Hey - What are the reasons for the changes in position of the UK Island ports with regards to the Hexes? I see Portsmouth's port is now facing into the channel, why?
-
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.
The Dutch cruiser De Ruyter is in their OOB even though she wasn't commissioned until October 3rd, 1936, also, why is the Tromp a model 3 light cruiser? Shouldn't she be a model 5?
Last edited:
Also the Blücher and Admiral Hipper are reversed in the german building column.
Blücher should be comissioned in 1940 (she was barely operational when she was sunk) and Hipper before, not vice versa as it is now.
And of course the stupid "Zerstörer Gruppe" thing again.
I played as the Swiss and when I build the Swiss navy after expanding to northern Italy I got "Zerstörergeschwader" which is far better. (AAR pending if you want
)
Blücher should be comissioned in 1940 (she was barely operational when she was sunk) and Hipper before, not vice versa as it is now.
And of course the stupid "Zerstörer Gruppe" thing again.
I played as the Swiss and when I build the Swiss navy after expanding to northern Italy I got "Zerstörergeschwader" which is far better. (AAR pending if you want
)
Any successful Swiss AAR is worth writing! I don't believe I've ever even have read one!
The Blücher was commissioned September 15th, 1935. The Admiral Hipper was commissioned April 29th, 1939. They should be changed to these dates for their completion
The Blücher was commissioned September 15th, 1935. The Admiral Hipper was commissioned April 29th, 1939. They should be changed to these dates for their completion
Semi-Lobster said:
The Blücher was commisioned on 20th September 1939 according to this site (in German) http://home.t-online.de/home/jgust/swkreuz.htm
I assume that you misstyped 1935, should be 1939
Semi-Lobster said:
It's called COREitis and if you suffer from AARitis the same time like the two of us seem to it's a dangerous combination
Ghost_dk
I did look it up;
According to Breyer, Blücher was comissioned on 20th September 1939
Admiral Hipper on 29th April 1939.
Blücher layed down in 1935, not comissioned
Prinz Eugen was launched in April 1936 and layed down in August 1935, so it should be on the building list as well.
Seydlitz and Lützow were layed down in 36 and 37 respectively.
And again I have to lobby for renaming the "Zerstörergruppen" in "Zerstörerflotillen". I would do it myself but somehow I cant edit the .csv files without crashing HOI (I'm fairly new to HOI, is there any special thing to observe when editing .csv files? I use the Excel from Office 98)
Also, the "improved Hipper" type as post treaty cruiser should not be there. The Prince and the two incomplete cruisers were considered "improved" but differences were minor. Originally it was planned to build them with 12 15cm, but that was changed during planning. And after these "pleasure boats" the Kriegsmarine was sobered up regarding "Washington Types" and did not plan to build further vessels with 20cm Armament.
Maybe consider all Hippers "post treaty" types??
Their displacement surely would warrant this, but their capabilities probably not. They were still a far cry from the Baltimore class which I would say is post-treaty.
Regarding other class names, I'm not content with german early carriers.
"Stuttgart class" was simply an old protected cruiser (similar to the famous Emden) with a Floatplane hangar on its stern, but otherwise unchanged. The plane could not be launched from aboard the ship. It was planned to convert the ACR SMS Roon into a avaition cruiser but that plan was stalled by bureacracy until it was too late (alledgedly the Roon was too valuable as a training ship to be converted). The first real conversion was the Ausonia, a liner under construction for italian buyers, which was to be converted to something similar to HMS Argus in 1918-19. So maybe the "conversions" should be "Ausonia class" not "Stuttgart".
And "de Grasse" is also not really good for a prewar classe. De Grasse was only to be converted in 1941. So maybe "Roon" would be better, assuming that she would have been converted along similar lines than HMS Furious (even though Roon was much slower than Furious).
(source, Marine-Arsenal Volume about aviation Motherships, by Siegfried Breyer)
Also during my heroic battles with the swiss in the adriatic I noted the Yugoslavs have a "Zmaj class" 500 ton destroyer and their MTBs are T-class.
"Zmaj" was a small seaplane tender of 2500 tons with 2 10,5 cm guns which should be a sloop. The T-Class are ex austro-hungarian steam Torpedo boats of 250 tons, which should be 500 ton destroyers. The Royal Yugoslav Navy had a class of 8 Lürssen build S-Boats, the Orjen Class. These were later used by the Kriegsmarine. They were using gasoline engines instead of diesels like Kriegsmarine S-Boats and were armed with french 55cm Torpedoes. So these were german boats with french torpedoes and czech guns
According to Breyer, Blücher was comissioned on 20th September 1939
Admiral Hipper on 29th April 1939.
Blücher layed down in 1935, not comissioned
Prinz Eugen was launched in April 1936 and layed down in August 1935, so it should be on the building list as well.
Seydlitz and Lützow were layed down in 36 and 37 respectively.
And again I have to lobby for renaming the "Zerstörergruppen" in "Zerstörerflotillen". I would do it myself but somehow I cant edit the .csv files without crashing HOI (I'm fairly new to HOI, is there any special thing to observe when editing .csv files? I use the Excel from Office 98)
Also, the "improved Hipper" type as post treaty cruiser should not be there. The Prince and the two incomplete cruisers were considered "improved" but differences were minor. Originally it was planned to build them with 12 15cm, but that was changed during planning. And after these "pleasure boats" the Kriegsmarine was sobered up regarding "Washington Types" and did not plan to build further vessels with 20cm Armament.
