RHSEBO: Updated - and expanded to ALL scenarios

[goodboyladdie]

What was the thinking behind the BC Cid? It seems bizarre to go to the expense of building a BC and then equip it with Destroyer guns.

[DuckofTindalos]

Erm, it had 11-inchers as its main battery. The Dutch wanted it as a cruiser-killer; they figured that the heaviest IJN units would be sent against the Americans and the British, and they'd have heavy cruisers to face in the DEI.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Erm, it had 11-inchers as its main battery. The Dutch wanted it as a cruiser-killer; they figured that the heaviest IJN units would be sent against the Americans and the British, and they'd have heavy cruisers to face in the DEI.

Thanks for clearing up my confusion T [:D]. I seem to remember Alikchi having three of an earlier design in Iron Storm, whereas you stuck to the one discussed here.

edit: my current lack of turns is turning my brain to mush - that's my excuse anyway...

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Terminus

As far as I know, the 5.9in guns were not DP. They probably could have been used as such, with their mounts capable of 60 degrees of max elevation, but I can't see anything in any of my available sources that indicates they were used against aircraft.

Besides, what use would a 6-inch gun with a ROF of 5 RPM be against aircraft, in a pre-VT era?

first - a retraction - the guns are 4.7s after all - I should not attempt to read fine print without reading glasses

second - not only are the Dutch 5.9s DP - they are DP in RHS - so are French 5.9s on a battleship - but the Dutch ones are more
effective - sort of like the Worcester type only sooner

Again, I see no evidence of the Dutch 5.9s being DP, but if you want to make them so, it's your business.

The French 5.9s you quote were indeed DP, developed from a successful SP version mounted on French light cruisers. The DP version, built for and mounted on the Richelieu, were considered failures as DP weapons, primarily due to the slow train and elevation rates of their mounts (this was the primary failing of the IJN's 5 inch DP gun as well).

Naval Weapons of WWII calls the design "too ambitious for its time"...

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again





I like de Zeven Provencien for a BC - and it might have been had she been laid - but what would the sisters
then have been planned to be called? Once we know that, we can figure what is left for CLs - and cities
seem appropriate there.
OR in the Dutch case - famous naval leaders.

Akte van Verlatinge (1581; the seven provinces declared their independance and asked Wilhelm to be their stadtholder)
Willem van Oranje (Leader)
Jacob van Heemskerk (admiral in the Battle of Gibraltar in 4/25/1607 where the spainish fleet was totally destroyed with nearly no losses)
All names of the same theme...

nice work - if we can get art - we will go this way -

I would recommend the first two, as you have the seven provinces itself, the declaration of Independance and their leader then.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

What was the thinking behind the BC Cid? It seems bizarre to go to the expense of building a BC and then equip it with Destroyer guns.

This must be confusion: the Dutch BC guns we were talking about were the side mounted secondaries. This ship is more or less a simplified Scharnhorst - that is - it has exactly the same main battery - 9 eleven inch in three triples - two forward and one aft. Further - the 11 inch gun is superb - better than a US or UK or any other 12 inch in important tactical respects (like range and accuracy and rate of fire) - and should make mincemeat of anything smaller. This is a classic BC concept - it can eat up anything smaller and outrun anything bigger.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Terminus

As far as I know, the 5.9in guns were not DP. They probably could have been used as such, with their mounts capable of 60 degrees of max elevation, but I can't see anything in any of my available sources that indicates they were used against aircraft.

Besides, what use would a 6-inch gun with a ROF of 5 RPM be against aircraft, in a pre-VT era?

first - a retraction - the guns are 4.7s after all - I should not attempt to read fine print without reading glasses

second - not only are the Dutch 5.9s DP - they are DP in RHS - so are French 5.9s on a battleship - but the Dutch ones are more
effective - sort of like the Worcester type only sooner

Again, I see no evidence of the Dutch 5.9s being DP, but if you want to make them so, it's your business.

The French 5.9s you quote were indeed DP, developed from a successful SP version mounted on French light cruisers. The DP version, built for and mounted on the Richelieu, were considered failures as DP weapons, primarily due to the slow train and elevation rates of their mounts (this was the primary failing of the IJN's 5 inch DP gun as well).

