Hello;
I recently read the "Tough Guide to the Universe" and got a small bee up my
nose about how the author used the term "battlecruiser". Although, what he
really got right was that any ship labelled "battlecruiser" gets its coolness
factor upped several notches, so long as it is fast and has big guns.
It got me thinking about how battlecruisers are handled in games. They are
usually ships between a heavy cruiser and a battleship. Only one navy (the
USN) ever built ships like that, and they were called "Large Cruisers" (the
Alaska class). All ships that were actually called battlecruisers were as
large as, if not larger, than battleships. The HMS Hood, a battlecruiser, was
the largest warship in the world, until the Bismark was completed.
Battlecruisers were basically dreadnoughts that exchanged weight of armor for
weight of machinery to get an extra turn of speed. The only game that ever got
this right was Starfire, as a BC was faster than a BB and if it accepted less
protection, it could mount the same armament.
For an FT ship to be the equivalent of a true BC, it would need to
combine a thrust of eight with enough class-4 beams to threaten a CA
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 12/23/2006 11:41:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com writes:
It got me thinking about how battlecruisers are handled in games. They are
usually ships between a heavy cruiser and a battleship. Only one navy (the
USN) ever built ships like that, and they were called "Large Cruisers" (the
Alaska class). All ships that were actually called battlecruisers were as
large as, if not larger, than battleships. The HMS Hood, a battlecruiser, was
the largest warship in the world, until the Bismark was completed.
Battlecruisers were basically dreadnoughts that exchanged weight of armor for
weight of machinery to get an extra turn of speed. The only game that ever got
this right was Starfire, as a BC was faster than a BB and if it accepted less
protection, it could mount the same armament.
OK, maybe I am lost here. Hood was smaller the bismark, yet Hood was a
"cruiser" and Bismark was "battleship." If this is accurate and Hood and
Bismark were the worlds largest "warships" What exactly does that make Yamato
and Musashi that were nearly 2 times larger then Bismark?
Vince
> On 12/23/06, VinsFullThrust@aol.com <VinsFullThrust@aol.com> wrote:
In the Real World, warship designations have historically indicated role more
than they have designated tonnage limits.
I bet you go into convulsions trying to figure out how the statement that "In
the Napoleonic era, most cruisers were frigates" makes any sort of sense.
Try cracking a book that doesn't deal with spaceships before discussing
history.
> Bismark were the worlds largest "warships" What exactly does that make
When the Hood and Bismark were launched, they were wet-dreams in the
fevered imagination of Japanese admirals. Thanks for playing,
smart-ass.
If you're going to sharpshoot, please try to do so intelligently.
> At 9:40 AM -0700 12/23/06, Richard Bell wrote:
Battlecruisers have Cruiser speed, Battleship armament of the time and
crusiser armor. Depending on the time period and the sliding scale of
armament, protection and speed this could be any number of values.
For example, compare the Collossus and Indefatigable classes. They are
contemporaries, similar in tonnage and armament but the BC's have
significantly less armor and 4 more knots of speed.
Colossus class battleships
Displ: 20,225 tons normal; 23,050 tons full load Dim: 546 x 85 x 28.5 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 18 boilers, 4 shafts, 25,000 hp, 21 knots Crew: 755
Arm: 5 dual 12/50, 16 single 4/50, 3 21 inch TT (sub)
Armor: 7-11 inch belt, 1.75-4 inch deck, 4-11 inch barbettes,
11 inch turrets, 11 inch CT Slightly modified Neptune class.
Colossus Built by Scotts. Laid down 8 July 1909, launched 9 April 1910,
complete 7/1911. Minor damage at Jutland. Training ship
1919-1920,
stricken 1920 under the Washington Treaty, sold for scrapping
7/1928.
Hercules Built by Palmers. Laid down 30 July 1909, launched 10 May 1910,
complete 8/1911. Sold for scrapping 11/1921 under the
Washington Treaty.
Indefatigable class battlecruisers
Displ: 18,500 tons normal; 22,080 tons full load Dim: 590 x 80 x 26.5 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 32 boilers, 4 shafts, 44,000 hp, 25 knots
(Indefatigable: 43,000 hp) Crew: 800
Arm: 4 dual 12/45, 16 single 4/50, 3 18 inch TT (sub)
Armor: 4-6 inch belt, 1-2.5 inch deck, 3-7 inch barbettes, 7 inch
turrets,
10 inch CT
Lengthened versions of Invincible class. An additional ship of this class was
built for Australia.
Indefatigable Built by Devonport Navy. Laid down 23 Feb 1909, launched 28 Oct
1909,
completed 4/1911. Sunk at Jutland 31 May 1916 by magazine
explosion.
New Zealand Built by Fairfield. Laid down 20 June 1910, launched 1 July 1911,
completed 11/1912. Paid for by New Zealand, transferred to
England upon completion. Collision with Australia 22 April 1916. Sold for
scrapping 19 Dec 1922 under the Washington Treaty. I
> It got me thinking about how battlecruisers are handled in games.
I have several ships I've kitbashed into BCs for my NAC forces. Essentually a
Ticonderoga aft
hull/pod section and an NCA battleship banjo as a
fore end. Armament iirc has two sets of Class 3s in the frontal arc, 2 sets of
class 2s and class 1s and PDS plus shields on par with the ticonderagoa. They
still have a turn os speed like the ticonderogas and work well as a fast heavy
for my cruiser squadrons and do well if I avoid trying to use them as
Battlehsips and instead poke at the other guy's heels and flanks while he's
dealing with my battle line.
They are more appropriate for games with context and sliding edges vs slugging
matches on a fixed board size.
> They are usually ships between a heavy cruiser and a battleship. Only
Germany and Britain made lots.
> All ships that were actually
Hood is actually more correctly called a fast battleship. Her construction was
halted for a time to make changes to the design.
> Richard Bell wrote:
> I recently read the "Tough Guide to the Universe" and got a small bee
At least one other navy built ships like that. Compare the stats for the
Alaskas with those of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau - you might get
surprised by the similarities...
FWIW, at the time the S&G were built the Royal Navy classified them as
"battlecruisers" since that was the RN's catch-all term for any fast
capital ship regardless of armour or armament :-/
> All ships that were actually called battlecruisers were as large as, if
> not larger, than
StarFire doesn't get this right either, since it restricts BCs to a mere
80% the size of BBs (and a mere 62% the size of "SDNs"). This is of course
quite contrary to the Hood example. Sure, you can build a StarFire BC with the
same armament as a typical BB, but if you do you'll get a ship with the
defences of an average destroyer...
> For an FT ship to be the equivalent of a true BC, it would need to
Sounds like you're talking about a Vector-optimized background here. For
the (Cinematic) GZGverse, both the thrust-8 and the class-4s are IMO
rather
over the top - it'd make your BC faster than any other GZGverse ship
except
the ESU Lenov-class scout, and allow it to outrange any other ship
except
the ESU Komarov-class SDN...
With most GZGverse capital ships restricted to thrust ratings of 2-4,
and fast cruisers and destroyers generally having thrust 6, a
"Fischer-style"
GZGverse BC would only need to *match* the fastest smaller cruisers -
ie.,
thrust 6.
Similarly with armament: when most GZGverse capital ships relying on
class-*3* batteries for their main armament (except for the Komarov,
that
is), and cruisers having at most 2 class-3s, giving your "Fischer-style"
BC
a main armament of 3-4 class-3 batteries would allow it to comfortably
outgun any heavy cruiser it encounters while rivalling most slower battleships
and dreadnoughts in firepower (though not in survivability, of course).