Maybe consider all Hippers "post treaty" types??
Their displacement surely would warrant this, but their capabilities probably not. They were still a far cry from the Baltimore class which I would say is post-treaty.
Regarding other class names, I'm not content with german early carriers.
"Stuttgart class" was simply an old protected cruiser (similar to the famous Emden) with a Floatplane hangar on its stern, but otherwise unchanged. The plane could not be launched from aboard the ship. It was planned to convert the ACR SMS Roon into a avaition cruiser but that plan was stalled by bureacracy until it was too late (alledgedly the Roon was too valuable as a training ship to be converted). The first real conversion was the Ausonia, a liner under construction for italian buyers, which was to be converted to something similar to HMS Argus in 1918-19. So maybe the "conversions" should be "Ausonia class" not "Stuttgart".
And "de Grasse" is also not really good for a prewar classe. De Grasse was only to be converted in 1941. So maybe "Roon" would be better, assuming that she would have been converted along similar lines than HMS Furious (even though Roon was much slower than Furious).
(source, Marine-Arsenal Volume about aviation Motherships, by Siegfried Breyer)
Also during my heroic battles with the swiss in the adriatic I noted the Yugoslavs have a "Zmaj class" 500 ton destroyer and their MTBs are T-class.
"Zmaj" was a small seaplane tender of 2500 tons with 2 10,5 cm guns which should be a sloop. The T-Class are ex austro-hungarian steam Torpedo boats of 250 tons, which should be 500 ton destroyers. The Royal Yugoslav Navy had a class of 8 Lürssen build S-Boats, the Orjen Class. These were later used by the Kriegsmarine. They were using gasoline engines instead of diesels like Kriegsmarine S-Boats and were armed with french 55cm Torpedoes. So these were german boats with french torpedoes and czech guns
Last edited:
AntEater said:
Dont use Excel, it cannot handle .csv files correctly. It does not like the ";" sign. Use Open Office instead or a plain text editor like Ultraedit or Notepad
AntEater said:I did look it up;
According to Breyer, Blücher was comissioned on 20th September 1939
Admiral Hipper on 29th April 1939.
Blücher layed down in 1935, not comissioned
Prinz Eugen was launched in April 1936 and layed down in August 1935, so it should be on the building list as well.
Seydlitz and Lützow were layed down in 36 and 37 respectively.
I mentioned that lready but my sources say the Blücher was commissioned in 20.09.1939.
Like you said they're not in the same league as other Heavy cruisers, for stats specific reasons talk to MateDow when he comes back.
I agree!
She was a cruiser, she was then converted. I think she'd be a cruiser conversion then. Just because the cruiser conversion is the second carrier available doesn't mean it has to be old.
Also during my heroic battles with the swiss in the adriatic I noted the Yugoslavs have a "Zmaj class" 500 ton destroyer and their MTBs are T-class.
"Zmaj" was a small seaplane tender of 2500 tons with 2 10,5 cm guns which should be a sloop. The T-Class are ex austro-hungarian steam Torpedo boats of 250 tons, which should be 500 ton destroyers. The Royal Yugoslav Navy had a class of 8 Lürssen build S-Boats, the Orjen Class. These were later used by the Kriegsmarine. They were using gasoline engines instead of diesels like Kriegsmarine S-Boats and were armed with french 55cm Torpedoes. So these were german boats with french torpedoes and czech guns
The Zmaj class ship you saw was actually the old light cruiser Dubrovnik and was a model 0 sloop. The DD at the end of the name is well.... I have no idea why it's there. We tried to combine historical Austro-Hungarian ships and Yugoslavian ship models and someone seemed a bit over zealous and chose the Austrian ships over the Yugoslavian ones. You are right, they should say Orjen class.
Semi-Lobster said:
I agree. Remeber the turrets often housed a total of two guns (1 fore, 1 aft), although in some classes it was four guns (2 fore, 2 aft).
See my posts following this one for even more reasons to de-rate the armoured cruisers.
Semi-lobster said:
Sounds fine to me. It should be there in some form - gives the Germans something to bomb.
Michael
This series of posts started up as a continuation of the debate over the defence of treaty light and heavy cruisers. It ended up also covering the pocket battleships and (yet again) armoured cruisers.
I make some comments as I go, but see the end for final conclusions.
As always, only my opinion - other opinions welcome (but you should be aware by now how much I love quoting figures).
Michael
I make some comments as I go, but see the end for final conclusions.
As always, only my opinion - other opinions welcome (but you should be aware by now how much I love quoting figures).
Michael
First, the Commonwealth. I'm looking here at only armour and displacement - the gun calibre doesn;t come into it, as it was pretty standard (6" light, 8" heavy). I'm seeing what these figures can tell us about what the relative values of sea defence should be
UNITED KINGDOM and AUSTRALIA
As initially built many British 8” gunned treaty cruisers had significant protection for the ammunition (and sometimes) machinery spaces. This was called “box” protection, because the armour that was present formed a box around the protected spaces. Before the war, however, many of these ships were given a significant armour belt. This was a major reconstruction, perhaps the best analogy was that given to the older capital Japanese and Italian ships and probably outside the game’s ability to represent. I will give the original and final figure for the amour, but suggest we take the final figures as the significant ones.
