Alaska should be after the Baltimore not prior. Larger guns, displacement, armor, more like a BC in stats and one of the gamer eternal arguments, was it a big CA or a BC?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There was some discussion about whether or not the super cruisers (Alaska) should be above or below the post-treaty cruisers in priority. The debate centered around whether the super cruisers were a specialty design or a standard design. If they are a specialty design (like pocket battleships) designed to counter a specific threat and not for general production, then they should be lower in the priority so the AI will not build nothing but super cruisers.
It was a large CA. If you look at the US designs philosophy for battleships vs cruisers, you will see the differences. The Alaska had a single rudder, her machinery and plant set-up was along cruiser lines, her secondary battery was arranged as contemperary cruisers, her aircraft were carried amidships. All of these were the features of US cruiser design (look at the Baltimore). If you look at the Lexington-class battlecruisers compared to their battleship counterparts (South Dakota) you will see more similarities than differences. She had the same machinery arangement, the same fire control set-up, the same secondary battery arrangement, and the same aircraft positions. Her guns were also of the same caliber of the contemporary battleships.
The Alaska was designed to counter a hypothetical (feared) Japanese commerce raider design belived to be building. The General Board specifications called for a "large cruiser" to counter it. The Alaska design was a logical outgrowth of the Wichita but taken beyond the limits imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty (8" guns and 10000 tons). It shows in the arrangement of her secondary guns, and aircraft. The only thing extraordinary about her has the size of her main guns. She got a fire control tower that was similar to those carried by battleships, but this was due to the range of the 12" guns, not her battleship ancestry. MDow
Re: Re: Re: Re: BB Models Update
Ahh, but how about those things that never make it into the books when they just list the displacement and such?
The Bismarck had a better fire control system. Except for the fact that the Iowa was commisioned late in the war and was able to take advantage of the US development of mm wavelength fire control radars, the German fire conrol systems were more reliable and accurate for long range fire.
The Bismarck's guns outranged the guns on the Iowa. The 15" guns outranged the 16" by about 5000-10000 (don't have the numbers handy) yards. This would give her an increadible advantage in combat assuming that the range for visibility was great enough.
The Bismarck had better protection. I am not talking in terms of sheer armor thickness (in which they are fairly equal), but sub-division and redundancy. The Germans designed and increadible torpedo defence scheme that stood up to a massive pounding without failing. Don't forget that the Bismarck was hit by two torpedoes before the imfamous hit that jammed her rudder. Once the final battle began she was hit by numerous torpedoes which did not penetrate her defences. The Iowa's scheme was very similar to the one on the North Carolina which suffered heavy damage from a single torpedo abeam her forward turrets.
The Bismarck had much heavier secondary batteries. 12 5.9" guns plus her 4" anti-aircraft guns. Her secondary battery was almost as heavy as some cruisers. The Iowa had the fantastic 5"/38 which was unfortunately a very light shell due to the requirement for AA ability.
The Iowa did have a huge advantage in the 16"/50 guns that she carried. The 2700 lb shell that she fired was one of the most powerful ever designed. Those large shells would be a big problem for the Germans to overcome.
All and all, it would be an interesting battle. I will have to wargame that out on the kitchen table one of these nights, just to see if there is some conclusive proof one way or the other. MDow
Ahh, but how about those things that never make it into the books when they just list the displacement and such?
The Bismarck had a better fire control system. Except for the fact that the Iowa was commisioned late in the war and was able to take advantage of the US development of mm wavelength fire control radars, the German fire conrol systems were more reliable and accurate for long range fire.
The Bismarck's guns outranged the guns on the Iowa. The 15" guns outranged the 16" by about 5000-10000 (don't have the numbers handy) yards. This would give her an increadible advantage in combat assuming that the range for visibility was great enough.
The Bismarck had better protection. I am not talking in terms of sheer armor thickness (in which they are fairly equal), but sub-division and redundancy. The Germans designed and increadible torpedo defence scheme that stood up to a massive pounding without failing. Don't forget that the Bismarck was hit by two torpedoes before the imfamous hit that jammed her rudder. Once the final battle began she was hit by numerous torpedoes which did not penetrate her defences. The Iowa's scheme was very similar to the one on the North Carolina which suffered heavy damage from a single torpedo abeam her forward turrets.
