Vilnius Union Ships, 1911 - 1919

[The Rock Doctor]

On the other hand, this is what the Quackenbush class sloops look like.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I like the high end version better.
The 33% increase in displacement has not only 33% more guns ,
but also a far more effective main belt and main deck,

I don't see the +0.85kts being more than really annoying to game out. There's only so much I will do
using a ruler.

So ...not to nit pic, but to seriously query.

Your 13000 ton ship has 8x 100mm, and 6x 50mm.
The former are explicitly AA, I presume the latter is as well- bit late for anti-boat work.
That gives at least 8 if not 14 mid-light sized AA.

Ok, but on my 36,000 ton ship with 12 instead of 8-14,
a much much higher value ship, where the AA takes a much smaller %
you raised the issue of 'to heavy an AA' suite.

So I'm curious why 12 on a 36000 tons ship is too many,
and 8-14 on a 13,000 is fine.
Where is that line?  I really don't know, so I'm curious as to this one.

[The Rock Doctor]

Actually, the 50mm are for close in anti-boat work, as noted a couple posts further up.  The idea's that they're there to provide some rapid-fire, quick-training firepower when the cruiser is close to or alongside another ship for inspections/boarding actions.  They'd complement the relatively heavy machine gun load in that scenario, whereas the 20cm guns might not be of much use in such close quarters.

The eight 100cm guns are probably excessive in and of themselves, but it is a high-end design.  Depending on where my sketching goes, I might scale it down to six or four singles.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Ahh, I mount 15mm for that purpose. I have upgraded from twin Gardner handcranked to twin GAST action 15mms.

I was hoping for some rambling introspective musing on appropriate AA gun levels for this period.  ​
Especially in regards to land vs. sea.  I think where land based aircraft may be a significant factor, like the Red Sea, Indonesia, the Madagascar straits, and off the Mayan S.American coast, more may be necessary.

Poking into the late WW1/Early Interwar, the canceled N3 design had the 6x 120mm, but 4x 10barrel 40mm.
Yet the text in this period seems to be more about making nuisance attackers stay away.  Which is odd since the brits planned torpedo strikes on the HSF.  Very odd.

In other news, the N3 apparently had superfiring secondaries , 2(2)   (2)2  I was wondering when that came in.

[Desertfox]

I still think y'all have way too much AA.

I'd go with the low end design, for trade work you want more not better ships. Take the flaws and just get more quantity out there.

[The Rock Doctor]

Ahh, I mount 15mm for that purpose. I have upgraded from twin Gardner handcranked to twin GAST action 15mms.

I was hoping for some rambling introspective musing on appropriate AA gun levels for this period.  ​
Especially in regards to land vs. sea.  I think where land based aircraft may be a significant factor, like the Red Sea, Indonesia, the Madagascar straits, and off the Mayan S.American coast, more may be necessary.

Poking into the late WW1/Early Interwar, the canceled N3 design had the 6x 120mm, but 4x 10barrel 40mm.
Yet the text in this period seems to be more about making nuisance attackers stay away.  Which is odd since the brits planned torpedo strikes on the HSF.  Very odd.

In other news, the N3 apparently had superfiring secondaries , 2(2)   (2)2  I was wondering when that came in.

Alas, my peer-reviewed paper is still being peer-reviewed.

I do agree that operating area makes some difference in armament, if one can have confidence they'll only ever have to operate where they designed the ship to operate.

The Nelsons did follow up IRL with the secondary arrangement, too.

[Desertfox]

On the other hand, this is what the Quackenbush class sloops look like.

I believe what we all want to see is Airstrip One...

[The Rock Doctor]

That's a fair point.

[TacCovert4]

The smaller one looks like a decent match up for the Weapon class.  Same speed class, a bit heavier guns though fewer of them.  Same armor scheme, roughly.  And about the same weight.

The second one, would definitely be superior.  But then it's got a 'match up' in the Baja class pair of Frigates, which have older and shorter barreled 210mm guns, and similar armor and speed. 

Good thing Wilno and Azteca don't compete.

[TacCovert4]

I like the high end version better.
The 33% increase in displacement has not only 33% more guns ,
but also a far more effective main belt and main deck,

I don't see the +0.85kts being more than really annoying to game out. There's only so much I will do
using a ruler.

So ...not to nit pic, but to seriously query.

Your 13000 ton ship has 8x 100mm, and 6x 50mm.
The former are explicitly AA, I presume the latter is as well- bit late for anti-boat work.
That gives at least 8 if not 14 mid-light sized AA.

Ok, but on my 36,000 ton ship with 12 instead of 8-14,
a much much higher value ship, where the AA takes a much smaller %
you raised the issue of 'to heavy an AA' suite.

So I'm curious why 12 on a 36000 tons ship is too many,
and 8-14 on a 13,000 is fine.
Where is that line?  I really don't know, so I'm curious as to this one.

I think location of operations is a big factor.

With Azteca operating heavily in the Gulf and Caribbean, which even in the 20s is mostly in the range of air power, and having a top-shelf rival in Rome in the region, AA trends towards 'heavy'.  My newer ships are running 4-6 x 70mm AA guns, and a pile of 12mm twin MGs, with a 30mm autocannon (think pom-pom) currently in development to allow smaller vessels to have an AA gun without the mass of the 70mm (a single 70mm isn't much of an AA suite, so I'm aiming to replace that and the MGs on DDs with 4-6 x 30mm AA guns).

[Jefgte]

12729t version is premature and costs 50% more without being 50% more powerful. 8781t version is older in the 1920s.

=> You can build 4 x 12729t or 6 x 8781t.