, the AA capability of the Clevelands is enhanced while building. Finally in 1940 the US comes up with a medium cruiser design to augment fleet escort operations, this time with fast loading twin 8" guns instead of the twin 6" DP guns developed for the Clevelands.

What do you guys think? Does a progression from smaller and smaller guns and hulls to larger and larger ones make more sense? This is followed by wartime production of small, cheap "escort type" cruisers to fill in gaps.

[image]local://upfiles/17421/DE6C0E86EE334FF69C6A5D125AB4C8A8.jpg[/image]

Of course thanks as always go to the AE team for their superb art from which my own alterations are derrived.



JuanG -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/28/2013 10:00:43 AM)

My first thought is that the designs themselves look sound, some of the larger ones (New Orleans, Brooklyn, Baltimore) are starting to get really big, which means quite a bit of resources for their construction.

In particular, the 12 x 12in Baltimore is probably looking at a displacement in the 30,000+ ton range, so I'm a little doubtful about the ability to produce 12 of them during the war while still presumably building carriers and battleships. Remember that a ship this size is going to be on a slipway for close to 2 years - if you've got 3 being built every year that is 6 capital sized slipways that aren't available for CVs or BBs (yes, even the larger ones - BBs are going to have higher Cb's and so will have much more displacement on the same length).

I'd suggest either toning down the build numbers (and this goes for several of the prewar ones too), or else look at downsizing them a little. Everything post Northampton is starting to push into the 20,000ton range and thats some serious ship - to avoid this either the gun counts need to go down, the armour needs to be thinner, or they need to be slower.

I have some thoughts on how this could be achieved, but you probably have a better idea of what the vision for the US fleet here is than I do, so its better if you come to your own conclusions on how to solve these issues.

There is also possibly room for an interwar 6in or 8in 'scout' cruiser - this could be a potentially interesting design, with a focus on firepower and AA capability with reduced armour, intended as a CL/DD killer. As said though, its dependent on the exact goals of the fleet.

Also, 1943 seems a little early for an autoloading 8in gun - '44 or '45 is probably more reasonable assuming technology is slightly ahead of historical (OTL Des Moines was commissioned in '48).



Terminus -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/28/2013 10:07:21 AM)

It looks sound. Like the old protected cruiser-light cruiser-armoured cruiser progression.

The "heavy" cruiser will never exist in this timeline. You could call them first class cruisers, I suppose.



DOCUP -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/28/2013 4:36:38 PM)

nice work Gary.



GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/28/2013 6:22:22 PM)

I trimmed down the production numbers of the larger cruisers and also shortened the Baltimore class a little bit. This new chart leaves the US with 22 first rate cruisers and 10 "escort" types in 1941.


[image]local://upfiles/17421/E261AB2AC2134B86AF857BA67B72DB43.jpg[/image]



oldman45 -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/29/2013 12:10:36 AM)

I spent sometime this afternoon reading, I am not sure about your theory. We had many armored cruisers after WWI with 10" guns, why are you building 8" cruisers in 1928? Is this because of the UK Hawkins Class? Without the treaties forcing countries to scrap their armored cruisers why would they? Why would they build any "large cruiser" after WWI. It would seem to me that there would be light/colony cruisers and armored/battle cruisers.

One other thing I thought about, without the treaties, would the US upgrade the defences in the PI, Guam, Wake, and Midway?

As always, great art work Gary!!



GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 3:13:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I spent sometime this afternoon reading, I am not sure about your theory. We had many armored cruisers after WWI with 10" guns, why are you building 8" cruisers in 1928? Is this because of the UK Hawkins Class? Without the treaties forcing countries to scrap their armored cruisers why would they? Why would they build any "large cruiser" after WWI. It would seem to me that there would be light/colony cruisers and armored/battle cruisers.

One other thing I thought about, without the treaties, would the US upgrade the defences in the PI, Guam, Wake, and Midway?

As always, great art work Gary!!


OK. So that pretty much puts me back at square one. What do you think I ought to create for the 1920s cruisers?



GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 4:11:16 AM)

How about something like this in 1924?

