Capital Ships and Cruisers 1928.0

[Kaiser Kirk]

When I designed the Stormbringer class, I made a point of scrutinizing the Japanese and Byzantine capital ships, and then the Roman, looking for a good run away or fight speed.
I settled on 26 knots, 1 less than the IJN BCs I could beat, 2 less than the Byzantine BCs I'd encounter while screening - all of which I could fight.  But 2 knots faster than the IJN battleline...and 5 vs Byzantine.. The Roman BC was even faster but moderately armored, and the Totanis class came the next year, but was still nearly 2 knots slower.  All of which would allow the Stormbringers to operate independently in either theater.... OR join my battleline. So at 26knots with 10x 365 , a 350mm belt and 125mm of deck armor...the Stormbringer  could beat anything that could catch it and a fair bit of what couldn't.

The original idea behind 'Thunder' and 'Lightning' was my 8-ship battleline core was now done, and I could build a couple ships to bring the force from 2 to 4 modern battleships.
During discussions over designs I realized I should really go back and take a detailed look again.

That turned into a spreadsheet built while watching late night TV before bed.
It's not a high brain activity time, so there are probably errors.

It seeks to summarize all capital ships and cruisers currently in service as of 1928.
I know at one point I noticed I hadn't grabbed all the columns when sorting, and so things got misaligned, and I had to go back to an earlier save.
Another time, open office crashed,
etc.

Anyhow most of these tables seek to list the "Top 10" but when there's ties...I keep extending the table, so they can be 'Top...15ish'

I also made some summary tables for the categories...so much easier with the BBcode table creator. Way back I made some without one, takes more time...

Largest class favors the Iberians and Norse, because it's easiest just to continue laying down ships to bring PCs up to date.
Active players tend to have 2 ship classes, often very similar 2 ship classes, but capturing minor improvements.

Largest Class
Class Name	Nation	# Hulls [/b]
Cabellero De LaMancha	Iberia	12
Danae	Norse	12
Gielo	Norse	10
Gabirel	Iberia	9
Herja	Norse	8
Maelstrom	Parthia	8
Rios De Catalonia	Iberia	8
Edelsten	Norse	8
Royal Nissean XII	Parthia	6
Gayal	Byzantine	6
Costana	Byzantine	6
Magdala	Wilno	6
Parisius	Rome	6
Lippe	Wilno	6

Largest is pretty self explanatory.
Rome wins the prize for biggest, followed by Parthia and the Norse and Wilno.

Largest Vessels
Class Name	Nation	# Hulls	Displacement[/b]
Empress Amelia	Rome	3	46000
Tullis Leofic	Rome	1	41100
Ullr	Norse	2	41000
Vazya	Parthia	2	39250
Vili	Norse	2	39000
Czarownik	Wilno	2	38939
Johann Encke	Wilno	2	38902
Kalifern	Parthia	2	38000
Leon	Iberia	2	35000
Totanis	Rome	2	34500
Stormbringer	Parthia	2	34116
El Cid	Iberia	2	33000
Szermierz	Wilno	2	32900
Hartegos	Byzantine	4	30600

Main Battery Bore is a simple way of doing it.

Simple Broadside would have been nice. But I didn't note the shell weights.

Main Battery Throwweight/Min would have been better.
To get that, I'd need to have entered the shell sizes for all the different guns, and noted the turret type, and turret tech.
Done right, Turret Tech is a problem, as I would need to look at the build date, then check the player tech at that time and if they've researched an up to date mount.
Then there should be a linear regression of bore size to date in service...but that doesn't exist
Right now a I do a simpler version where if the ship is old, I pay attention and check Navweaps for mountings/guns of the same type/bore/era.

Then there's the fact that our research rules means ME is tech year dependent, but then shell weights can vary by the naval artillery tech and max caliber,
which can get odd results depending on shell weight, with consequences on penetration..which is also keyed to the current naval artillery level and shells AP characteristics. 
on how well they penetrate and how long they take to get down range.