Kent class (7 vessels)
Before reconstruction
9800t standard
box protection to ammunition (4” sides, 1”-3” top), 1.5” over machinery and steering, 1” sides, 1” turrets
After reconstruction (only 6 vessels reconstructed)
10900t standard
4.5” belt added
London Class (4 vessels)
Before reconstruction
9850t standard
box protection to ammunition (4” sides, 1”-3” top), 1.5” over machinery and steering, 1” sides, 1” turrets
After reconstruction (only some reconstructed)
10900t standard
3.5” belt added
Norfolk Class (2 vessels)
9900t standard
box protection to ammunition (4” sides, 1”-3” top), 1.5” over machinery and steering 1” sides, 1” turrets
1 vessel reconstructed
10900t standard
3.5” belt added
York (1 vessel)
8250t standard
box protection to ammunition (4” sides, 1”-3” top), 3.67” over machinery and steering 3” sides, 1” turrets
Exeter (1 vessel)
8390t standard
box protection to ammunition (4” sides, 1”-3” top), 3.67” over machinery and steering 3” sides, 1” turrets
Leander Class (5 vessels)
7000t
box protection to ammunition (3.5”-1”), 4” belt, 1” turrets
never reconstructed, but note they had a belt from the start
Perth class (3 vessels)
7000t
box protection to ammunition (3.5”-1”), 4” belt, 1” turrets
never reconstructed, but note they had a belt from the start
Arethusa Class (4 vessels)
5250t
box protection to ammunition (3.5”-1”), 2.25” belt, 1” turrets
never reconstructed, but note they had a belt from the start
After this the British started building their 12x6” cruisers, the first class of which was the Southampton. While they were less than 10000t standard (except the Edinburgh class), they were significantly different to the preceding 6” cruisers. Indeed, CORE currently uses “Southampton” as the class name for UK Post-treaty light cruisers. However there is no way that the UK can get to that technology in time to build the Southampton’s as historically (especially as some start 1936 in the build queue). The Southamptons etc certainly should not be put in the same class as the 6 or 8 gunned earlier 6” cruisers. If the Southamptons are to be considered post-treaty light cruisers than that tech should be easier to get or the UK needs to have it as a bonus. I’d avoid this tech problem and consider them the UK treaty light cruiser.
Southampton Class (5 vessels)
9100t
box protection to ammunition (4.5”-1”), 4.5” belt, 1” turrets
Gloucester Class (3 vessels)
9400t
box protection to ammunition (4.5”-1”), 4.5” belt, 4”-2” turrets
Edinburgh Class (2 vessels)
10550t
4.5” belt, 4”-2” turrets
Fiji Class (11 vessels)
8530t
3.5” belt, 2”-1” turrets
So what can we learn from this?
The 12x6” cruisers were better protected than anything that preceded them – given that and their armament they probably do deserve to be a different model to the earlier 6” cruisers. The earlier light cruisers were better protected than the heavy’s – at least until reconstruction of the latter started. Although displacement should play some part, so perhaps they would come out the same. As the type 3 light cruiser and the type 6 treaty heavy cruiser are both sea defence 3 I think this is an argument for making the smaller British 6" cruisers type 3 and the Southhampton's type 5.
Michael
UNITED KINGDOM and AUSTRALIA
As initially built many British 8” gunned treaty cruisers had significant protection for the ammunition (and sometimes) machinery spaces. This was called “box” protection, because the armour that was present formed a box around the protected spaces. Before the war, however, many of these ships were given a significant armour belt. This was a major reconstruction, perhaps the best analogy was that given to the older capital Japanese and Italian ships and probably outside the game’s ability to represent. I will give the original and final figure for the amour, but suggest we take the final figures as the significant ones.
Kent class (7 vessels)
Before reconstruction
9800t standard
box protection to ammunition (4” sides, 1”-3” top), 1.5” over machinery and steering, 1” sides, 1” turrets
After reconstruction (only 6 vessels reconstructed)
10900t standard
4.5” belt added
London Class (4 vessels)
Before reconstruction
9850t standard
box protection to ammunition (4” sides, 1”-3” top), 1.5” over machinery and steering, 1” sides, 1” turrets
After reconstruction (only some reconstructed)
10900t standard
3.5” belt added
Norfolk Class (2 vessels)
9900t standard
box protection to ammunition (4” sides, 1”-3” top), 1.5” over machinery and steering 1” sides, 1” turrets
1 vessel reconstructed
10900t standard
3.5” belt added
York (1 vessel)
8250t standard
box protection to ammunition (4” sides, 1”-3” top), 3.67” over machinery and steering 3” sides, 1” turrets
Exeter (1 vessel)
8390t standard
box protection to ammunition (4” sides, 1”-3” top), 3.67” over machinery and steering 3” sides, 1” turrets
Leander Class (5 vessels)
7000t
box protection to ammunition (3.5”-1”), 4” belt, 1” turrets
never reconstructed, but note they had a belt from the start
Perth class (3 vessels)
7000t
box protection to ammunition (3.5”-1”), 4” belt, 1” turrets
never reconstructed, but note they had a belt from the start
Arethusa Class (4 vessels)
5250t
box protection to ammunition (3.5”-1”), 2.25” belt, 1” turrets
never reconstructed, but note they had a belt from the start
After this the British started building their 12x6” cruisers, the first class of which was the Southampton. While they were less than 10000t standard (except the Edinburgh class), they were significantly different to the preceding 6” cruisers. Indeed, CORE currently uses “Southampton” as the class name for UK Post-treaty light cruisers. However there is no way that the UK can get to that technology in time to build the Southampton’s as historically (especially as some start 1936 in the build queue). The Southamptons etc certainly should not be put in the same class as the 6 or 8 gunned earlier 6” cruisers. If the Southamptons are to be considered post-treaty light cruisers than that tech should be easier to get or the UK needs to have it as a bonus. I’d avoid this tech problem and consider them the UK treaty light cruiser.