The Tennessee class armored cruisers only had 2 x 2 10" guns with a max speed of 22 kts. So might the US have increased the speed, armor and armament of their armored cruisers to look something like this? Let's say this ship has 4 x 2 10" guns, max speed of 30 kts or so and a bit more armor. Length would be 660 ft as opposed to the mere 504 ft of the Tennessee class.



[image]local://upfiles/17421/092EAE4BF9D14C2F81E30438018BE692.jpg[/image]



JuanG -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 4:33:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I spent sometime this afternoon reading, I am not sure about your theory. We had many armored cruisers after WWI with 10" guns, why are you building 8" cruisers in 1928? Is this because of the UK Hawkins Class? Without the treaties forcing countries to scrap their armored cruisers why would they? Why would they build any "large cruiser" after WWI. It would seem to me that there would be light/colony cruisers and armored/battle cruisers.

One other thing I thought about, without the treaties, would the US upgrade the defences in the PI, Guam, Wake, and Midway?

As always, great art work Gary!!


OK. So that pretty much puts me back at square one. What do you think I ought to create for the 1920s cruisers?


I think of the 8in cruisers as bridging a gap between the Omaha style scout cruisers and follow on designs with larger guns.

A lot of the proto-sketches for the Pensacola were explorations of this idea, well before any treaties were in effect.

The AC follow-ons with 10in or larger guns do also make sense, so one thing you could do while keeping the lineup otherwise similar is to insert a class of 4-6 ships in the early 20's as direct follow ons to the AC concept, maybe with 3x2 10in/50 guns or something like that.

This makes them credible successors to the Tennessee class AC's, which had 2x2 10in/40s. Coupled with a higher speed (maybe 28-30 knots vs 22 on the Tennessee) and redesigned protection, and these could become the forerunners for a new standard of post-WW1 AC's across the world. The pause between them and a followup in the early 30s can be explain by the USNs desire to develop its scouting capabilities in the form of lighter cruisers and possibly CVs. In that case I'd maybe look at 'lightening' the Northampton class a little to moreso resemble the Pensacola 'scout cruiser' (maybe drop armour to 120 belt, 55 deck and 100 tower).

Here is a good source for WW1 and post-WW1 USN cruiser studies;
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/albums/s584-cr.htm

Everything up to S-584-178 is pre-treaty.



oldman45 -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 5:02:35 AM)

I like that JuanG, but I think we have to consider why the cruisers are being built. Once we establish the mission statement, I think it might be easier to see the development over the decades. The US might build lights, keep the AC's and build nothing but an even more modern Tennesse or BC's of some sort.



JuanG -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 5:26:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I like that JuanG, but I think we have to consider why the cruisers are being built. Once we establish the mission statement, I think it might be easier to see the development over the decades. The US might build lights, keep the AC's and build nothing but an even more modern Tennesse or BC's of some sort.


True enough. Another important factor is that development does not happen in a vacuum - very much will be influenced by trends occurring elsewhere.

At the very least, any 'next generation' AC will take some lessons away from WW1;
Foremost is the need for more speed. The QE's are capable of 24 knots, and the new BC's are all in the 28-30 knot region. Being able to keep up with/run away from these is probably desirable, lest they suffer Blucher's fate. For this reason alone the pre-WW1 AC's are at the end of their lifespan as frontline ships - I could see them doing patrol duty in the Philippines or elsewhere, but apart from that their days are numbered.

Secondly, as these are cruisers and intended to fulfill those roles (as opposed to forming part of a battleline), I do not believe in a massive growth in terms of firepower to be likely (at this stage anyway - a 'cruiser building race' could possibly result in the interwar era if the various powers try to one-up eachothers designs, but I do not find it likely for the early 20s designs). This is firstly due to economics, and secondly due to the fact that putting a capital sized battery on a cruiser is going to tempt the admiralty into thinking it has a place in a battleline when it does not. More likely is an increase to 6 or 8 guns (meaning an accurate salvo can be fired with half the guns, along with more straightforward firepower), along with a possible increase in gun length (for increased ranges and penetration).

Thirdly, in as a result of the above, we will likely see slightly more armour on these vessels than their predecessors. They will also likely benefit from the lessons of WW1 and Jutland in terms of their armour layout.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 5:43:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
OK. So that pretty much puts me back at square one. What do you think I ought to create for the 1920s cruisers?



