Alternative I-class BCs

grayst

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Location
Edinburgh
Country
ll
Sure, I need to do more runs.

Longer range may favour the 12"ers of the historic I-class - although I suspect what will happen is a whole lot of nothing, with very few hits by either of the British guns.

The 12" only outranged the 9.2" by around 3000m - and of course a lot of that was due to max elevation rather than inherent gun power.

BTW I have now done a run with the Germans firing back. The Brits are massacred, of course: but the Is fare no better than the ACs, and the ACs do more damage before they go down.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
Heh 15-19 km? AC's cant fire that far.
I suggested 12k and 15k and yes, the ACs can't fire that far. Which is the point I'm making. The 12" gun is better in some respects to the 9.2"

I still think this is a lost cause because you are not (and cannot) comparing like for like in gunnery accuracy since the game seriously hampers the I Class in ways that are nothing whatever to do with the actual ship itself, so your tests are not proving anything other than Beatty's ships had poor gunnery which we alraedy know. Remember the I-Class in the game is not an I-Class, its an I-Class in 1BCS attached to Beatty's BCF which is a quite different ship.
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
Re: armour and shells as of period technology...

Given the vast distances and the existing fleets it seems likely the US would have deployed almost every AC it possessed to the Pacific (after having no doubt secured suitable treaties with the major European powers to protect the Atlantic coast)...
Yup, the US could afford only 1 fleet at that time. That's why there was such importance placed on the Panama Canal.

... but it strikes me that dirigibles and heavier than air recon would have shown itself to be far too useful not to be used. Whether that would have taken the form of hurriedly established air- and sea-plane stations on suitable islands or reliance on airship technology I can't say but probably the former and also probably with an ad-hoc mish-mash of seaplane tenders and possibly short-deck "take off only and land at the nearest island" carriers like Campainia. In short, pretty much what Britain was doing in WWI in the N sea aviation wise.

The problem with zeps is that they required a large supporting infrastructure; IOW, dedicated zep bases. Huge hangars, gas generation and/or storage facilities, all the ground tackle, etc. Creating them from scratch was the contemporary equivalent of building the B29 bases in WW2. As such, zeps really couldn't accompany the fleet across the ocean. The fleet would have to get there first and build a base for them. Then on top of that, zeps were very vulnerable to weather. So, after operating several in the 20s and 30s, the USN decided zeps were more trouble than they were worth.

Thus, the USN was more focused on airplanes, and from a very early point. For instance, the 1916 Program's CLs (the Omahas) were designed with a catapult from the get-go, which was altered to 2 during construction. BBs originally had RN-style flying-off platforms which were soon replaced by catapults. This is also why the USN was keen to build proper aircraft carriers.

As for island-hopping, the US Pacific strategy focused on the islands the US already owned: Guam and the Philippines. The idea was to build ships capable of getting to Guam, which would serve as the advanced base to recapture the Philippines. The Philippines couldn't be made invasion-proof, but hopefully they could slow the Japanese down enough to allow the fleet to get to Guam.
 

JAG88

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
Location
Santiago
Country
llChile
Re: armour and shells as of period technology...

I believe that the bad reputation of the I's is undeserved, they were not bad ships (neither good) but they were seriously outclassed vis-a-vis the German GKs. At the time, the RN thought they were jumping over the next obvious step (a Blücher-like ship) and went for the ultimate cruiser, one that represented the technological edge in speed and weaponry, with more than adequate armour for its intended use.

The problem is that they were not the best possible ship and were quickly rendered obsolescent by the Von der Tann and suffered badly in any direct comparison. The point has already been made, one is an armored cruiser killer, the other, a fleet ship designed from the start as a fast "ship of the line". That both came to be known as battlecruisers is the main problem here, we are simply comparing two different things that had been forced down a conceptual funnel in spite of their diverse purposes.

But, it would be interesting to know what the Germans thought of the I's when they first heard of them, did they assume the RN was going to use them in the line as the Japanese did in Tsushima and built their own version? Or did they understand the concept behind the I's and decided that that wasn't what they wanted anyway?

In any case, the Von der Tann was 2000Tn heavier than the I's, had at least the same speed, and the scale of its armour protection was similar to that of a British BB while using the standard KM guns; she and their successors were intended for a different role but, was that the only reason for the differences between them and the RN BCs? Or were there basic design philosophies that enhanced those differences?

Bullethead mentioned how recent the advances in machinery really were and I think that is one of the main issues here, correct me if I am wrong but the RN in general relied in large tube boilers and that meant a penalty in performance, weight and space, which meant that any extra knot in speed for a RN BC would carry a larger weight penalty than for a KM one, something that I think can be easily seen in the cats which devoted a larger percentage of their weight to machinery in order to achieve basically the same speed as the GKs.

Also, a BC hull was significantly heavier than a GK one in spite of being shorter and thinner, a fact that has always left me wondering... why was there such a large difference?

In "The Baden Trials" (or was it in Goodall?) it is stated that the bulkheads in Baden were 25% thinner than in the RN ships, assuming that this is common design practice for the KM, was this a sound weight saving measure and the thicker bulkheads and heavier RN hulls a sign of the design conservatism and (maybe) unnecessarily high safety standards mentioned in ADM 186/251? Or was this one of the reasons why some German ships had trouble with flooding, especially when their bulkheads were stressed at speed (Bayern, Lützow).