Southampton Class (5 vessels)
9100t
box protection to ammunition (4.5”-1”), 4.5” belt, 1” turrets
Gloucester Class (3 vessels)
9400t
box protection to ammunition (4.5”-1”), 4.5” belt, 4”-2” turrets
Edinburgh Class (2 vessels)
10550t
4.5” belt, 4”-2” turrets
Fiji Class (11 vessels)
8530t
3.5” belt, 2”-1” turrets
So what can we learn from this?
The 12x6” cruisers were better protected than anything that preceded them – given that and their armament they probably do deserve to be a different model to the earlier 6” cruisers. The earlier light cruisers were better protected than the heavy’s – at least until reconstruction of the latter started. Although displacement should play some part, so perhaps they would come out the same. As the type 3 light cruiser and the type 6 treaty heavy cruiser are both sea defence 3 I think this is an argument for making the smaller British 6" cruisers type 3 and the Southhampton's type 5.
Michael
UNITED STATES
The US, like the UK, employed the box protection theory for some of their cruisers.
Pensacola Class (2 vessels)
9100t
Machinery box 2.5” side, 1” top, Magazine box, 4” side, 1.75” top, turrets 2.75” – 0.75”
Northampton class (6 vessels)
9000t
Machinery box 3” side, 1” top, Magazine box, 3.75” side, 2” top, turrets 2.5” – 0.75”
Portland class (2 vessels)
10258t
Machinery box 3” side, 2.5” top, Magazine box, 5.75” side, 2.125” top, turrets 2.5” – 0.75”
New Orleans class (7 vessels)
10136t
Machinery box 5.75”-4”” side, 2.25” top, Magazine box, 4-3” side, 2.125” top, turrets 6” – 1.5”
Brooklyn Class (9 vessels)
9800t
5.625” belt, 2” deck, turrets 6.5”-1.25”
Wichita (1 vessel)
10600t
6.63-4.63” belt, 2.25” deck, turrets 8”-1.5”
Cleveland class (27 completed)
11,744t
5”-3.5” belt, 2” deck, 6.5”-1.5” turrets
Baltimore (18 vessels)
14,500t
6”-4” belt, 2.5” deck, 8”-1.5” turrets
After this the 10,000t treaty limit was abandoned and we move in to post treaty territory. So what do we have to here?
Certainly the Brooklyn’s were better protected than the New Orlean’s. But the Wichita was better protected again. Yes, there was only one Wichita but what this shows is that all the above classes were a single progression. Unlike the British, who’s 6” cruisers were a separate design family (or families) from the 8” cruisers, the Brooklyns were not. Another point to consider is that the Brooklyns had a much larger broadside than the earlier British 6” gunned ships. However, equating the Brooklyns and the UK Southamptons and successors sounds reasonable. And as all those classes had better protection than the vast majority of treaty heavy cruisers we have seen so far things are looking good for a rating which has the treaty light cruisers slightly less armed but slightly better protected than the treaty heavy cruisers.
Two problems do appear though. The first is that the UK Leander and Arethusa classes (and Australian Perth class). They have neither the armour nor the armament of the larger 6” treaty cruisers. They would probably be better represented by the light cruiser model (type 3) rather than the treaty light cruiser model (type 5). This would also sidestep the tech issue pointed out earlier, but would require changing the model names (Southampton would become the UK treaty light cruiser, perhaps Tiger or Swiftsure for the post treaty light cruiser). It would make sense in game terms too – the British built the semi-obsolete type 3’s due to their significantly cheaper cost (type 3 1400IC vs type 5 1950IC) to get some sort of functioning cruiser. That the type 3 light cruiser and the type 6 treaty heavy cruiser have the same defence is fine too – the better armour of the small British 6” cruiser is balanced out by the heavier displacement of the 8” type.
A thornier problem is that the treaty light cruisers (Brooklyns, UK Southamptons, etc) had a belt in the order of 4.5” – 5”. Given that the armoured cruisers typically had a belt in the order of that or a bit more (6” with a few exceptions a bit higher) we are back to the question of what the armoured cruiser defence factor should be. Yes they averaged out a higher displacement, but their compartment and armour arrangement was inferior. Note also that the Baltimores – the stereotype post-treaty heavy cruiser – had a 4”-6” belt and a displacement of 14,000t (as representative as anything of the list I gave earlier of armoured crusier stats, if anything the Baltimores are heavier than the armoured cruiser average) plus superior arrangement, the high armoured cruiser defence rating certainly looks dubious to me.