It was really the ban on BB construction imposed by the Washington Treaty that pushed nations into expanded construction of CA's/CL's. Without it, the primary role for cruisers would have remained commerce raiding/protection and scouting, neither of which required particularly heavy armaments. So I would say modest size vessels with good range and endurance and mostly 6" armament.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 5:49:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
One other thing I thought about, without the treaties, would the US upgrade the defences in the PI, Guam, Wake, and Midway?


It was certainly something the Japanese feared, which is why they demanded this article in the treaty. I would guess that the PI would certainly have been included in the upgrades that occurred between the wars. Guam's location made it pretty much indefensible, and the limited size of Wake and Midway would have made any major improvements unlikely.



GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 3:11:43 PM)

How about something like this:

The US starts out with the Omaha class, then builds 4 new "armored cruisers" to improve on the Tennessee class. Instead of 2 x 2 10" these have 4 x 2 10". They're still a little slow at 29 kts, so the class proves somewhat unsatisfactory and is abandoned after 4 ships. Next the US decides to experiment with some scout cruisers of the 8" type. These have less armor but more speed at 32kts. However, the first 8" cruisers mount only 4 x 2 guns as well. So the next evolution is to triple turrets for the 8" cruisers, starting with the Northampton class scout cruisers which prove to be relatively successful. So 10 are commissioned. Thinking that they are safe in the scout cruiser department the US next turns its attention back to the armored cruiser concept with the Brooklyn Class of 6 ships with 4 x 3 11" guns. The 11" has a little more range and hitting power than the 10" and the speed is better on these but still the US doesn't quite get the results it wants. But the class is pushed through at 6 ships in response to foreign designs. Finally in 1939 the first of the Baltimore class 12" cruisers are laid down and completed during the war. In late 1940, seeing lessons learned from the use of naval air power early in the war, the US also begins a parallel program of AA cruisers mounting 6" DP guns and a heavy secondary armament of 5" DP guns. This is succeeded by a class of auto loading 8" ships starting to appear in 1944.

So we see the simultaneous evolution of both the armored cruiser concept and the scout cruiser concept as they unfold leading up to 1939. When war becomes more evitable the US starts really pumping out ships.

[image]local://upfiles/17421/65970D53FFBC4AE6A89E417BE1D9123E.jpg[/image]



oldman45 -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 3:36:09 PM)

Why the 11" gun? We already have a 12", 14" and 16" in production. I have not gone back and reviewed the entire thread, what are your thoughts on a battlecruiser as the logical replacement to the AC?



GaryChildress -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 3:56:32 PM)

These are supposed to cheaper and easier to produce alternatives to battlehips. There will be battleships in the scenario as well and they have their purpose to fight in the battle line. Taking a relatively small ship and plopping a 14" gun on it would probably lead to stability problems in a broadside I would think. These are also supposed to have good speed so the beam is going to be a bit less than could be. As far as the 11", the rationale I had was that the Brooklyns are a bit smaller than the Baltimores and to get triple turrets onto it would probably require slightly smaller guns. But I also wanted the guns to be a bit better than the 10" on the New Orleans class.

I'm just thinking the navy is going to produce many different sized ships to carry out different functions. I just don't forsee a navy where every ship is either a battleship or else a destroyer. There are going to be "in betweens" to cover other responsibilities.

Here is the layout of the fleet divided into 3 cruiser classes:

1. Escort cruisers for trade/convoy protection.
2. Scout cruisers for locating the enemy fleet and also can be used in commerce raiding to out gun the escort cruisers.
3. Armored cruisers large and powerful enough to more or less fight on their own. Sort of a "light battleship" designed to fight when and where battleships aren't available.

So the cruisers could be divided into the following classes:




[image]local://upfiles/17421/46899AD6022F47EDB3FEB097C11A7323.jpg[/image]



JuanG -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 4:23:43 PM)

Again, 4x3 11in, 32 knots and that protection is a lot of ship - probably closing on 30,000 tons normal at first estimate (I can run a detailed sim if you'd like). At this point you might as well accept that it will be a full fledged battlecruiser, mount 8x14in or 8x16in on it and accept the 10,000tons or so more it will take, in return for being a full on capital ship.