Naval Weapons of WWII calls the design "too ambitious for its time"...

There is a thread on this. I first learned of it in the 1960s - from a Marine historian - and it is something rather well known among the students of the esoteric art of AA gunnery. The Dutch were very proud of this - and the newer cruisers had it. [The WWI and just post war vintage ships have classical SP guns - and you have both forms in RHS] The French attempted a similar concept - but were unable to obtain sufficient performance - knew it - and changed the design of the Richeleiu class because they needed more heavy AA power (adding tirtiaries).
The US noted both developments - and embarked on a still higher performance variation - one that took too long to develop and ultimately was far too expensive (both directly and in the form of the demands on ship displacement required to mount the massive automatic six inch twins - so the Worcester is a technical failure - even though it worked - too late for the war). The Dutch were the ONLY nation ever to succeed in getting a practical six inch DP mounting into service - and that BEFORE WWII. In this case, traditional Dutch austerity probably saved them: they did not try for super performance - just adequate; they did not try for automated serving; they did not try for more than splinter protection. All that resulted in a turret of reasonable size which could elevate and traverse fast enough for more distant targetst - heavy AA is never great at very close range targets unless they are "constant bearing decresing range" - something that often is the case when shipa are attacked.

[DuckofTindalos]

Uhm, Sid... I think you're talking about a different gun. The Dutch had Bofors making a 5.9in DP gun for them to use on the 10-gun CL's, but development wasn't complete, and the gun not in use (with the Dutch, at least), until after the war.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_59-53_m1942.htm

The modern Dutch cruisers that WERE in service by the beginning of the war (De Ruyter and Tromp) had an SP weapon, designed in 1935.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_59-50_mk9.htm

Two very different weapons.

[el cid again]

Since this matter came up in re the de zeven provincien class - it at least remanes germane to them.

My data indicates the earlier weapon was the reason both Tromp and de Ruyter did not have secondaries - that they did not need them-
and it was regarded as a bit of a technical advantage ( and an economic one as well ). The elevation of the turrets seems to support this - as does the ROF. In the thread devoted to the matter - someone was able to find the effective ceiling - a datum which would not exist for an SP gun at all.

I myself first studied it about 1965 - when I was learning about naval AAA in the Navy. It hardly seems likely they would be teachnig about it if it was not an item of interest. But I have seen instances where people got confused about one or another weapon - and I myself long did not understand that the fine three inch 50s we were using were not the same as in our game - but a more powerful post war version of that weapon. I suppose some ordnance person looking at tables might have confused which particular 15 cm was beign described. I do have a refernce on this - and probably also a file - but everything takes time - and since we did this whole subject a few months ago - I regard it as not likely it was missed by all (or confused by all). If the guns were SP - why are there no secondaries on de Ryuter and Tromp?

[el cid again]

Note your first reference explicitly lists them as being on de Ruyter even though the introduction says they were for the later ships.

[el cid again]

Note your second reference indeed supports the data I was taught - and which we used - in terms of elevation being 60 degrees.
Super elevation is the primary indicator of a DP gun. [Super meaning over 45 degrees - which allows maximum range ] Other factors are ammunition, fire control, rate of elevation, rate of traverse and rate of fire: but IF a gun elevates over 45 degrees everything else is a matter of degree. It may be that "reasonable men" disagree on this point.

It does appear - as your first artile states - that the US and UK both failed ot achieve successful weapons in this class - and that is exactly what USN was teaching - that the ONLY successful weapon in this class was the old Bofors one. Institutional memory inside a technical community is usually reliable.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If the guns were SP - why are there no secondaries on de Ruyter and Tromp?

Hmmm, interesting... I looked around a bit, and the only countries to put secondary armaments on their pre-war light cruisers were the US and the UK. The French, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese and the Dutch didn't do it.

As to the Dutch, remember that the Netherlands were not a rich country. The Dutch ship designers had to cut lots of corners, and stow as much stuff as they could into as small a hull as they could design (both the De Ruyter and Tromp are quite small ships, especially the latter). The Tromp had a minuscule standard displacement of 3787 tonnes. That's about 1.5 destroyers.

