[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 2  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 »
Author Message
MarekGutkowski
Post subject: Tipping point betwen BB and CVPosted: December 27th, 2016, 11:50 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 45
Joined: October 27th, 2012, 4:58 pm
Location: Warszawa,Poland
This is less about the designs and more about theoretical time when a Carrier gained advantage over the battleship in a fleet action.

At what point did the aircrafts that the Carrier was carrying could be the decisive factor in a naval engagement.

I personally think it happened in the year 1930.
It was the year when Arrestor gear allowed large Torpedo bombers like the Vicker Wilderbeast to safely land on a carrier.

I ask this question as I'm creating a fantasy fleet.
The country that is operating the fleet has 6 slips. The first new ship orders came in 1908 when ships like HMS Dreadnought and HMS Invincible were the talk of every fleet planer.
First order was for 6 hulls 4 BB and 2 BC. BB were armed with 12 280mm guns and BC with 8 280mm.
Next order place in 1911 called for 4 BB armed with 10 320mm and 2 BC with 8 320mm guns.
When the War in Europe started 2 BB armed with 8 380mm guns were ordered and compleated in 1918-1919.


In Washington Naval Treaty the country was allowed to keep 6 BB and 4 BC.
However the 3 BC(32000t standard) in construction were converted to Carriers.
In the treaty the country managed to negotiate 81000t for carriers. So with the completion of the BC to carrier conversion they are at their limit.
So at what point would those 3 carrier be the defacto center of gravity of that force?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Tipping point betwen BB and CVPosted: December 27th, 2016, 12:38 pm
Offline
Posts: 2473
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
If I remember rightly, the original pioneers of aircraft carriers did not count against the CV tonnage allowances. Langley, 2 x Saratoga, Akagi, Kaga, Hosho, Bearn, 2xCourageous, Furious, Hermes, Eagle, Argus all were classed as "Experimental".

The later 1930's carriers were the ones counting against tonnage allowances, Ranger, Wasp, 3xYorktowns, Ark Royal, 3xIllustrious, 2xHiryu, 2xZuikaku etc.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
MarekGutkowski
Post subject: Re: Tipping point betwen BB and CVPosted: December 27th, 2016, 12:44 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 45
Joined: October 27th, 2012, 4:58 pm
Location: Warszawa,Poland
I think you are mistaken.
Lengley was converted to AV to free up tonnage, Saratoga Lexington Akagi, Kaga, Courageous, Furious were all counted.
Hosho sister was cancelled due to tonnage allocation issues.

It was that converted hull could be build over the limit of 22000t set for a purpose built carrier, 27000t was the limit for converted designs.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Syzmo
Post subject: Re: Tipping point betwen BB and CVPosted: December 27th, 2016, 9:34 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 285
Joined: August 13th, 2011, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore MD
I'd argue it was later in the 30's perhaps as late as 1940 before carrier aircraft carried heavy enough weapons at high enough speeds and long enough ranges to reliably sink battleships underway without being shot down. Unless I'm missing one, HMS PRINCE OF WALES was the first BB sunk underway by aircraft and that was in December of 1941, two years into the war. That wouldn't prevent your country from building some in the 20's and 30's or making them the center of scouting task forces but it was 1942 by the time anyone but fringe air enthusiasts started to look at CV's as the core of the battle force.

_________________
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Tipping point betwen BB and CVPosted: December 27th, 2016, 10:29 pm
Offline
Posts: 1421
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
MarekGutkowski wrote:
At what point did the aircrafts that the Carrier was carrying could be the decisive factor in a naval engagement.
I personally think it happened in the year 1930.
When is hard to have a definite date as its more a gradual change from one to the other rather than a definite switch.
It changes depending on,
Some effect on battle lines in pacific ocean calm daylight or the ability to reliably sink a escaping raider in the Arctic night in a F10 storm.
For one you could suggest early 30s the other would be more early 50s
Quote:
First order was for 6 hulls 4 BB and 2 BC. BB were armed with 12 280mm guns and BC with 8 280mm.
Next order place in 1911 called for 4 BB armed with 10 320mm and 2 BC with 8 320mm guns.
When the War in Europe started 2 BB armed with 8 380mm guns were ordered and compleated in 1918-1919.