Michael
The US, like the UK, employed the box protection theory for some of their cruisers.
Pensacola Class (2 vessels)
9100t
Machinery box 2.5” side, 1” top, Magazine box, 4” side, 1.75” top, turrets 2.75” – 0.75”
Northampton class (6 vessels)
9000t
Machinery box 3” side, 1” top, Magazine box, 3.75” side, 2” top, turrets 2.5” – 0.75”
Portland class (2 vessels)
10258t
Machinery box 3” side, 2.5” top, Magazine box, 5.75” side, 2.125” top, turrets 2.5” – 0.75”
New Orleans class (7 vessels)
10136t
Machinery box 5.75”-4”” side, 2.25” top, Magazine box, 4-3” side, 2.125” top, turrets 6” – 1.5”
Brooklyn Class (9 vessels)
9800t
5.625” belt, 2” deck, turrets 6.5”-1.25”
Wichita (1 vessel)
10600t
6.63-4.63” belt, 2.25” deck, turrets 8”-1.5”
Cleveland class (27 completed)
11,744t
5”-3.5” belt, 2” deck, 6.5”-1.5” turrets
Baltimore (18 vessels)
14,500t
6”-4” belt, 2.5” deck, 8”-1.5” turrets
After this the 10,000t treaty limit was abandoned and we move in to post treaty territory. So what do we have to here?
Certainly the Brooklyn’s were better protected than the New Orlean’s. But the Wichita was better protected again. Yes, there was only one Wichita but what this shows is that all the above classes were a single progression. Unlike the British, who’s 6” cruisers were a separate design family (or families) from the 8” cruisers, the Brooklyns were not. Another point to consider is that the Brooklyns had a much larger broadside than the earlier British 6” gunned ships. However, equating the Brooklyns and the UK Southamptons and successors sounds reasonable. And as all those classes had better protection than the vast majority of treaty heavy cruisers we have seen so far things are looking good for a rating which has the treaty light cruisers slightly less armed but slightly better protected than the treaty heavy cruisers.
Two problems do appear though. The first is that the UK Leander and Arethusa classes (and Australian Perth class). They have neither the armour nor the armament of the larger 6” treaty cruisers. They would probably be better represented by the light cruiser model (type 3) rather than the treaty light cruiser model (type 5). This would also sidestep the tech issue pointed out earlier, but would require changing the model names (Southampton would become the UK treaty light cruiser, perhaps Tiger or Swiftsure for the post treaty light cruiser). It would make sense in game terms too – the British built the semi-obsolete type 3’s due to their significantly cheaper cost (type 3 1400IC vs type 5 1950IC) to get some sort of functioning cruiser. That the type 3 light cruiser and the type 6 treaty heavy cruiser have the same defence is fine too – the better armour of the small British 6” cruiser is balanced out by the heavier displacement of the 8” type.
A thornier problem is that the treaty light cruisers (Brooklyns, UK Southamptons, etc) had a belt in the order of 4.5” – 5”. Given that the armoured cruisers typically had a belt in the order of that or a bit more (6” with a few exceptions a bit higher) we are back to the question of what the armoured cruiser defence factor should be. Yes they averaged out a higher displacement, but their compartment and armour arrangement was inferior. Note also that the Baltimores – the stereotype post-treaty heavy cruiser – had a 4”-6” belt and a displacement of 14,000t (as representative as anything of the list I gave earlier of armoured crusier stats, if anything the Baltimores are heavier than the armoured cruiser average) plus superior arrangement, the high armoured cruiser defence rating certainly looks dubious to me.
Michael
JAPAN
Furutaka class (2 vessels)
7100t
3” belt, 1.4” deck, 1” turrets
Aoba class (2 vessels)
7100t
3” belt, 1.4” deck, 1” turrets
Nachi class (4 vessels)
10000t
3.9” belt, 1.4” deck, 1” turrets
Takao class (4 vessels)
9850t
4.9”-3.9” belt, 1.4” deck, 1” turrets
Mogami class (4 vessels)
8500t
4.9”-3.9” belt, 2.4”-1.4” deck, 1” turrets
after reconstruction
11200t
armour as before
Tone class (2 vessels)
11215t
4.9”-3.9” belt, 2.5”-1.2” deck, 1” turrets
The original displacement of the Mogami’s is explained by the fact that the ships in that condition were almost unfit for service – hull distortions due to insufficient strength prevented the turrets being properly trained and caused significant stability problems. Once rebuilt they were armed with 8” guns, so should they be light cruisers? Yes, they were better protected than the preceding classes, but so were the Tone’s. It’s only a point each way, so I wouldn’t worry too much, but again it shows that the true treaty cruisers were a reasonably homogenous design family in whatever nation we are talking about. I would rate the Katoris and Agano’s (not listed above) as type 3, not type 5’s, as they were much below the 10000t limit – like the smaller/earlier British cruisers.
