1920s future fleets

[Desertfox]

I almost posted my H1/20 report last week after I panicked and thought we where a half ahead.  Also screwed up my gun developments so I don't really have any new ships to post  :'(. H1/20 was definitely interesting, trying to find all sorts of ways to use BPs I had originally earmarked for destroyers, I can't lay down yet. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

I almost posted my H1/20 report last week after I panicked and thought we where a half ahead.  Also screwed up my gun developments so I don't really have any new ships to post  :'(. H1/20 was definitely interesting, trying to find all sorts of ways to use BPs I had originally earmarked for destroyers, I can't lay down yet.

Oh I've been there. Heck the first time I posted that seaplane carrier conversion I figured that would be my experimental carrier...then I looked at the tech language again...
and my 1500 ton DD, waiting on that....have guns and mountings that aren't ready.
Then figuring out to come up with the BP for everything I want... and the sad fact that even with 50BP I'd want more...

[Desertfox]

Shouldn't have dumped so much BPs into DPs...

[Kaiser Kirk]

About 1913 I realized I had to either cancel my reconstruction plans and sink more into LP/DP, or cancel my expansion plans. 
What I want is to have like 100 BP (hmm 7x28=196) err 196 BP,  so I don't have to make tradeoffs.
It's a burden I bear..

[The Rock Doctor]

I feel your pain and can only suggest we all cope by receiving additional BP.

[Jefgte]

About 1913 I realized I had to either cancel my reconstruction plans and sink more into LP/DP, or cancel my expansion plans.
What I want is to have like 100 BP (hmm 7x28=196) err 196 BP,  so I don't have to make tradeoffs.
It's a burden I bear..

Building 4 large battleships at the same time eats up a lot of BPs to the detriment of other ships.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Yes it does.
Future programs will feature fewer large ships at once. Probably only 2 large at a time.
Unless heavy industry flies from the skies to overflow Parthia's coffers with BP>

The expansion took a big commitment, which I could 'afford' since I had one of the largest pregame navies (Walter's Norse were bigger)-
plus I had built fairly large and robust pregame ships- so I felt I had a buffer vs. the next navies.

But the expansion took a much greater chunk of BP than budgeted for.
I would guess that in the  period of 1913-1918 I also built ..... 20LP/ 25DP 12AP - so 60+ points,
which ate up my reconstruction budget and pinched my cruiser budget. 
I still got the Maelstrom and Ranger classes built, and a large number of 750 & 1000ton DDs.

[Jefgte]

The many harbors in the colonies need large numbers of cruisers and destroyers.
I think our Battleships squadrons are sufficient for the time being.
In the next few years, I will be building 6000t cruisers, 1300t DDs and 700t torpedo boats.

[Kaiser Kirk]

The 2 Enki, 4 Tiamat and 2 Varya will give a core battlesquadron of 8 - all with TDS and most with torpedo nets on top
That frees the 4 Gilgamesh and 4 Battleships for secondary duties and reconstruction. 

Stormbringer and Mournblade at 26 knots are meant to provide a fast heavy core for my scouting forces to fall back to when Byzantine's BCs come up, but also be able
to stand in line of battle.  Curiously, while they have a good tactical speed, strategic speed is more dictated by how far at what cruise speed you can go.

Anyhow, that's a fairly decent line up of battlewagons.
I still might start a new pair, just because of the long build times, but I don't have too.

Meanwhile the new hydrophone tech and better subs mean both DDs and Subs need doing.

Cruisers, I built the 12 Maelstrom/Rangers, so I'm looking at rebuilding my old PCs/ACs and some of those Sentry-Escorts.

For "heavier" ships I'm looking at new ACs or pocket battleships or Light Armored Cruisers.  Since they may not operate in squadrons, I may do just 1 of each.

but first I have to get my turns caught up.

[TacCovert4]

I feel the pain of not enough BP.  It's not only hurting my production, it's hurting my research.  But I spent the last several years building IC as hard as I could, so now I'm able to be pushing BP hard to catch up.

1920 sees the Monarch class Battleships and the HMS Repulse (the 3rd R-class Razee, technically a 'mk 2' of her sisters with slight updates) continued.  Destroyers are considered to be sufficient for now after that big run of DD-D class ships, a 1921 or 1922 Destroyer run is likely.  The big production is 3 of the Splendid Cat class Corvettes, 180mm armed 6000t little beasties that almost resemble quadruple-sized DD-Ds, and a pair of Baja-class Frigates which are the first attempt to split the difference between the 180mm armed cruisers and the 280mm armed ones, with a quartet of twin 210mm/45s, an imperfect solution, but a solution nonetheless.

In notable research, a 240mm gun will be started, as well as a 30mm anti-aircraft gun suitable for mounting on smaller ships and as a more rapid-firing AA gun for supplementing on larger ships.  With some new aircraft in Aztec service starting to carry 12mm MGs, and with rumors of aircraft capable of dropping torpedoes against ships starting to come about, the Sultanate is trying to get ahead of the issue by working towards a gun that's light enough to be deployed in sufficient numbers to defend vessels like destroyers (where a single 70mm gun just isn't an effective AA defense) and powerful enough (between increased range and having an actual bursting charge) to bring down an aircraft at sufficient range that it might not be able to drop a torpedo).

