Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
United States of Venezuela http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5505 |
Page 22 of 36 |
Author: | JSB [ July 25th, 2015, 7:16 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: United States of Venezuela |
Just my thoughts but if I was the Admiral I would go with C (and maybe ditch the rear 5" mount to make her shorter and lower the directors away from the funnel and ditch the TTs) it doesn't look as nice but 6 x 15" makes her a threat to much more ships than the 10" option does (and she will be treated as a capital ship for budget/treaty purposes anyway may as well make her dangerous to one). This does make her a week capital ship but with 6x15" she can realistically threaten even S&G (and D&S,Kongo's,R&R,etc) not just the PBs, much better value for money IMO. |
Author: | MihoshiK [ July 25th, 2015, 7:37 pm ] | |
Post subject: | Re: United States of Venezuela | |
Just my thoughts but if I was the Admiral I would go with C (and maybe ditch the rear 5" mount to make her shorter and lower the directors away from the funnel and ditch the TTs) it doesn't look as nice but 6 x 15" makes her a threat to much more ships than the 10" option does (and she will be treated as a capital ship for budget/treaty purposes anyway may as well make her dangerous to one).
Congratulations, you've just fallen into the Battlecruiser Trap. Are you looking forward to reliving your own version of Jutland? Battlecruisers should NEVER tango with battleships. Battleships have the armor to take a pounding from battleship guns. Battlecruisers do not.
This does make her a week capital ship but with 6x15" she can realistically threaten even S&G (and D&S,Kongo's,R&R,etc) not just the PBs, much better value for money IMO. |
Author: | JSB [ July 25th, 2015, 8:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: United States of Venezuela |
I would argue that maybe right for WW2 BC v WW2 fast BB BUT, - Do S&G (and D&S,Kongo's,R&R,add any unmodernised WW1 BB) really count as WW2 BBs ? I would argue they all are too week to stand v a full treaty/post treaty fast BB.(and fast post treaty BBs are very limited in number anyway) - Even v a full post treaty fast BB sometime you don't get a choice if you fight or run (think Jarvis bay defending something you cant run from etc) and 15" at least gives you a small chance 10" doesn't. - R&R did fine as BCs in WW2 why could a later built one not do as well ? - The 15" ship might act as a second (with the enemy already engaged) to one of your fast BBs and your 15" can help the fight much more. - Status (in peace time navy's are ranked by capital ships 15" counts in totals, 10" will be a footnote and still cost as much and break the treaty's just as much) - Both ships will easily kill any 8" CA they fight (or rather will not as it has run away first) - I would argue that 12x10" is falling into the AC trap, you will be killed by a BC - I would argue that as long as you realize the weakness of the ship and don't tell it to stand a fight with post treaty BBs then its a better bargain. |
Author: | MihoshiK [ July 25th, 2015, 9:01 pm ] | |
Post subject: | Re: United States of Venezuela | |
I would argue that maybe right for WW2 BC v WW2 fast BB BUT, The problem is still that a battlecruiser CANNOT stand hits from a battleship armed with the same kind of guns as it has, whereas a battleship CAN withstand hits from those guns. A battlecruiser is a very fast cruiser hunter. That's it. That's what it's armor is profiled for, and it's guns should be able to overmatch cruiser armor. - Do S&G (and D&S,Kongo's,R&R,add any unmodernised WW1 BB) really count as WW2 BBs ? I would argue they all are too week to stand v a full treaty/post treaty fast BB.(and fast post treaty BBs are very limited in number anyway) - Even v a full post treaty fast BB sometime you don't get a choice if you fight or run (think Jarvis bay defending something you cant run from etc) and 15" at least gives you a small chance 10" doesn't. - R&R did fine as BCs in WW2 why could a later built one not do as well ? - The 15" ship might act as a second (with the enemy already engaged) to one of your fast BBs and your 15" can help the fight much more. - Status (in peace time navy's are ranked by capital ships 15" counts in totals, 10" will be a footnote and still cost as much and break the treaty's just as much) - Both ships will easily kill any 8" CA they fight (or rather will not as it has run away first) - I would argue that 12x10" is falling into the AC trap, you will be killed by a BC - I would argue that as long as you realize the weakness of the ship and don't tell it to stand a fight with post treaty BBs then its a better bargain. It's job is absolutely NOT to go and tangle with battleships, because the chances are a lot better than even that it will get it's arse handed to it. Speed is NOT armor, and no amoutn of smileys in the world will make it so. You CAN give a battlecruiser battleship guns. But a battlecruiser commander, upon spotting a battleship coming his way, should as his very first action get the fuck outta dodge. Because his armor won't bounce a single shell. Fortunately he's in a ship fast enough to do so. |
Author: | JSB [ July 25th, 2015, 9:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: United States of Venezuela |
(sorry if this is derailing the thread...) I would mostly agree with you, but in the case of the options above of say, 12x10", 6x15" or 8x10" (ie as medium or high or low options) (they are all effectively BCs just some are under armed as well) Mid-I think that the middle road of 12x10" just doesn't make much sense, It doesn't give you much more than 8x10" (that will kill any 8" CA relatively easily or even stand v a PB if it has the same belt) and cant damage anything bigger. Low-The low 8x10" gun option has a benefit of much less cost and therefore you can build more of them (but it will be disliked by all treaty powers just as much as it will make all 8" ships less good, note the ban on under 17,500t in 2LNT) High-The 15" has a (sometimes small) chance v bigger ships (especially with help) so is therefore gives something more than the 10" gun ships. I a world (as OTL) filled with lots of 8" CAs and 14"-15"-16" BBs with very few ships in between (apart from very old unmodernised BBs and a few Pocket battleships that are really just over armed CAs you then have a big jump to the S&G,S&D,Italian rebuilds, Kongo's and R&R) I just don't see the reason to go for the medium option ? -The low ship beats all the 8" ships and has to run from bigger, -The Med ship beats all the 8" ships and has to run from bigger, (but costs much more than the low ship) -The High ship beats all the 8" ships and has a chance (at least to make them question attacking) v some of bigger ships (S&G,S&D,Italian rebuilds, Kongo's and R&R) and for not much if any more than the medium ship cost. I therefore think you should go high or low not medium. (the 15" guns may also save you from developing a new gun, and will threaten any larger ship especially if you are working with a fast battleship so your target is to busy to fire at you, or even as a last chance if you cant run you might just get lucky and an enemy raider a long way from home might not be willing to bet on that and force the fight) |
Author: | KIKE92 [ July 25th, 2015, 10:29 pm ] | |
Post subject: | Re: United States of Venezuela | |
(sorry if this is derailing the thread...)