Regards,
> Richard Bell wrote:
Classifying warships is always fraught with peril. I have a very simplistic
system here:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3t.html#shipgrid
that you may get a chuckle out of.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
Only
> one navy (the USN) ever built ships like that, and they were called
Yup. Britain created the concept of the Battlecruiser (it was part of Admiral
Fisher's reform program for the Royal Navy at the turn of the century.)
Germany responded by building its own Battlecruisers, in the naval arms race
that lead up to World War I.
Any decent World War I naval history will cover the details of the battles.
The concept was pretty much discredited by World War I, with the surviving
Battlecruisers of the time either scrapped or upgraded (hence Hood being
reclassed as a 'fast battleship', though she still had the weakness in her
turret design that resulted in her destruction at the hands of the Bismarck.)
The biggest problem was similar to the same problems that
affected the American Tank Destroyer groups in World War II -- it looked
like a capital ship, and so tended to be thrown into the line of battle, even
when they weren't. And when it became obvious that 80% of the cost of a
battleship only bought you 50% of the capability, that was pretty much it.
As far as I can remember, the only time a battlecruiser squadron was used
according to doctrine was the Battle of the Falkland Islands in 1914, when two
battlecruisers with supporting ships sank a German armoured cruiser squadron.
Most naval historians (at least, all the once I've encountered) look rather
askance at the Alaska class cruisers built by the United States at the end of
World War II; to this day, from all the sources I've read, nobody is still
quite sure what they were intended to do, especially when in the same Navy you
had ships that were just as fast, mounted larger guns, and had twice the belt
armour thickness. (The Iowas.)
JGH
> At 9:04 PM -0500 12/23/06, Jerry Han wrote:
One could argue that BC's would have been ideal in hunting down the heavier
German Commerce Raiders, the Pocket Battleships as they were.
> Most naval historians (at least, all the once I've encountered) look
Well, the Alaskas would have been quote useful in the situations where the
Japanese sent a bigger ship in to fight against US DDs and CLs. Something with
some more punch could have turned the tide in several battles.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
The thing is though, those were different eras. In World War I, German
commerce raiders were, for the most part, converted merchant cruisers. Thus,
usually, any decent crewed light cruiser could handle them.
The German Pocket Battleships were, in a sense, 'light' battlecruisers, as
they carried 11" guns on essentially a heavy cruiser hull. BCs would have been
useful in hunting down the pocket battleships, but, by World War 2, there were
many other countermeasures, all of which were much more flexible than
battlecruisers. (Air power, submarines, fast battleships, heavy 8" cruisers,
destroyers with reliable torpedoes, etc.)
> Most naval historians (at least, all the once I've encountered) look
> the Japanese sent a bigger ship in to fight against US DDs and CLs.
But that's the point -- if you needed bigger ships with more punch, it
was always more cost effective to send a battleship than a battlecruiser, or
send a division of heavy cruisers. The classic battlecruiser was neither fish
nor fowl, overkill against heavy cruisers, hopelessly outclassed against any
battleship, especially when battleships were capable of matching battlecruiser
speeds.
It's an appealing concept, as demonstrated by the number of game systems and
novels trying to implement a version of the battlecruiser that makes sense,
but, it takes a certain mix of technology to make it
really useful I believe, and that mix wasn't present in World War I / II
era. The problem is that the phrase "able to catch what you can destroy, able
to run away from what you can't" isn't just a definition of a ship class, it's
one of the defining rules of the tactical matrix of combat, naval or
otherwise. There are certain sweet spots for size and capability defined by
the era, and the battlecruiser never quite fit into any of those sweet spots
in naval history.
IMHO, of course. (8-)
JGH
> At 12:31 AM -0500 12/24/06, Jerry Han wrote:
I'm thinking of the WWII era where the Germans DID have just the pocket
battleship like the Adm Graff Spee. What's tricky is that Ajax, Achillies and
Exteter should have lost against the Graff Spee, but He was under orders to
eschew a fight with British forces. Had the PE turned on them and stayed on
them, he likely could have driven them off or destroyed them. He'd driven off
Exeter already.
I suspect a few more fast BCs could have been useful in the Northern Transit
to the USSR on the convoys north. Certainly to ward off the Scharnhorst and
Gneisenau.
> The German Pocket Battleships were, in a sense, 'light' battlecruisers,
I think an upgraded BC with BB armament (the G3s)
of the time (14"-16" guns) would have easily
controlled the range with the Adm Graf Spee or the Gneisenau and probably have
been a boon. Of course, it takes the same or nearly the same resources to
build a BC and they only make sense if you have sufficient BB's to make up
your needs and slips waiting on something else. Else, you'll find them being
used in the wrong role and they suffer when pressed into the battle line.
> But that's the point -- if you needed bigger ships with more punch, it
When FAST battleships were able to match the BC speeds. The Montana's were
going to be good old fashioned slow battleships with even more armor
(gobs more) and armament (4 triple 16"/50s and
the 10 double 5"/54s) than the Iowas. Still a
multi-layer approach just like CLs, CAs and CH's.
Though, looking at hazegray.org, it seems that the Alaska's were almost older
style Battleships in that they were protected against their own armament (12"
guns). Almost a throw back to
size/gun size/armor but with a modern layout and
machinery/armament.
> It's an appealing concept, as demonstrated by the number of game
I think mostly because it's role was too particular and it was often just
stuck into the
battle-line where it suffered horribly.
> On 12/23/06, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se> wrote:
Only
> >one navy (the USN) ever built ships like that, and they were called
I was under the possibly mistaken impression that the germans called them
battleships.
> >All ships that were actually called battlecruisers were as large as,
I have obviously not played Starfire in a long, long time. When I played, a BC
was limited to 70 spaces and the BB only had 85. After maxing out both for
speed, the BB was speed 5 with 70 spaces for everything else, and the BC was
speed 6 with 58 spaces for everything else. Except for the more sparsely
defended BB's, the BC could have the same armament, yet more shields and armor
than a CA.
> >For an FT ship to be the equivalent of a true BC, it would need to
The BC needs class-4's, not because the capital ships use them, but
because the cruisers that it hunts have class-3's. Only having
class-3's would force the BC to trade fire with the cruisers.
Class-4's give the BC a measure of impunity. The WWI Battle of the
Falklands would have been very different if the CA's Scharnhorst and Gniesnau
were able to reply from the get go (Really good gunnery against ships with
ballistic computers set to the wrong hemisphere, for the first few minutes).
It is not enough to be as fast as the cruisers. To control the range, you have
to be faster. With more thrust, you not only guarantee the interception, but
can tailer the intercept to suit you. Ideally, you would like to intercept
your target at nearly the same vector to them, to maximise the time they spend
under the destructive sleet of your beams. That requires either a cooperative
enemy, or a larger thrust envelope.
If my BC's seem out of line for the other capital ships in Tuffleyverse, it is
only because the capital ships all have a very
pre-dreadnought flavor. That is not really a problem, it would be a
very different game, if there was a way for large ships to slough off hits
from smaller ships.
> On 12/23/06, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >They are usually ships between a heavy cruiser and a battleship.