Michael
Furutaka class (2 vessels)
7100t
3” belt, 1.4” deck, 1” turrets
Aoba class (2 vessels)
7100t
3” belt, 1.4” deck, 1” turrets
Nachi class (4 vessels)
10000t
3.9” belt, 1.4” deck, 1” turrets
Takao class (4 vessels)
9850t
4.9”-3.9” belt, 1.4” deck, 1” turrets
Mogami class (4 vessels)
8500t
4.9”-3.9” belt, 2.4”-1.4” deck, 1” turrets
after reconstruction
11200t
armour as before
Tone class (2 vessels)
11215t
4.9”-3.9” belt, 2.5”-1.2” deck, 1” turrets
The original displacement of the Mogami’s is explained by the fact that the ships in that condition were almost unfit for service – hull distortions due to insufficient strength prevented the turrets being properly trained and caused significant stability problems. Once rebuilt they were armed with 8” guns, so should they be light cruisers? Yes, they were better protected than the preceding classes, but so were the Tone’s. It’s only a point each way, so I wouldn’t worry too much, but again it shows that the true treaty cruisers were a reasonably homogenous design family in whatever nation we are talking about. I would rate the Katoris and Agano’s (not listed above) as type 3, not type 5’s, as they were much below the 10000t limit – like the smaller/earlier British cruisers.
Michael
GERMANY
---------------
Deutschland (3 vessels)
11700t
3”-2.5” belt, 1.5” deck, 5.5”-3.25” turrets
Hipper class (5 vessels)
14000-16000t
3.25”-1.5” belt, 1.5”-1.25” deck, 6.25-2.25” turrets
Emden (1 vessel)
5600t
1.5” belt, 0.75” deck, 2” gunshields
K class (3 vessels)
6650t
2.75” belt, 1.75” deck, 1.25” turrets
Leipzig (1 vessel)
6500t
2”-1.5” belt, 0.75” deck, 1.25”-0.75’ turrets
Nurnberg (1 vessel)
6500t
6”-0.75” belt, 0.75” deck, 3.25”-0.75’ turrets
What do we get here? By weight, at least the Hippers are post treaty heavy cruisers. Granted, their armour is less than that of the Baltimores, but the Germans do have the commerce raider cruiser doctrine, which reduces a cruiser’s defence rating. I’d be happy with them as treaty or post treaty, but would lean to the post treaty. This does of course leave the problem of should the Germans have that (quite advanced) technology. I admit to a bias in favour of the German navy, in both world wars. I've seen th recent comments about the Hippers vs. the Baltimores and am forced to agree. So may be the Hippers are treaty heavy cruisers, despite their displacement. It would solve the tech problem if so.
I think the Emden does well as a type 3 cruiser. I’d also be inclined to leave the other cruisers as type 5 (treaty light cruisers). Their displacement may be a bit below the 10000t, but their armament is better than the British Leander-type. Given (again) that the German’s have their cruiser defences reduced by the commerce raider doctrine I think type 5 is the best for them. Also the weight is partly due to the use of diesels as part of the propulsion.
It can be seen that the Deutschland’s are currently overrated. Their armour protection is significantly weaker than the Baltimore’s (or even the Brooklyn’s). In fact, apart from the turrets it is weaker than the British 12x6” cruisers and most Japanese ships as well. It is also weaker than the Hippers. Given this I can’t see how an 8 can be supported. 5, perhaps 6, would be better (and that is after making allowance for gun range and displacement). Or, more generally, give the type one more than whatever type of heavy cruiser you deem the Hipper’s (roughly equal armour, slight advantage due to gun range).
Michael
---------------
Deutschland (3 vessels)
11700t
3”-2.5” belt, 1.5” deck, 5.5”-3.25” turrets
Hipper class (5 vessels)
14000-16000t
3.25”-1.5” belt, 1.5”-1.25” deck, 6.25-2.25” turrets
Emden (1 vessel)
5600t
1.5” belt, 0.75” deck, 2” gunshields
K class (3 vessels)
6650t
2.75” belt, 1.75” deck, 1.25” turrets
Leipzig (1 vessel)
6500t
2”-1.5” belt, 0.75” deck, 1.25”-0.75’ turrets
Nurnberg (1 vessel)
6500t
6”-0.75” belt, 0.75” deck, 3.25”-0.75’ turrets
What do we get here? By weight, at least the Hippers are post treaty heavy cruisers. Granted, their armour is less than that of the Baltimores, but the Germans do have the commerce raider cruiser doctrine, which reduces a cruiser’s defence rating. I’d be happy with them as treaty or post treaty, but would lean to the post treaty. This does of course leave the problem of should the Germans have that (quite advanced) technology. I admit to a bias in favour of the German navy, in both world wars. I've seen th recent comments about the Hippers vs. the Baltimores and am forced to agree. So may be the Hippers are treaty heavy cruisers, despite their displacement. It would solve the tech problem if so.
I think the Emden does well as a type 3 cruiser. I’d also be inclined to leave the other cruisers as type 5 (treaty light cruisers). Their displacement may be a bit below the 10000t, but their armament is better than the British Leander-type. Given (again) that the German’s have their cruiser defences reduced by the commerce raider doctrine I think type 5 is the best for them. Also the weight is partly due to the use of diesels as part of the propulsion.
It can be seen that the Deutschland’s are currently overrated. Their armour protection is significantly weaker than the Baltimore’s (or even the Brooklyn’s). In fact, apart from the turrets it is weaker than the British 12x6” cruisers and most Japanese ships as well. It is also weaker than the Hippers. Given this I can’t see how an 8 can be supported. 5, perhaps 6, would be better (and that is after making allowance for gun range and displacement). Or, more generally, give the type one more than whatever type of heavy cruiser you deem the Hipper’s (roughly equal armour, slight advantage due to gun range).
