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.
Quote from: Desertfox on November 03, 2021, 01:30:20 PM
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...
Shouldn't have dumped so much BPs into DPs...
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..
I feel your pain and can only suggest we all cope by receiving additional BP.
QuoteAbout 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 :)
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on November 04, 2021, 08:49:52 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Desertfox on November 04, 2021, 10:35:47 AM
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.
As for actual navy programs. Japan has a very solid amount of pre-dreads for all of its colonial needs, the 14" gunned capital ship program is close to wrapping up, the sub 1000t destroyer program is complete, and the auxiliaries are in good shape. The 1500t destroyers will start as soon as the guns are ready, followed by 6" light cruiser, and then 8" heavies (all delayed by guns). Other than the cruiser department Japan is in a pretty decent shape. Maybe its time to start spamming subs.
Long term plans for the Sultanate are to phase out the GTB series. They were an emergency program, and as gunnery and detection systems improve they will become increasingly less survivable in the modern combat environment. They'll be replaced with 1500t DDs for the counter TB role and with Subs for the torpedo deploying role.
QuoteThe 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.
I probably increase range & reserve weight (?)
Range is an interesting one.
Historically cruise speeds edged up with turbines as they were more efficient higher,
and then at least the Brits moved them up to 14 with an eye to limiting the ability of subs to 'get ahead'.
However, one thing I've found running the wargames is that range at max speed tends to be very limited.
You burn through that fuel tonnage rapidly.
So many more recent Parthian ships calculate a desired cruising range, and then so many hours of max speed
for combat on top of that. The combination has really pushed my ranges up.
The higher ranges lead to greater max draught, and you do loose comp hull, so it's not free.
That was particularly evident in the pregame destroyers - Parthian ones had fairly long ranges
but were comparatively bulkier to hold the fuel and slower to compensate for the extra weight.
Which gave them somewhat better damage absorption.
As for Subs, they are interesting. They had spectacular successes at times.
Early WWI and WW2, they had some great hits....but not so much once
the defenders were alerted.
WW1, Despite the KM repeatedly trying to use lines of subs in the North Sea against
the Royal Navy, that really didn't work out. While there were quite a few
Royal Navy subs, and limited successes.
WW2, The Japanese overall had limited ASW - very few DDs with sonar, and not all with even hydrophones.
As a result they faired very poorly against the advanced American subs. Which odd since they
planned the IJN subs for an anti-surface warfare & scouting role, but the IJN subs
really were not very effective against American forces- handful of torpedo hits on major units.
Interwar, many navies tried to coordinate subs either as squadrons or with surface units.
The latter did not work well because of IFF issues, while the German wolfpacks were
surface radio, but any RF transmission has risks.
Commerce warfare is where they really shined, because you're hunting a slow
defenseless target on a predictable route, and even then, counter measures
became rather effective over time.
Plus, drawing in major neutral powers has to be seen as a negative.
Here, there is the twist that they are Waaaay to cheap compared to history,
and remain in service longer than historical.
However, I expect Navies will be a great deal more proactive in building
screening units. In part simply because the early success of torpedo craft
advocates for more small units for that war...which should make subs less
useful. But there's also the Hindsight factor - we all know the Subs can 'snipe'
the expensive units, so we'll guard for that...which may mean Subs
won't be nearly as effective.
QuoteQuote
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.
I probably increase range & reserve weight (?)
Finaly in the PLAN
C7 class - 5500t
D10 class - 1400t
T840 class - 840t
Big decision points for me:
-Do I build more Czarownik-style battlecruisers, or do I complement them with a run of ~25 to 27 knot battleships?
-Do I build an intermediate cruiser type with guns in the 15 - 25 cm gun range?
-Do I build an experimental aircraft carrier, or wait to finish the full-length-deck tech?
-When I do finish that tech, what kind of carrier do I build?
I will be returning to my turn and trying to get HY1 1920 out this weekend.
I have similar decision points.
The last 4 battlewagons are finishing - 2 x 20knt, and 2x 26knt.
Given the build time, I want to be always working on some....and I'm leaning on 2x 20knot. That will give a core of 8 big battlewagons with 132x365mm , making the 6 older ships available for secondary duties.
