Tech additions/changes for discussion

[Kaiser Kirk]

I tried to respond and research the matters folks raised.
This counts as a 'First Draft' for discussion.
Others are welcome to suggest what else may be missing.

Research Rule Proposals

Naval Artillery
(A) Proposal : 1938 : improved shell design, for +20% ME for >=311mm

Reason : The USN WWII guns have 83% of their "Real World" ME ,
This would improve them to 95% (0.83 *1.15= 0.95).
I suppose that a 20% increase would be (0.83 *1.2 = 0.996) closer...ok changed the proposal.
The 310 and less guns do not have this issue.
Also, the Midvale cemented rounds lead to better penetration in the 1942 charts than anyone else.

Timing : Timing is hard to decide.
16"/50 was 1939 for design, Iowas were laid down essentially 1940.5,  so in N7, gun design 1938.5 on, tech 1936.5 or so.
BUT,
But, the 1942 Penetration charts puts a date on that, meaning the tech for those shells are 1940 or earlier.
So , bundling  1937, 1940 techs. Averages 1938.5, so 1938.

Naval Propulsion:
No Changes

Reason : Modeling the Cleveland and Baltimore classes shows that USN engine power:weight were probably used for SS.

Capital Ship Architecture:
(B) Proposal : 1941: Advanced DP Secondary batteries, RPC, Automatic guns under 211mm, lighter guns more reliable

Reason : Capital ships were already the 'home' of DP and automatic guns.
Mid WWII there were a number of improvements being introduced, and this seems the best place to consolidate them.

Timing : The De Moines class Automatic 8" were a 1943 design, with the ships being laid in 1945.
So 1941 tech to be available in 1943. That also works reasonably for other elements

Aviation Ship Design.

Section 1.
Change from the current text, based on the 1933 or earlier aircraft to one showing both.

Category
1.  Determine Maximum Air Group by Area
Change to have this table :

		1933 or prior Aircraft		1934 onwards Aircraft
Category				(15% less capacity)
Seaplane Carrier		Waterplane /120		Waterplane /140
Double Hanger		Waterplane /55		Waterplane /55
Single Hanger		Waterplane /65		Waterplane /65

Aircraft/Seaplane Carrier Architecture:

1938: Improved Anti-Ship Dive Bombs, Improved deck parks (+15% AG) and hanger ventilation.
Rapid Consecutive Takeoffs with no more than 75% of the airgroup, Carriers can be built to cruiser hull standards.

Reason : I am proposing to cram a great deal into the 1938 tech. It was a rapidly developing field.
I suppose some could be moved to a new 1940 tech, to make this less "must have".
The hanger ventilation is new, as is the cruiser hull standards and a specification of what improved deck parks DO

Cruiser Architecture
1932:  Cruisers under 6000 tons may have composite hull strength >=0.75, Cruisers under 10,000 tons may have composite hull strength >=0.9, Cruisers may have turrets, "Small Transom" available.

Reason : The experiments with the Cleveland class design and others seems to indicate this is an appropriate time point. The Clevelands introduced a conical barbette (I imagine a plain ice cream cone) for the turrets, and they had a flush deck rear with a hanger and a transom...and seem to  'work' with the small transom. They were lightly built, and very tight design.

Destroyer Architecture
1932: 35m Type K MTB  "S-Boot" available, "Large" Transom for DDs.

Reason : First, none of the current techs actually allow the type K listed.
Second, while Cruisers get Small, the DDs need Large, and should be introduced together.

Mine Warfare
Not done.
There seems to be a number of types over a number of years.
The USN list looks like (introduced – 2 years for dates)
1936 : New magnetic mine triggers
1939:  bottom mine usn – acoustic
1943: aircraft magnetic & pressure mines

Probably will consolidate them into 1938 and 1943.
Need to research demining advances.

Night Fighting & Remote Sensing Devices:
1942: Airborne radars. Limited Night blindfire Fire control RADAR, prox fuses 100mm+

Reason : This adds the 100mm prox fuses. Currently they are tied to the USN's 5" and 3", but the reality is they steadily got smaller, so sometime between the two they should have fit 4".