Would the KM ships aged poorly given their lighter hulls?

In spite of the standing questions, I think that the differences between BCs and GKs were mainly a consequence of the KM and RN basic design philosophies rather than a product of their dissimilar missions (only applicable to the I's and not the cats anyways), it just happened that those differences had a greater impact when the need for higher speeds was specified, thus creating a sizable gap between the types.
 

martin worsey

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
115
Reaction score
1
Location
ripley
Country
ll
I think that (lack of) weight reduction in hull construction was due to cost considerations but will check this out.
It is probably worth considering what fine ships the Invincibles were at the time of their launch and what an advancement they would represent when being designed. They were superb cruiser killers and AC’s represented roughly 50% of the large ships (both in terms of numbers and cost) then afloat. The thin belt which we tend to deride was as delcyros mentioned optimised against cost/weight considerations. Some of the smaller Battleships such as the Duncans only had 7” belts and for instance the Wittlesbachs had only 9” guns. Thus they would probably hold their own against weaker units in a contemporary line of battle. As a consequence, they would represent formidable units during the period 1908-11 as some of the most powerful units afloat.
The Indefatigables are a different matter entirely.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
I gotta tell you, its discssions like this that make me never regret getting DG or Jutland. Thanks guys.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
*agrees with thewood* This thread has been one of the most entertaining and informative I've had on the internet.
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
The "I"'s were a game changer for scounting forces hence the VdT. The difference was the "I"'s had to operate all round the world the VdT had to operate in coastal waters. Note the difference in freeboard between the two ships and there is your difference in hull weight partly explained. Operationally the "I"'s were the faster ship (The speeds in game are comical) the VdT was a 24 knt boat on operations and could not sustain high speed like the "I"'s 25knts for 3 days@43,700, smaller working spaces equated to greater fatigue and coal that would put a fire out tell that story. The low freeboard of the VdT meant that in lab conditions she can fool fanbois but at sea pushing that 9ft extra beam meant she was a donkey. The Germans never really got four shafts to work in combination with their hulls and abandoned trying on their performance warships post WWI, cavitation and poor turning appear to be the cause. The Bulkheads on the VdT and othe German battleships stopped at A turret this coupled with the low freeboard meant a penatration beyond this point with the driving force of the ship would invariably flood this area, a fault the Invincible was safe from with her freeboard and sea keeping. The Lutzow had a better hull form but note the extended and vunerable focastle. (I laugh when I think what went through German designers minds when they realiased they had to give the S+G Atlantic bows) The "I"'s had to operate all round the globe so small tube boilers were out of the question due to realibilty issues whilst this was not a problem for German shipas they operated close to base apart from if there was a problem on operations as due to the central bulkhead there was no redundancy of power between engine rooms, Scheer said they were always a condensor malfuction away from disaster, the fact it did not happen was they only ever got limited use (20% for a cordite flash condensers packed up too;)).
For underwater protection the Germans used a superior system of pumps and smaller compartments, beam and counter flooding hence there was no need for stronger bulkheads whist the British used bigger compartments and let the water level out. The British initially believed the 3 shaft battlship was the way to go for underwater protection after WWI and examing German BB's but discarded the idea because the days of a 20 knt battleline were over and too much power would have to go through each shaft. The German ships did not age because they were not suitable blue water navy vessels which the RN required.
 
Last edited:

JAG88

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
Location
Santiago
Country
llChile
The Von der Tann's machinery did revolutions for 26kn at Jutland, attaining only 23kn due to the hull damage received earlier in the action, and that was with very bad coal. You can check Campbell for that.

I would love to see the sources for your statement that the KM designed its ships for coastal use only.
 

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
The Von der Tann's machinery did revolutions for 26kn at Jutland, attaining only 23kn due to the hull damage received earlier in the action, and that was with very bad coal. You can check Campbell for that.

I would love to see the sources for your statement that the KM designed its ships for coastal use only.

Ive read the piece, that level of forcing might get you 26 knts on trials in the bath but the VdT never was able to sustain those speeds on operations whilst the Invicible had no trouble, the Moltke you will notice could only also could only make 23 knts did it have damage also? The Invincible was the quicker ship in service. Anything by Tirpitz is a pretty good source :)
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
Ive read the piece, that level of forcing might get you 26 knts on trials in the bath but the VdT never was able to sustain those speeds on operations whilst the Invicible had no trouble, the Moltke you will notice could only also could only make 23 knts did it have damage also? The Invincible was the quicker ship in service. Anything by Tirpitz is a pretty good source :)
Part of iVon der Tann's testing was oceanic cruising. When less than 6 months old, she was sent on a cruise to South America. She left on 20 Feb 1911 and returned to Kiel on 6 May, so call it 10 weeks away from German dockyards. At the end of this, on the last leg of the voyage home, from the Canaries to Helgoland, she averaged 24 knots over 1900-odd miles. So I figure she held up well on this deployment.
 