Conceptually, I'd love a 'fast division' of 4x 26knot, I don't think it's happening. Budget realities mean the existing 2 are it for now.
Plus that with Parthia I deliberately decided to explore the Arms+Armor > speed aspect for capital ships. Heck stylistically I don't even LIKE quads, and I have them.
"Armored Cruiser" I specifically developed the 255L47 gun as something that combines a high MV with the +10% shell weight so it should be able to hole any old cruiser/AC anywhere in combat ranges. The various designs are a little bigger than desired, but they have a good TDS and are well rounded. Jefgte's pocket BBs are a little problematic, but I think these new ACs would be competitive or take those ships.
For me the question is do I also build the 'Light Armored Cruiser' of 12-13,000 tons /32kts/ 180mm ....probably not for those budget reasons, AND that I will be starting the 1920 cruiser tech soon, so a cheaper variant may be doable later.
Carriers - I've just got the seaplane versions of the TBCs in service. Two TBCs were refurbished for Torpedo Boats.
I will likely convert 1 of those to be an experimental carrier.
Then I may use the Armored Cruiser or Light Armored Cruiser hull as a base to build a 'Scout Carrier' with a 'Fighter/Scout' role.
I may very well go with a hybrid cruiser-carrier at that time.
Mid-Late 20s, I'll probably build a Carrier Series. Hmm, wonder if an early 1900s AC might be convertible...
I just have one question but its a big one. Do I build the Nagatos to play with my current battleline (24kts) or do I build them as fast battleships (27kts)? And depending on than answer, do the Amagis get built as 27kt or 30kt battlecruisers? No Tosas under this plan yet.
That's always a debate point. When do I up the battleline speed - and should it be in increments or leaps?
I think the necessary question is what you expect to catch and kill , or run and avoid, at the two points for the Nagatos.
Does the 27 knots actually change what they can/can't fight ? Is that worth the tradeoffs ?
Then, does a ship with the required arms/armor/speed fall within the tonnage you want to spend.
That answer is usually 'no' and forces re-evaluation.
As for the Amagis, 27knots is likely slightly slow anyhow. I'd put 28 as the minimum just to matchup with existing vessels.
-Kirk
It would be a lot easier to answer if I knew what the Chinese fleet looked like...
there ya go
(https://spikeybits.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/41aa41e313c684031f7ed7d402066b4d.jpg)
At the time we got you started in Japan, I really expected China to be slotted next.
Then Guinness took it, and great- we have a balanced East. Perfect !
So the next major was the Aztec...and Guinness just didn't have the time,
which is a crying shame, especially as China has now missed out on the potential
for expansion.
I've toyed with the idea of proposing to give the Deccan/Laskmanivati holdings to China,
so that if we get a player, it will be a more viable T1, with a reason for a navy.
Anyhow, my schedule is...clearing...!? So I can finish the Iberian and Norse, and go back to Parthia.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on December 10, 2021, 11:40:07 AM
That's always a debate point. When do I up the battleline speed - and should it be in increments or leaps?
I think the necessary question is what you expect to catch and kill , or run and avoid, at the two points for the Nagatos.
Does the 27 knots actually change what they can/can't fight ? Is that worth the tradeoffs ?
Then, does a ship with the required arms/armor/speed fall within the tonnage you want to spend.
That answer is usually 'no' and forces re-evaluation.
As for the Amagis, 27knots is likely slightly slow anyhow. I'd put 28 as the minimum just to matchup with existing vessels.
-Kirk
That's been my question. I've solved it for now by sticking to the initial leap I made when I built the Implacables. The current builds for the battle line are 24kts, and I expect that the next class of battleship will also be 24kts. But the Aztecs have a position where really high battleline speed isn't strictly necessary, and torpedo defense and turning circle are far more important.
I always consider the speed in 'bands', with 21kts being in one band, 24kts being the next one up, 27, and then 30kts+. I would say that for battle line units, a gradual speed increase is pointless, as it leaves your faster ships having to slow down to maintain formation. I will probably start building fast battleships about the same time as I get around to building carriers, or otherwise merge the BB/BC types together.
