mhitchens1963 said:
Hi
I'm mad enought to give it a go
I have some knowledge of naval history and would like to help.
Go for it!
Maybe some of this is stuff that's been hashed out before - my apologies if so
(but directions to or summaries of the arguments would be appreciated). Also, apologies in advance for errors or things that have been superseded by the next version of CORE.
Just played my first CORE game – loved it, may never go back to Vanilla.
It does get addicting doesn't it
[/quote]But I do have a few questions/issues about the Naval models and OOB (my pet subject).
Models first. For the most part I really like the models – they’re things that should be done to Vanilla.
Just a few concerns though:
1. Do you really think the pre-dreadnaughts should have an attack 75% of that of a dreadnaught? A broadside from a typical dreadnaught would have been 8-10 x 12” or 13.5”. That of a pre-dreadnaught perhaps 4x11” or 12” and maybe 3(or so) x 9.2” (or something like that). I think a sea attack of 10 would be better. They were also affected by the difficulties of distinguising between the splashes of the main and secondary batteries, reducing the raw effectiveness of their guns.[/quote]
Look at it from the point of view if you were going to build an entirely new pre-dreadnaught type battleship in 1936. I will use US guns and units of measure. You could build a ship with 4 12" guns and long range 8" guns or 6" guns as a seconday battery. Your fire control would be able to better control all of the guns. Don't forget that the
Dreadnaught only had a four gun broadside advantage over the preceeding
Lord Nelson-class and lost those semi-heavy guns (5 9.2" per broadside IRC). In a close range battle the semi-heavies could do a lot of damage with a higher rate of fire.
I think it would be realistic to lower the attack rating though. I think 10 wouldn't be unreasonable.
2. I'm sorry but I have to think the armoured cruiser is over-rated as it stands. It is currently far superior to the Treaty Heavy Cruiser (attack/defence 9/8 vs. 8/3). Even if they had impressive armour thicknesses (typically around a six inch belt and a two inch deck) their subdivision and armour arrangement was completely obsolete by the 30’s – these are very old ships (I can’t think of any launched post-1905). I would say a defence of 6 at best (possibly even 5).
While their armament may look impressive on paper (for example, SMS Scharnhorst at 8x8” and 6x5.9”, HMS Minotaur at 4x9.2” and 10x7.5”) not all guns could fire on a single broadside (6x8” and 3x5.9” for SMS Scharhorst, 4x9.2” and 5x7.5” for HMS Minotaur). Some of the main and all of the secondary were typically in casemates or situated on lower decks, which reduced the gun’s effectiveness. They also suffered from the difficulties of sighting and laying mixed batteries. As a result I would say an attack of 5 or 6 would be better.
Together this would make them superior to their contemporaries but inferior to latter ships, which sounds right. The armoured cruiser was an obsolete type – no major power built them after about 1906. But as it stands they are a very sound investment, having superior attack and defence, but equal cost, to a post treaty heavy cruiser.
The armored cruiser is a much larger ship than the treaty heavy cruiser. They are almost twice the size (approx 17000 tons). That would give them a much larger defense rating not counting their armor which was about 5 or 6 times thicker.
I might be willing to lower the attack rating to 8 which would make them equal to a treaty heavy cruiser. I think the weight of shell should be taken into account. 4 10" shells and numerous 6" shells (US
Tennessee-class armored cruisers) is a lot of weight of shell. If these ships had been modernized instead of disposed of, they would have had equal fire control equipment to the treaty heavy cruisers. The reason the US didn't modernize their armored cruisers was their lack of speed and large crews. There were proposals to modernize the armored cruisers in the same manner that the US upgraded the
Pennsylvania-class and
Oklahoma-class battleships. That would have given them modern fire control equipment and more efficient machinery allowing for better underwater protection.
3. Speaking of the Treaty Heavy Cruiser should its basic defence really be less than that of the Treaty Light Cruiser? I think the Treaty Heavy Cruiser should have a defence of 5 – it fits much better into the sequence then.
The additional weight of the 8" guns and turrets meant that there was less weight available for armor protection than their contemporary light cruisers. Compare the US
Brooklyn-class light cruisers with the
New Orleans-class heavy cruisers. The light cruiser has thicker armor and better subdivision.