Michael
FRANCE
-----------
Duguay Trouin class (3 vessels)
7249t
0.75” box magazine and steering, 0.75” deck, 1” turrets
Duquesne class(2 vessels)
10000t
1” belt, 1” turrets, 1” box magazine and steering
Suffren class (4 vessels)
9900t
2.25”-2” belt, 1” turrets, 0.75”-1” deck
Jeanne d’Arc
6500t
0.75” box for magazines, plating to gun houses and deck
Algerie (1 vessel)
10000t
4.75” belt, 3.75”-2.75” turrets, 3”-1” deck
Emile Bertin (1 vessel)
5886t
1” deck, 1” turrets, 1” box for magazine
La Galissonniere (6 vessels)
7600t
4” belt, 1.5” deck, 4”-2” turrets
Does not tell us much in general terms, but it can be seen that some of these ships should not be rated as high as they currently are. The current rating of the Jeanne d’Arc as a pocket battleship is obviously an error, perhaps type 3 would suit? The Duquay Trouins are an interesting case – individually rated as Treaty light cruisers, but the name of one of them (Lamotte Picquet) is used for the type 3 light cruisers. Their status, due to their very low amour, is debatable. I’d rate them , on balance, as type 3. I’d also put the Emile Bertin there (this ship is currently not in the OOB, a simple oversight I’d guess).
None of them compare well with the La Galissonniere class, which are obviously the French treaty light cruisers. Again, they are better armoured than the Suffren, the most numerous example of a French treaty heavy cruiser.
Michael
-----------
Duguay Trouin class (3 vessels)
7249t
0.75” box magazine and steering, 0.75” deck, 1” turrets
Duquesne class(2 vessels)
10000t
1” belt, 1” turrets, 1” box magazine and steering
Suffren class (4 vessels)
9900t
2.25”-2” belt, 1” turrets, 0.75”-1” deck
Jeanne d’Arc
6500t
0.75” box for magazines, plating to gun houses and deck
Algerie (1 vessel)
10000t
4.75” belt, 3.75”-2.75” turrets, 3”-1” deck
Emile Bertin (1 vessel)
5886t
1” deck, 1” turrets, 1” box for magazine
La Galissonniere (6 vessels)
7600t
4” belt, 1.5” deck, 4”-2” turrets
Does not tell us much in general terms, but it can be seen that some of these ships should not be rated as high as they currently are. The current rating of the Jeanne d’Arc as a pocket battleship is obviously an error, perhaps type 3 would suit? The Duquay Trouins are an interesting case – individually rated as Treaty light cruisers, but the name of one of them (Lamotte Picquet) is used for the type 3 light cruisers. Their status, due to their very low amour, is debatable. I’d rate them , on balance, as type 3. I’d also put the Emile Bertin there (this ship is currently not in the OOB, a simple oversight I’d guess).
None of them compare well with the La Galissonniere class, which are obviously the French treaty light cruisers. Again, they are better armoured than the Suffren, the most numerous example of a French treaty heavy cruiser.
Michael
ITALY
--------
Trento class (2 vessels)
10300t
70mm belt, 50mm-20mm deck, 100mm turrets
Zara class (4 vessels)
11680t
150mm-100m belt, 70mm-20mm deck, 150-120mm turrets
Bolzano (1 vessel)
11000t
70mm belt, 50mm-20mm deck, 100mm turrets
Giussano class (4 vessels)
5100t
42mm belt, 20mm deck 23mm turrets
Cadorna class (2 vessels)
5300t
42mm belt, 20mm deck 23mm turrets
Montecuccoli class (2 vessels)
7400t
85mm belt, 30mm-20mm deck, 70mm turrets
D’Aosta class (2vessels)
8317t
105mm belt, 35mm-30mm deck, 90mm turrets
Abruzzi class ( 2vessels)
9440t
130mm belt, 40mm-30mm deck, 135mm turrets
Here we have an example of the heavy cruisers actually being better protected than the light. I wouldn’t make too much of a single exception though. I’d make the Zara, rather than the Bolzano, they type name for Italian treaty heavy cruisers – they were more numerous, and better ships. In the light cruisers, the first two classes (Giussano and Cadorna) are noticeably smaller and less protected than the other three. Perhaps they should be type 3 not type 5?
Michael
--------
Trento class (2 vessels)
10300t
70mm belt, 50mm-20mm deck, 100mm turrets
Zara class (4 vessels)
11680t
150mm-100m belt, 70mm-20mm deck, 150-120mm turrets
Bolzano (1 vessel)
11000t
70mm belt, 50mm-20mm deck, 100mm turrets
Giussano class (4 vessels)
5100t
42mm belt, 20mm deck 23mm turrets
Cadorna class (2 vessels)
5300t
42mm belt, 20mm deck 23mm turrets
Montecuccoli class (2 vessels)
7400t
85mm belt, 30mm-20mm deck, 70mm turrets
D’Aosta class (2vessels)
8317t
105mm belt, 35mm-30mm deck, 90mm turrets
Abruzzi class ( 2vessels)
9440t
130mm belt, 40mm-30mm deck, 135mm turrets
Here we have an example of the heavy cruisers actually being better protected than the light. I wouldn’t make too much of a single exception though. I’d make the Zara, rather than the Bolzano, they type name for Italian treaty heavy cruisers – they were more numerous, and better ships. In the light cruisers, the first two classes (Giussano and Cadorna) are noticeably smaller and less protected than the other three. Perhaps they should be type 3 not type 5?
Michael
I think that’s enough to come to some conclusions (I have covered the major navies).
1. Matedow is correct, treaty light cruisers were generally better protected than treaty heavy cruisers.
2. It is important to note that point 1 only applies to what could be called “genuine” treaty light cruisers, a number of cruisers, such as the UK Leander and Arethusa, the French Duquay Trouin and Emile Bertin and Italian Giussano and Cadorna would be better rated as type 3.
3. The pocket battleships (German Deutschlands) do not stand not stand up well in comparative armour terms. Most treaty cruisers had more armour. I would recommend giving the pocket battleships one more point than whatever type of heavy cruiser the Hippers are rated as. Another argument in favour of dropping the pocket battleship rating is comparing them to the Alaskas (the one historical super cruiser class). Both types currently have a defence of 8, but the Alaskas had a 9” belt – over three times that of the Deutschlands! I would also drop the manpower for the pocket battleship from 3 to 2 – the Deutschland’s complement was about 1000 – comparable to that of a treaty cruiser.
4. The amoured cruiser looks worse and worse. Given that the average armoured cruiser was lighter, and had no thicker armour, than the Baltimores, I don’t see how it can be argued that they should have a better defence than the post-treaty heavy cruiser. Given that the newer ships would have better arrangement, give the armoured cruisers a point less – ie, 5. It could even be argued that the Baltimores were modern armoured cruisers – they had the same armour, equivalent armament and better speed – so it makes sense they should be slightly better than the old armoured cruisers. Semi-lobster has suggested dropping the cost if the armoured cruisers capabilities are reduced - I'd support that - may be take its time down to 350?
5. Some consideration could be given to dropping the defence of the post treaty light cruiser to 5, as the Clevelands were not as well armoured as the Baltimores. But we only have one class of each to compare, so I wouldn’t worry too much about this one.
6. Change the type names and fix the the errors as outlined above (eg., UK treaty light cruiser becomes Southampton). Don’t worry about this for now, my next self appointed task is to review the individual OOBs.
Note that points 2 and 3 taken together help explain the Battle of the River Plate in game terms. The Graf Spee was fighting one treaty heavy cruiser and two light cruisers, not one treaty heavy cruiser and two treaty light cruisers.
Oh, and always remember that I'm just tinkering at the edges. The CORE naval mod represents a great deal of very good work.
Michael
1. Matedow is correct, treaty light cruisers were generally better protected than treaty heavy cruisers.
2. It is important to note that point 1 only applies to what could be called “genuine” treaty light cruisers, a number of cruisers, such as the UK Leander and Arethusa, the French Duquay Trouin and Emile Bertin and Italian Giussano and Cadorna would be better rated as type 3.
3. The pocket battleships (German Deutschlands) do not stand not stand up well in comparative armour terms. Most treaty cruisers had more armour. I would recommend giving the pocket battleships one more point than whatever type of heavy cruiser the Hippers are rated as. Another argument in favour of dropping the pocket battleship rating is comparing them to the Alaskas (the one historical super cruiser class). Both types currently have a defence of 8, but the Alaskas had a 9” belt – over three times that of the Deutschlands! I would also drop the manpower for the pocket battleship from 3 to 2 – the Deutschland’s complement was about 1000 – comparable to that of a treaty cruiser.
4. The amoured cruiser looks worse and worse. Given that the average armoured cruiser was lighter, and had no thicker armour, than the Baltimores, I don’t see how it can be argued that they should have a better defence than the post-treaty heavy cruiser. Given that the newer ships would have better arrangement, give the armoured cruisers a point less – ie, 5. It could even be argued that the Baltimores were modern armoured cruisers – they had the same armour, equivalent armament and better speed – so it makes sense they should be slightly better than the old armoured cruisers. Semi-lobster has suggested dropping the cost if the armoured cruisers capabilities are reduced - I'd support that - may be take its time down to 350?
5. Some consideration could be given to dropping the defence of the post treaty light cruiser to 5, as the Clevelands were not as well armoured as the Baltimores. But we only have one class of each to compare, so I wouldn’t worry too much about this one.
6. Change the type names and fix the the errors as outlined above (eg., UK treaty light cruiser becomes Southampton). Don’t worry about this for now, my next self appointed task is to review the individual OOBs.
Note that points 2 and 3 taken together help explain the Battle of the River Plate in game terms. The Graf Spee was fighting one treaty heavy cruiser and two light cruisers, not one treaty heavy cruiser and two treaty light cruisers.
Oh, and always remember that I'm just tinkering at the edges. The CORE naval mod represents a great deal of very good work.
Michael
As I cannot form a coherent post so early in the morning I will give a more detailed response later, I discussed the Emile Bertin with MateDow months ago and told him to be the leader of a group of destroyers in the Atlantic. And I agree with you on the Zara. Sorry this is so short as your time zones away and it's only 6:02 over here.