Quote from: TacCovert4 on December 10, 2021, 12:38:29 PM
I always consider the speed in 'bands', with 21kts being in one band, 24kts being the next one up, 27, and then 30kts+.
That's a good gauge. As far as I know, The Brits felt at least 2, more more 3 knots were needed to control range when accounting for variables like clean hulls, worn engines, etc.
I would like try to keep my lighter vessels one band up on heavier stuff, though consistent with Parthia's armor+guns>speed, they may be at the low range of each band.
Mostly I've been keeping my BBs down a band from everyone else, at 24kts, because I think that's tactically fast enough for the Gulf/Caribbean theater and the relative 'containment' of that theater.
But I've also been considering that when I get to a ship that has to be over 27,000t to be a useful fleet unit, I'll probably need to switch to a 'Fully Armored Battlecruiser'.
Byzantine Fleet
6 x C3 class cruisers, 6000t-22.5kts will be rebuilt to 5110t-27kts
Their speed will be increased to 27kts. Their weaponry will be modernized.
Byzantine Fleet will have in 1922, 26 x 27-29kts cruisers.
14 with 6x191 & 8 with 234 or 254 & 4 with 343.
Futur Cruisers C7-5500t-29kts-6x191 (Fleet Cruiser) and C8-4750t-27kts-6x191 (Colonial Cruiser).
I am assessing my older ships and refurbishing those that make sense.
The Bucephalus ACs were posted with a refurb, but I think I will pass.
Even rebuilt, the 100mm belt and 30mm deck leaves them vulnerable to
the Byzantine 191mm, and at 5BP/Each, I can almost build a new 6000t cruiser.
Overall though, the Older ACs and PCs will be upgraded.
The Old ACs/PCs are slow, currently tasked with close-screening to add their QF weight.
Like Jefgte, lot of my older vessels project into the 27knot range when rebuilt.
I've designed new guns to fit in the old barbettes, so I can upgrade that way also.
Those refits are what I passed up for the extra LP/DP...but it's time.
The Royal Niessan CL design is a 30knot 180mm design, not yet posted
which should be the successor to the 12xMaelstrom/Ranger cruisers.
Times are difficult for dreamers.
:-[
Yeah, real life makes it hard to enjoy the play right now.
So I am getting both 1915 Aircraft Carriers and 1915 Submarines in H1/21, also in OTL Japan was well known for putting aircraft on submarines, but the rules currently make no allowances for aircraft. I would like to build such ships, so want to request that they be added to the sub tech rules.
Glancing at Wiki,
while the Germans used subs as seaplane...transports seems like the best analogy, there was no stowage/launch/recovery/berthing/repair.
The first experimental seems to be
It lists the French Sourcouf built 1927-34, and the Brits had a sub with a hanger in 27.
Italy builtdown a sub for it in 26-30,
The Japanese subs with planes seem to have started with the Junsen I-5 in 1929-32
However all of these appear to be one-off or experimental.
Actual sequential would seem to start with I-6 in 1932-34.
So two tech tiers, the experimental versions available about the 1925subs tech (finish 1927-28), the service versions about the 1930 sub tech (finish 1932-33).
The other question is if we should modify the sub chart to allow for subs with a single plane in a hanger to reflect these,
or if that counts as trying to account for every little 'niche'.
But it looks like it's moot until ~1927.
Quote...But it looks like it's moot until ~1927.
1921, I also thought it was a bit too early.
1925 for techno and 1927 for first (test) usage seems more acceptable to me.
In the next few years, Byzantium will build 3 types of destroyers.
- 1500t Fleet Destroyers.
- 860t TGB for colonies.
- 500t coastal Torpedo Boats.
In 1923-01-01 Byzantine had:
- 60 Fleet Destroyers.
- 35 TGB for colonies.
- 95 coastal Destroyers.
(Total 190)
I only have 135 destroyers over all, and suspect the number is going to decline further as large MTBs and submarines take on certain roles.
I suspect (but can not confirm) that the current 1,900 t design and its successors will be the only one I build for a while, as the older and smaller boats can be set aside to do the colonial/coastal defence thing where required.