Main Battery Bore
Class Name	Nation	# Hulls	Bore [/b]
Empress Amelia	Rome	3	410
Totanis	Rome	2	410
Ullr	Norse	2	405
Vili	Norse	2	405
Czarownik	Wilno	2	400
Johann Encke	Wilno	2	400
Leon	Iberia	2	400
El Cid	Iberia	2	400
Hartegos	Byzantine	4	381
Vazya	Parthia	2	365
Kalifern	Parthia	2	365
Stormbringer	Parthia	2	365
Tiamat	Parthia	4	365

Right, as the Parthians like numbers, and more chances to hit, I had to have a table on that.

No. Large Guns
Class Name	Nation	# Hulls	Large Guns [/b]
Vazya	Parthia	2	20 x 365L45
Kalifern	Parthia	2	16 x 365L50
Tiamat	Parthia	4	15 x 365L40
Calcargas	Norse	2	14 x 305L45
Reina Rehente	Iberia	3	14 x 140L40
Vili	Norse	2	12 x 405L50
Ise	Japan	2	12 x 356L45
Surtur	Norse	2	12 x 355L45
Bekata	Byzantine	2	12 x 343L45
Rameses II	Byzantine	2	12 x 343L45
Tullis Leofic	Rome	1	12 x 340L45
Audax	Rome	2	12 x 340L45
Praeventores	Rome	2	12 x 340L45
Atago	Japan	2	12 x 305L45
Nieugiety	Wilno	2	12 x 300L45
Wrogi	Wilno	2	12 x 300L45
Argonauta	Rome	1	12 x 210L45

Belt Armor Simple is just the waterline thickness of the main belt.
There are many other considerations that get skipped that way.

Rome has high belts and electric drive, giving their ships great floatation and torpedo resistance, as well as a larger armored area.
Other navies have short belts, where shells might dive under.
Older ships tend to have protected decks behind the belt, giving the 'turtleback' effect, though that makes then slightly vulnerable (1-2% chance) to shells diving over the belt at long ranges...

The leaders here are two Parthian classes designed when 345L40 guns were in service, but Fire Control was horrendous, so they were expecting to battle it out at under 8000m.

Belt Armor, simple
Class Name	Nation	# Hulls	Waterline Belt [/b]
Gilgamesh	Parthia	4	420
Simurgh	Parthia	2	360
Calcargas	Norse	2	356
Surtur	Norse	2	356
Thor	Norse	2	356
Tiamat	Parthia	4	355
Vili	Norse	2	355
Enki	Parthia	2	355
Anders Angstrom	Wilno	4	350
Vazya	Parthia	2	350
Kalifern	Parthia	2	350
Stormbringer	Parthia	2	350
Johann Encke	Wilno	2	350

Deck armor is also misleading.
The two Parthian leads have their deck armor split between decks, and then additional laminated on.
All of which reduces the effective thickness a bit.

Deck Armor, simple
Class Name	Nation	# Hulls	Citadel Total[/b]
Simurgh	Parthia	2	155
Rohk	Parthia	2	150
Monarch II	Aztec	2	140
Johann Encke	Wilno	2	140
Gilgamesh	Parthia	4	135
Kalifern	Parthia	2	135
Vazya	Parthia	2	125
Stormbringer	Parthia	2	125
Vili	Norse	2	120
Monarch I	Aztec	2	120
Leon	Iberia	2	120

Maximum Speed is interesting, I put displacement back in.
Most of the fastest ships are cruisers, with a handfull of Large Armored Cruisers (BCs)

Maximum Speed
Class Name	Nation	# Hulls	Displacement	Speed [/b]
Dux Antione Szorfa	Rome	1	21100	32.42
Volkhov	Wilno	3	7919	32.03
Rhein	Wilno	3	7911	32.03
Revenge	Aztec	3	21093	32
Herja	Norse	8	6000	32
Valkyrie	Norse	4	6000	32
Straznik	Wilno	2	17916	31.86
Eagle	Aztec	3	6000	31.8
Baja	Aztec	2	13420	31.5
Isca	Rome	5	8000	31.23
Agincourt	Rome	2	6000	31.22
Warta	Wilno	2	5974	31.05
Mumuro	Rome	2	3238	31.04
Messana	Rome	5	9000	31.02
Zemaka	Parthia	4	18500	31.01
Atlatl	Aztec	3	8996	31
Aoba	Japan	2	3501	31

Range at 10 knots.