In Washington Naval Treaty the country was allowed to keep 6 BB and 4 BC.
The problem is why keep the 1908 BCs with 280mm guns?
Why 10 ships are you going for a IJN like forces? She got 10 and a Total tonnage of 301,320 for BBs.
In that case she gets as for Japan, 81,000 tons of CVs
Quote:
However the 3 BC(32000t standard) in construction were converted to Carriers.
In the treaty the country managed to negotiate 81000t for carriers. So with the completion of the BC to carrier conversion they are at their limit.
She is only allowed 2 over 27,000t conversions (I,I, Article IX) so that's 64,000t leaving 17,000t for a 3rd CV.

May I suggest that one of the BC could be finished as a BC and replace the 2 old BCs, a deal for 9 ships rather than 10?
Quote:
So at what point would those 3 carrier be the defacto center of gravity of that force?
Depends on where in the world but not until WWII and they will not be considered the main force until proven in war IMO...

Krakatoa wrote:
If I remember rightly, the original pioneers of aircraft carriers did not count against the CV tonnage allowances. Langley, 2 x Saratoga, Akagi, Kaga, Hosho, Bearn, 2xCourageous, Furious, Hermes, Eagle, Argus all were classed as "Experimental".

The later 1930's carriers were the ones counting against tonnage allowances, Ranger, Wasp, 3xYorktowns, Ark Royal, 3xIllustrious, 2xHiryu, 2xZuikaku etc.
MarekGutkowski wrote:
I think you are mistaken.
Lengley was converted to AV to free up tonnage, Saratoga Lexington Akagi, Kaga, Courageous, Furious were all counted.
Hosho sister was cancelled due to tonnage allocation issues.

It was that converted hull could be build over the limit of 22000t set for a purpose built carrier, 27000t was the limit for converted designs.
All ships counted its just that experimental ships can be replaced at any time rather than twenty years after the date of their completion.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Tipping point betwen BB and CVPosted: December 27th, 2016, 10:49 pm
Offline
Posts: 1421
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
I think you also have to think about how you will be cut down by LNT, You will be cut down to 9 ships (unless you are read are with my new BC completion suggestion? I think you need more than 2 15" ships if you are to be considered a power with IJN like numbers) at that point do you cheat or keep one of the old BC as a training ship or cut both to save cash?

It would help if we could have more info about the nation to talk though ideas? Do you have any CVs existing on 1921?

I think most likely fleet is,
2BC 380 completed after treaty (a deal for lacking 16" ships and to swap with the 2/4 BC/BBs), 2BB 380, 4 BB 320mm and 2 BC 320mm.
With 1 CV 32,000t conversion to use spare hull and maybe 1 earlier experimental light CVE ?
This gives you 49,000t to build more CVs (27,000t limit in WNT (but you are allowed 2 at 33,000t unless you are USN :-P), later 23,000t 2LNT) so you can build 2x 24,500t ships in 20s/30s.
You would also get 100,000t each of CA, Cls and DDs to build and 50,000t of Subs.


Last edited by JSB on December 28th, 2016, 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
MarekGutkowski
Post subject: Re: Tipping point betwen BB and CVPosted: December 28th, 2016, 12:00 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 45
Joined: October 27th, 2012, 4:58 pm
Location: Warszawa,Poland
JSB wrote:
I think you also have to think about how you will be cut down by LNT, You will be cut down to 9 ships (unless you are read are with my new BC completion suggestion? I think you need more than 2 15" ships if you are to be considered a power with IJN like numbers) at that point do you cheat or keep one of the old BC as a training ship or cut both to save cash?

It would help if we could have more info about the nation to talk though ideas? Do you have any CVs existing on 1921?

I think most likely fleet is,
2BC 380 completed after treaty (a deal for lacking 16" ships and to swap with the 2/4 BC/BBs), 2BB 380, 4 BB 320mm and 2 BC 320mm.
With 1 CV 32,000t conversion to use spare hull and maybe 1 earlier experimental light CVE ?
This gives you 49,000t to build more CVs (27,000t limit in WNT, later 23,000t 2LNT) so you can build 2x 24,500t ships in 20s/30s.
You would also get 100,000t each of CA, Cls and DDs to build and 50,000t of Subs.
More info on the fleet and the country.

It is a kingdom located half way between New Zealand and Chile.
The mainland is located on a peninsula of the Antarctic continent. It also holds large number of islands on South East Pacific.
Id did not draw a map because I am really bad at maps.

