No Naval Treaties Art (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message


Gary Childress -> No Naval Treaties Art (2/7/2012 6:25:34 AM)

Just dabbling around with ship side art for fictional warships which might have existed if there were no Washington nor London naval treaties.

First up some US cruisers. Instead of 9 x 8in guns we have 12 x 8in designs.



[image]local://upfiles/17421/69A4C9162E854FD8946FC06CABDAB25B.jpg[/image]

EDIT: NOTE: To give credit where it is due, all these designs will probably be modifications of existing WitP/AE art and not entirely of my own making.




John 3rd -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/7/2012 6:56:45 AM)

Those are quite nice Gary: 4x3 8" would be NASTY!




Gary Childress -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/10/2012 3:38:18 AM)

Some hypothetical Japanese cruisers with some stats and an improved Nagato thrown in. Again just some doctoring of WitP AE art.

[image]local://upfiles/17421/4CB2EA2D4BD64DB0A9FCDB5E116D3738.jpg[/image]




John 3rd -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/10/2012 5:42:25 AM)

Really like the Myoko and Nagato designs. Nice work Sir.

For Perfect War we have the final incarnation of the Japanese CA as having four triple 8" guns. Very NASTY!

Do you have anything for a Kawachi-Class BC? How about an Agano CL variant?




Gary Childress -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/10/2012 6:21:46 PM)

I'll post some game compatible files for these ships soon, but can anyone use them? Is anyone doing a no treaties mod? If so, what sorts of ships would you like to see?




traskott -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/10/2012 9:06:13 PM)

Well..I'm making an uber moding using the Juan Ultimate Battleships Mod as base, plus Ryan Art Mod... It would be interesting add all those ships, replacing their "weak" counterpartes...




Gary Childress -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 12:08:58 AM)

Has anyone yet composed a list of all the mods out there with a brief description of each? I'd be interested in seeing what has been done.

Here's some "no treaty" carriers. Basically more heavily armored flight decks than historical.

[image]local://upfiles/17421/617D3112D89E4598AF9E2B548DAD4FD1.jpg[/image]




Terminus -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 12:49:52 AM)

9 inch[&:]




Gary Childress -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 2:56:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

9 inch[&:]


My understanding of the 8" gun and its prevalence in cruisers was due to the WNT which specified that anything above 8" would count as capital ship tonnage. Had there been no WNT would navies have tried to upgun their cruisers?




Terminus -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 2:58:43 AM)

Not unpossible...




Shark7 -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 5:07:53 PM)

Terminus, given no WNT, in all probability the CA as we know it would not exist. Naval architects would have stuck more with the Protected Cruiser and Armored Cruiser concepts of essentially mini-battleships. You'd see cruisers with 9-12" guns and 6-9" secondaries while the Scout Cruiser would have continued as they were (which were essentially CLs).

The idea of trying to stuff as much stuff on a 10000 ton hull only happened because of the WNT and LNTs. For a cruiser to have displaced 12k-15k tons would not have been unthinkable had the treaties not put limits in place.

The British Minotaur class Armored Cruiser (commissioned 1908-1909) is a good example of a 20th century example of the class.... 4 x 9.2" guns and 10 x 7.5" guns for secondaries, all guns turreted.




Terminus -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 6:17:31 PM)

The Armoured Cruiser died out in the first decade of the 20th century. It would not have been resurrected.




Terminus -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 6:18:24 PM)

Also, who says that no naval limitation treaty automatically means a building boom? Lots of people lacked lots of money in those days.




mike scholl 1 -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 6:46:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Also, who says that no naval limitation treaty automatically means a building boom? Lots of people lacked lots of money in those days.


AMEN! "Termi". These are all "flights of fantsy" design-wise, and "impossible dreams" budget-wise. [8|]




Gary Childress -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 7:24:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Also, who says that no naval limitation treaty automatically means a building boom? Lots of people lacked lots of money in those days.


AMEN! "Termi". These are all "flights of fantsy" design-wise, and "impossible dreams" budget-wise. [8|]



Not necessarily a "building boom" but ship designs for what navies could afford to build might have been different.




Gary Childress -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 8:05:05 PM)

As far as economics and money, there seemed to be less limit to money and material once it was clear the naval treaties were defunkt. Most of the major nations seemed to have little problem going on a building spree in the late 1930s, during the height of the depression. What if there had been more naval building in the "roaring 20s" when economies were more solvent? Would there have a been a depression had naval building created more demand for workers and material in the late 1920s.