The Bismarck had much heavier secondary batteries. 12 5.9" guns plus her 4" anti-aircraft guns. Her secondary battery was almost as heavy as some cruisers. The Iowa had the fantastic 5"/38 which was unfortunately a very light shell due to the requirement for AA ability.
The Iowa did have a huge advantage in the 16"/50 guns that she carried. The 2700 lb shell that she fired was one of the most powerful ever designed. Those large shells would be a big problem for the Germans to overcome.
All and all, it would be an interesting battle. I will have to wargame that out on the kitchen table one of these nights, just to see if there is some conclusive proof one way or the other. MDow
I found this article and started wondering if the stuff about the destroyer units couldn't be implemented into the naval doctrines. Choosing between destroyer groups lead by a CL or a larger DD, for instance. The CL groups would pack more puch (and possibly better org), but be slower (and maybe have lower SD to represent the CL being easier to hit). Or homogeneity/heterogeneity, with the homogeneous DD flotillas having lower supply consumption and the heterogeneous ones having one of the stats upped a bit (better range of weapons to counter a threat could be the rationale).
What do you think?
What do you think?
There is already something like that in the draft naval doctrines for 0.7. There are a series of doctrines that allow the player (or AI) to select the charecteristics of their units. For destroyers, this is the choice about whether destroyers are primarily a defensive unit (screening the fleet) or an offensive unit (attcking the enemy). Traditionally, British and US destroyers operated in the screening role. They were to keep enemy destroyers and scouting units away from the battleline. Japanese destroyers operated in the attacking role. They had large torpedoes and were designed to be faster and smaller so they could penetrate the enemy screen and attack the battlefleet. There is also a doctrine allowing you to decide if large destroyers are a philosophy that your fleet wants to follow. This would enable a model called Large Destroyer and disable the 1500 and 2000 ton destroyer models. Is that close to what you have in mind, or does it need to go farther? MDow
I didn't have anything in mind, precisely. I just saw that text and thought some of those things might be interesting as specialized doctrines and would create some choices for the player.
On a completely unrelated subject, why would someone describe a CL as 'US Design VII'? Saw this in a wargaming discussion board while looking for something else, and was intrigued.
On a completely unrelated subject, why would someone describe a CL as 'US Design VII'? Saw this in a wargaming discussion board while looking for something else, and was intrigued.
CA & BB Categories
Very interesting.
CA comment #1: I like the position of the Alaska class as "Supercruisers". They were laid down so soon after the Baltimores that making them a subsequent class is usually hard to research. However, their build times were battleship sized. Since their firepower is based on the large caliber of their main battery which gun are you planning as a prerequisite?
CA Comment #2: Class 9A "Rapid Fire" Heavy Cruiser - is there a spot for the Des Moines class between the Baltimore and ahead of the Albany class? The principal advantage they had was the new automatic 8" rifle that increased their rate of fire - it would also be the key enabling technology.
BB Comment #1: Fast Dreadnought vs. Super Dreadnought. These ships had very similar main batteries (8x16" on Nagato vs. 8x16" on Colorado) so the attack strength should be the same. The difference is certainly speed and maybe a point less of defense. However, during the interwar refits the British fast dreadnoughts picked up armor at the expense of speed while the Italians picked up speed and displacement in their refits.
BB Comment #2: I wouldn't go so far as Barnacle Bill to give the Iowas unquestioned superiority to Bismarck but I'm not so sure Bismarck's a grade better. The Krupp Sk C/34 Rifles on the Bismarck only reached out to 40,000 yards due to the 30 degree maximum elevation limit on her turrets. (In shore installations they had up to 52 degree elevation and a corresponding increase in range to 46,000 yards). See http://www.warships1.com/ . That means the Bismarck only had a few thousand yards of extra range on the Mark VII 16" rifles on the Iowa's. However, your points about the superb protection of the Bismarck are strong, too. At the risk of giving the Germans another special unit, what about giving the them a unique tech for "Superb Compartmentation" that enables a "Post-treaty Protected Battleship". It has the same combat values as a regular Post-treaty battleship except the sea defence is two or three points better.
BB Comment #3: Would the Kirov qualify as the Class 14 or do you consider it a cruiser derivative?
Very interesting.
CA comment #1: I like the position of the Alaska class as "Supercruisers". They were laid down so soon after the Baltimores that making them a subsequent class is usually hard to research. However, their build times were battleship sized. Since their firepower is based on the large caliber of their main battery which gun are you planning as a prerequisite?