Rangefinding, Fire Control and Gunnery:
Haven't had time to look for resonable additions
Remote Power Control syncing mounts on 1 target would be possible, but I stuck that on capital ships.
I think less to research is better than more.

Anyone ideas for a Rangefinding or Fire Control tech ?

Signals/Intellegence

This is another category where I really haven't had the time to dig into the subject.
There are a couple advances I know of. But it's really not my subject matter.

1930s extended range radios Reliable Short & Medium range radios <300nm, HF long range unreliable,  dependent on mast height 1000/700/500
RDF/ Jamming, Early computer – Blechley park


and now to see how incoherent I made that..

[The Rock Doctor]

Naval Artillery:  Sure

Naval Propulsion:  Sure

Capital Ships:  Sure
Aviation Ship Design:  Not sure if the table is correct but I agree with the principle

CV/AV Architecture:  Sure

CA/CL Architecture:  Sure; I assume small transoms can be used on other ship types

DD Architecture:  I built a run of Type K in 1932 under the assumption they were supposed to be available after the 1928 tech (as the table itself says).  So, um.  I assume large transoms can be used on other ship types.

Mines:  Okay

NF/RS:  Okay

RF:  Maybe we just don't need a new tech.

Signals:  We could do this.

[Kaiser Kirk]

The aviation table was based on the same change as the weights do.

Yes, once unlocked under cruisers, small transoms can be used anywhere.

I should probably revise the DD tech to indicate 'large transoms for DDs' as that is the intent.
other types would not have access to that. 

As for the 1928 K type, I know the chart shows it.. but it's not actually listed as unlocked.
Oddly the 1922 H type finally gets unlocked in 1928.
1928: Type H, I, J MTB

I suppose I could align the chart to the techs, but I try to make the changes minimal.

Now that we're discussing it, as I recall I was also thinking it would unlock the German S26 'E-Boat' aka 'S-Boat' and British MGBs, but I kinda ran out of time/resources on this entire endeavor to really
research that. So maybe a missing mid-late 1930s tech.

Again, others can propose ideas.

[The Rock Doctor]

Shall I replace the twenty K-boats with some quantity of smaller boats, then?

[Kaiser Kirk]

That is the likely result.

We'll see what others have to say about the entire proposal.
There may be a consensus that we should update the techs to match the chart instead.
It would have been nice if they lined up :)
 

[Jefgte]

Ok for all technos.
Byzance has been building the K (120t) type since 1932.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Byzance has been building the K (120t) type since 1932.

That would seem to be both Byzantine and Wilno were going off the dates on the chart,
rather than what the Tech said.

Is there a consensus the Tech should be revised to match the chart?

[Kaiser Kirk]

Ok, so it looks like a couple revisions to the proposal are needed.
I also took a little time on Wiki to flesh out the Mines and Signals.


Revisions


Cruiser Architecture
1932:  Cruisers under 6000 tons may have composite hull strength >=0.75, Cruisers under 10,000 tons may have composite hull strength >=0.9, Cruisers may have turrets, "Small Transom" available for all ships.

Reason : This revises the wording to clarify that Small Transom would be available for all ships, not just cruisers.

Destroyer Architecture
1924 : quintuple tubes, 2,500t,  MTB G, H (same)
1928 : MTB I, J, K
1932 :  "Large" Transom for Destroyer Architecture.

Reason : This revises the 1938 tech to show I,J,K – likely the original intent.
This revises the wording to clarify that the Large Transom is just for destroyers.
The Le Fantasques and Mogador and 1936C, Battle, and Fletcher classes should be buildable within the 2500 light ton limit, as they generally were 2500t standard or less.  I don't see a need to bump that up to 3,000 tons. There doesn't seem to be DDs in that range until Post WWII.
The proposed US Cruiser-Destroyer comes out at 3800tons, but was not even laid down, so if it was a workable design or structurally flawed can't be told.

Mine Warfare
1938 : New magnetic & acoustic mine triggers. Degaussing magnetic inductors available for ships. Port degaussing for all ships, aerial degaussing for shallows.  Aerial Minelaying.
1943 : Aerial minelaying of magnetic, pressure & acoustic mines.