Secondly - why the move to 11in? I think a longer 10in with a heavier shell is probably more in line with USN thinking, or alternatively a move to 11in and then to a longer 11in with a heavier shell. Putting 3 types of different gun with different ammo into service for 3 classes seems fairly counter to the USN's successful policy of standardization of munitions, atleast compared to Japanese or British efforts.

Its hard to say since I don't know what your plans for the RN or IJN are, but to me it seems like the CB designs 'escalate' too quickly. While some is warranted for the wartime class, what about adjusting the Brooklyn to be 3x3 10in/55 with a new shell, and the Baltimore becomes 4x3 10in/55 or 4x2 12in?



traskott -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 4:33:36 PM)

I like the three concepts of cruiser Gary Childress has developed, although it's true the last CBs are very impressive. 12 x 12'' is a lot of firepower, enough to sink almost every ship expect "modern" BBs...They looks like truly BCs: Big, fast, powerful guns...and unable to stand a "good" 14'' on the deck.



Symon -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 6:10:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Why the 11" gun? We already have a 12", 14" and 16" in production. I have not gone back and reviewed the entire thread, what are your thoughts on a battlecruiser as the logical replacement to the AC?

The 11” gun was a dog’s breakfast. Obsolete, and not very good when new.

In a non-treaty world:

I would introduce the 15”/45 Mk II, and 14”/45 Mk VII, for Great Britain in 1935; the 15” for new construction (KGV, etc..) the 14” for replacement of existing systems. For “hunter cruisers”, I would complete development and introduce the 12”/50 Mk XIV in 1933. Inter-war “battle cruisers” would get the new 14”/45 Mk VII. Design and construction of these was highly superior to existing systems, but the Treaty slowed/halted their development.

[aside] The British tested 16” and 18” guns in the 1920s, concluded 18” wasn’t worth the hassle, took a chance on the 16”/45 Mk I for the Nelson class, concluded they made a big mistake and wrote it off. That was even before the treaty, so without a treaty the results would have been exactly the same and so, Brits shouldn’t get 16”/18” guns (reason was shell metallurgy/design).

The US 12”/45 Mk 5s were ok, but not great shakes; nowhere near the Brit 12”/50 Mk XIV. The 12”/50 Mk 8 wasn’t thought of or designed till 1939, so no high-velocity, super-heavy, capability till 1943/44. The 12”/45 Mk 5 was good enough for “hunter cruisers”, but not for anything else.

The 14”/50 Mk 11 was a good weapon, equivalent to GBs 14”/45 Mk VII. Tube and breech of the 14”/45 were redesigned over the years until capable of shooting super-heavy projectiles at high velocity. A good workman gun. Designed in 1930.

The 16”/45 Mk 8 was also a good weapon. The same comments relating to the 14”/50 apply. The 16”/50 Mk 3 was a bit problematic. As designed for the Lexington class BCs, and SoDak class BBs, they wouldn’t fit on the Iowa design, forcing BuOrd to develop the 16”/50 Mk 7. In a non-treaty world, the 16”/50 Mk 7 would not exist.

[aside] The US invested a bit more in shell metallurgy and could deliver a bit more kinetic energy at the point of contact. When one considers super-heavy rounds, woof!!

During “peacetime” nobody is rushing to produce a plethora of guns; that takes time, money, materials, and imperitive. In a non-treaty world, one works with what one gots, in the context of the mission. One does not go from War II results and work backward; one goes from 1919 and tries to work forward.

Hope this helps your thought process, Oldman.

JWE



Symon -> RE: Alternative Cruiser Design Theory (4/30/2013 6:23:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Secondly - why the move to 11in? I think a longer 10in with a heavier shell is probably more in line with USN thinking, or alternatively a move to 11in and then to a longer 11in with a heavier shell. Putting 3 types of different gun with different ammo into service for 3 classes seems fairly counter to the USN's successful policy of standardization of munitions, atleast compared to Japanese or British efforts.

Agree completely. Both the 10" and 11" were utterly obsolete and useless. USN knew this and went with upgrages to the 12"/45s, but had no requirement for a hi-V 12" gun, at the time. One could argue that the 12"/50 could have been brought up earlier, but it had a totally different barrel and breech design and wasn't compatible with 12"/45.

Would like to have your thoughts on this. JWE



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.511719