CA Comment #2: Class 9A "Rapid Fire" Heavy Cruiser - is there a spot for the Des Moines class between the Baltimore and ahead of the Albany class? The principal advantage they had was the new automatic 8" rifle that increased their rate of fire - it would also be the key enabling technology.
BB Comment #1: Fast Dreadnought vs. Super Dreadnought. These ships had very similar main batteries (8x16" on Nagato vs. 8x16" on Colorado) so the attack strength should be the same. The difference is certainly speed and maybe a point less of defense. However, during the interwar refits the British fast dreadnoughts picked up armor at the expense of speed while the Italians picked up speed and displacement in their refits.
BB Comment #2: I wouldn't go so far as Barnacle Bill to give the Iowas unquestioned superiority to Bismarck but I'm not so sure Bismarck's a grade better. The Krupp Sk C/34 Rifles on the Bismarck only reached out to 40,000 yards due to the 30 degree maximum elevation limit on her turrets. (In shore installations they had up to 52 degree elevation and a corresponding increase in range to 46,000 yards). See http://www.warships1.com/ . That means the Bismarck only had a few thousand yards of extra range on the Mark VII 16" rifles on the Iowa's. However, your points about the superb protection of the Bismarck are strong, too. At the risk of giving the Germans another special unit, what about giving the them a unique tech for "Superb Compartmentation" that enables a "Post-treaty Protected Battleship". It has the same combat values as a regular Post-treaty battleship except the sea defence is two or three points better.
BB Comment #3: Would the Kirov qualify as the Class 14 or do you consider it a cruiser derivative?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BB Models Update
Well, in HOI terms fire control & such can be handled independently of the model. Perhaps another way of looking at it is which other ships you plan to assign to the two models in question.
Another possibility is that they are the result alternative doctrines, like the various tank models. Then it would not matter which one had the higher number, because nobody would ever have both techs.
BTW, what are you using to game these things?
Well, in HOI terms fire control & such can be handled independently of the model. Perhaps another way of looking at it is which other ships you plan to assign to the two models in question.
Another possibility is that they are the result alternative doctrines, like the various tank models. Then it would not matter which one had the higher number, because nobody would ever have both techs.
BTW, what are you using to game these things?
I was thinking of using Fighting Steel from SSI, but you have to be careful since you can have a GIGO if the simulation itself is flawed.
There are also some old paper and pencil sim's from the 1970s and early 80s I have in a drawer somewhere.
There are also some old paper and pencil sim's from the 1970s and early 80s I have in a drawer somewhere.
Excellent!
These doctrines should go beyond simply ship design philosophies. They should include war-fighting strategies. You build a different fleet if you:
a) anticipate fighting for control of the seas with battle fleets
b) have a lot of maritime trade to defend (may or may not be "ANDed" with "a")
c) anticipate naval economic warfare targetting a maritime power's trade
d) figure on writing off the blue water & just defending your coast
e) are small/poor so "c" looks good but you've got overseas colonies to worry about
f) are small/poor but want a capital ship or two on hand as the naval equivalent of a "parade ground army"
The thing about "a" & "b" is best illustrated by an example: the UK was "a" AND "b" - so they built a big battle fleet but also wads of lighter units, while Kaiser Bill's Imperial Germany was "a" only.
The choices influence both force mix and ship design - for example unless you are doing "c" you'd never build pocket battleships.
On the Alaska's, Jane's says that design-wise they were stretched Baltimore-class heavy cruisers, but rates them as battlecruisers. As MateDow wrote, though, they were intended to chase a ficticious Japanese class of commerce raiders, and when the bogey proved bogus they were cut from a planned class of 12 to only two. So, it would be unrealistic for the AI to mass produce them instead of CA's.
The problem with the Alaskas was that the Iowa Class was just as fast, larger, better armour, better guns, and also about as much to build and maintain.
Oh, I never said they were a good idea...
However, they displaced 27,500 tons (standard) compared to 45,000 tons for the Iowas, so I rather doubt they cost the same.
Interestingly, the French Dunkerque class battlecruisers were about the same size (26,500 tons). These ships carried 13" guns vs the Alaka's 12". The German Scharnhorts (31,850 tons) were supposedly in response to the Dunkerques.