Japan will be following a very similar plan, I currently have:
24 x Fleet Destroyers
60 x 750-800t Littoral Destroyers
86 x 400-710t 2nd Class Destroyers
Ill probably build another 24 Fubukis and replace the bulk of the 2nd class ships with the 500t Chidoris. That should leave me with:
48 x Fleet Destroyers
60 x 750-800t Littoral Destroyers
60 x 400-500t Torpedo Boats
I'm actually expecting MTBs to become less and less useful until the 120t K class comes around.
My dreams of what I want to build continuously exceed what I'm able to.
Then I wind up modifying as folks navies evolve.
The Parthian destroyers are caught in a battle of trying to provide sufficient numbers
and for the different ranges involved. We are trying to build 6-8 a year, which
should put us in the 120-160 vessel range longer term.
Parthia is currently building 2 tiers of destroyers- the 1500 ton 'Corvettes' and the 1000 ton 'Fleet Destroyers'.
The plan is to basically keep building those classes until Sonar starts becoming available.
For Destroyers, we kinda view them as fragile, so the 1000 tonners look like a better way to generate numbers,
with the big 1500 tonners for longer ranged assignments.
As newer vessels come available, the older are being relegated to more of a Torpedo Boat role.
Long term, they age out, and I would like room in my schedule for the 'Pesh-Kabr' 500ton coastal torpedo boats.
I would like to field ~96-128 of those size, but no idea if I ever will.
I will continue fielding MTBs in numbers.
I do not view them as terribly useful against a fleet at sea, but
in the right environment can be a hard to stomp out littoral defense,
and dangerous to any non-fleet assets.
Submarines will start to displace thier role over time, but I see a peacetime
role for MTBs as light patrol craft, easily able to ascend rivers on patrol.
Japan sees MTBs as purely coastal-defense deterrents. If you're going after a port you better bring destroyer escorts along. For peacetime patrol duties, auxiliaries are seen as much more capable and useful for the same cost, and for fleet actions you need something that can at least take a few hits and fight their way thru destroyer screens, in more weather conditions. With planes, subs, and older destroyers being around in numbers, the role of MTBs is slowly dying. AT least thats how Japan sees it.
Quote...I will continue fielding MTBs in numbers.
I do not view them as terribly useful against a fleet at sea, but
in the right environment can be a hard to stomp out littoral defense,
and dangerous to any non-fleet assets...
MTBs are only useful in areas where the sea is
often calm. Some areas are
continuously with big waves (look at Ventusky).
MTBs therefore have a limited use.
I second this, the Caribbean being generally calm is a major driver to the MTB swarms. And once more effective MTBs come online in another 6 months, I'll probably be turning over the old ones in favor of newer designs.
I see MTBs primarily as coast defense, and not suited to all sea areas.
So far, in wars, I've put limitations on them operating based on the sea state the weather chart comes up with.
They won't be based in large numbers in say Cape Town, as those seas
are rough.
Sumatra though- much better. Sheltered waters, and lots and lots
of rivers they can go hide in out of 'reach' of any foes.
Same with say the Limpopo delta, or defending Ria de Janerio bay,
digging them out of the nooks and crannies will be problematic.
Far more than an equivalent tonnage of light destroyers.
I don't necessarily see throwing them at a main fleet as the best use.
Sending them after supply efforts, beachheads, bombardment squadrons, and interdicting
local merchant traffic is the prime role.
As for the main force .... It's an option - and could be done, but pretty much destroys your MTB force.
That said, I think that about destroyer forces doing attacks as well.
Destroyers are far better rounded and seafaring, but are very fragile.
Both can be useful, but need to be used situationally.
If I'm going to do a main force attack, I'd want to tie it to a separate effort - like the arrival
of a main fleet force, so that I can take advantage of the disruption and damaged units.
Alternately flip it and use the MTBs as follow up to a raid that draws forces away from
an amphibious force.
Peacetime, as I said, I see a use for many light patrol platforms for simple patrol of extensive
coasts and getting into the shallows.
Long term choices, I'm looking that I can build 16 MTBs for the cost of a light DD (640t)
There are - to me- many cases where the 16 tiny hulls have more value than the 1 hull.
more torpedo platforms, and take 16 shell hits vs. basically 1.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on June 14, 2022, 09:15:22 AM
I see MTBs primarily as coast defense, and not suited to all sea areas.