Before WWI there seemed to be little limit on what navies could afford. Between 1905 and 1918, Britain commissioned about 35 dreadnaught battleships. 35 first rate capital ships in 13 years. In the span of 20 years between the two wars Britain commissioned only 8 capital ships. Some of it was the Depression and some was probably war debt from WW1 but the latent capacity for producing large navies was there.




JWE -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 8:41:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Terminus, given no WNT, in all probability the CA as we know it would not exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
The Armoured Cruiser died out in the first decade of the 20th century. It would not have been resurrected.

Ya'll are both right in a way.

Absent the treaty, there is no such thing as a CA. Ca is nothing but a response to the Treaty in an attempt to develop a 'teensy weensy" BC kinda substitute thing. It has absolutely no Mission whatsoever, not even today. It is a useless shibolith, pure and simple.

Cruisers have two sparate sources of provenance. The Brit view has them very long legged to service a far flung empire. The French/Italian view is a bit more Mediterranian and sees them as fleet scout units and destroyer leaders. Six of one, half dozen of the other. HP/wt ratios. Physics. 3rd grade mathematics. Want guns, then less armor. Want armor, then less guns. Want either armor or guns, then way less endurance. Want armor, guns and endurance, then lots more money and displacement.

Mahan wrote a crapload more than the book everybody quotes. He has a monograph about cruiser effectiveness costs in terms of deployment radius vs displacement tonnage that is still used today. Cool beans.

Armored cruisers kinda got subsumed in the BB/BC paradigm. But it might not have been too economically extreme to put a couple more inches of Vickers Facehard on some of the more burthensome and high endurance cruisers.

Ciao. John [:D][:D][:D]




JWE -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 9:06:13 PM)

I really do have to do an act of contrittion, on this one. There was one honest to gosh, innovative, cruiser design in the War II period. That would be the panzerschiffe concept of the Kriegsmarine. Now this design was not part of an integrated fleet development process; it was a raider design, pure and simple. It had no other purpose. It had no place in the battleline and cost too much to be a nominal power projection cruiser, but it was a booger for a while.

Probably a direct decendent (German version) of Shark's Armored cruiser. The Brit version would be a BC; just as fast (faster, actually), bigger guns, but shorter legs and 21% higher cost. 5 panzerschiffe v 4 BCs, my money's on the BCs; but, hey.




Terminus -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/11/2012 9:12:43 PM)

The RN wanted three things from its cruisers (in WWI terms): scouting, destroyer leader duties and trade protection. The first two could be accomplished, but the third? Hoo, boy...

If you look at what the Brits had to work with on that front, it's amazing that they managed to stop ANY of the German merchant raiders. Some of their cruisers were substantially less useful than even converted German merchantmen: puny armament, no armour, LOUSY endurance. HMS Highflyer is a good example of this.

The most modern RN cruisers were hoarded by the Grand Fleet to service the battleline and the colonies got the dregs. Jellicoe practically had to have his fingers broken to give them up.

As for the Germans, their missions were the same except that trade protection became commerce raiding instead.

As John says, the French and Italians were basically looking to fight each other in the Med, and when the Brits agreed to guard the French Atlantic coast, the MN shifted everything there.

It's sort of amusing to examine the light cruisers produced by the great naval powers during the latter half of the 1910s. The RN, Germans, USN and Japanese basically produced ships to the same constructive templates...[:D]





Shark7 -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/12/2012 1:59:43 AM)

Honestly, the CLs really didn't change much, they just matured. When you look at the CL designs from the first decade or two of the 20th century and compare them with the examples from the 30s and 40s, the thing you really notice is that the guns went from open pedastel or splinter shielded single guns to multi-gun, enclosed turrets. The guns were remarkably similar...ranging from 5.5"-7.5" main guns with 3" to 4" secondaries early with the post-treaty CLs having generally 6" guns with 4-5" secondaries, the mains in turrets and the secondaries some turreted, some not.

The main evoluation in CL (and naval design in general) was the movement away from casemate mounts and more Dual Purpose guns to deal with the growing air threat. So it seems that with or without the treaties, the days of ships with 2 large turrets and a dozen casemate mounted light guns were soon to be over.




Shark7 -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/12/2012 2:04:31 AM)

Question for JWE:

Given the absence of the treaties, do you think that the scout cruisers (CLs) would have also been up-gunned to larger caliber main guns?