Not a problem your not derailing the thread at all, in fact this has been very interesting. I think im going to have to reorganize and probably redesign some of the cruisers i have in this AU (Barcelona Class, Miranda Class and this).
I would mostly agree with you, but in the case of the options above of say, 12x10", 6x15" or 8x10" (ie as medium or high or low options) (they are all effectively BCs just some are under armed as well) Mid-I think that the middle road of 12x10" just doesn't make much sense, It doesn't give you much more than 8x10" (that will kill any 8" CA relatively easily or even stand v a PB if it has the same belt) and cant damage anything bigger. Low-The low 8x10" gun option has a benefit of much less cost and therefore you can build more of them (but it will be disliked by all treaty powers just as much as it will make all 8" ships less good, note the ban on under 17,500t in 2LNT) High-The 15" has a (sometimes small) chance v bigger ships (especially with help) so is therefore gives something more than the 10" gun ships. I a world (as OTL) filled with lots of 8" CAs and 14"-15"-16" BBs with very few ships in between (apart from very old unmodernised BBs and a few Pocket battleships that are really just over armed CAs you then have a big jump to the S&G,S&D,Italian rebuilds, Kongo's and R&R) I just don't see the reason to go for the medium option ? -The low ship beats all the 8" ships and has to run from bigger, -The Med ship beats all the 8" ships and has to run from bigger, (but costs much more than the low ship) -The High ship beats all the 8" ships and has a chance (at least to make them question attacking) v some of bigger ships (S&G,S&D,Italian rebuilds, Kongo's and R&R) and for not much if any more than the medium ship cost. I therefore think you should go high or low not medium. (the 15" guns may also save you from developing a new gun, and will threaten any larger ship especially if you are working with a fast battleship so your target is to busy to fire at you, or even as a last chance if you cant run you might just get lucky and an enemy raider a long way from home might not be willing to bet on that and force the fight) |
Author: | Krakatoa [ July 25th, 2015, 11:31 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: United States of Venezuela |
Those are good looking *.*-cruisers. The hull you have drawn for them with that flare forward is just beautiful. The original premise you have given for the Aragua class was to counter the Deutschland class PB's. Once they are gone then fast carrier escort and shore bombardment. The 12x10" guns of your original drawing would do all of those jobs. The 12x10" would give you an edge over a PB so that you should win. It will depend on your armour statistics. (you have not given belt/deck thicknesses). However, one of the reasons that the old 14-15-16" BB's were used almost exclusively for shore bombardment was the penetration power of those guns against the concrete emplacements constructed by the Japanese and Germans. Your 10" guns would not be so effective in that role. The CV AA escort role requires ships as fast as the CV's they are escorting with a decent AA outfit and directors. Any of those four drawings would do that job. The problem you have is that in 1935-36 when your cruisers are being designed - the main threat being catered for was the PB, with shore bombardment a secondary role. CV's are an unknown quantity. To field a 15" triple on your ship will require 32-35 metres of breadth. To mount the twins you can get away with 30 metres. Your 3rd and fourth drawings with 6 or 8 fifteen inch would fulfil all the roles you would like your ship to be capable of. The other armament values will do some but not all of the tasks you want the Aragua class to be able to do. |
Author: | JSB [ July 26th, 2015, 7:10 am ] | |
Post subject: | Re: United States of Venezuela | |
Your 3rd and fourth drawings with 6 or 8 fifteen inch would fulfil all the roles you would like your ship to be capable of. The other armament values will do some but not all of the tasks you want the Aragua class to be able to do.
Agreed, Since you should not fight post treaty BBs anyway 6 will do and be cheaper so Number 3 (IMO)I would also add, - why 2 sets of main directors ? (and no DP ?) you have USN/RN BB main directors and no 5" ones ? - why the TT on a 15" ship ? (swap with boats ?) - how much length do you need for the citadel to fit your MAGs/ERs/BRs and how long a hull for the speed ? I would cut the citadel as short as possible, the 2 areas you could cut IMO are the stern 5" and the front of the bridge - apart from that my only concern would be the funnels are maybe a bit close to the bridge and the same hight as the stern director ? (might be ok just not sure ?) |
Page 22 of 36 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |