This mod looks pretty cool, especially the battleship and cruiser parts. I take it this is primarily a surface warfare mod, since the carrier lineup looks a little weaker. Only 13 CVs for the Japanese vs 16 historically, and 72 plane CVs for the US vs 90 capacity ones historically. Do you think you might alter the capacities some for a little variety? Or does this all work fine with the conversions and such, and it's just hard to visualize.
All in all, I'm definitely keeping an eye on this one. Keep up the good work!
Quick answer to your question about aircraft capacity. The reason my carriers have smaller aircraft capacities is due to smaller hangar deck size and greater flight deck armor. Protection is emphasized.
Here's where I could really use some input--in trying to design an alternative fleet from scratch based upon what is realistically possilbe and what missions need to be fulfilled.
First off Destroyers...Under my alternative building programs in this alternative reality, DDs will come in two basic types:
1. First class fleet DDs of 2000-4000 tons with 3" - 6" main guns & 6 or more TTs.
Mission types: Fleet anti-sub escort
Fleet anti-aircraft support
Fleet surface combat/harrassment
2. Second class escort DDs of 1000-2000 tons with 3" - 5" main guns & 5 or less TTs.
Mission types: Convoy anti-sub escort
Convoy anti-aircraft support
Convoy surface combat/defense
About the destroyers, Maybe the US, UK and France make "fleet" and "escort" DD's based on their experience in WWI. While Japan, Germany and Italy have the fleet DD's.
Battleships and building schedules
As was mentioned before, spreading out the US builds might make more sense. Personally I would suggest cutting the South Dakota and Lexington classes to 4 ships each, and then build a new class of battleship or battlecruiser in the late 20s or early 30s, based upon one of the many design proposals from the time.
Cruisers and guns
I like the cruiser lineups, apart from the fact that the gun calibers are all over the place. Every nation seems to jump back and forth between 8", 10" and occasionally larger weapons, with no regard for standardization. Likewise, the 'heavy' light cruisers like the Brooklyn and Mogami probably would not have taken shape in this reality, being something of a product of the treaties (though admittedly one that turned out rather well as a nightfighter and bombardment platform). Lastly, the Italian Zara class with a mixed main battery seems like something more appropriate for 1902 than 1942.
I would suggest redoing the cruisers somewhat; in a reality like the one you propose I can see 3 'sizes' of cruisers emerge;
'Escort' cruisers, around the 4000-6000ton mark, with 5-7in guns; intended for convoy duty, warding off destroyers and later in the war maybe AA work.
'Light' cruisers around the 10000ton mark, with 7-10in guns, intended as cruiser hunters, and leaders of smaller cruiser groups.
'Heavy' cruisers around the 14-18000ton mark, with 10-12in guns, intended as general purpose vessels also capable of taking part in the battleline.
Obviously, each nation will build things suited to their requirements, and put their own 'spin' on these categories, such as German raiders, etc.
So for example, with regards to Japan, I might suggest something like this, beginning with Furutaka;
Destroyers
The same applies here, though you're likely to see more variation in gun caliber simply because of the easier logistics. Most likely national design philosophy will determine the majority of things here. However, some general categories I can see arising;
Destroyer 'Leaders', as a replacement to that role being fulfilled by CLs in certain navies historically. Larger than regular DDs by some 25-50% (so 2500-3000t for a 2000t flotilla), possibly with larger caliber weapons or more of them (latter makes more sense to me) and/or more torpedoes.
'Large' Destroyers, built mainly for anti-surface work; high speed (35knts+), heavy gun or torpedo batteries, probably in the 2500-3500t range (think Shimakaze or Sumner historically). Possibly later designs split into torpedo based ones for ASuW, and gun based with DP guns into an AA escort role.
'Fleet' Destroyers, built as an all purpose platform with good range; moderate-high speed (~32knts), decent weaponry possibly with a focus on guns over torpedoes, tonnage 1500-2500t. Probably the first type to mount DP weapons.
'Escort' Destroyers, built for anti-sub and (later) anti-air work; moderate speed (~30knts), mixed weaponry though possibly lighter on the torpedoes. Tonnage around 1000-2000t.