[Kaiser Kirk]

I've started a 57mm AA gun for roughly the same thought process, and having noted how annoying it is to fit a pair of 90mm AA onto destroyers.
Eventually I'll wind up at 30mm ish Wirblewind style, but first the new GAST twin 15mm will be used to ward off light bombers, then a 23(22.5) will be fitted.

A local author served on USS Maryland in WW2, manning the casement 5". They participated AA fire against incoming torpedo bombers, and as I recall downed one.
Later in the war they got prox fuses.
So, Parthian ships will also seek to use casement guns against torpedo bombers....and we have lots of those :)

[TacCovert4]

I've started a 57mm AA gun for roughly the same thought process, and having noted how annoying it is to fit a pair of 90mm AA onto destroyers.
Eventually I'll wind up at 30mm ish Wirblewind style, but first the new GAST twin 15mm will be used to ward off light bombers, then a 23(22.5) will be fitted.

A local author served on USS Maryland in WW2, manning the casement 5". They participated AA fire against incoming torpedo bombers, and as I recall downed one.
Later in the war they got prox fuses.
So, Parthian ships will also seek to use casement guns against torpedo bombers....and we have lots of those :)

Yeah, I considered a lot of options, but most especially weight, in picking my lighter caliber AA gun.  7cm guns aren't quite as onerous as 9cm guns.  But considering that DP guns aren't yet a thing, for ships like DDs and such, 7cm guns in ones and twos don't really provide adequate protection to the ship itself now that we're concerned with defending against direct air attack rather than sniping at spotting aircraft only, and since planes are now in the territory where you can mount 12mm MGs to them (which would devastate the combat effectiveness of destroyers and large torpedo boats), there is a credible direct attack threat that needs to be defended against.  The 7cm AA gun is still considered to be the best defensive weapon for cruisers and capital ships, and larger destroyers might mount one or two as a support to overall defense of a fleet against aircraft (or for sniping at dirigibles and large floatplane scouts).  But the 12mm twin mounted machine gun is just 'barely' adequate as a defense against strafing aircraft (and then it might only allow the ship to 'match' the guns of the small and nimble target), and it's no defense at all against aircraft bombing from height or potentially aircraft with torpedoes, both anticipated in the near future.  So a design study was done for potential alternatives, specifically smaller caliber than 7cm but a caliber where a shell with an explosive burster could be fitted.  The logic of that is that an explosive burster would allow a single hit to a vital part of an aircraft such as any portion of the engine to do immediately crippling damage, or hits to less vital things such as the wings to do notable damage....it was noted that a doped canvas wing is unlikely to burn from 12mm tracer and can take many many hits without falling apart, while any explosive hit to a wing spar or rib could cause substantial damage to the aerofoil.  So basically everything from about 20mm to 50mm was looked at, and 30mm was settled on as it combines a relatively high rate of fire (though not quite MG rate of fire) with a useful HE shell and overall light weight and small footprint.  40mm was ideal, but that would eliminate the possibility of replacing twin 8mm and 12mm mounts with improved AA weapons.

[Desertfox]

I think y'all are way too concerned about aircraft, planes have yet to do diddly squat. No one even has full length carriers yet. Japan figures the new 25mm anti-MTB gun has some capability against torpedo bombers, other than than MGs should be enough for most ships.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Currently I view the air 'threat' as Zeppelins- which the Parthians actually still think a Destroyer can chase in the right winds,
and potentially seaplanes with torpedoes, probably operating from land bases. Parthia still wants to contest the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden,
so that is seen as the threat.

The 9cm works for both, which is why it's mounted, and on larger ship's it is a trivial weight, so several can be mounted to disrupt
and fend off seaplanes- much like a lot of pre-WW1 ships were studded with 7-9cm anti-TB guns.
For the destroyers, from a design-experience point of view, it's a pain to fit in, hence the 57mm.
The 57mm should work for the seaplanes, which seem to be a more likely threat, and can fit on smaller ships.
It will replace my 1904 60L50 QF, which I thought of just fitting in an AA mount.

Right now, 15mm MGs are meant for the traditional dockside/boarding anti-personnel role that's seen them on Parthian ships.
We're just upgrading from the 1874 twin Gardner gun to the new GAST design. Because I like paired guns.

The longer term musings, at least for me,  are tied to the air threat as it evolves moving forward.
mixed with ideas on 'what works' and 'what appeals to me'.
Sadly, I haven't managed to figure out a plausible reason to mount 20x 30mm AA electrically driven gatling guns
despite the cool factor.

[TacCovert4]

I think y'all are way too concerned about aircraft, planes have yet to do diddly squat. No one even has full length carriers yet. Japan figures the new 25mm anti-MTB gun has some capability against torpedo bombers, other than than MGs should be enough for most ships.

For my primary theater of operation, it's land based rather than naval air that's the major threat.  We're only 4 years out from a rather massive war with Rome (by Aztec standards), one which if refought today would involve hundreds of aircraft.  So better aircraft and anti-aircraft guns are a major factor for us.  And land-based aircraft are currently what we believe can effectively deploy torpedoes, as aircraft that are or are about to be in production for the Sultanate are already capable of such feats.  Plus on smaller ships, especially ones without armor, 8mm and 12mm tracer rounds, and small bombs, can do a number on them and send them back to port with numerous casualties and other problems.