Realistically, ships were designed for an economical cruising speed.
Trials on Jupiter found that direct drive turbines needed a higher 12-14 cruising speed than 8-10 triple expansion or it was inefficient,
and later with gearing, there were gears for economical cruising.

SS does not recognize that, so ships can slow down or speed up with no efficiency issues
The main impact of cruising speed becomes what is listed is the presumed steaming speed, which will be compared to opposition speeds for overtake, or to sub speeds for positioning.

So all of these differing ranges at cruise were converted to 10knots by comparing bunker storage needed at different cruise speeds.

Range at 10 knots
Class Name	Nation	# Hulls	Displacement	Range @ 10kts	Range @ Cruise[/b]
Dux Antione Szorfa	Rome	1	21100	23189	12000 @ 14
Kanthanka	Parthia	2	5933	20503	10610 @ 14
Massagatea	Parthia	1	6000	20408	14000 @ 12
Saka	Parthia	1	5999	20408	14000 @ 12
Scythian	Parthia	2	2982	20087	7800 @ 16
Samaritan	Parthia	1	2982	20087	7800 @ 16
Ullr	Norse	2	41000	19663	10175 @ 14
Moulek	Parthia	2	6000	19371	10024 @ 14
Uhlan	Aztec	2	17344	19324	10000 @ 14
Lake	Aztec	4	13328	19324	10000 @ 14

[Kaiser Kirk]

oops forgot the sheet.

[TacCovert4]

Very interesting.  And highlights the logic for the aztecs going full carrier.   We're just not competitive in battleships.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I don't think the state of air tech supports full carriers just yet.
Full air points, sometimes multiple, working against ships with minimal AA...did only a little bit.
The best results were against defenseless immobile targets.

Without vast engine improvements, radar and metal skinned mono planes  that won't change...and they are not really foreseeable,
And between night and bad weather, there's a great range of operating conditions they aren't usable.

So I'm not sold that the logic works out.
Plus, the AA suites in N7, where there's been no interwar building holiday - are fairly robust and
the 'scratches' that were done seem to lead to nations improving the AA further.

[The Rock Doctor]

Yeah, I do lean towards incrementalism in some ship types, like the ongoing run of light cruisers. 

I was close to going for a fifth and sixth Angstrom class BB, but felt I needed the armored cruisers more.

Interesting stats, thanks for sharing.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I see 12 Wilno Cruiser classes with 36 cruisers, so you're averaging 3 cruisers / class - not bad.

Ironically Parthia is possibly the worst offender with 44 vessels spread over 17 classes - 5 of them single ship.

Feel free to copy down the spread sheet and add destroyers and gunboats or what not :)

[TacCovert4]

I don't think the state of air tech supports full carriers just yet.
Full air points, sometimes multiple, working against ships with minimal AA...did only a little bit.
The best results were against defenseless immobile targets.

Without vast engine improvements, radar and metal skinned mono planes  that won't change...and they are not really foreseeable,
And between night and bad weather, there's a great range of operating conditions they aren't usable.

So I'm not sold that the logic works out.
Plus, the AA suites in N7, where there's been no interwar building holiday - are fairly robust and
the 'scratches' that were done seem to lead to nations improving the AA further.

It's not quite there yet.  But the promise is.  And the Aztecs are so far behind their closest potential top tier competitor, aka Rome, in battleships that a risky move makes sense.  Against the Mayans we feel our current battleships are already superior,  just fewer in number.   But the mayans wouldn't dare take them on in a stand up fight, and that's been proven.

Carriers are a long lead item.  And I'm planning on aviation cruisers as well.  Plus a ton of cruisers and a continuous but slow rate of BB production.   The constellation class will be a risk, but its still relatively small in tonnage terms.

[Kaiser Kirk]

  But the mayans wouldn't dare take them on in a stand up fight, and that's been proven.