4. The Pocket battleship is also well overrated at attack 11 defence 8. The only example of the type was the Deutschland class - and they were really cruisers armed with 11" guns:
6x11” main armament
2.25”-3” belt (or 60mm-80mm, depending on source)
1.5” deck
3.5”-5.5” main turret
11,700t standard displacement
Their displacement and armour is almost indistinguishable from contemporary cruisers.
Compare to Treaty Heavy Cruisers:
British 8x8” cruiser
8x8” main armament
1” belt
1”-4” ammunition box
1” turrets
10,000t standard displacement
Pola
8x8” main armament
100mm-150mm belt
20mm-70mm deck
120mm-150mm main turret
11,700t standard displacement
Duquesne
8x8” main armament
1” belt
1” box citadel
1” main turret
10,000t standard displacement
Hipper
8x8” main armament
1.5”-3.25” belt
0.5”-1.25” deck
2.25”-6.25” main turret
14,00t standard displacement
I could go on, but I think the idea is clear. Now I think a case could be made that the German and Italian cruisers are actually post-treaty, but even that says that the pocket battleship’s sea defence should, at best, be the same as a post treaty cruiser’s – that is 6, not 8. Perhaps a defence of 5 is not out of the question.
As to its attack, well they had two-thirds the guns of the Scharnhorst’s. Small treaty battlecruisers have an attack of 14 – give the pocket battleships 2/3 of that – 9 or 10. Actually 10 attack, 5 defence sounds right – better attack but weaker defence than a post-treaty heavy cruiser.
I would agree that 10 would probably be more realistic. I don't agree that the defense would be equal to a treaty cruiser of any sort. One thing that all of the above stats show is the absolute superiority of the German ship's armor protection. The
Graf Spee was almost able to defeat
three treaty cruisers by itself. That shows the ability to absorb damage and the ability to hold three ships at bay with gunfire. I have wargamed that battle when the
Graf Spee concentrated her fire on a single opponent and was able to pick them off in turn. It is clearly possible that the battle could have been won.
5. The sloop type. Different navies used the term “sloop” to refer to very different types. For example, the British Hastings class (Folkestone, Hastings, Penzance, Scarborough) which you have represented as separate vessels were
1045t standard displacement
16.5kts
2x4”, 2x3pr, some DC
This shows the way the British used “sloop” – for convoy escorts of 1000-2000t, in ship-to-ship combat terms inferior to a destroyer. I know there are some ships called “sloops” with, for example, 6x6” guns, but this just shows you can’t use the type name as definitive. Rating the UK sloops as a cruiser type both overrates them and prevents them being used as escorts – under the current CORE classifications these ships would be better rated as corvettes – and I’m assuming it would, as usual, take multiple actual such ships to make a HOI destroyer type-unit. By the way these comments also apply to the UK Shoreham class (almost identical statistics as the Hastings) – I haven’t checked further. Anyway, what I'm saying is more of an OOB issue than a models issue - the sloop type you have existed (ie a very light cruiser) but some of the things you've used that model for should have used a different model (even if they were historicallly called "sloops")
I can extend all the above with further examples - but didn't want to to start with. Thoughts?
Michael
The sloop is currently a type in development. The sloop was originally put into the game to be the smallest class of cruiser in the game. As such, I looked at the Washington Treaty definition of a sloop as a warship with a displacement less than 2000 tons and guns 6" or smaller. As it has evolved we have ended up with ships that don't quite fit that mold, but were still significant warships. I have been thinking of adding a class of sloop that is a destroyer which would come in between the 1000 ton destroyer and the 1500 ton destroyer. I am still working out how that would work. The difficulty with adding a new class is having to rework
ALL of the OOBs. Not something that I have time for at the moment. It lives in the same category as the small passenger liner. Something that is on the drawing board for balance purposes but not in the game yet
Thank you for your time. I appologize for the time that it took me to reply. Due to the nature of my work, I am fairly out of touch for extended periods of time (Yes it is one of those times again
) Keep up the good work. MDow