As for the fleet, in 1908 when they started building Dreadnoughts captal ships.
The fleet consisted of 8 pre-dreadnough battleships and 8 armoured cruisers. Plus 21 light and armoured deck cruisers. No destroyers but large number of Torpedo boats.
By the time of WNT only 4 pre-dreadnought 2 armoured cruisers remained in service.
Production of cruiser continued but not a single unit was larger that 6000t.
Destroyers were not build as it was belived that they are far to remote for their ships to meet a enemy Torpedo boat in combat.
In 1913 2 sea plane tenders were laiddown, in 1917 an experimental Carrier was build. 12000t, 26 kt.
When the WNT was signed there were 3 battlecruiser in construction. Those ship were laid down in late 1918.
Those 3 32000t ships were armed with 9 320mm in triples design speed was 31kt.
In carrier conversion those ships will get tinner belts, without the main battery, I think they could be slimmed down to 27000t. If Japan sold Akagi and Kaga being 27000t standard I think I can too.

As for cruisers, I was thinking 8 or 9 175-191mm range guns. Light cruiser would be 6-8 150mm guns.
As for the need for more that two 380mm BB.
That as many as they have.
2 380mm BB, 4 320mm BB, plus 2 320mm BC and 2 280mm BC. This country does not have the ambition to be equal to IJN.
They are quite happy with being around Italian and French fleet in size. That is as much as they can afford.
They pushed for the all 3 BC to be converted to CV because they feared gap in capability.
US and Japan got too have 2 large and one small carrier each.
Royal Navy has 3 large and 3 smaller plus a number of decked over large cruisers.
They have faith in torpedo. They see the carrier as a way to deliver planes armed with torpedoes to any evetual fleet action.

As for why keep the old BC armed with only 280mm guns?
At this time only two fleets in the world have BC, Japan has 4 UK has 7 that will soon turn to 5.
8 280mm is still enough too make The Princes Royal or the Tiger think twice about engaging so far from friendly ports.
Thos two old ships will be kept in service till year 1930. After that New design may be contemplated.
The plan is now to have the battleship holiday and then in 1930 laid down six hulls 3 fast bb and 3 CV.
At present they have no idea that the LNT will extend the battleship holiday for 5 more years.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Tipping point betwen BB and CVPosted: December 28th, 2016, 4:11 am
Offline
Posts: 1421
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
Ok my thoughts,
- You are quite rich and a long way from anybody (yay nice situation to be in) but WHO is your opponent (even if only in the navy staffs mind)?

- You can build 2 33,000t conversions after that its 27,000t in WNT.

- I think you are light on powerful ships for your treaty size, 320mm (12.5") guns are really small by 1922 (and 280mm 11" are so obsolete that Germany was allowed to keep them!) So you need more gun ships more than you need CVs (that are not capital ships for the next 15+ years, they are also very expensive to run due to air group replacement).

- WNT has give you 10 ships (ie IJN size) and since they have 2 post Jutland 16" (and RN/USN 3) you will get 2 ships, the 2 8x380mm BB don't really count unless they are Hood sized (ie very fast?) and are anyway your only effective modern units.

- "They are quite happy with being around Italian and French fleet in size. That is as much as they can afford." In that case look for 5/6 WNT 35,000t equivalents (and very few CVs) I would suggest the 320mm ships count as half (as RN did) and scrap/disarm the 280mm ships.

- "They see the carrier as a way to deliver planes armed with torpedoes to any evetual fleet action." I just not sure you need a fleet rather than an anti raider strategy? Who is coming all the way to fight you?
I would suggest BCs or CAs most likely so 4x Kongo (355mm), 1 Hood (381mm with heavy protection), R&R (381mm) or Tiger (342mm)?

- "As for cruisers, I was thinking 8 or 9 175-191mm range guns (think 200-203 more likely if you are a treaty player). Light cruiser would be 6-8 150mm guns."(agreed but less urgent than 8" ships)

- My only final q would be how hard worked are your BCs what dates do they need replacements?

I think,
1908 ships will be dead and need scraping its not worth rebuilding them.
1911 ships are weaker than most treaty ships outside of RM/NM and should be replaced soon.
1914 ships are good but you only have 2 of them....
You also have 1 1917 CV even if its not great.

I would suggest you ask WNT to get 2 BCs finished (I would add 3,000t to protection and lose 1 or 2 Kn to make them more battleship like) and complete one as a CV (it can be up to 33,000t).

This gives you 2 'fleet units' of 2 380mm and 1 CV (one slower ?/26 and one 29/30Kn) that can fight any likely raiders short of a full fleet. You then scrap or reserve the 320mm ships depending on treaty's and cash (I would try to keep BC till last over the BBs).