Only
> >one navy (the USN) ever built ships like that, and they were called
> On 12/23/06, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I think mostly because it's role was too
Not only was its role particular, but once the airplane really took off, it
was mooted. The role of the battlecruiser envisioned by Fisher was a vessel
that allowed you to find the other line of battle while preventing the enemy
from doing the same. It could chase away,
> At 11:39 PM -0700 12/23/06, Richard Bell wrote:
Only
> one navy (the USN) ever built ships like that, and they were called
Von der Tan battlecruiser
Displ: 19,064 tons normal; 21,082 tons full load Dim: 563 x 87 x 26.6 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 18 boilers, 4 shafts, 43,600 hp, 24.75 knots Crew: 923
(1174 wartime)
Arm: 4 dual 11/45, 10 single 5.9/45, 16 single 3.5/45, 4 17/7 inch TT
(sub)
Armor: 3.1-9.8 inch belt, 1.2-9.1 inch barbettes, 9.1 inch turrets,
9.8 inch CT
Moltke class battlecruisers Moltke and Goeben
Displ: 22,616 tons normal; 25,300 tons full load Dim: 612 x 97 x 27 feet Prop:
Steam turbines, 24 boilers, 4 shafts, 52,000 shp, 25.5 knots Crew: 1053 (1355
wartime)
Arm: 5 dual 11/50, 12 5.9/45, 12 3.5 inch, 4 19.7 inch TT (sub)
Armor: 3.9-10.6 inch belt, 1.2-9.1 inch barbettes, 9.1 inch turrets,
13.8 inch CT
Seydlitz battlecruiser
Displ: 24,594 tons normal; 28,100 tons full load Dim: 658 x 93.5 x 27 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 27 boilers, 4 shafts, 63,000 hp, 26.5 knots Crew: 1068
Arm: 5 dual 11/50, 12 single 5.9/45, 12 single 3.5/45, 4 19.7 inch TT
(sub)
Armor: 3.9-11.8 inch belt, 1.2-9.1 inch barbettes, 9.8 inch turrets,
13.8 inch CT Enlarged and improved Moltke class.
Derfflinger class battlecruisers
Derfflinger and Lutzow
Displ: 26,180 tons normal; 30,707 tons full load Dim: 690 x 95 x 27 feet Prop:
Steam turbines, 18 boilers, 4 shafts, 63,000 hp, 26.5 knots Crew: 1112 (1391
wartime)
Arm: 4 dual 12/50, 12 single 5.9/45, 4 single 3.5/45, 4 19.7 inch TT
(sub)
(Lutzow: 2 additional 5.9 inch, no 3.5 inch, 23.6 inch TT (sub))
Armor: 3.9-11.8 inch belt, 1.2-10.2 inch barbettes, 10.6 inch turrets,
13.8 inch CT
Hindenburg battlecruiser
Displ: 26,513 tons normal; 31,000 tons full load Dim: 698 x 95 x 27 feet Prop:
Steam turbines, 18 boilers, 4 shafts, 72.000 hp, 27.5 knots Crew: 1182
Arm: 4 dual 12/50, 14 single 5.9/45, 4 3.5 inch AA, 4 23.6 inch TT (sub)
Armor: 3.9-11.8 inch belt, 1.2-10.2 inch barbettes, 10.6 inch turrets,
13.8 inch CT Slightly modified Derfflinger class design.
Started but not finished were the Mackensen class battlecruisers and Ersatz
Yorck class battlecruisers
Displ: 30,500 tons normal; 34,742 tons full load Dim: 731.5 x 100 x 27.5 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 32 boilers, 4 shafts, 90,000 hp, 28 knots Crew: 1186
Arm: 4 dual 13.8/45, 12 single 5.9/45, 8 3.5 inch AA, 5 23.6 inch TT
(sub)
Armor: 3.9-11.8 inch belt, 3.9-11.4 inch barbettes, 12.6 inch turrets,
13.8 inch CT
Displ: 33,000 tons normal; 37,400 tons full load Dim: 747.5 x 100 x 28.5 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, hydraulic drive, 32 boilers, 4 shafts, 90,000 hp, 27.25
knots Crew: 1227
Arm: 4 dual 15/45, 12 single 5.9/45, 8 3.5 (or 4.1) inch AA, 3 23.6
(or 27.6) inch TT (sub)
Armor: 3.9-11.8 inch belt, 3.5-11.8 inch barbettes, 11.8 inch turrets,
13.8 inch CT Ordered as Mackensen class, changed to modified design with
15 inch guns 1/1917.
> Britain may have
Invincible, Indomitable, Inflexible, Indefatigable, New Zealand, Lion,
Princess Royal, Queen Mary, Tiger, Renown, Repulse
> All of the ships
Which exchanged armor for boiler plants. Compare the Orions and the Lions.
Orion class battleships
Displ: 22,200 tons normal; 25,870 tons full load Dim: 581 x 88 x 25 feet Prop:
Steam turbines, 18 boilers, 4 shafts, 27,000 hp, 21 knots Crew: 752
Arm: 5 dual 13.5/45, 16 single 4/50, 3 21 inch TT sub
Armor: 8-12 inch belt, 1-4 inch decks, 3-10 inch barbettes, 11 inch
turrets, 11 inch CT
Lion class battlecruisers
Displ: 26,270 tons normal; 29,680 tons full load Dim: 700 x 88.5 x 27.5 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 42 boilers, 4 shafts, 70,000 hp, 27 knots Crew: 997
Arm: 4 dual 13.5/45, 16 single 4/50, 2 21 inch TT (sub)
Armor: 4-9 inch belt, 1-2.5 inch decks, 3-9 inch barbettes, 9 inch
turrets,
10 inch CT
Bow's lengthened for the speed factor and a touch more beam, but otherwise
similar in size. The big difference is LOTs less armor for boiler plant.
> The USN contemplated a class of five that were squarely
Which I think in US doctrine were more Large Cruisers.
Richard Bell schrieb:
> On 12/23/06, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
As far as I understand it, the original battlecruisers were not really
intended for reconnasissance work for the battle fleet and they were not
used like that in WWI. Recconnaissance was the task of light cruisers and
destroyers.
As has already been mentioned, the battlecruisers were intended to hunt down
commerce raiders, as they did in the Falklands battle. The
intention was to allow the Royal Navy to keep world-wide control of the
sea. While many German raiders were converted merchant ships (and even a
sailing ship) there were numerous light cruisers (e.g.the Emden) and even
heavy cruisers (Graf Spee's squadron) scattered over the oceans. The
battlecruisers were intended to deal with the heaviest of these threats and
did so effectively. Though it certainly is true that they were overkill
against most raiders, including the light cruisers. But then, you really can't
have too much killing power, can you?
Once the commerce raiders had been dealt with, the Royal Navy used them
as fast battleships, with altogether poor results - see the battle of
Jutland.
What the contemporary German battlecruisers were supposed to do is not quite
clear to me. Probably they were built in an effort to "keep up with the
Jones". Note that they were better armoured than the British
ones, of similar speed, but with weaker guns - though still adequate to
deal with a battlecruiser's armour. Perhaps they can be described as
anti-battlecruisers. They were mostly used as raiders, but only within
the confines of the North Sea. They didn't have the range, and Germany
didn't have the network of bases to use them in world-wide raiding.
Greetings, and Merry Christmas Karl Heinz
> At 9:40 AM -0700 23/12/06, Richard Bell wrote:
Well, I've designed one NAC 'Renown' battlecruiser, basically
a Vandenberg/T with bigger engines (thrust-6) and an extra
beam-3 replacing the screen. In battle it's performed quite
like the historical battlecruisers: able to zip about quickly, delivers a lot
of firepower onto whatever it catches, but with only a cruiser hull doesn't
last long in a firefight with an enemy battleship.
The rationale for the design (note that I don't claim it to be a complete
success!) is the NAC running into the Kra'Vak. The big Kra'Vak cruisers and
battleships run rings around the NAC and their single arc pulse torps. Bolting
on new engines to increase the speed and turning ability seems to me a likely
stopgap measure.