Gary Childress -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/13/2012 3:18:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Absent the treaty, there is no such thing as a CA. Ca is nothing but a response to the Treaty in an attempt to develop a 'teensy weensy" BC kinda substitute thing. It has absolutely no Mission whatsoever, not even today. It is a useless shibolith, pure and simple.

Cruisers have two sparate sources of provenance. The Brit view has them very long legged to service a far flung empire. The French/Italian view is a bit more Mediterranian and sees them as fleet scout units and destroyer leaders. Six of one, half dozen of the other. HP/wt ratios. Physics. 3rd grade mathematics. Want guns, then less armor. Want armor, then less guns. Want either armor or guns, then way less endurance. Want armor, guns and endurance, then lots more money and displacement.



According to theorists cruisers may have been useless but, in reality, didn't cruisers play a HUGE role in the Pacific war? Had any one side been without cruisers, the other would have surely dominated the war. Battleships were just too few and too precious to be of as much use. In many battles cruisers carried the day. Battleships mostly saw action in large amphibious or carrier operations but didn't cruisers do a lot of the rest of the work?




Gary Childress -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/13/2012 4:34:48 AM)

Without the arbitrary, sharp divide between 8" and capital ships I would think there would be more of a continium from the smallest calibers to the larger. Here's a Japanese lineup, starting with small 6" gun cruisers all the way up to 12". From there it would be on to capital ships.

[image]local://upfiles/17421/3C568ECC628E4E5DA1E82B442727CABA.jpg[/image]




Shark7 -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/13/2012 8:12:18 AM)

Are these going to be available as 'game ready', or will I need to put them onto the backgrounds myself? Just curious as more than one of these would be very useful to me.




JWE -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/13/2012 4:38:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
According to theorists cruisers may have been useless but, in reality, didn't cruisers play a HUGE role in the Pacific war? Had any one side been without cruisers, the other would have surely dominated the war. Battleships were just too few and too precious to be of as much use. In many battles cruisers carried the day. Battleships mostly saw action in large amphibious or carrier operations but didn't cruisers do a lot of the rest of the work?

Of course. T's comment was regarding cruisers in a world without the Treatys. Obviously War-II Navys were developed as a result of the Treatys. One side builds an 8" cruiser, then the other side builds one just because. They did not exist before the Treatys and after the war they disappeared. IMO the CA was a Treaty imposed cheap substitute for a BC. Only reason to build one is because everybody else is building them, and the Treaty says you can't build the stuff that's really worthwhile.

My comments were in response to Shark and the T discussing the provenance and development of cruiser type vessels before the artificial limitations imposed/allowed by the various Naval Treatys. Cruiser type vessels had an intrinsic worth to the various Naval powers, depending on the missions that those naval powers had to fulfill. In the absence of the Treatys, cruisers should likely develop according to existing Naval doctrine and to the best understanding of contemporary national Naval mission structures.




ny59giants -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/13/2012 4:50:32 PM)

I'm reading "Kaigun" and from my understanding of the Japanese viewpoint, they were looking for a modern Jutland to decide things in the Pacific. So without any post WWI treaties, would they just built bigger and bigger BBs and some DDs as escorts?? Could WWII been fought without many cruisers of various sizes in the mix??




Shark7 -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/13/2012 5:14:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I'm reading "Kaigun" and from my understanding of the Japanese viewpoint, they were looking for a modern Jutland to decide things in the Pacific. So without any post WWI treaties, would they just built bigger and bigger BBs and some DDs as escorts?? Could WWII been fought without many cruisers of various sizes in the mix??


They would have still had their light scout cruisers (IE the Destroyer Leader Types like Tenryu, etc). The 8-8 plan had provisions for additional very light cruisers in it.

The 8-8 plan envisioned 8 BBs, 8 BCs, with light scout cruisers to lead the groups of DDs and to actually scout. Also, it seems that Ryujo was planed pre-WNT, and would have possibly had a sister or possibly even 2.

I'd have to go back through all my material again, but IIRC there were 4 additional Sendai class cruisers that were cancelled: Ayase, Minase, Otonase, and one unnamed.

I at one point had a fairly decent list of the cancellations, I might have to try to dig that back up.