You then buy a small force of 8" trade protection CAs to guard you trade convoys from other 8" ships or AMCs.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Tipping point betwen BB and CVPosted: December 28th, 2016, 6:15 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5375
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Your AU suffers from the same problem as all the other really remotely located AUs. Why do they have a powerful military at all? You're so far away from anything that no one has the means to threaten you directly and you're too dark away from all the international markets to have realistic chance of being a major player there, so there's no real merchant marine to protect.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
MarekGutkowski
Post subject: Re: Tipping point betwen BB and CVPosted: December 28th, 2016, 10:58 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 45
Joined: October 27th, 2012, 4:58 pm
Location: Warszawa,Poland
@JSB
"You are quite rich and a long way from anybody (yay nice situation to be in) but WHO is your opponent (even if only in the navy staffs mind)?"
@Thiel
"Your AU suffers from the same problem as all the other really remotely located AUs. Why do they have a powerful military at all? You're so far away from anything that no one has the means to threaten you directly and you're too dark away from all the international markets to have realistic chance of being a major player there, so there's no real merchant marine to protect."

I am well aware that my navy does not have an enemy.
Originally I wanted to make one up, but that would muddy the waters.
So I came up with the idea that The first outside enemy was a Spanish Galleon in the XVI-XVII century.
Then that made way to an English Frigate in XVII-XVIII.
The people fear that Europeans will come and again try to take our land again.

Then Navy reason for existence is to keep people from doing any gunboat politics on them.

The only Power that has the means to sail all the way to them and conduct sustained operations is the Royal Navy.
They have the units and the refuelling base network to make it work.

French have the refuelling base network but don't have the fleet strength.

Japan and US have the fleet but not enough power projection(at the time, this is 1922)
A flimsy excuse, yes. But one I'm content to work with.

"- You can build 2 33,000t conversions after that its 27,000t in WNT."

27000t is not a lot to work with. It gives on 22000t purpose build carrier or two 12500t carriers
At 12500t were are looking at a ship that is a bit on the small side. South East Pacific is not that calm of a area to sail on.
So the idea of having all 3 ships converted is looking promising.
Also the Naval Planers are aware that if they got the money for doing it now. If they wait the government may is a couple years time just say. 'you are not getting the money for a new flat top, you have two already.'

"- I think you are light on powerful ships for your treaty size, 320mm (12.5") guns are really small by 1922 (and 280mm 11" are so obsolete that Germany was allowed to keep them!) So you need more gun ships more than you need CVs (that are not capital ships for the next 15+ years, they are also very expensive to run due to air group replacement)."

France and Italy kept their 305mm ships in the WNT.
The 280mm ships that are kept are two BC.
Its not the gun that made them keep them but their speed.

Their place in the doctrine is more or less the same as the Pocket Battleship of Germany were.
They can out run anything they cannot out gun and out gun everything that could out gun them.

Currently only Renown Repulse Hood, Kongo Hiei, Kirishima and Hurama are clearly superior ships.

This navy is not an offensive weapon. Its about contesting any invasion attempt. The BC will not be the scout force, the light cruisers are. The BC are a force multiplier for torpedo boats.
This is a brown water navy. The blue water compliment is for getting from one island they hold to the next.

I don't know how much sense does it make.

"- WNT has give you 10 ships (ie IJN size) and since they have 2 post Jutland 16" (and RN/USN 3) you will get 2 ships, the 2 8x380mm BB don't really count unless they are Hood sized (ie very fast?) and are anyway your only effective modern units. "
"- "They see the carrier as a way to deliver planes armed with torpedoes to any evetual fleet action." I just not sure you need a fleet rather than an anti raider strategy? Who is coming all the way to fight you?
I would suggest BCs or CAs most likely so 4x Kongo (355mm), 1 Hood (381mm with heavy protection), R&R (381mm) or Tiger (342mm)?"

I think you are selling the 320mm BC a bit short. The two are potent naval units. The fleet is not called for to fight on the open ocean away from their bases. The heavy units are called for adding their guns to the light units(torpedo boats) close to friendly shores. The experience with Yavuz shown that a single large unit can have a regional superiority.
The existance of the two 320mm Battlecruiser means that any enemy convoy needs a BB or BC protection.
This is a net gain.
Those BB or BC will not be available in for the enemy main force.