In addition, specialist designs like lighter torpedo destroyers (something of a souped up TB), dedicated ASW escorts, etc. might appear depending on how development goes. Once again, national preferences are a big influence here.
Designs and numbers
Lastly, if you would like any help with estimates/design stuff for any of these, I can help out (from stuff like 'if it has these guns, this protection and this speed, then how heavy is it gonna be' to 'if it needs these guns and this speed but cant exceed x tonnage, how much armour can you put on?'). Let me know here or in PM, I can post examples if needed.
No it's a bust of Socrates, about 6 inches in height. Me mum brought it home from a trip to Greece once upon a time. It's one of my favorite knick knacks. I took a photo of it with the light hitting it thus and sort of like my photographic handiwork. It looks like something taken at a museum doesn't it?
EDIT: BTW who is your avatar picture of. I've seen the pic around the net a couple times and am curious. Also are you of any relation to a guy over at Civ Fanatics who goes by "Formaldehyde". He used to have the same avatar.
It is a picture of Dr. Strangelove from the movie Dr. Strangelove, a classic movie from 1964 by Stanley Kubrick.
No relation to Formaldehyde.
Chris
(Did you ever stop to think and forget to start?)
Battleships and building schedules
As was mentioned before, spreading out the US builds might make more sense. Personally I would suggest cutting the South Dakota and Lexington classes to 4 ships each, and then build a new class of battleship or battlecruiser in the late 20s or early 30s, based upon one of the many design proposals from the time.
Cruisers and guns
I like the cruiser lineups, apart from the fact that the gun calibers are all over the place. Every nation seems to jump back and forth between 8", 10" and occasionally larger weapons, with no regard for standardization. Likewise, the 'heavy' light cruisers like the Brooklyn and Mogami probably would not have taken shape in this reality, being something of a product of the treaties (though admittedly one that turned out rather well as a nightfighter and bombardment platform). Lastly, the Italian Zara class with a mixed main battery seems like something more appropriate for 1902 than 1942.
I would suggest redoing the cruisers somewhat; in a reality like the one you propose I can see 3 'sizes' of cruisers emerge;
'Escort' cruisers, around the 4000-6000ton mark, with 5-7in guns; intended for convoy duty, warding off destroyers and later in the war maybe AA work.
'Light' cruisers around the 10000ton mark, with 7-10in guns, intended as cruiser hunters, and leaders of smaller cruiser groups.
'Heavy' cruisers around the 14-18000ton mark, with 10-12in guns, intended as general purpose vessels also capable of taking part in the battleline.
Obviously, each nation will build things suited to their requirements, and put their own 'spin' on these categories, such as German raiders, etc.
So for example, with regards to Japan, I might suggest something like this, beginning with Furutaka;
Destroyers
The same applies here, though you're likely to see more variation in gun caliber simply because of the easier logistics. Most likely national design philosophy will determine the majority of things here. However, some general categories I can see arising;
Destroyer 'Leaders', as a replacement to that role being fulfilled by CLs in certain navies historically. Larger than regular DDs by some 25-50% (so 2500-3000t for a 2000t flotilla), possibly with larger caliber weapons or more of them (latter makes more sense to me) and/or more torpedoes.
'Large' Destroyers, built mainly for anti-surface work; high speed (35knts+), heavy gun or torpedo batteries, probably in the 2500-3500t range (think Shimakaze or Sumner historically). Possibly later designs split into torpedo based ones for ASuW, and gun based with DP guns into an AA escort role.
'Fleet' Destroyers, built as an all purpose platform with good range; moderate-high speed (~32knts), decent weaponry possibly with a focus on guns over torpedoes, tonnage 1500-2500t. Probably the first type to mount DP weapons.
'Escort' Destroyers, built for anti-sub and (later) anti-air work; moderate speed (~30knts), mixed weaponry though possibly lighter on the torpedoes. Tonnage around 1000-2000t.
In addition, specialist designs like lighter torpedo destroyers (something of a souped up TB), dedicated ASW escorts, etc. might appear depending on how development goes. Once again, national preferences are a big influence here.