The design I haven't playtested yet is the 'Lion': take a standard Victoria
battleship hull and give it Ark Royal engines.
Mass goes up to 141 and thrust-6, everything else the same.
> Although, what he really got right was that any ship labelled
Very true :-)
cheers,
> On 12/24/06, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Well, I've designed one NAC 'Renown' battlecruiser, basically
I put together a design which I designated a Battlecruiser. Took a standard BB
design, remove the armor and shields, and replace with engine mass. Took it up
to a thrust 6 or so.
The ship which most FT fleets refer to as a Battle Cruiser I designated a
Protected Cruiser, though Light Battleship would be more accurate. The intent
of these ships is for assignment to stations not rating a real capital ship
squadron. A couple of these ships, with a squadron flagship of a regular
battleship constitutes a "light battle squadron" which is intended to protect
frontier sectors but not stand and fight against serious opposition. That's
the purpose of heavy battle squadrons composed of dreadnoughts and heavy
dreadnoughts.
In the ideal world, there would be no need for these vessels, as they serve no
tactical function that cannot be served better by dreadnoughts. But I'm
assuming that there is a significant percieved benefit from having smaller,
cheaper, somewhat more quickly built hulls which can be risked more than the
dreadnoughts and which can be stationed in frontier sectors for extended
periods of time while the
dreadnoughts are kept in a centrally-located hub as a strategic
reserve.
> At 9:56 AM +0100 12/24/06, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
And tucking them into the line and keeping them close to the big boys was a
mistake I think. they should have been turned loose to run around the edges of
the High Seas Fleet.
More or less use the DD's for Recce, like small light armored cav and the CAs
and BCs as counter Recce for the purposes of Heavy armored cav and medium
tanks. Not unlike how a lot of armored warfare doctrine worked out.
> At 12:50 PM +0300 12/24/06, John Atkinson wrote:
I enlarged the NAC Vandenberg (I mistakenly
called it a Ticonderoga in a previous e-mail,
It's been a while since I even looked at my FT figures). Checking the SSD
again it's: 108 TMF, 388 NPV, x2 Class 1s, x2 class 3s with Overlapping front
180 and one arc to either side's aft beam. Two PDS, 1 Shield, two Fire Cons
(redundancy), 5 armor and 32 hull. Oh thrust 6. I call it the Black Prince
class. So far, as long as I don't get in the thick of things, it works well as
the leader for a squadron of Vandenbergs and Heavy Destroyers. I have a few
Heavy DD's which are almost CLs but I don't call them CL's because they don't
have screens (Screens being the demarcation for me as to DD vs CA status, not
tonnage). Class 3 beams AND Screens being the
demark for Battle-* or larger.
I also made a variant of the old ship list NAC BC that has more thrust. A BC
that moves thrust 4 doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps best to think of as
a 2nd class BB and redesignate as a BC once you fit new engines? I can't even
think of the ship in question's name because my books are all packed away.
> In the ideal world, there would be no need for these vessels, as they
I suspect with the modular nature of current ship construction and future
space ship construction, BC's would be more possible because you could leave
off an armor layer or two and other protection in lieu of more engine mass to
get that speed. Less armor also means more speed for the same structural hull
size. The extra turn of speed and the need in the FT world for patrolling
systems, quick transits to get out to other systems and for acting as fire
brigades for problems would give them some advantages over slower thrust 4 BBs
and DNs.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 12/24/06, Ryan
> Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
Actually, whether you could really do that is a matter of how much
acceleration is one thrust point, or if the mass set aside to produce thrust
is purely engines or engines plus beefing up the structure to handle the
stress. If each point of thrust is one g, then upping the acceleration from 4
to 6 is more than just bolting on half again as many engines. Of course, the
rules seem to imply that all hulls are built to handle thrust 8 (possibly 10),
whether they need to or not, as the rules make no mention of higher thrust
hulls costing more than pokey lower thrust hulls.
Answering another of your posts, once your likely enemy also has BC's,
sending DD's and/or CL's to scout for the enemy's fleet becomes
prohibitively expensive, or impossible if your light units have other uses,
like looking screening your battleline from enemy subs (one of the reasons
that prevented a Jutland rematch was the feeling that the RN did not have
enough DD's for a proper anti-sub screen).
The RN BC's fared poorly at Jutland not so much because they were tucked into
the battleline, but because they were scouting for the High Seas Fleet
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 24/12/06,
> K.H.Ranitzsch <kh.ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
One of the roles for battle cruisers was to act as part of the fleet recon
screen, which how both the Rayal Navy and the Kreigsmarine used them at
Jutland. Indeed, Beatty's BC's at Jutland intentionally put them selves in
harms way, not just to act as part of the screen but in order to draw the high
seas fleet into the Grand Fleets trap. Of course, this initial stage of the
battle would have gone better for the British if Beatty hadn't suffered a
Nelson complex, and his flag communication officer had actually bothered to
relay orders and signals to Beatty, Jellicoe, and the Admiral of the 5th
Battle squadron.
As has already been mentioned, the battlecruisers were intended to hunt
> down commerce raiders, as they did in the Falklands battle. The
Not as Fast Battle ships, but as heavy, fast screening elements for a large
battle fleet, one of the roles they were designed for. Of course whether or
not this role was tactically viable in reality is open to discussion, and such
vessels were replaced with aircraft in WW2.
What the contemporary German battlecruisers were supposed to do is not
> quite clear to me. Probably they were built in an effort to "keep up
The German BC's were there to do the same job as British BC's, only their
construction followed the German norms of the time, protection, firepower,
speed, in that order, whilst British capital ships tended towards firepower,
speed and armour. The Royal Navy approach to ship building was a result of
the fact it required multi-role capability in a wide varitety of
theatres. The Kreigsmarine had but one major role, to defeat the Royal Navy.
And hence it's BC's were tailored to the fleet screen role for a major fleet
action.
Greetings, and Merry Christmas
> Karl Heinz
> At 1:18 PM -0700 12/24/06, Richard Bell wrote:
It could be a combination. Because with more thrust at the end, you get more
turning capability which is nice torsional and bending moments which can do
all sorts of things to a structure. Though, I'd suspect that if you don't hang
lots of armor and other weight on a given structure and you put more thrust
behind it a lot of what you do to support the increased mass out on the end of
your pendulum is duplicated if you have the same structure and increase the
force of movement.
> Answering another of your posts, once your
Which is where you get better sensors (I started trying to use sensor rules
for partially this reason and including sensor fits on my faster ships). Of
course subs aren't an issue in FT.
> The RN BC's fared poorly at Jutland not so much
And there's been some problems called into question where British powder
handling is concerned.
> Richard Bell wrote:
> >It got me thinking about how battlecruisers are handled in games.
Only
> >one navy (the USN) ever built ships like that, and they were called
Sure they did; just like the USN called their pocket
battleship-equivalents
"large cruisers" rather than "battlecruisers". What they were called by their
builders doesn't change the fact that the WW2 Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were
quite similar to the USN Alaskas in both displacement and
performance, contrary to your above claim that "only the USN built ships
like that".
> >All ships that were actually called battlecruisers were as large as,
> largest warship
You're thinking of the 1st Edition (there have been at least another four
editions since then), but you've mixed BBs up with CVs. 1st edition BBs only
had *80* hull spaces, so going from BC to BB only lost you 7 hull spaces. (CVs
had 85 hull spaces but used BC engines; OTOH they suffered rather severe cost
penalties when carrying offensive weapons.)
'Course, 1st edition *superdreadnoughts* had 120 hull spaces - and since
most real-world BCs were built after the Dreadnought, it is really the
BC-vs-DN/SDN comparison which is interesting for your purposes.