Sadly the three players orders all meant while battles were sought, the conditions underwhich those engagements were allowed minimally overlapped, and scouting resources didn't provide the contacts needed for those minimal periods to happen.
The Mayan habit of keeping their fleet consolidated and relying on scouting aircraft-mainly from land- really limited opportunities. While Zeppelins had the range, but so limited in numbers.
It is hard to recall now, but I know right before the Mayans steamed for Martinique there seemed a real chance- as they were repaired from Veracruz-, but when all was said and done, the fleets missed. I think weather rolled in or Aztecs had to head home for fuel...or both. Time on station was a real issue.

[Jefgte]

But the mayans wouldn't dare take them on in a stand up fight, and that's been proven.

That is not exactly correct...

Report after the Battle of Vera Cruz

The battles of the battleship squadrons were brief.
The enemy preferred to flee in front of our battleships line.
Thus the Aztec Fleet, however superior, to prefer to find refuge in these harbors."

[Kaiser Kirk]

At this time, it is hard to remember the details.
I was really struggling to find the time to run the war,
so the memory is not as clear as it normally would be.

After Vera Cruz and before Martinique -
there was period where the Mayans were repairing in harbor, when the Mayans did not want to sail against the Aztec,
Then a period when they would Sortie to fight the Aztecs if they could find them.
Then there was Martinique and the long return, and then time in harbor repairing.

Both the Aztec and Mayans wanted to have a long range fight. Which would have been very interesting.  The Aztecs planned on holding the range by steaming away at an angle, keeping the Mayan hulls below the horizon and using their slight air superiority to ensure they did the aerial spotting.  However there is quite a difference between hull-down distance and mast top down distance. The FC tech limits meant both needed to be within thte Mast-to-Mast sighting distance, so the Mayans could return fire without the spotting bonus...with the minimum 1% TH that was introduced for the Japanese in the China war because they had outdated FC.  Now "Hit Rates" are very low at long range even with spotting, and the sheer number of Mayan guns might offset. While there is potential to do real damage, one could also run through most a magazine for a handful of hits. It would have been very interesting to see how that gamed out, and how random factors effected.

During that period, the Aztecs ran the Yucatan-Cuba gap at night and took station in the Caribbean, but wanted to stay out of shore-based recon range, while relying on their seaplanes and Zeppelins for recon. They had submarines as a picket line, but Mayan air assets forced those far enough out, and the sight distance from a submarine is very limited, so there were holes in that line. Since the Mayans were not making sorties at that time, Zeppelins would sometimes see them in port, but there was fighter / AA opposition.

The Mayans then decided to head for Martinique.

I forget the details, but at one point I thought one side should "see" the other, and then I did more work and found that was not the case.
Either the Aztec would have gotten found, or the Mayans would have been seen on their outbound trip...maybe both ? 
I want to say that the planned additional Aerial recon by the Mayans would have found the Aztec, and the Aztec recon would have covered the outbound Mayan route, then I realized something interfered?
because I remember (destroyer) fuel state being one limiter, and weather limiting recon ability/visibility....
I know the Mayans came to port in bad weather after anchored DC in the lee of a island.
Scouting cruisers would likely have worked, but folks were not using them.

[TacCovert4]

But the mayans wouldn't dare take them on in a stand up fight, and that's been proven.

That is not exactly correct...

Report after the Battle of Vera Cruz

The battles of the battleship squadrons were brief.
The enemy preferred to flee in front of our battleships line.
Thus the Aztec Fleet, however superior, to prefer to find refuge in these harbors."

And my perspective at Veracruz was that the mayans wanted us to keep coming at them,  and when we offered a straight fight after the screens had mauled each other,  the mayans withdrew after a few cursory salvos on our battle line.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Then either my memory's flawed or I failed to communicate properly.
I believe the Aztec fleet used the disruption from the torpedo attacks to
use their speed to disengage at Vera Cruz.

Right now my internet connection is problematic- I'm actually at the library right now.
So I may be quiet a while.

[TacCovert4]

Then either my memory's flawed or I failed to communicate properly.
I believe the Aztec fleet used the disruption from the torpedo attacks to
use their speed to disengage at Vera Cruz.

Right now my internet connection is problematic- I'm actually at the library right now.
So I may be quiet a while.