That background is probably why Janes classifies the Alaskas as battlecruisers.
Naval Doctrine Outline
Here is a sneak peak at teh new naval doctine tree so people can see where I am going with this...
Basic Naval Doctrines
Sea Control Doctrine
Commerce Warfare Doctrine
Commerce Protection Doctrine
Admiralty Development
Offensive Destroyer Doctrine
Screening Destroyer Doctrine
Large Destroyer Doctrine
Cruisers in Battleline Doctrine
Scouting Cruiser Doctrine
Cruiser Commerce Raider Doctrine
Battleship Firepower Superiority Doctrine
Battleship Speed Superiority Doctrine
Battleship Protection Superiority Doctrine
Great War Naval Experience Doctrines
Submarine Operational Docrine
Carrier Operational Doctrine
Battleline Doctrine
Auxilary Cruiser Doctrine
Convoy Operational Doctrine
Close Blockade Doctrine
Distant Blockade Doctrine
Unrestricted Submarine Warfare Doctrine
Interwar Naval Doctrines
Carrier Battleline Support Doctrine
Carrier Independent Operations Doctrine
Carrier Armored Deck Doctrine
Underway Replenishment Doctrine
Mobile Base Defence Doctrine
Fixed Fortification Base Defence Doctrine
Basic Invasion Organization
Capital Ship Commerce Raider Doctrine
Submarine Anti-Naval Unit Doctrine
Submarine Anti-Commerce Doctrine
Early War Naval Experience Doctrines
Focal Point Protection Doctrine
Submarine Wolfpack Doctrine
Coastal Convoys Doctrine
Carrier Task Force Doctrine
Destroyer Same Design Focus Doctrine
Specialized ASW Craft Doctrine
Improved Invasion Organization
Forward Logistical Support Doctrine
Middle War Naval Experience Doctrine
Choke Point Control Doctrine
Coordinated ASW Tactics Doctrine
Naval Air Support Doctrine
Maritime Air Superiority Doctrine
Submarine Underway Replenishment Doctrine
Carrier Screening by Battleships Doctrine
Advanced Invasion Organization
Late War Naval Experience Doctrines
Hunter-Killer Group Doctrine
Sea Lane Control Doctrine
Airborne Radar Warning Doctrine
Nuclear Propulsion Organization
Let me know what you all think. MDow
Here is a sneak peak at teh new naval doctine tree so people can see where I am going with this...
Basic Naval Doctrines
Sea Control Doctrine
Commerce Warfare Doctrine
Commerce Protection Doctrine
Admiralty Development
Offensive Destroyer Doctrine
Screening Destroyer Doctrine
Large Destroyer Doctrine
Cruisers in Battleline Doctrine
Scouting Cruiser Doctrine
Cruiser Commerce Raider Doctrine
Battleship Firepower Superiority Doctrine
Battleship Speed Superiority Doctrine
Battleship Protection Superiority Doctrine
Great War Naval Experience Doctrines
Submarine Operational Docrine
Carrier Operational Doctrine
Battleline Doctrine
Auxilary Cruiser Doctrine
Convoy Operational Doctrine
Close Blockade Doctrine
Distant Blockade Doctrine
Unrestricted Submarine Warfare Doctrine
Interwar Naval Doctrines
Carrier Battleline Support Doctrine
Carrier Independent Operations Doctrine
Carrier Armored Deck Doctrine
Underway Replenishment Doctrine
Mobile Base Defence Doctrine
Fixed Fortification Base Defence Doctrine
Basic Invasion Organization
Capital Ship Commerce Raider Doctrine
Submarine Anti-Naval Unit Doctrine
Submarine Anti-Commerce Doctrine
Early War Naval Experience Doctrines
Focal Point Protection Doctrine
Submarine Wolfpack Doctrine
Coastal Convoys Doctrine
Carrier Task Force Doctrine
Destroyer Same Design Focus Doctrine
Specialized ASW Craft Doctrine
Improved Invasion Organization
Forward Logistical Support Doctrine
Middle War Naval Experience Doctrine
Choke Point Control Doctrine
Coordinated ASW Tactics Doctrine
Naval Air Support Doctrine
Maritime Air Superiority Doctrine
Submarine Underway Replenishment Doctrine
Carrier Screening by Battleships Doctrine
Advanced Invasion Organization
Late War Naval Experience Doctrines
Hunter-Killer Group Doctrine
Sea Lane Control Doctrine
Airborne Radar Warning Doctrine
Nuclear Propulsion Organization
Let me know what you all think. MDow
Zeppelins
This might seem silly, but I've always had a soft spot for these beasts. Like the flying boats, these would not be actual units but abstracted into doctrines. In the context here:
Great War Doctrine:
Airship Scouting Doctrine - Basic Dirigibles (cruiser org?)