StarFire's
"BB" category correlates roughly to real-world wet-navy predreadnoughts.
In the 2nd and subsequent editions OTOH going from BB to BC lost you
*17*
hull spaces, and since most BB designs only use 20-25 hull spaces for
shields and armour trying to fit a BB armament on a BC left you with 3-8
hull spaces for passive defences... which compares rather closely to an
average DD using 4-6 hull spaces for passive defences, and is decidedly
less than a typical CA's 10-15 spaces of passive defences.
StarFire BCs have generally buggered CAs, since in the 1st through 3rd
editions the BC and CA engine requirements were identical but the BCs were
33% larger - giving exactly the same effect as if Full Thrust BCs only
had to pay 3.75% of their TMF for each thrust point while all other ships had
to pay the full 5% per thrust point. There was a great outcry when we changed
this in SM#2 (or possibly 3rd Revised Edition, can't remember which
ATM).
> >For an FT ship to be the equivalent of a true BC, it would need to
You only need class-4s if you want to be *completely invulnerable* to
the cruisers. You don't need them to *defeat* the cruisers. If you're prepared
to take some return fire (and possibly even some damage) in the process, it is
enough to merely outgun the cruisers at any range they can shoot back at you
from while being at least as capable to absorb damage as they are (which FWIW
is how the RN beat Spee's squadron at the Falklands).
> Only having class-3's would force the BC to trade fire with the
No, it wouldn't change anything in that battle - because in the
historical battle, the Germans started scoring hits on the British BCs before
taking serious damage themselves. Their problem was not to *score* hits, but
that their guns were too small to penetrate the armour of the British ships
when they *did* hit. Invincible was hit 22 times during the battle, over half
of
those by 8" shells, yet only 1 crew member was injured and no-one aboard
her was killed.
Which is exactly what I'm talking about above. The British did NOT win at the
Falklands by pounding the Germans to submission from outside the range
of the German guns the way you want your class-4-armed FT BC to handle
enemy cruisers. They won because their heavier armament and stronger
protection allowed them to shrug off the hits the Germans could and did
inflict, whereas the German ships couldn't shrug off hits from the British
guns. In FT terms both sides had "class-3" batteries but the British
ships had more of them (giving them heavier firepower at the same range), in
addition to having stronger screens and/or more armour and hull boxes
than the German ships.
> To control the range, you have to be faster.
Or have an energy advantage, gained eg. by wrong-footing the enemy (or
having him wrong-foot himself like Spee did). Very few if any historical
BCs were faster than smaller cruisers of the same age and at the same level of
maintenance. (Being faster than *older* ships was no big challenge due to the
rapid technological advances of the era.) At the Falklands the German cruisers
were in need of boiler refits and therefore couldn't manage their official
maximum speed; the BCs OTOH were in good repair and could
reach their official maximum speeds.
The ship you are trying to design is not a repeat of the historical
Fischer-style BCs that were actually built, but a dream image of an
idealised Fischer-style BC that never was built in the real world. Of
course such a Full Thrust ship will be outrageously expensive; chasing dreams
almost always is.
Regards,
> Ryan Gill wrote:
The mistake was having them come within range of guns that could blow
holes through their armour. (8-)
The Battlecruisers were used to deal with commerce raiders (RE: Battle of
Coronel, Battle of the Falklands), but, RN doctrine was to use 'standard'
cruisers for that work. Other than the Battle of the Falklands, occasioned by
an irate Churchill demanding revenge for Coronel, the battlecruisers stayed at
home and patrolled the North Sea or engaged in shore bombardment in the
Mediterranean. (Specifically bombarding the forts guarding the Dardanelles.)
Spee's East Asia squadron destroyed at the Falklands was an exception to the
rule, as it was a regular Kriegsmarine squadron, cut off from base and support
when the war began, attempting to fight their way back home, engaging in
commerce raiding as a secondary objective and to replenish their supplies.
Note that no battlecruiser was sent to search for or engage ships such as
Emden, Konigsberg, or Karlsruhe, for example, nor German Armed Merchant
raiders.
The battlecruiser's ability to engage armoured cruisers decisively and travel
at high speed was meant to win the intelligence battle in the North Sea, and
act as a "fire brigade" to move firepower rapidly to protect
British interests in advance of a substantial battleline deployment --
not to chase down commerce raiders across the oceans.
JGH
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 12/24/06, Oerjan
> Ariander <oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se> wrote:
Only
> >> >one navy (the USN) ever built ships like that, and they were
When they were built, they were the largest ships in the kriegsmarine. They
only appear to be between cruisers and battleships after the construction of
Bismark and Tirpitz.
> >> >For an FT ship to be the equivalent of a true BC, it would need to
Replace the BC's 12" guns with even a larger number of 9.2" and things look
really bad for the british, as they no longer really outgun the S & G in a
serious manner and they suffer from having only the same armor the S &
G.
In that fight, the S & G may even have a small range advantage as Spee's
squadron had won the Kaiser's gunnery prize more than once. Historically, the
British BC's were able to stay in the sweet spot were the german 21cm guns
could neither penetrate the belt, nor plunge through the deck. Firing 12"
guns, the British need not care that the S & G had similar protection. Spee's
squadron may still have been sunk, but the british losses would have disproved
the concept of BC's, if they only had comparable armament to the CA's.
Especially if they fought under the same historical conditions that forced
them to shutdown and restart their gunfire computers, this time under the
flail of the german guns, at ranges that allowed the shells to punch right
through the belt.
Which is exactly what I'm talking about above. The British did NOT win at
> the Falklands by pounding the Germans to submission from outside the
The protection of the ships was actually quite similar; although the belt of
the BC's was thicker on average, the german CA's had the same max thickness of
belt, the same deck armor, and same protection for the main guns. They won
because of their longer ranged armament, which could engage the CA's outside
of effective return fire.
A ship with two class-4's against a ship with two class-3, that can also
keep the range at 24+ will get some return fire, but will do at least
twice as much damage, each turn.
> To control the range, you have to be faster.
Going by lists of british light cruisers of WWI, It was 6-8 years
before new light cruisers exceeded the speed of the first battlecruisers.
Except for the 'wierd sisters' (light cruisers with battleship main guns), no
british light cruiser before WWII had the turn of speed designed into the
Repulse and Renown (laid down in 1915-16). So, for the Royal Navy, no
equally modern light cruiser had a snowball's chance in hell of outrunning a
battle cruiser. The german light cruisers were equally slow footed. Long ships
have a higher hullspeed than shorter ships, so at 32 knots, the HMS Hood was
likely one of the fastest, as well as largest warship afloat, if only for a
short time.
The ship you are trying to design is not a repeat of the historical
> Fischer-style BCs that were actually built, but a dream image of an
The problem with my vision of Fisher-style BC's in FT is that there are
no battleships, let alone dreadnoughts in FT. There are CA's, large cruisers
labelled BC's, larger cruisers labelled BB's, even larger cruisers labelled
> The problem with my vision of Fisher-style BC's in FT is that there are
FT feels more like 1900 than 1914. And I'd like to see Fighters given the
same emphasis that torpedo-boats were back then.
See for example the Foudre (French Navy TB carrier).
