RHSEBO: Updated - and expanded to ALL scenarios

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's true nonetheless...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_De_Z ... 08-1943%29

It was not exactly a Dutch mutiny - but a nationalist Indonesian one. That is more plausable. Further - it involved an early demonstration of the power of aircraft vs ships - one I never heard of. I don't believe the part it was not deliberate: that was propaganda. The Dutch were ruthless colonial masters - rivaled only by the Belgians in the Congo.

[DuckofTindalos]

Yeah, but a mutiny aboard a ship of a given nation would still be an <insert nation here> mutiny. Still, it illustrates the Dutch manpower issue quite well; they had to have Indonesians aboard their warships to make up numbers (I'm quite certain that the Dutch didn't do because they wanted to, but because they were forced to).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Sowjetsky Soyuz is something like the H-39. A super-BB with 60.000t, 9x16in guns, over 400mm armour...
They started 4 while 15 were planned...
If the construction would have went on with full speed, the first would have entered service around late 42/mid 43

Italian underwater protection design. The Soviet naval architects still thought it the best approach as late as the 1970s.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Sowjetsky Soyuz is something like the H-39. A super-BB with 60.000t, 9x16in guns, over 400mm armour...
They started 4 while 15 were planned...
If the construction would have went on with full speed, the first would have entered service around late 42/mid 43

Italian underwater protection design. The Soviet naval architects still thought it the best approach as late as the 1970s.

Hehe, so one single torpedo finishes them off [:D]

[DuckofTindalos]

That's a generalization.

[Historiker]

oh, really?[X(]

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's a generalization.

I think he means the Pugliese system which seems to have been rather effective in focusing the pressure wave of an exploding torpedo warhead on the weakest part of the torpedo bulkhead, as demonstrated by Conte di Cavour in Taranto (sank after a single torpedo hit).

[DuckofTindalos]

The Venetos had them too (they were also designed by Pugliese). I'm thinking about that one torpedo she took at Matapan, which certainly didn't kill her.

Maybe the Cavour had other factors at Taranto, aside from a poor torpedo protection system? Like less than complete manning or limited water-tight integrity, similar to the US battleships at Pearl Harbor? I can guarantee you that the Italians were no more prepared for, or expecting, a carrier attack against Taranto than the US was for one against Pearl.

Also, the Littorio ate three torpedoes at Taranto, and took "only" four months to repair.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yeah, but a mutiny aboard a ship of a given nation would still be an <insert nation here> mutiny. Still, it illustrates the Dutch manpower issue quite well; they had to have Indonesians aboard their warships to make up numbers (I'm quite certain that the Dutch didn't do because they wanted to, but because they were forced to).

My meaning was that it was not an RNN mutiny - something difficult to comprehend or even imagine.

And while you are quite right about manning issues - remember this was a third line auxiliary ship - not a regular warship. It barely
qualified for the term warship in 1933 - and it was extent mainly for what we would call deterrence value - not because it was going to win some glorious naval battle. It outranked any sort of auxiliary - including landing craft - by is sheer size and firepower. It was so slow it was more like a mobile coast defense fort than a warship - tactics barely applies with this - and it could not even get to a problem area fast enough to be operationally significant. But it WAS a complication - enemy planners could not know where it was - and if it was where something light was - particularly doing something delicate like landing or sweeping - it would be a nightmare for the engaging force unless that force had real cruisers or battleships.

As far as I know RNN did not use colonials in numbers in the regular navy. And ALL navies have a handful of foreign sailors around - it is good practice. I served with a Venezuelan sailor in USN - and it was a good deal all around. He got US citizenship after so many years. We got a fluant Spanish speaker familiar with Caribbean culture and politics on a ship serving in the Caribbean Sea. I never did study Spanish - and I sing a Spanish mass every Sunday - probably because I served with him.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Sowjetsky Soyuz is something like the H-39. A super-BB with 60.000t, 9x16in guns, over 400mm armour...
They started 4 while 15 were planned...
If the construction would have went on with full speed, the first would have entered service around late 42/mid 43

Italian underwater protection design. The Soviet naval architects still thought it the best approach as late as the 1970s.

Hehe, so one single torpedo finishes them off [:D]

Yes, it was one of their 'scientific' analyses, but they liked the Pugliese system a whole lot.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's a generalization.

I think he means the Pugliese system which seems to have been rather effective in focusing the pressure wave of an exploding torpedo warhead on the weakest part of the torpedo bulkhead, as demonstrated by Conte di Cavour in Taranto (sank after a single torpedo hit).