Gary Childress -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/14/2012 2:44:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
According to theorists cruisers may have been useless but, in reality, didn't cruisers play a HUGE role in the Pacific war? Had any one side been without cruisers, the other would have surely dominated the war. Battleships were just too few and too precious to be of as much use. In many battles cruisers carried the day. Battleships mostly saw action in large amphibious or carrier operations but didn't cruisers do a lot of the rest of the work?

Of course. T's comment was regarding cruisers in a world without the Treatys. Obviously War-II Navys were developed as a result of the Treatys. One side builds an 8" cruiser, then the other side builds one just because. They did not exist before the Treatys and after the war they disappeared. IMO the CA was a Treaty imposed cheap substitute for a BC. Only reason to build one is because everybody else is building them, and the Treaty says you can't build the stuff that's really worthwhile.

My comments were in response to Shark and the T discussing the provenance and development of cruiser type vessels before the artificial limitations imposed/allowed by the various Naval Treatys. Cruiser type vessels had an intrinsic worth to the various Naval powers, depending on the missions that those naval powers had to fulfill. In the absence of the Treatys, cruisers should likely develop according to existing Naval doctrine and to the best understanding of contemporary national Naval mission structures.


So, to the best of your reckoning, do you think there would have been just a few light scout cruisers and then a jump straight to BCs from there? Would cruisers not have come in different sizes and guns ranging from Leander scale to Alaska class? Would there not have been a continuum from smaller to bigger or would anything less than a battleship be seen as a waste of time and therefore not worth building?

I'm no expert on the matter but I would think that as soon as someone builds a 6", 8", 10" or whatever size cruiser, whether it be for commerce raiding or trade protection, I would think the likely response by other navies would be to build something similar to counter it. If there is a role for a puny destroyer, then I would think there would be a role for just about everything between it and a battleship. Of course I could very well be wrong, and it won't be the first time I've been wrong about something.




Gary Childress -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/14/2012 2:55:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Are these going to be available as 'game ready', or will I need to put them onto the backgrounds myself? Just curious as more than one of these would be very useful to me.


As a quick fix, here's a cumulative collection of what I've been working on. You are welcome to use whatever you want. Really most all of them are doctored AE art anyway. You'll just need to add them to backgrounds. I'm sort of in the middle of working on some stuff for some classes I'm taking and don't have the time at the moment to put them all on backgrounds. Hope this helps.




JWE -> RE: No Naval Treaties Art (2/14/2012 10:19:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Question for JWE:

Given the absence of the treaties, do you think that the scout cruisers (CLs) would have also been up-gunned to larger caliber main guns?

Don’t see why not, cruisers were jacks-of all-trades. After War-I the Brits designed a trade-protection cruiser with bigger guns; up-gunned regular cruiser but longer, more displacement , bigger winkie. Was the Hawkins class.

Nothing special, just longer and more displacement to handle the larger guns and retain the speed/endurance characteristics of cruiser. But no more armor. Hawkins was a regular gal with testosterone injections. Actually, the same thing could be said for the early Treaty 8” Countys, or Pensacolas; big guns, no protection.

Cost of a warship, does not follow just the gun caliber. There is the cost of armor for an immunity zone against a similar caliber. Ok, you buy armor, but the cost is speed, endurance, and habitability, on a hull size.

Ok, so you increase hull size and up the HP (recover speed and endurance) and add a deck (recover habitability). Now you got a larger, more vulnerable hull that needs more armor … you get the picture. So if you are going to do all that, as well as the Naval ordnance research stuff for a new gun, I have a perhaps more efficient, cost effective approach, in the absence of a Treaty.

A gazillion missions for cruiser-type vessels, of differing sizes. Small ones for DD leaders and showing the flag at St Helena garden clubs. Medium ones for fleet scouting/interdiction, and showing the flag at Marseilles garden clubs. Big ones for trade-protection/interdiction and showing the flag at Kiel.

Was I First Lord, I would keep the cruiser classes small, maneuverable, long-legged, habitable, and able to function in a command capacity. Over that, I would intuit a Deutschland-type ship: guns, armor, size, endurance, speed.

Ok, so some cruisers have 8” guns, so what? It works for their mission, but they are not true 8” warships by any stretch of the imagination. But why waste your time building a “few” true 8” warships, on a pathetically small hull disposition, when you can build an admittedly smaller number but proportionally more capable bunch of “bad boys”, for the same money?

Hijacked this thread enough. That’s my take, and I’m sticking to it.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.417969E-02