Designs and numbers
Lastly, if you would like any help with estimates/design stuff for any of these, I can help out (from stuff like 'if it has these guns, this protection and this speed, then how heavy is it gonna be' to 'if it needs these guns and this speed but cant exceed x tonnage, how much armour can you put on?'). Let me know here or in PM, I can post examples if needed.
Hi Juan G, Thanks for your input. I'll try to come up with some new designs based upon your theories and send the specs to you for final ironing out. I take it you have Springsharp and know how to use it? I have the program stashed around somewhere on my computer but never got around to learning it.
I also picked up a list of Japanese ship construction slipways which JWE posted some time back. I'm currenlty toying around with some production schemes based upon slightly better than average build times, taking into account that the same slipways might also be used for refits and reconstruction of existing ships. Lots of data and ideas. Just have to put them all together in a logical way.
Here's a sample of the ship building chart I'm creating:
Question for anyone who may have an answer: What is the earliest date that the Americans could utilize a 5"/38 in a twin turret on a DD along the lines of a Sumner class? Also, given an alternative DD arms race where each side tries to out do the other with bigger and better DDs, what is the earliest one could project the Japanese developing the 3.9"/65 Twin, type 98, DP gun for an Akizuki type?
Question for anyone who may have an answer: What is the earliest date that the Americans could utilize a 5"/38 in a twin turret on a DD along the lines of a Sumner class? Also, given an alternative DD arms race where each side tries to out do the other with bigger and better DDs, what is the earliest one could project the Japanese developing the 3.9"/65 Twin, type 98, DP gun for an Akizuki type?
Well, the Porter class DDs from ~1935 had the SP 5"/38 twins, which aren't that different. The SP twin weighs in at 34000kg vs the DP twin at 43400kg. Likely a switch to DP guns would mean only 3 twins on a similar sized hull; also likely performance of an early DP twin might be slightly lower than the late war ones (in terms of rate of train and elevation).
So I would say you could definately do it by ~'35/'36, maybe by ~'30 if there was a serious DD race on. Remember historically the Farragut class was the first new DD design in the USN for over 10 years.
The 10cm/65 Type 98 was designed in 1938, and while I dont think there anything about the gun itself that prevents development before that, getting an acceptable mounting and rammer may be the limiting factor, as these were what set it apart as such an excellent weapon. I would say no earlier than 1936 given an accelerated timeline, but remember that this also means there needs to be a desire for a rapid-fire, lighter gun for AA work by that time.
Regarding slips; thats a very nice table, and more detailed than my own especially regarding the smaller slips, so I might have to borrow it [8D]. Just remember that often as much if not more time is taken up fitting out off the slip than on it, especially for smaller vessels, and this is often a bottleneck for production.
Springsharp; yes, that is indeed what I use (~6 year experience with it), though I run the numbers that generates through my own spreadsheets since SS tends to be a little too optimistic sometimes, and a little too pessimistic at others. Making sure numbers and performance line up with historical classes is always key.
Question for anyone who may have an answer: What is the earliest date that the Americans could utilize a 5"/38 in a twin turret on a DD along the lines of a Sumner class? Also, given an alternative DD arms race where each side tries to out do the other with bigger and better DDs, what is the earliest one could project the Japanese developing the 3.9"/65 Twin, type 98, DP gun for an Akizuki type?
Well, the Porter class DDs from ~1935 had the SP 5"/38 twins, which aren't that different. The SP twin weighs in at 34000kg vs the DP twin at 43400kg. Likely a switch to DP guns would mean only 3 twins on a similar sized hull; also likely performance of an early DP twin might be slightly lower than the late war ones (in terms of rate of train and elevation).
So I would say you could definately do it by ~'35/'36, maybe by ~'30 if there was a serious DD race on. Remember historically the Farragut class was the first new DD design in the USN for over 10 years.
The 10cm/65 Type 98 was designed in 1938, and while I dont think there anything about the gun itself that prevents development before that, getting an acceptable mounting and rammer may be the limiting factor, as these were what set it apart as such an excellent weapon. I would say no earlier than 1936 given an accelerated timeline, but remember that this also means there needs to be a desire for a rapid-fire, lighter gun for AA work by that time.