As usual OA is right on the money - but instead of Beam-4's. I'd give
them a special FC that would double effective range, so their range bands
would
> On 12/25/06, Zoe Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote:
> A Pre-Dreadnaught with 3 different main calibres, 4x12", plus many
It did not take luck to score hits at 10,000 yds in a preDN, skill
would suffice. What was new was trying to keep the fight at 10,000+
yds. The IJN proved conclusively that hits could be scored at that range, at
Tsushima. What you needed 10 x 12" guns for was scoring a
lot of hits at 10,000+ yds. Dreadnought also had a speed advantage
over older battleships, to keep the range at 10,000+ yds. Hitting at
20,000 yds always took luck, but with more heavy guns, the tyranny of numbers
worked in your favour.
> [quoted text omitted]
> At 12:14 AM +0100 12/25/06, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
Except they had armor protecting them to the level of armament they had and
the Alaskas are over twice as heavy displacement wise. The German pocket
battleships were not armored in the same respect as their armament was
significantly heavier than their armor protection.
An engagement between Alaska's and Deutschland's would have been entirely one
sided. The Alaska's had more armor, more guns and more speed.
Though, pondering things, BC's would be, if not used for their primary
commerce raiding or protection role or for their cruiser hunting counter recce
role (in FT especially) would make excellent escorts for carriers. UP their
PDS and ADS systems and otherwise use them in the ares between the carriers
and the possible threats. This assumes if you actually have battles where the
carriers are off separate from the battle line.
> From HazeGray.org
Alaska class large cruisers Displacement: 34,253 tons full load
Dimensions: 808.5 x 91 x 32 feet/246.4 x 27.8 x 9.7 meters
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 8 600 psi boilers, 4 shafts, 150,000 shp, 33 knots
Crew: 1769
Armor: 5-9 inch belt, 3.8-4 inch deck, 11-13 inch
barbettes, 5-12.8 inch turrets, 5-10.6 inch CT
Armament: 3 triple 12"/50cal, 6 dual 5"/38cal DP,
14 dual 40 mm AA, 34 single 20 mm AA (CB 3-6: 15
dual 40 mm AA, 4 twin 40 mm AA, 24 dual 20 mm AA)
Concept/Program: These are the most misunderstood
of all US cruisers. Although often called "battlecruisers", they were truly an
outgrowth of cruiser design. They were in effect "big cruisers", whereas
battlecruisers were better considered "lightly armored battleships". The
Alaskas were intended as cruiser-killers, to hunt
down and destroy enemy 8"-gun cruisers engaged in
commerce raiding. They were a response to the powerful 8" cruisers being built
abroad, and the end of the arms limitation treaties allowed the design to grow
without artificial limits.
Deutschland class raiding cruisers
Displ: 11,700 tons standard; 15,900-16,200 tons full load
Dim: 610 x 71 x 24 feet Prop: 8 Diesels, 54,000 hp, 2 shafts, 28 knots
Crew: 619-1,150
Arm: 2 triple 11 inch, 8 single 5.9 inch, 3 dual 4.1/65,
4 dual 37 mm, 6 20 mm, 8 21 inch TT (aw)
Armor: 2.25-3 inch belt, 1.5 inch deck, 3.25-5.5 inch turrets, 6 inch CT
Designed as long range commerce raiders, powerful enough to sink anything they
could not outrun and fast enough to outrun anything they could not sink,
except for HMS Hood, Renown and Repulse. Often classed as "pocket
battleships"; officially listed as Panzerschiffe ("armored ships"). In reality
they were raiding cruisers built to light cruiser standards and equipped with
an exceptionally heavy main battery.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIn FT the
challanges in trying to play a running game is the weapon arcs.
If you are closing then all your weapons that fire through the front arc can
fire.
I don't think there is an ship in the FT books that mount class 3 beams that
fire 360 arcs so that you can play a running game.
If you were trying to design ships along the lines of ww2 naval ships you
would need 2 class 3 beams firing in 5 arcs centered around the front arc and
2 firing to the rear.
The trouble is a ship designed to close with the enemy could then mass far
more beams than you into the front arcs.
Even in vector movement, the ship tring to maintain the range advantage has to
spend more of its thrust to turn, thrust and then turn back to fire whereas a
pursuing ship can spend all its power on thrust, so will close the range.
Why, are we assuming that the standard "classes" ala the wet navies of today
will have any bearing on how ships of the future will be designed. The old
WWII "classes" have been pretty well replaced today.
We still have aircraft carriers, but the DD, DE, Cruisers, BB's, BC's are all
gone. They've been replaced with Frigates of various specialties. Weaponry has
invalidated the heavy armament and now the smallest frigate can annihilate the
largest BB that ever existed at ranges way beyond any gun range. Why do we
assume that the WWII model will prevail 200 years from now?
> On 12/25/06, Mike Hillsgrove <mikeah@cablespeed.com> wrote:
I don't. A lot of thers on this list don't.
I will point out that most starship sci-fi is based on a WWII wet navy
model. It's a major feature of the genre. It's highly unlikely that FT
models anything even vaguely close to realism. It _does_, however,
strive to model the starship combat genre which, in turn, is modelled on World
War II wet navies. Therefore, the WWII model should probably prevail in
generic FT so that it can model the genre.
> On 12/25/06, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Not really, a ship with thrust 8 fighting a ship with thrust 6, in vector, can
rotate the main drive to the appropriate orientation, execute a 6 point vector
change, and spend the last point of thrust to bring its single arc beams back
onto the the target. The thrust 6 ship is incapable of closing the range.
Unlike a wet naval vessel, the ship need not point along its vector. In
cinematic, single arcs can still be sufficient, but the fight takes up a
larger volume and more time. You have to maneuver your vessel to make slashing
attacks at long range, from behind. You may not get a shot in every turn, but
your opponent is unlikely to have that many class-3's firing into the
> On 12/25/06, Mike Hillsgrove <mikeah@cablespeed.com> wrote:
Because Tuffleyverse ships fight much like the wet naval vessels of the late
nineteenth and very, very early twentieth centuries. Battle
> On 12/26/06, Mike Hillsgrove <mikeah@cablespeed.com> wrote:
Actually, I'm not 100% sure of displacements. But I was at a naval museum a
while back with hordes of ship models. One of the things they had was a
"Destroyer" display case with models of every destroyer the USN ever built.
Most of the modern warships (Spruance, Arleigh Burke, Ticonoderoga) are more
or less the same size as each other regardless of designation as frigate,
destroyer, or cruiser, and all are about the size of the WWII cruisers. Or so
it seemed to me.
> From a purely logical standpoint, I can see a huge advantage in
[quoted original message omitted]
> From a purely logical standpoint, I can see a huge advantage in
Seen the OU designs lately?
You have a standard heavy destroyer/ultralight cruiser design.
Then you have essentially the same ship, but speed 6, and call it a light
cruiser.
Then you have a standard heavy cruiser. Then the same design, but speed 6, and
call it a battlecruiser.
Add a dreadnaught, an escort carrier, and a fast frigate of speed 6, and you
have pretty close to an optimum standardisation.
2 fleet components - hammer (speed 6) and anvil (speed 4). Manouver so
the heavily armed anvil is out of position, and the relatively lightly armed
hammer is on your 6.
That's the theory. Course with Beam-2s as your largest weaponry,
playing with an OUDF fleet can be a challenge.
If anything though, in cinematic I'm still a little worried that they may be a
little *too* effective in the hands of someone who really knows how to
> --- VinsFullThrust@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/23/2006 11:41:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Only
> one navy (the USN) ever built ships like that, and they were called
Mostly answering Vince's questions:
The term "battlecruiser" is a contraction from "battleship cruiser". It is not
in the category that most people think of as including light ("protected") and
heavy ("armored") cruisers. Rather it was the brainchild of Admiral Sir John
"Jackie" Fischer, First Sea Lord 1904-1911.
