[FT] Battlecruisers vs. battleships

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Eric Foley stiltman@teleport.com
> it's kind of silly to build a ship of the wall sized vessel that

<grin> Oh, I want my BCs to fight things their own size--merchants,
troop ships, fleet tenders....

> thrust-6 <snip> they're capable of striking a blow against ships their

Er, Eric, it ooks to me as if you're saying a Thrust 6 ship can go
toe-to-toe with a Thrust 2 ship?

I'm not the naval historian you gentlemen seem to be, but allow me to make a
couple observations, and you can then pick them apart. ;-)

> Eric Foley wrote:

> Well, the Hood was like the battlecruisers that went down at Jutland in

*SNIP*

> the fact remains that

> From the little I've gleaned from reading/watching about British naval

The German navy in WWI, by contrast, focused mostly on defense of the German
coasts and seas around them.

However, while this MAY have been a justification for such designs
historically, it doesn't hold up in FT. That's because FTL is FTL regardless
of ship size, sacrificing armor for strategic speed is not necessary for force
projection, and tactical speed is easily reached, since in space combat you
only need thrust to increase or decrease speed, not maintain it.

3B^2

> At 7:20 AM -0700 5/15/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:

However, the PSB of whether you can perform in-system jumps is a
critical question. If you can' then transit time to the system periphery and
battle maneuverability are more critical. Being able to attain high speeds in
short periods of time could mean the difference in many battles.

> From: Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>

> However, the PSB of whether you can perform in-system jumps is a

And this definitely means that the viability of BC designs is to some extent
tied into the campaign/flavor of the background used.

3B^2

> Brian Bilderback wrote:

> I'm not the naval historian you gentlemen seem to be, but allow me to

Battlecruiser designs in FT only work if you are playing with the vector
movement rules. A battlecruiser in that regime is a vessel with thrust 8 and
aas many class-4 beams as can be reasonably accomodated by the remaining
mass (plus some pds and firecons). It can now dance outside the envelope of
class-2
beams, easily, and a well handled BC can stay within the 37-48 band of a
class-3
equipped target. It will take nearly forever to nickel and dime the opposition
to death, but they need thrust 8 to prevent the BC from controlling the range,
and even more thrust to run it down.

About the only historical battle that showcased the abilities of the BC was
the battle of the Falklands, where the Scharnhorst and Gniesnau were
hopelessly outclassed by the two british BC's. The german vessels could
neither run, nor engage their opponents.

The results of the Bismark's fire on the Hood give credence to the notion that
the Hood was inadequitely protected, but analysis of the events shows that it
was an improbable hit that caused her loss. Although the Bismark's 38cm
projectiles could easily pierce the thinner upper belts of the Hood, the short
fuze delay would have prevented the shells from reaching the magazine, even if
they still had enough residual penetration the enter the magazines (go to

[quoted original message omitted]

Hi folks,

> Eric Foley wrote:

I've been trying to stay out of this discussion, but, I need to correct
something.

The problems that the British battlecrusiers suffered were due to design

flaws, allowing fire to reach their internal magazines from their ammunition
handling rooms. It's also important to note that the British BCs at Jutland
were engaged with their German counterparts, and not with

the main German battleline. When Scheer appeared with the rest of the High
Seas Fleet during this part of the battle, Beatty turned away and ran for it,
thus allowing Jellico to engage while Scheer and Hipper were distracted with
Beatty. (I think only Invincible was lost to Scheer, and that was because she
was scouting for the British Grand Fleet.)

It's also important to note that German battlecruisers were also heavily
engaged, and they only lost one (Lutzow), after getting a pretty heavy
pounding from both Beatty's BCs, and the Grand Fleet. (Relatively speaking.)
German BCs proved that a BC, properly designed, could take a substantial
pounding and still remain operational. Not as much as a dreadnaught, but,
definitely more damage than the badly designed British BCs could handle.

A lot of what has been said in this thread was true -- BCs looked
like battleships, and were treated like battleships at times, and paid the
price for it. (If you want to draw an analogy, look at the history of the US
Tank Destroyer battalions in WWII.) But they weren't completely absued, and
they still served a required purpose well (e.g. Battle of the Falklands,
various other convoy patrols) until (as somebody else noted) the coming of the
aircraft carrier and the fast battleship.

I'll stop babbling now.  (8-)

JGH

[quoted original message omitted]

> Eric Foley wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----

Armor had little to do with it. The three battlecruisers lost at Jutland were
lost to turret hits that started fires in the magazine. A fourth ship would
have been lost (HMS Lion), but the magazine was immediately flooded. To speed
up ammunition handling, the charge passing hatches were normally open, due to
flash propogation being inadequitely understood. The Germans learned the same
lesson from less catastrophic circumstances when a single hit on the Seydlitz
caused a magazine fire (promptly flooded) that knocked out two turrets by
asphyxiating the entire turret crews. Prompt action by the crews of the other
three british BC's could have saved them, too.

> If Hood had been the only example, it could've been passed off as a

I would have to agree with you if the Hood was lost for the same reason, but
it wasn't. Although, the INRO research paper does not conclusively say what
happened, it eliminated many possibilities. The most probable of the remaining
hypotheses was an unlikely combination of the shell losing its ballistic cap
when it fell short AND having the fuse operate correctly when it struck the
Hood, below the armored belt, after travelling underwater. Similar
circumstances would have crippled, or destroyed, either the Yamato or an Iowa.
Underwater strikes from main batteries were sufficiently threatening that the
japanese actually did a lot of work towards improving the underwater
performance of their shells. The PoW also received an underwater hit from the
Bismark, but the shell was a dud. It would have exploded just outside one of
the engine rooms.