barkhauer

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
356
Reaction score
2
Location
Ohio
Part of iVon der Tann's testing was oceanic cruising. When less than 6 months old, she was sent on a cruise to South America. She left on 20 Feb 1911 and returned to Kiel on 6 May, so call it 10 weeks away from German dockyards. At the end of this, on the last leg of the voyage home, from the Canaries to Helgoland, she averaged 24 knots over 1900-odd miles. So I figure she held up well on this deployment.
Would a ship on a long cruise like this have been run with a reduced complement to make things more comfortable? Or would they have been packed in in case war broke out and they suddenly had to become raiders?
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
Would a ship on a long cruise like this have been run with a reduced complement to make things more comfortable? Or would they have been packed in in case war broke out and they suddenly had to become raiders?
You're speaking to somebody who has served in destroyers, has lived for months in holes in the ground under enemy fire, and today is on call 24/7 with the local fire department. From my POV, if you're wearing the uniform, you follow the standards whenever and wherever. As such, for troop comfort, a destroyer in a severe storm beats a hole in the ground in a severe storm, so a battlecruiser, no matter how cramped, must be luxurious by comparison :).
 

barkhauer

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
356
Reaction score
2
Location
Ohio
You're speaking to somebody who has served in destroyers, has lived for months in holes in the ground under enemy fire, and today is on call 24/7 with the local fire department. From my POV, if you're wearing the uniform, you follow the standards whenever and wherever. As such, for troop comfort, a destroyer in a severe storm beats a hole in the ground in a severe storm, so a battlecruiser, no matter how cramped, must be luxurious by comparison :).
None of which answers my question. What did the Germans do in 1911? I know that at various times US warships were run on reduced crews for budgetary reasons, with the intent that crews would ramp up in size if war broke out.
 

Bullethead

Storm Eagle Studios
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
3
Location
Wakefield, LA
Country
llUnited States
None of which answers my question. What did the Germans do in 1911? I know that at various times US warships were run on reduced crews for budgetary reasons, with the intent that crews would ramp up in size if war broke out.
The Imperial German Navy was chronically short of seamen. Most of VdT's plank-owners were moved over from the decommissioned predread Rheinland, so it's possible VdT was shorthanded on her South American cruise. But OTOH, this cruise was "showing the flag" more to the RN than to the Brazilians. This was the 1st world-class German ship of the dreadnought era (the contemporary Nassaus really didn't count due to their low speed). Thus, I'd imagine the Germans tried hard to make everything look as perfect as possible. Having a skeleton crew aboard would have been noticed and derided by RN attache's in the ports of call.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
So the answer is we don't know. Not that I'm being critical, but actually we do not know if she sailed with a full war complement or fewer men.

On the other hand I'm unsure what asking that question is trying to draw out. I'm confident RN ships also bumbled about the globe in peacetime with fewer crew than a wartime complement.
 

barkhauer

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
356
Reaction score
2
Location
Ohio
So the answer is we don't know. Not that I'm being critical, but actually we do not know if she sailed with a full war complement or fewer men.

On the other hand I'm unsure what asking that question is trying to draw out. I'm confident RN ships also bumbled about the globe in peacetime with fewer crew than a wartime complement.
Simple curiousity. I've read a number of mentions of how cramped and uncomfortable German ships were since they were designed to fight close to home, and idly wondered if a way to alleviate that was to simply sail with the number of men needed to sail the ship, rather than the number needed to fight her.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
*nods* I also have. I was just curious as to why it would be an issue on a long cruise like that. The problem being we don't know. BH's statement about a military person putting up with uncomfortable billets regardless may be true in today's US military but seemingly it is not a universal truth: I recall reading somewhere that when at anchor in the Jade, the HSF crews were partly billeted ashore in barracks so as to ease conditions aboard ship.

Be that as it may, even if some or even all KM ships were hellish to live aboard that doesn't seem to have worried them overmuch when they used their fleet for the purpose for which it was designed, i.e. fighting the RN within a few hundred miles of their home ports and given that fact the continuous discussion of whether KM ships were unfit to be raiders is moot, since they either didn't use them as such or they did - e.g. von Spee's squadron.
 
Last edited:

Coypus

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
393
Reaction score
1
Location
Belfast
Country
ll
Part of iVon der Tann's testing was oceanic cruising. When less than 6 months old, she was sent on a cruise to South America. She left on 20 Feb 1911 and returned to Kiel on 6 May, so call it 10 weeks away from German dockyards. At the end of this, on the last leg of the voyage home, from the Canaries to Helgoland, she averaged 24 knots over 1900-odd miles. So I figure she held up well on this deployment.
Was she closed up for action like operations, it was peace time so she had the best coal, she was only six months old, what was the weather like. On operations you cant run propaganda exercises like peacetime. Give VdT anything faster than 24 kts as top speed is very generous. Ships touched more than their design speed in emergencies giving that as their defitinitve speed is nonsense, The Invincible could run 25 knts in any weather for days on end it was the faster ship.

On a side note I used to game Hipper v Beatty on the floor the German goal was bombarment, 24,25,26,27 were the respective speed in the rules for the German Bc's that game played very well
 
Top