Historical "battlecruisers" were similar in displacement tonnage and had
similar main armament (in terms of both size and number) to contemporary
battlehips of the same nation, but increased speed achieved by trading armor
protection for more propulsion. Armor protection was on the scale of
contemporary "armored cruisers" (later termed "heavy" or "1st class"
cruisers).
By contrast, "fast battleships" such as the US Iowa class traded gunpower for
the increased machinery or were significantly bigger than contemporay "heavy"
BBs. The Japanese Kongo class BCs were reconstructed in the 1930's and
transformed from BCs to BBFs by an increase in armor weight from 6502t to
10,313t.
e.g.
Bellerophon BB (1906) - ~22,000t dl, 20.5 kts, 10x12" guns, 10"-5" belt
armor
St Vincent BB (1907) - ~23,000t dl, 21 kts, 10x12" guns, 10"-7" belt
Invincible BC (1906) - ~20,000t dl, 25.5 kts, 8x12" guns, 6"-4" belt
Orion BB (1910) - ~25,800t dl, 21 kts, 10x13.5" guns, 12"-8" belt
Lion BC (1910) - ~29,600t dl, 27 kts, 8x13.5" guns, 9"-4" belt
Queen Elizabeth BB (1912) - ~31,500t dl, 23 kts, 8x15" guns, 13"-6" belt
Renown BC (1915) - ~30,800t dl, 30 kts, 6x15" guns, 6"-1.5"
belt
Courageous BCL (1915) - ~22,700t dl, 32 kts, 4x15" guns, 3"-2" belt
Hood BC/BBF (1916) - ~45,000t dl, 31 kts, 8x15" guns, 12"-5" belt
The US Alaska class (1941, ~34,000t dl), were designated CB (Cruiser, Large)
#'s 1-6, as opposed to the Lexington class (1920, ~44,600-51,000t dl,
never
completed) which were designated BC (Battlecruiser) #'s 1-6. The
Alaskas (12" guns) were designed to beat "Treaty" heavy cruisers that were
nominally 10,000t and armed with 8" guns, while contemporary US BBs were armed
with 16" guns.
Hood (~45,000t dl) was the largest warship until Bismark was built (competed
Sept. 1940). Bismark and her sistership Tirpitz (~52,000t dl) were the largest
until Yamato (~70,000t dl) was built (completed Dec. 1941). Yamato was not, as
you said, "nearly 2 times larger then Bismark".
US Montana class BB would have been slightly larger (by 500-1000t) but
were broken up on the stocks.
For good information on this subject see
"Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860-1905" by D.K. Brown,
DCNA-RCNC
"Battlecruisers" by John Roberts "Battleships" by Anthony Preston Conway's
History of the Ship series:
"Steam, Steel, & Shellfire: The Steam Ship 1815-1905", Ed. Robert
Gardiner
"The Eclipse of the Big Gun: The Warship 1906-1945", Ed. Robert
Gardiner, D.K. Brown
I got all of these inexpensively ($10-$20 each) at Half Price Books
also
"Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921"
"Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946"
(really great but expensive and hard to find, check your local library)
J
> At 9:48 PM -0500 12/25/06, Mike Hillsgrove wrote:
The old WWII "classes" have been pretty well replaced today. We still have
aircraft carriers, but the DD, DE, Cruisers, BB's, BC's are all gone. They've
been replaced with Frigates of various specialties.
Sort of. We have Frigates which are cheap and light, the same as the DDEs and
Sloops of old. We have DDs and DDH's in the case of the heavier and larger
DDs. CG being more of a role than a size as a lot of big Destroyers are just
as large as cruisers, the cruisers usually have more weapons and general fits
or are VERY specialized towards being very proficient at a specific role (AAW
in the case of the Ticonderogas). The larger stuff hasn't been built because
it's more expensive. The spread out role of capabilities over multiple craft
is more desirable. But FT clearly shows by the game nature that eggshells with
hammers is a bit difficult.
> Weaponry has invalidated the heavy armament and now the smallest
Not so. It still a matter of rock scissors paper with the weapons and counter
measures.
> At 11:41 AM +0300 12/26/06, John Atkinson wrote:
Just to throw some numbers out there for you.
Old US WWII CAs (Cleveland) were in the range of 13,000 tons. The CLAA's
(Atlanta, Oakland, Juneau Classes) were ~8,500 tons. The Baltimores were
17,000 tons.
The Longbeach GGNs were 16,000 tons. The Ticonderogas got smaller at 10,000
tons (smaller computers ya know but carry a the same weapons compliment and
are more capable and faster firing).
Arligh Burkes and Sprucans are 9,000 tons Oliver Hazard Perry Class FFGs are
4,000 tons. The LCS will be 3,000 tons.
Mine hunters and other auxiliaries have gotten bigger.
European DD's are in the 4,000 to 7,000 ton range (Type 42s and the new type
45s as well as the French Suffrens and Forbins).
Bear in mind, that the WWI Dreadnaught era Battleship was ~16,000 tons
(South Carolinas) . The Maine, a pre-dreadnaught, was 6,000 tons, the
Connecticuts (best of the US made pre-dreadnaughts) were 16,000 tons.
The Montana's were to have a 70,783 ton full load. HMS Dreadnaught herself was
18,000 tons. That's quite a growth of tonnage in less than 40 years wouldn't
you say?
Carriers have done the same thing. The Lexington and Saratoga were 38,000
tons. The Yorktowns were 25,000 tons. The Essexes were 35,000 tons. The Nimitz
class carriers gross out at 100,000 tons!
Battleships didn't stop being battleships, they just got larger. Destroyers
and Frigates (think DDE and sloop) didn't stop doing what they do, they've
just gotten bigger. And Bigger means more $$$$ to build, even for the US.
> From a purely logical standpoint, I can see a huge advantage in
In Ship design theory for wet navies, longer hulls mean more speed. This isn't
the case with space craft. Mass is mass. If it's not needed it's burning
reaction mass or just slowing you down. So uniform hulls for different roles
don't buy you savings there or should not on theory.
> On 12/26/06, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
The posited ship type is a vessel that can engage cruisers with a small degree
of impunity, even though cruisers in FB1 can include both
> On 12/26/06, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most of the modern warships (Spruance, Arleigh Burke, Ticonoderoga)
This was actually a political thing. The reason that the Spruances are
destroyers and the Tico's are cruisers is that the law that
> At 10:17 AM -0700 12/26/06, Richard Bell wrote:
I would argue that thrust 8 and Class 4 beams would make the vessel something
more like a Prinz Eugen or HMS Furious. Thrust 8 is very hard to mate up to
class 4 beams and not have a unusuall expensive craft.
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTry playing FSE
against someone that maintains speed and dodges often and you will understand,
especially if they keep small ships tucked in close to their big guys.
And even without all of that try:
http://www.jumpspace.net/Wargames/Buehler/Turn0.html
At the end point he was combat effective enough that I was seriously
concerned. That after significant SM hits.
Roger
> On 12/26/06, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On 12/26/06, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
I never said that these ships would be cheap, or even small. In a
fighter-lite, SM-free universe, you could build these on 120 mass
points and an NPV of 396(?). With thrust8, FTL, 24 hull, 2FCS, 2PDS,
and 4 class-4 beams, it is about as resilient as the cruisers that it
is meant to hunt down, much more maneuverable, and able to deal out
serious damage at 24+. Alternatively, you decrease the main battery
to 3 class-4's and give it an extra FCS, more PDS, and some class-1's
for close in firepower. Another option is going even larger, but
still only having 4 class-4 beams. About 160 is the biggest that I
would make it.