The Soviets had little experience in battleship design - had always followed Ansaldo's lead - and this system was thought to be very advanced in the 1930s. Sometimes you don't know what is wrong with the scheme until you find out - witness British BC at Jutland - or the still classified results of attacking a modern USN CVA (with real weapons) - whatever is wrong - you don't know until somebody's weapons are used to test the system - expensive for a captial ship.

The ship here is not this ship: it is one that the US designed and had a similar WEAPONS layout - but a US hull and all or nothing protection scheme - and powerplant. It would have been an improved US battleship design - unless you think the use of secondaries was a step backward - but anyway improved in protection terms. Except different armor - and since I know the Russian armor specs - we can use that. It was a bit light on deck armor - but overall pretty good.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Venetos had them too (they were also designed by Pugliese). I'm thinking about that one torpedo she took at Matapan, which certainly didn't kill her.

Maybe the Cavour had other factors at Taranto, aside from a poor torpedo protection system? Like less than complete manning or limited water-tight integrity, similar to the US battleships at Pearl Harbor? I can guarantee you that the Italians were no more prepared for, or expecting, a carrier attack against Taranto than the US was for one against Pearl.

Also, the Littorio ate three torpedoes at Taranto, and took "only" four months to repair.

Cavour looks better than she is. She is an older ship - not designed to modern standards - and doing things like boring out the guns to give her more firepower didn't do much for her underwater protection. Nor was she large by WWII standards. And the Italians had their own ideas - this is not an All or Nothing kind of scheme. Sometimes these things work - sometimes not.

One of the Littorios looks pretty bad when sunk by a single missile (German). Apparently the armor peeled off by sheer weight when something happened structurally in the shock. It was a big warhead though.

[DuckofTindalos]

Yeah, but the Roma wasn't struck by a torpedo...[:D] There was also a big pile of bad luck involved.

The Roma was hit by two Fritz-X missiles, each with a 700-pound warhead. The first one penetrated all the way through the ship and detonated below her keel. A smaller ship would have had her back broken.

The second one started a fire in the boiler room that detonated an ammunitions magazine. Arrivederci, Roma!

Bad luck for the Italians, skill and good luck for the Germans.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This must be the right name for the BC - surely the Dutch like it and would give it to the big boy on the block (er in the water).

Yes, indeed, it's a popular name with the Dutch - the current bearer of the name is number eight.

I've looked up the other names for the CL's, Eendracht was the Dutch flagship in the Second Anglo-Dutch War, and Kijkduin is the Dutch name of the battle of Texel (1673, Third Anglo-Dutch War), where the Dutch under de Ruyter beat a superior Anglo-French fleet. His flagship: De Zeven Provincien, of course. Other flagships: Gouden Leeuw (Golden Lion), the largest Dutch warship of the time, flagship of Cornelis Tromp who commanded the rear division, Walcheren, flagship of the van, Admiral Banckert. There was also another Eendracht. Wikipedia can really be helpful, the entry about the battle of Texel lists all the Dutch ships participating, which should supply any number of names you might need for the RNN.

[Historiker]

as I'm drunk, i deleted my jokes targeting the Italians [;)]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Sowjetsky Soyuz is something like the H-39. A super-BB with 60.000t, 9x16in guns, over 400mm armour...
They started 4 while 15 were planned...
If the construction would have went on with full speed, the first would have entered service around late 42/mid 43

A Soviet ship would likely take years longer to complete - first of its sort - and a taxing task in peacetime.]

But in wartime - well I must assume that what did happen IRL happened - the one in the South gets overrun - another is suspended - another
almost not begun (except for one section used as a floating battery). IF we want them IN SERVICE - we need it to be completed outside the USSR. Since this was the ORIGINAL idea - I simply adopted it. The US agreed to supply the armament, design, ammunition - all this was done - and it was done with a view to building one ship. Only 9 tubes were approved, and only 900 rounds for them. But we understood it would be used as a prototype - as Kongo was (built in UK).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yeah, but the Roma wasn't struck by a torpedo...[:D] There was also a big pile of bad luck involved.

The Roma was hit by two Fritz-X missiles, each with a 700-pound warhead. The first one penetrated all the way through the ship and detonated below her keel. A smaller ship would have had her back broken.

The second one started a fire in the boiler room that detonated an ammunitions magazine. Arrivederci, Roma!