So far, in wars, I've put limitations on them operating based on the sea state the weather chart comes up with.
They won't be based in large numbers in say Cape Town, as those seas
are rough.
Sumatra though- much better. Sheltered waters, and lots and lots
of rivers they can go hide in out of 'reach' of any foes.
Same with say the Limpopo delta, or defending Ria de Janerio bay,
digging them out of the nooks and crannies will be problematic.
Far more than an equivalent tonnage of light destroyers.
I don't necessarily see throwing them at a main fleet as the best use.
Sending them after supply efforts, beachheads, bombardment squadrons, and interdicting
local merchant traffic is the prime role.
As for the main force .... It's an option - and could be done, but pretty much destroys your MTB force.
That said, I think that about destroyer forces doing attacks as well.
Destroyers are far better rounded and seafaring, but are very fragile.
Both can be useful, but need to be used situationally.
If I'm going to do a main force attack, I'd want to tie it to a separate effort - like the arrival
of a main fleet force, so that I can take advantage of the disruption and damaged units.
Alternately flip it and use the MTBs as follow up to a raid that draws forces away from
an amphibious force.
Peacetime, as I said, I see a use for many light patrol platforms for simple patrol of extensive
coasts and getting into the shallows.
Long term choices, I'm looking that I can build 16 MTBs for the cost of a light DD (640t)
There are - to me- many cases where the 16 tiny hulls have more value than the 1 hull.
more torpedo platforms, and take 16 shell hits vs. basically 1.
Roughly speaking that's my philosophy as well.
MTBs are harassment forces, a torpedo force in being for island bases and other small places. They require someone to defend everywhere with more than a single ship, as a score of MTBs can bumrush and sink even a battleship that's caught without support.
GTBs are what I went for as a 'fleet' torpedo asset. Better seakeeping, actual comms (for 1913, in '23 and later 40t MTBs would start having reliable short-range comms), and fire control. They're a 'night attack' force. Whereas an MTB might be slinging an 18in torpedo at suicide ranges of 3000yds.....a GTB can sling a heavyweight 21in torpedo at 8,000yds. The former will always be spotted. The latter, being low slung and operating at night or in weather, MIGHT not be spotted. And due to the range difference, the former can be targeted by basically anything bigger than an MG on a ship....the latter is going to be in the envelope for 100mm and larger guns, which reduces the number of things that CAN threaten them.
IF I had to fight Rome again in 1918, which wasn't an impossibility at one point, my plan was to do a night attack with cruisers and DDs providing overwatch for GTB squadrons rolling in and launching waves of torpedoes at longer ranges to disrupt and shape the battle (if a larger fleet battle is in the offing) or cause significant damage/losses. If the fight was to continue at night, in a lesson learned from Ironclad Bay, the MTBs would have a GTB 'Squadron Leader' that would go in with them to the 'initial point' where the attack run is to begin....thus precluding the cluster-frag that happened at Ironclad Bay where poor communication meant the MTBs went in on a poor angle and poor timing and disrupted other friendly operations rather than the devastating flank strike they could have done. DDs, which would have been gun dueling with the enemy screen at range (keeping the battle line out of the gun duel) would go in last to pick off crippled ships, same with the cruisers.
The Pesh-kabr or Sea Hornet 500ton coastal destroyers are meant to fill that GTB role Tac's talking about.
as well as the open sea patrol, in affordable squadrons.
In the event, I may go with updated 750 ton vessels, but that entire construction
program seems like a '24-25 time frame if I can fit it in.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on June 14, 2022, 11:38:20 AM
The Pesh-kabr or Sea Hornet 500ton coastal destroyers are meant to fill that GTB role Tac's talking about.
as well as the open sea patrol, in affordable squadrons.
In the event, I may go with updated 750 ton vessels, but that entire construction
program seems like a '24-25 time frame if I can fit it in.
My GTBs are only 10 years old, so they're not quite obsolete yet. I'm probably going to hold out for another 2-3 years before I build another GTB run.
Currently the H-class General Purpose destroyers, slow'ish but with a modestly adequate armament, torpedoes, and most importantly good ASW gear are the major production run. I-class Destroyer Leaders as well.