My ideas for BC's grew out of a fleet design that I was putting together for a
race with human FB technology and a serious need for speed. They went in for
serious maneuverability and a touch of long range firepower. They often fought
amongst each other and had a very
stylised form of ritual warfare with long range and/or close in
battles of maneuver. Their ideal warship was a weak hulled cruiser
with a single FCS, single PDS, single class-4, FTL and thrust 10.
Thrust might be reduced to allow for more damage points or an extra
weapon. In decreasing order, weapons of preference were class-4
beams, class-3 beams, and pulse torpedoes. Multiple arc main weapons
were for people who couldn't point their ship in the correct direction, large
numbers of weapons were for people who couldn't shoot straight, and really
tough hulls were for people who were slow to realise that they were beaten.
Fleet engagements tended to devolve into single ship duels. Their PDS was not
really intended to fire at fighters or SM's (systems that they do not use),
but to engage ships
flying past at relative velocities of 50+, with close approaches of
6-.
After encountering humanity, their ships eventually got slower,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
[quoted original message omitted]
Given that it was a campaign, how did you model logistics for expendable
weapons? Could the "beam" side attack the fleet train with light units?
> Try playing FSE against someone that maintains speed and dodges often
Nope.
SMs have a range of 24MU.
Keep the fleet speed of the 4 move anvil at 12-16, and they can dodge or
use banzai jammers, and still get into a position to hit within 24 mu beforee
you can warp out.
The idea of the speed 6 vessels is to wrong-foot the opponent - they
have
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
That is what happened in 1 of our games recently, a FSE squadron getting
resupplied with more missiles was jumped at it resupply place. While yes the
FSE did cause some damage with it's SML while armed, but when without them,
they were less well armed then the beam strike squadron sent against them. Of
course a spy, gave up the location... But those all missile fleets suffer a
bit in campaigning becuase they need a "larger support train" then unit using
just beams, or even Pulse Torp. Now a Fighter heavy fleet needs a even larger
still...
DOCAGREN
Just a Lurker here on the Digest, But maybe I have a good idea or 2..
:-)
In a message dated 12/27/06 3:03:37 PM,
gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
writes:
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:50:37 +1100
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI was wondering
when someone would bring this up. Politics plays a bigger role than many of us
care to consider.
My own battlecruiser design study is geared almost exclusively to the
guerre du course. The design is not intended for the line--it's for deep
penetration missions away from resupply, where it will (it is devoutly
hoped) encounter only merchant and second-line military traffic. With
beam-3 and a pair of pulse torpedoes it's relatively well armed. Even
so, I probably ought to respecify the design to thrust-6 from the
original thrust-4. It has superior sensors (supposed to operate in pairs
and jump out if they run into any real opposition), but the higher thrust
rating would let it run down wallowing merchies (and show a clean pair of
heels to local defense forces) more readily.
Best,
Ken
> Richard Bell <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most of the modern warships (Spruance, Arleigh Burke, Ticonoderoga)
This was actually a political thing. The reason that the Spruances are
destroyers and the Tico's are cruisers is that the law that mandated all USN
vessels, cruisers and up, be nuclear powered was still in force for the
Spruances, but had been repealed when the Ticonderoga was on the slip. Had the
law still been in effect, the Spruances would have been ASW DD's, and the
Tico's would have been AAW DD's. Without the law, they might both have been
cruisers.
As cruisers once werewere vessels capable of independent action, in an age of
powerful air and submarine threat, the Kirov CGN's may be the
last/only cruisers.
> Ken Hall wrote:
There was an old wargame called "Godsfire"
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2503
It had politics tying the hands of the players.
Each planet in your empire was divided into four continents. A continent is
under control of one of three political parties: the Reactionaries, the
Moderates, or the Extremists.
There are three types of military units you can produce during a turn: deep
space starship squadrons, ground based planetary defense forces, and the
Assault Groups which
are sort of an in-between type of unit.
The joker is, of course, that the political parties control your production.
Extremists continents will only produce deep space squadrons, reactionary
continents will only produce planetary defense forces, and moderates will only
produce assault groups.
And you have to spend an equal amount in each continent
> Richard Bell <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote:
Amusing (?) historical note: when the Kirov was first seen (or its existence
revealed publicly, anyway), it was referred to as a BC and there was much
speculation as to the effectivemess of such a ship in modern naval combat.
Now, I gather, it's been downgraded to a "mere"
CGN....
Phil
Ping! Ping!! Ping!!! -- Mother Box
She's such a chatterbox, sometimes......and she chatters to me: Phil Atcliffe
(atcliffe[at]ntlworld[dot]com)
We didn't model the fleet train extensively. We wanted to play ship battles
rather than space accountancy.
It is possible to put out of supply. One of the hardest fleets to fight was a
"destroyer" swarm. No major units at all. One player had almost all
dreadnoughts and was continually getting pinned down and having his supply
bases raised by the destroyer swarm.
Very hard fleet to fight against.
[quoted original message omitted]
I'm having serious computer troubles, so this reply is rather belated
:-(
Ryan Gill replied to me:
> Sure they did; just like the USN called their
Um... Ryan? You're looking at the wrong Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. There
were two different sets of them - one in WW1 (sunk at the Falklands),
and one in WW2. The stats you displayed are for the WW1 ones, but they were
never called "battlecruisers" or "pocket battleships". Above I'm talking about
the WW2 ones (it even says so explicitly in the section you quoted).
The *WW2* Scharnhorst and Gneisenau displaced 31-38'000 tonnes (pre-war
and mid-war loads respectively), carried a main armament of 9x11" guns
and a maximum armour thickness of 320mm, and had a top speed of 31.6 knots.
That makes them slightly *larger*, *faster* and *heavier armoured* than the
Alaskas (at 34'000 tonnes, max armour 229mm and top speed 31.4 knots), though
their main armament was somewhat lighter (9x11" guns vs the Alaskas' 9x12"
guns).
Regards,
> At 3:13 PM +0100 12/29/06, <oerjan.ariander@rixmail.se> wrote:
Doh, I was looking at the HazeGray.org battleship list and managed to only
scroll down to the first set. I knew there were two (lots of ship name
duplicates out there) but it slipped my mind at the time.
> The *WW2* Scharnhorst and Gneisenau displaced
Still seems like the Alaska's would have given them a hard time though.
Armored to resist the guns of the G and S (it would seem) and heavier guns to
pummel them. Not as much of a foregone
conclusion though as I'd have thought. ;-)
> The *WW2* Scharnhorst and Gneisenau displaced 31-38'000 tonnes (pre-war
9x12" guns).
Optional rules for battlecruisers in Full Thrust:
Any ship designated a 'British' battlecruiser moves as if it had a main drive
thrust factor one higher
than it actually has, eg thrust-4 moves at thrust-5.
This represents their legendary speed and dash.
However, every time a British battlecruiser makes a threshold check, roll once
to see if the entire
ship explodes. (6 on first row, 5-6 on second, etc)
Any ship designated a 'German' battlecruiser never, ever, crosses off the last
hull box. Each time it takes damage that would do so, the player can say "I'm
not dead!" and refuse to do so, but does have to make a threshold check for
any remaining systems.
However, if a German battlecruiser is opposed by
British battlecruiser(s), every beam-3 or higher
battery is downgraded by one class.
American battlecruisers anyone?
cheers,
There are some interesting musing on the spacecraft version of various wet
navy ship classes here:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3t.html#RuppeAnalysis
Note that the article is talking about rocket propelled spacecraft, i.e., Full
Thrust ships with vector movement. Some of it does not apply to cinematic
movement.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l