"- "As for cruisers, I was thinking 8 or 9 175-191mm range guns (think 200-203 more likely if you are a treaty player). Light cruiser would be 6-8 150mm guns."(agreed but less urgent than 8" ships)"

Thing is I was never sold on 8'' treaty cruiser. A smaller gun(175-191mm) are just a bit less potent that a 200-203mm and you can put as much of them on your ship and still have armour rated for 203mm fire. A balance 203mm design would have 6 guns on 10000t.
A balance 10000t 175-191mm gun design can have 8-10 guns.
It would be an equal to the large cruisers in existence Hawkins Atlanta, or planned Furukata Exeter.

as for trade protection. a 6000-7000t ship armed with 140-155mm guns is still a potent ship and a credible threat to an enemy cruiser.


"- My only final q would be how hard worked are your BCs what dates do they need replacements?"
The kingdom sat out the WWI. The ships at in harbour did are round around the base every week and had a life fire gunner practice every mouth. Once a year they had minor refits. As in an engineering team went over them with a fine tooth comb and replaced any part that was worn out. They have years of service left in them.


"I think,
1908 ships will be dead and need scraping its not worth rebuilding them.
1911 ships are weaker than most treaty ships outside of RM/NM and should be replaced soon.
1914 ships are good but you only have 2 of them....
You also have 1 1917 CV even if its not great."

The two ship left from the 1908 program will be scraped in later half of 1920's. Till that time they will not get any serious rebuilds.
At that time thoughts of building replacement for them will be contemplated.
1911 ships are weaker, yes They will be replaced but not soon. Replaced in the mid 1930's. This is quite a problem actually.
Mid 1930 4 Battleships and 2 BC will be retiring at this point it will be a block obsolescent. Six capital ships will be going to the breakers. If it would be economically doable at that time it would be good to have them replaced with 3-4 Treaty battleships.
The two 380mm are not contemporaries to the QE or the Arizona.
They are contemporary to Fuso, Renown, and later standard.
Those are 1916 designs.
They will be looking at replacements in late 1930 beginning or early 1940.
Yes in hindsight that 1940 building program will not happen as there will be a war on. And the planers will likely want to wait and she what they can learn form English Germans Japanese and Americans bashing each other.
But this is not known to the people running the navy now. They have no fore knowledge, we do.

"I would suggest you ask WNT to get 2 BCs finished (I would add 3,000t to protection and lose 1 or 2 Kn to make them more battleship like) and complete one as a CV (it can be up to 33,000t)."
There is no need to add more protection. They are balanced designs. More small fast battleships then battlecruisers.
Making CV bigger is not really an option. You are looking at lengthening the hull, adding bulges will mess with the seakeeping and speed. Putting more engine in it will compromise the internal subdivision.
So we either scrap them on the slipways or make 27000t carriers out of them.
Building one 320mm BC and scrapping the two 280mm BC is hardly a good trade in my mind.
If you choice is between two Indefatigable-class or two Princes Royal.
Trading the two Indefatigable class for one Tiger is hardly worth it in my mind. Two ships are always better then one.


"This gives you 2 'fleet units' of 2 380mm and 1 CV (one slower ?/26 and one 29/30Kn) that can fight any likely raiders short of a full fleet. You then scrap or reserve the 320mm ships depending on treaty's and cash (I would try to keep BC till last over the BBs).

You then buy a small force of 8" trade protection CAs to guard you trade convoys from other 8" ships or AMCs."

You are proposing a fleet consisting of 2 BB 2BC 2CV
But you have a fleet of 6 BB and 4BC and with the carrier conversions finished also with 3 CV.
You are scrapping the older BB and BC and trading for nothing really, the heavy cruiser will get build anyway.
I do agree that the old BC will be traded for a(4 or 6 units) class of CA but that will happen in the 1930's or more or less in 10 years time.

As for the actual drawings of those ships
Currently I'm making part sheets for them.
I don't want to put US 14'' Japanese, 127mm a RN pom-poms on them. I want to have a consistent look through out the fleet.

And that brings me to a question. Most navies made their turrets quite circular in form.
Would a wedge shaped turret look out of place on a 1908 Dreadnought?
Not the the turret is triangle. But when other navies rounded their turrets sides, I want to use straight lines.
Yes straight lines are less resistant to bending forces, but it does simplify construction.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 2  [ 16 posts ]  Return to “General Discussion” | Go to page 1 2 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]