Regarding slips; thats a very nice table, and more detailed than my own especially regarding the smaller slips, so I might have to borrow it [8D]. Just remember that often as much if not more time is taken up fitting out off the slip than on it, especially for smaller vessels, and this is often a bottleneck for production.
Springsharp; yes, that is indeed what I use (~6 year experience with it), though I run the numbers that generates through my own spreadsheets since SS tends to be a little too optimistic sometimes, and a little too pessimistic at others. Making sure numbers and performance line up with historical classes is always key.
I use Springsharp as well. It is good for making new 'upgrades' as it does fairly well in letting you see at what point the hull becomes overloaded and stressed.
And while you can't justify the 10cm/65 early on front line warships, it does seem to me that having it in service earlier on patrol boats and minesweepers might not be at all far fetched...it would be a superior replacement for the 12cm guns most of those carry.
Here's where I could really use some input--in trying to design an alternative fleet from scratch based upon what is realistically possilbe and what missions need to be fulfilled.
Make it task-oriented. Something like this:
(1) Surface Combat, large ships support - good range, lots of torpedoes, larger guns, good speed, some ASW
(2) AA CV Support - good range, lots of DP guns, some ASW. Speed to match CVs
(3) Escort - lots of ASW, quick-firing guns (against PT boats), not very quick
(4) Local patrol - small range, some torpedoes, and ASW
Here's where I could really use some input--in trying to design an alternative fleet from scratch based upon what is realistically possilbe and what missions need to be fulfilled.
Make it task-oriented. Something like this:
(1) Surface Combat, large ships support - good range, lots of torpedoes, larger guns, good speed, some ASW
(2) AA CV Support - good range, lots of DP guns, some ASW. Speed to match CVs
(3) Escort - lots of ASW, quick-firing guns (against PT boats), not very quick
(4) Local patrol - small range, some torpedoes, and ASW
Makes good sense. Although tailoring DDs too much for specific roles runs the risk of having the wrong DD type handy when you need to perform a different type of task. What happens if you need a surface combat force and all you have available locally are AA CV support DDs? I'm more in favor of large mutli-role 1st class fleet DDs augmented by smaller/cheaper multi-role 2nd class escort DDs. Multi-role DDs of course wouldn't be as adept in specific roles but that way you don't get caught as bad with your pants down when the enemy suddenly throws you a curve ball. Of course this wouldn't necessarily preclude the creation of a FEW special single role DDs. But on the aggregate I think multi-role is better, especially for pre-war navies that have no idea what the next war's tactics will look like.
Regarding slips; thats a very nice table, and more detailed than my own especially regarding the smaller slips, so I might have to borrow it [8D]. Just remember that often as much if not more time is taken up fitting out off the slip than on it, especially for smaller vessels, and this is often a bottleneck for production.
Hi JuanG,
I can zip up my ship yard table and send it to you if you want.
I have taken into account that fitting out is typically done off the slip. Basically I've been collecting data on when ships are laid down, when launched and when commissioned. The Ship Yard table takes into account the period of time between laid down and launched. I might have to put together a second table for fitting out times. Basically I'll have to coordinate the second table with launch dates and with data I collect on commission dates. So the fitting out table will more or less be an aggregate of fitting out time and sea trials.
Gary, you are aware that the names for your German cruisers don't make sense?
Which ones don't make sense? [&:]
Deutschland class: Lützow originally was a Admiral Hipper as you will know quite well. It was only used for this class to avoid keeping a ship with the name "Deutschland" for psychological reasons to avoid "Deutschland is sunk". Ludwig Adolf WIlhelm von Lützow was a land commander in the liberation war against Napoleon. This specific name was chosen to hide the sale of the "real" Lützow to the Soviet Union, so that the expected warship "Lützow" was still in use.
Reinhard Scheer and Graf Maximilian von Spee were admirals in WW1. So a fourth ship would likely have the name of another admiral (perferably from WW1), not a land commander. In fact, Admiral Hipper makes absolute sense for a 4th ship of that class.