Interwar Doctrine:
Improved Airship Scouting - Improved Dirigibles (Graf Zeppelin, Shendadoah, R101) (cruiser org)
Carrier Airships - Advanced Dirigibles (Akron/Hindenburg) (diplomatic influence (?) ) Too fragile for combat with the improvements in heavier than air warplanes.
Middle War Doctrine
ASW Blimps - Wartime LTA - improves ASW effectiveness of escorts - This is the real pay-off for this whole line of technology development
Late War Doctrine:
Radar Picket Blimps - even better ASW with one of the advanced airborne radar techs as an additional prerequisite.
These five techs are a direct line of development. I can probably find some pic's too.
This might seem silly, but I've always had a soft spot for these beasts. Like the flying boats, these would not be actual units but abstracted into doctrines. In the context here:
Great War Doctrine:
Airship Scouting Doctrine - Basic Dirigibles (cruiser org?)
Interwar Doctrine:
Improved Airship Scouting - Improved Dirigibles (Graf Zeppelin, Shendadoah, R101) (cruiser org)
Carrier Airships - Advanced Dirigibles (Akron/Hindenburg) (diplomatic influence (?) ) Too fragile for combat with the improvements in heavier than air warplanes.
Middle War Doctrine
ASW Blimps - Wartime LTA - improves ASW effectiveness of escorts - This is the real pay-off for this whole line of technology development
Late War Doctrine:
Radar Picket Blimps - even better ASW with one of the advanced airborne radar techs as an additional prerequisite.
These five techs are a direct line of development. I can probably find some pic's too.
Re: Zeppelins
I think these would be more appropriate as techs than as doctrines. I think that these should either go in the heavy aircraft tech or the naval tech. We could have the Great War doctrine of Heavier Than Air Doctrine as a key to those tech though. MDow
I think these would be more appropriate as techs than as doctrines. I think that these should either go in the heavy aircraft tech or the naval tech. We could have the Great War doctrine of Heavier Than Air Doctrine as a key to those tech though. MDow
zeppelins
It would work as a tech, too. I would vote for naval instead of heavy air since operationally they operated more as scouting cruisers or flying ocean liners compared to HTA planes. One exception might be a crude Great War LTA strategic bomber that would belong in the heavy air tree. But I would argue we could skip that for 1936-1947 even if it ought to be in a Great War scenario.
Oh, and by the way, I like the speed/gun/protection doctrine idea. Looking at the national design schools you can see the Germans are clearly protection doctrine, the USA and Japan are gunnery, and the Italians are speed. This might also mean tweaking the Cruiser and BB pre-requisites, too. Alaska super-cruisers are only available to a gunnery doctrine, Bismarck battleships to a protection doctrine, etc.
Historically, what would you have called for the French and British?
I'm wondering if there isn't a 4th doctrine around aggressive ship-handling that is a pure ORG improvement at the expense of losing access to some of the specialty ship classes ships. Just an idea . . .
It would work as a tech, too. I would vote for naval instead of heavy air since operationally they operated more as scouting cruisers or flying ocean liners compared to HTA planes. One exception might be a crude Great War LTA strategic bomber that would belong in the heavy air tree. But I would argue we could skip that for 1936-1947 even if it ought to be in a Great War scenario.
Oh, and by the way, I like the speed/gun/protection doctrine idea. Looking at the national design schools you can see the Germans are clearly protection doctrine, the USA and Japan are gunnery, and the Italians are speed. This might also mean tweaking the Cruiser and BB pre-requisites, too. Alaska super-cruisers are only available to a gunnery doctrine, Bismarck battleships to a protection doctrine, etc.
Historically, what would you have called for the French and British?
I'm wondering if there isn't a 4th doctrine around aggressive ship-handling that is a pure ORG improvement at the expense of losing access to some of the specialty ship classes ships. Just an idea . . .
I would say somewhere near the LST. OTOH, I don't remember if the LST is in there...