And a good chance that it's my misconception.

The biggest lesson on that battle for me was the utter failure of the jeune Ecole.  Which drove me towards the big brawling cruisers I've been building since, and the big gunfight DDs.  It's just too deadly to deliver torpedo salvos by GTB or DD if that's the price that gets paid. 

Incidentally it's one of the drivers toward carriers.  On the one hand, the martinique type carrier is being built for fleet defense against land based air.  And the constellation type will get built as a torpedo delivery system that doesn't risk ships.    After all, a biplane TB is still a lot faster and cheaper than a GTB.  And the 60 aircraft capacity is needed to maintain what the aviators feel is a minimum fighter force of 3 squadrons.

[Kaiser Kirk]

The biggest lesson on that battle for me was the utter failure of the jeune Ecole.  Which drove me towards the big brawling cruisers I've been building since, and the big gunfight DDs.  It's just too deadly to deliver torpedo salvos by GTB or DD if that's the price that gets paid. 

I was a bit surprise by how badly that went. I thought your overall plan would get a good number of torpedoes off and score some telling hits. Even with the Mayan nets, they don't cover everything and they do simply fail sometimes when hit. I was expecting a handful of hits.  The dice just did not favor you.

I did find more information on Jutland torpedoes showing other hits, but the overall % was still miserable, as were the IJN rates vs. alerted foes in WWII.

Edit : One of the things I want to look at a bit more is submarines and their launch distance. Apparently they liked to get real close, and yet still missed a fair bit, on top of duds- beyond the infamous US torps, other nations had them.
I also would really like to find some info on how well torpedoes detonated on bow-on targets, as a common choice was to turn in and 'comb the wakes' ..but there was also the idea that the torpedo might glance, crush or otherwise fail to properly act if it ran head on into the ship. I'd say that was also the safest part of the ship to risk.

Then in Freidman's DD book, he talks about how the TB men, when faced with the question of if they wanted larger ships, or more ships, wanted more because they thought they would take horrendous losses and so more platforms was important. Which is what we are seeing in the daylight efforts.

The Sino-Japanese war I think was unfortunate in some ways.
Much of the IJN was without refitting to up-to-date fire control, or up to date guns (QF then, AA vs. Maya).
Which meant the Chinese TBs and Mayan planes both had better results.

For Parthia's purposes, these have reinforced that throwing hordes of MTBs at the foe in the night are better. Or saving the Destroyers for after ships have been battered and reduced.

Another trivia bit is that apparently 20knots at night is about the limit before you get a phosphorescent bow wake.

Incidentally it's one of the drivers toward carriers.  On the one hand, the martinique type carrier is being built for fleet defense against land based air.  And the constellation type will get built as a torpedo delivery system that doesn't risk ships.    After all, a biplane TB is still a lot faster and cheaper than a GTB.  And the 60 aircraft capacity is needed to maintain what the aviators feel is a minimum fighter force of 3 squadrons.

The Biplane is faster and cheaper...well kinda. After Rocky's questioning of DD numbers vs, historical, I posted up some costs.  Historically, fielding squadrons of torpedo planes was very expensive. But here it's oddly cheap. That's the game.

Anyhow, the misgivings of the USN strike me on this. Carriers are very cool and can be very effective, and also very very fragile. No radar means limited early warning and with launch rates few planes get up. From what I've read, in this period's fleet exercises the first side to find the other and launch usually sunk/disabled the other carrier. While the short ranges meant they were very near the battleline, and could be caught at night and sunk.

Then factor in the concerns the Brits had, which was that carrier planes were persistently inferior to land planes - and if you consider the extra ruggedness/landing gear/tailhook they had to be heavier for the same engine - and so land based attacks would come in mass and get through.

So these are why the Parthians are going with a number of dispersed platforms. Total fighter launch rates will be higher, and the loss of a carrier less critical if they are but part of the force. I know while now I can launch bombers,  the short decks I'm fielding will really limit me to fighters in the future...but thats looking into the future to monoplanes to far...
Right now they expect to be resilient and  to get fighters up and disrupting the incoming force reliably, and ultimately contesting or controlling the scouting environment over the fleet.