Bad luck for the Italians, skill and good luck for the Germans.

I like the pun - I sing the song regularly.

And I did not know - or anyway remember - this analysis. Losing your magazine should mess up any ship. Consider Mutsu - and we don't even know why her magazine went up.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This must be the right name for the BC - surely the Dutch like it and would give it to the big boy on the block (er in the water).

Yes, indeed, it's a popular name with the Dutch - the current bearer of the name is number eight.

I've looked up the other names for the CL's, Eendracht was the Dutch flagship in the Second Anglo-Dutch War, and Kijkduin is the Dutch name of the battle of Texel (1673, Third Anglo-Dutch War), where the Dutch under de Ruyter beat a superior Anglo-French fleet. His flagship: De Zeven Provincien, of course. Other flagships: Gouden Leeuw (Golden Lion), the largest Dutch warship of the time, flagship of Cornelis Tromp who commanded the rear division, Walcheren, flagship of the van, Admiral Banckert. There was also another Eendracht. Wikipedia can really be helpful, the entry about the battle of Texel lists all the Dutch ships participating, which should supply any number of names you might need for the RNN.

Here the problem is not names - but because Terminus is right - the problem is ' how much could they afford - and how much could they afford to operate '??? More or less new ships were going to replace older ones. Plans for a big fleet were NEVER feasible in either economic or political terms - and if the BC came fairly close to being done - Germany never intended to let it happen - no one ever believed in the BB enough to build a place to make them. In the right circumstances - earlier in the 1930s - you must might have got this to happen - when Germany was relatively weaker - wanted sales of armaments more - and was less close to going to war. Our scenario assumes Japan did not go along with the London Treaty - that they then spend several years building the Kongo Replacements (instead of rebuilding the Kongos) - never did get the Fuso Replacements - and the Dutch had time to get worried - so this BC is built a couple of years sooner - and designed a couple of years sooner.

[el cid again]

We have the art - mostly - but we are having problems delivering it.


I cannot justify semicarriers - but they were seriously studied.


I might be able to justify early Alaska's in response to early Japanese BC in response to the Dutch BC - working on it.
Both classes exist already for BBO - it is just a date calculation.

[el cid again]

I found the logic of a CB race compelling - and plans for them to work from.

We added a new class to RHS - B-64 - the 12 inch gun version of the BC. While that needs a new gun - we are not using the 18.1 inch - so I used slot 1 to get it. This is an early design - with fewer light AA guns - and like the Dutch ship - it is sooner in this scenario than IRL. It is a response to the Dutch BC - itself a response to the Japanese Fujimoto program - and it is based on the very first version of B-64. I had a devil of a time with the guns - but they were built at Mururan and - if still semi secret in Japan - I ran them down. Due to an unusual AA battery - these vessels are the best of the three CB designs - but like the others they have weak armor.

The USN had many such programs - and this one is based on a 1938 design - the first that really looks like Alaska. I decided that if it were in production - only 2 were ordered right away - the US wartime program would include all six vessels - so 2 appear almost when the game begins - and 4 more in 1943. These ships differ in a few ways from the later Alaska's - less armor - more speed - and a different five inch layout - 7 twin turrets - broadside = 8 guns - very nice - better than usual for the 1930s. The only reason the B-64 is better is it has a four inch gun which is better even than the US five - and it has sixteen of them. By midwar the Alaskas mount vast numbers of medium and light AAA - and probably end up better protected.

This should be interesting - Japan starts with one and NEI starts with one. Japan gets one more - and US gets two - early in 1942. US gets four more in 1943. Players who want to test various operational ideas - fast carrier escorts - raider hunting - cruiser killing - can do so. Enjoy.

This scenario is closed due to lack of more suggestions - and as soon as I integrate the art pointers - it will upload - likely today. I will include updated ship class, ship and location files for all scenarios. [Japan loses a special CD unit in EOS family - because the turret - really built - is now on a ship] I also put Idzumo and Iwate back in historical form - no money to convert their guns - and scrapped Tokiwa - her crew was needed for the new B-64. But less development time (and cost) due to using a WWI gun on Yamato (and a 1930s mounting for it) means it comes out slightly sooner - and starts the war fully operational. Just as I think 15 inch KGVs are more powerful - I believe 16 inch Yamatos are more powerful.

Oh - the Japanese 12.2 inch gun is a surprise - it has a high ROF - a heavy shell - and good range: 3 RPM - 35000 yards - 1100 pounds. Penetration = 543 mm.