I'd say that the Dutch didn't put a secondary battery on their CL's for the classic reason: money. They had an excellent anti-aircraft weapon in their Hazemeyer Bofors mounts and had to make do with that.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Note your first reference explicitly lists them as being on de Ruyter even though the introduction says they were for the later ships.

Yes, the post-war De Ruyter (aka the Provincien).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus


As to the Dutch, remember that the Netherlands were not a rich country. The Dutch ship designers had to cut lots of corners, and stow as much stuff as they could into as small a hull as they could design (both the De Ruyter and Tromp are quite small ships, especially the latter). The Tromp had a minuscule standard displacement of 3787 tonnes. That's about 1.5 destroyers.

My own destroyer was that size - and today they run two or three times that. But in that period - a destroyer was much less in most countries. A "light destroyer" would barely exceed a thousand tons - while a normal one would run half or less than Tromp. But she was really considered to be a destroyer flotilla leader - and she was considered superb in that she had guns and armor which no normal destroyer could compete with. She was not supposed to fight cruisers so much as destroyers - in design logic. Of course she could - and did - fight in the line - with other cruisers - but then she was spreading the risk for all - and not supposed to be decisive all by herself. I think it is a perfectly reasonable design compromise - far better than no ship at all certainly. And even better than just another destroyer - or even a DL - would have been. The design is inherantly adaptable to fine CLAA standards as well.

You are on target about the Dutch Navy not being rich. I don't think the Netherlands was poor - but rather unwilling to spend on things military.
It had diamonds, oil, and other things. But they didn't want to spend it on warships. Certainly your answer is the right one - whatever was done - it was done for reasons of cost.

[el cid again]

Gestating on this for a while

I think the name should be

RHSEBO = RHS Empire Battleship Option

It is sort of like Empire of the Sun combined with BBO -
more specifically like Evil Empire combined with BBO.

Fletcher Pratt (as naval historian - it is the same guy who wrote science fiction) said "you fight wars with the cannons you bought in peacetime" - and in this alternate universe they bought more battleships and battlecruisers - so the historical thinking was not only reinforced by the politics of cost and manning - but when the war begins - the thinking of battleship admirals would tend to dominate - and the lessons learned might take a bit longer. This is more like the war as planned (BBO) than the war with early big changes in thinking/orders (CVO) family.

I will wait until we complete a technical update for the installer - and combine some technical changes for game files - and maybe art (not clear if pointers alone are enough) - in a few days - then revisit this and build on the cleaned foundation. This scenario will replace PPO - which I don't think is being used (except as foundation for all EOS family pp matters) - and become scenario 74.

Ideas and comments posted here will be considered for inclusion in this scenario. It won't take long - as I have a way to mix files that is pretty fast. Not automatic software generation - but close. Mix files, manually correct issues, manually enter selected new items, test. Next week is spring break - and my family is going a way - so this will likely complete then.

[Historiker]

Just an idea:
To strengthen the Allies, you may consider Chile sell it's Almirante Latorre BB to US, as the US asked Chile whether they want to sell it in 1942. The same might be possible for the Argentine and Brazilian BBs.

[el cid again]

The first idea has some merit- and historical foundation.

The Argentines were more or less Axis - and the Brizialians were not going to get rid of their battleships as long as Argentina did not - they were competative fleets.

[DuckofTindalos]

And very busy keeping each other in check. Throw in the Chileans and you've got a classic Mexican standoff (excuse the expression).

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The first idea has some merit- and historical foundation.

The Argentines were more or less Axis - and the Brizialians were not going to get rid of their battleships as long as Argentina did not - they were competative fleets.

Do you know why they didn't sell it? Perhaps to keep a big ship as both Brazil and Argentina had some. So maybe if a good offer reaches all of them at the same time... ?!

What about the Langley? Wouldn't the US have thought about reconverting it to a CV if it wasn't sunk? It already had 2/3 of it's deck covered with a flight deck and I guess there were still repair facilities, etc.

[DuckofTindalos]

Sid, I assume you have all data on the Dutch building program? Otherwise I've got a spreadsheet you're welcome to...