> > From: Eric Foley stiltman@teleport.com

<grin> No. But what you said wasn't what you meant, and I knew what you meant.
I need to start marking <dry humor>, apparently.

> > Er, Eric, it [l]ooks to me as if you're saying a Thrust 6 ship can

You were, IIRC, the one saying that high thrust wastes space that would be
better invested in weapons?

> At 01:31 16/05/02 -0700, Eric wrote:

It is important to remember that before the outbreak of WWI, even though

the cannon used had ranges measured in miles it was expected that the
protagonists would approach to close range and batter each other much like
naval ships had done previously. Although the capability was there, tradition
and a view of "how it should be" determined how people expected the navies to
fight.

Of course once hostilities broke out the ships started firing at each other as
soon as they were in range, completely at odds with how it was supposed to be.

> If Hood had been the only example, it could've been passed off as a

Dogger Bank, which precedes Jutland. Basically the war in the North Sea (as
far as the two fleets were concerned) was a series of attempts by the Germans
on one hand trying to draw out the larger British fleet and hopefully defeat
them in detail. While on the other hand the British were busy trying to catch
the Germans at it.

> that basically puts the occurence rate of such disasters

That's if the losses of the battlecruisers at Jutland and the Hood occurred
for the same reason, which they didn't.

The Hood was lost because it was subjected to plunging fire, at long range,
which penetrated the thinner top armour. As I have indicated the designers of
these ships envisaged fighting at closer ranges and designed the armour
protection accordingly.

The losses at Jutland were due to a completely different reason. The British
crews in order to produce a high rate of fire had charge bags stacked within
the turret ready for use unlike the German crews who didn't
do this. The German ship's also had closed anti-flash doors on the
elevators carrying the ammunition from the magazine below to the turret unlike
the British ships.

So when a German shell penetrated a turret on a British BC it ignited the
charge bags, the resultant flash in turn ignited the ammunition in the
magazine below as there was no closed anti-flash door to prevent this.
Of course the result was disaster.

Much as been made about the thin Battlecruiser armour but it wasn't the armour
which failed the battlecruisers at Jutland, it was dangerous gunnery
practises and the lack of closed anti-flash doors The German ships
didn't stack charge bags at hand, instead feeding them up from the magazine as
required with a elevator with anti-flash doors that weren't left open.
They also suffered hits which penetrated and knocked out their turrets but not
with the same catastrophic results.

As a note the British gunnery practise (stacking the charge bags, to assist in
achieving a high rate of fire) was the result of peace time gunnery training.
So there's a lesson here, train as you intend to fight. The British crews went
into battle using dangerous practises

Cheers

Actually, that happened in the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese at
Tsushima were getting hits before the Russians thought they were in range. The
European navies picked up on this. Both Germany and Britain (and the USA) had
people working on long range accuracy between
1905-1914. By 1914 long range director firing was doctrine in pretty
much every navy involved. The Turks I wonder about...

Right concept though. Spot on.

> Derek Fulton wrote:

> It is important to remember that before the outbreak of WWI, even

> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Perhaps viewing the 'Privateer vs NI' game would help with the 'speed bad,
weapons good' discussion? (Another 'faster than average' vs average thrust
squadron game, trying out offset firing arcs vs vanilla ships.)

Bye for now,

John Leary said:
> Perhaps viewing the 'Privateer vs NI' game would

I don't think so--there wasn't much of a speed difference, and the NI
ships had stealth, and there were other things to muddy the waters.

> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

> I don't think so--there wasn't much of a speed
I am! The only thing that made the game playable was the higher thrust of the
Privateers. I agree about the 'other' factors, they would cause confusion.

Bye for now,

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

On Fri, 17 May 2002 08:06:01 +0200 "K.H.Ranitzsch"
> <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

> From: "Derek Fulton" <derekfulton@bigpond.com>

> It is important to remember that before the outbreak of WWI, even
determined how people expected the navies to fight. <<

> Probably not just a matter of tradition. In the late 19th century,

> Though the battle of Tsushima (1905) with gunnery at several

This could also have been part of why the Jutland BC's used those dangerous
gunnery practices like storing charges in turrets, leaving flash doors open,
etc. "Traditional" naval practice, reinforced in the RN's case by past
experience (albeit mostly back in the days of sail) and the Fisher doctrine of
speed and firepower over armour, stressed the importance of maintaining a high
rate of fire: opening and closing all those doors and moving explosives around
in a careful fashion slowed things down.

The problem was that while it helped speed up the rate of fire, said rate
dropped to zero when the enemy hit back! For all the protective
value of armour, the offensive-defensive balance had changed in favour
of the former and getting hit even once could now destroy a ship --
unlike sailing ships, which were bl**dy hard to sink! Cripple or capture, yes,
but sinking took a lot more effort or luck, such as a fire breaking out.

Phil
----
"If you let a smile be your umbrella... you'll get wet teeth!"

> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:

> I don't think so--there wasn't much of a speed

JohnL:
> I am! The only thing that made the game playable was

<grin> Oh, I'd have found it playable if the privateers had had less thrust.
Not as interesting but my crews (RIP) would have been happier.

But the thrust difference IIRC was only 1 point or so?

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:

> <grin> Oh, I'd have found it playable if the

True, you had all the special rules and equipment! If I had not had the thrust
advantage, I would have exited the game and accepted the loss. I consider that
game to be a fast and interesting draw.

Bye for now,

JohnL
> True, you had all the special rules and equipment!
If I had not had the thrust advantage, I would have exited the game and
accepted the loss. I consider that game to be a fast and interesting draw.

Good, 'cause I thought I lost. :-)  Certainly interesting, though.