Admiral Hipper class: Prinz Regent Luitpold would correctly be written "Prinzregent Luitpold". If Germany had the historic political development, this name is very unlikely. NS-Germany wouldn't name a ship after a member of a royal family, especially if he hasn't been of such military significance to ignore that. Kronprinz - the same. "Crown Prince" isn't an appropriate name for a nacional socialist Germany.
Königsberg class:
Why should Germany use English names for their cruisers? To be able to give the name "Köln" to two ships of the same class? [;)] Cologne = Köln! Also: Munich = München.
This class was also called the "K-class", because all of its ships were named after cities with starting with a K.
The Emden wasn't of that class as you know fore sure. It was given that name, as the first new ship after WW1 was supposed to have the name of the famous SMS Emden from WW1. So depending on WHEN your ships are built, Emden is a suitable name for the bigger classes as well.
Other K-Cities would be for instance:
- Krakau
- Konstanz
- Krefeld
- Kassel
- Kiel
- Koblenz
- Kaiserslautern
- Kleve
Also: If you can't write an Umlaut (ä,ö,ü) in Germany, the correct way to spell the letter is ae, oe, ue. So it is appropriate to write "Köln" "Koeln" - not "Koln"
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
Gary, you are aware that the names for your German cruisers don't make sense?
Which ones don't make sense? [&:]
Deutschland class: Lützow originally was a Admiral Hipper as you will know quite well. It was only used for this class to avoid keeping a ship with the name "Deutschland" for psychological reasons to avoid "Deutschland is sunk". Ludwig Adolf WIlhelm von Lützow was a land commander in the liberation war against Napoleon. This specific name was chosen to hide the sale of the "real" Lützow to the Soviet Union, so that the expected warship "Lützow" was still in use.
Reinhard Scheer and Graf Maximilian von Speed were admirals in WW1. So a fourth ship would likely have the name of another admiral (perferably from WW1), not a land commander. In fact, Admiral Hipper makes absolute sense for a 4th ship of that class.
Admiral Hipper class: Prinz Regent Luitpold would correctly be written "Prinzregent Luitpold". If Germany had the historic political development, this name is very unlikely. NS-Germany wouldn't name a ship after a member of a royal family, especially if he hasn't been of such military significance to ignore that. Kronprinz - the same. "Crown Prince" isn't an appropriate name for a nacional socialist Germany.
Königsberg class:
Why should Germany use English names for their cruisers? To be able to give the name "Köln" to two ships of the same class? [;)] Cologne = Köln! Also: Munich = München.
This class was also called the "K-class", because all of its ships were named after cities with starting with a K.
The Emden wasn't of that class as you know fore sure. It was given that name, as the first new ship after WW1 was supposed to have the name of the famous SMS Emden from WW1. So depending on WHEN your ships are built, Emden is a suitable name for the bigger classes as well.
Other K-Cities would be for instance:
- Krakau
- Konstanz
- Krefeld
- Kassel
- Kiel
- Koblenz
- Kaiserslautern
- Kleve
Also: If you can't write an Umlaut (ä,ö,ü) in Germany, the correct way to spell the letter is ae, oe, ue. So it is appropriate to write "Köln" "Koeln" - not "Koln"
If you would get into in-game player decision process, about choosing DD, you would get something like this:
(1) RANGE - short range is out of the question most time
(2) ASW - most time DD is just ASW platform for TF
(3) TORPEDOES - if you plan to use it in combat, only torpedo tubes can deal damage to armored ships
(4) here actually I can not think about anything else. Japanese AA weapons are so weak, that adding DDs will not change outcome, and number of actual guns could be important only against unarmored ships (PTs, and transports), so number of guns is like of tertiary importance.
So... your main problem would be calculation of range (and how much fuel they take), and ASW strength.
There is also interesting thing about Japanese 5". It had like 6 mountings, of which not all were DP (too low elevation). Also there were some problems with number of ammunition (one of the ships capsized), so it was reduced, but thinking of it - could extra space be used for extra fuel (and extending range)? Obviously, when ships would met storm, all extra fuel would be already used, in most cases.