Reason : Degaussing. Degaussing got started by the ships going to where the degaussing setup was, then they were de-magnitized which lasted a couple weeks.  By 1940 the Brits had aerial degaussing going. By 1943 they had inductors installed on most  warships to self-degauss. Inductors are described in Wiki as "heavy and clumsy solution..." and indicates it takes a large amount of power and is so only suited for small and medium ships.  Considering modern ships can tip 100,000tons, I think for all of ours we are fine.  For us, that will take miscellaneous weight, but that clarifies which ships are vulnerable to magnetic mines...and torpedoes I presume.  I will probably go with 25t minimum and 1/1000tons maximum misc weight.

Signals/Intelligence
1933 :  Extended range naval radios : Reliable Short & Medium range radios <300nm, HF long range unreliable,  dependent on mast height 1000/700/500nm.  Talk Between Ships and Two-way vehicle radios.
1941 : Cryptographic Computers. Enhanced Codebreaking.

Reason : It seems like the difference may be in moving from Spark Radios to Vacuum tubes. The difference between radio telegraphy and radio telephonics (voice).

Barkhausen–Kurz tube was 1920, and gave UHF, but was low power. So likely not the cause for comment in U.S. Cruisers.

The multiple cathode magnetron seems to be the next step. Starting with a 1929 Japanese paper, it was focus of Bell Labs in 1934, and in production by 1935. That would also be about the right time. This also fits for when tanks and others would have two-way radios possible, and when talk-between-ships would start being normal.  Vehicle radios are governed by the various land techs, but for storyline purposes might be nice to slip it in here.

The Klystron tube was 1937 and much more powerful. This is close enough to the magnetron as to not matter.

1943 is apparently when Blechly park got it's Colossus computer.

[The Rock Doctor]

I'm fine with these.

On a topic vaguely related to transom sterns, do the bulbous bow options in SS actually affect anything?  I've not played with them at all.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I tinkered with the various bows when doing the various cleveland/baltimore designs.
That is when I found their use extended back to USS Delaware...
but they don't seem to have any in SS3.

[The Rock Doctor]

Okay, so no need to slot them into the capital ship tech then.

[TacCovert4]

Bulbous bow stuff, if it was going to slot in, could probably slot into a 1940ish capital ship architecture and be available only for ships greater than say 15,000t or something.  The Yamatos had bulbous bows, for instance.  The early stuff was accidental from the ram bow, but they were starting to build proper bulbous bows for the actual benefits by WW2.

As for DDs greater than 2500t, I think it's self- correcting.  The .75 comp cruiser architecture gives you 99% of what you could do at 3000t, and given you'd need to put literally 1500t of engines into a DD at that tonnage....you'd have so much speed that your seakeeping would take up the bulk of your composite strength with a massive foc'stle.

[Kaiser Kirk]

From my notes :
1907 – Bulbous bow introduced USS Delaware.
Taylor's towing tests with ram bow models detected a resistance reduction, leading to his work on a more effective version. They work better for broader hull forms with U shaped rather than V shaped hulls, at a certain Speed : Length relationship**. The following Ini bow was introduced in 1962, and works for a wider range.  Sadly, neither setting does anything in SS2*.


*which should be SS3
**that speed/length relationship is likely why the USN didn't bother with them for the standards.
Not surprisingly, the sources I have didn't go into any discussion about consideration by other nations.

[Kaiser Kirk]

The Plan :
Sunday I will repost the final proposed forms so they are in one place.
Further comments/alterations over the week.

If not further changes, then they will be adopted for HY1, 1933.
Next Friday will kick off HY1, 1933.

Ah, but what about the new 1932 techs?

Proposed :
You may take any techs you started researching in 1932 onwards and
repurpose the money to the new techs.
 
For example, I started researching 1935 Submarines in 1932.
I could then take those funds and split them to both Cruisers and Destroyers.

The tech I started in 1931 or 1930 I can not repurpose.

That is also up for discussion as to how to best implement.
If folks really want to redo the 1930 and 1931 tech research, and start researching "early" that can be discussed. 

[The Rock Doctor]

Eh, I'll just start them in 1933 at a discount.