WesWorld

Folks,

it´s not a secret: I prefer small CLs instead of large ones. 5-6kts seems more interesting than 8000ts without buying too many disadvantages. Further more N^2 might help as I will have plenty small cruisers.

However, I wonder if the same strategy is useful for large cruisers. The first 4 units laid down by the SAE were build to the maximum tonnage allowed per unit (13kts). With a total tonnage of 132kts allowed this leaves me with 80kts. How should I use those remaining tons?

Like Britain under the WT I think numbers are more important to an empire like mine than large and powerful cruisers that are impressive but are few in number. 132kts means 10x13kts but I prefer squadrons of 4 units even though this shouldn´t be a problem.

Should I build CAs now that are inferior to foreign design but allow more flexibility (eg. YORKs instead of more LONDONs)?

What´s to gain, what´s to loose?

Regards,

HoOmAn

Why not? Thats also my stradegy. My first 4 CA's are definately a step up from my Medusa class CA's but are still almost 3000 tons smaller than the limit allowed.

Thats because my limits allow for arround 10-12 cruisers depending on size. Add larger numbers of light cruisers and the Atlantian cruiser fleet will not be anything to sneeze at. Britian thrived off the N2'ed rule, Graf Spee, Bismarck and Scharnhorst were all brought down by larger numbers of ships dispite their individual superiority in design to other ships. Scharnhorst suffered from a hit to her radar from a cruiser shell.

I personally wouldn't go under 10,000 tons for a CA, while the 6" gun should suffice for the smaller 8,000 ton cruisers that you build in ice cube trays.

I guess your options at this point are:

-8x9kt CA

-6x13 kt

-4x13 kt and 28 kt left over for up to five CL.

Your four Cape class should suffice to fill all your "Foreign station flag-waving" requirements. This leaves your next run of CAs to deal with:

-Anti-raider action
-Battleline escort
-Offensive anti-battleship ops (~Japanese style)
-Maybe carrier escort, at some point.

I could see you operating smaller CAs in a set-up similar to what Wes alluded to - a CA and a trio of CL in a squadron to hunt down the supercruisers and raiding cruisers of the world. The CA in this case could be a smaller Cape class, without X turret, leaving you with six guns and heavy protection. It would seem more South African to me than a less protected eight-gun design.

Battleline escort suggests shooting at enemy torpedo craft, whether destroyers or cruisers. A CL may be better suited to this role, with its much higher volume of fire against relatively fragile targets.

I've seen nothing to suggest that you're interested in using your CAs as an offensive second-rate battleship - actually hunting down enemy BBs, beating down the escort with gunfire, and closing in for torpedo work. So a Japanese style CA with huge armament and heaps of torpedoes may not be for you either.

Yeah...I'd go with 8x9 kt ships in your case, I think.

I'd agree with Rocky on this one, numbers Do count. Having 4 large CA's to act as flag station cruisers and occationally acting as battleline escorts is usefull, and having 8x9000 ton CA's to cary out the remaining roles required of CA's is a sound choice for the SAE.

Like Atlantis, the SAE's supply lines are short and allow the SAE to use its large number of ships effectively, and group them togeather to take down its prey in a wolf pack style attack when nessassary.

The Atlantic in contrast to the Med. is very wide open so numbers count, having many CA's

The Marina de Filipinas plans to construct the following before 1937:

2 CL, ~6000t, 8 x 6"
3 CA, ~8000t, 6 x 8.2"
7 CL, ~8000t, 14 x 6", 16 TT

The second and third classes will share a common hull.

This leaves 28,000t to play with. Perhaps a few Manxman-type "minelaying cruisers"?

Now, in 1937 and later, all bets are off.

Iberia hasn't really made uo it's mind yet but so far has gone for really big cruisers. How that strategy will survive in the light of the CT nobody knows so far.

I guess I'm in the HoOmAn school of thought. I'm for large numbers of small cruisers as I'm severely restricted in Destroyers. I have no plans to replace the Helle class CA that Harry left me. I also have 2 battlecruisers that should suffice in the eastern Med.

Cheers,

The French, with 200,000 tons of cruisers and three fleets and a flotilla to spread them among, intend to have 3 classes of 2 10,000 ton Type A cruisers for hunting raiders, 3 squadrons of 4 8000 ton cruisers for escorting the 3 French Battle Divisions, and 10 or so 4000-5000 ton cruisers to fill out numbers. French cruisers tend to be pretty fast, to be able to outrun or shadow El Cid, but aren't the best armored ships around.

The Russians, with a lot more cruiser tonnage, will have Type A and 8000 ton type B cruisers for fleet escorts, and then a variety of smaller cruisers for carrier escort/AAA, flotilla leaders, and other roles.

Thank you for your input, gentlemen.

So there seems to be a consensus regarding smaller but mor CAs.

I did some calculations and got

8x 210mm
105mm secodnaries
light guns
31-32+kn
100+mm belt and turret plates

on 9-10kts.

I choosed a main armament similar to my earlier CAPE-class for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, the Docs idea of having only 6 guns has some merit as it saves me some weight for more armor and speed. However, on th e other side I would get a ship with only half the firepower of other countries CAs. That could be a real problem. The British lost only 2 guns compared to foreign counterparts but being down 6 guns in WesWorld is a strong argument, isn´t it? Also consider that my CDS tonnage is unused so far and I could easily get a 6 gunned heavily armored CA on 8000ts - even though it will be restricted to 24kn.

Another idea is to have 15x 150mm guns much like the large CLs in the real world. Do you think this is an option? I know some players squezzed such an armament into 8000kts but on 10kts my large CLs would be superior in armor (at least) and get me a more balanced design. On the other hand 150mm shells will lack the punch to get through heavy armor as usual on WesWorld CAs.

Regards,

HoOmAn

I've considered a 15x6" design, but I think it would be a waste of CA tonnage when I can design a 12x6" cruiser on 8000 tons. The loss of 3x6" guns is minimal when compaired to the cost in CA tonnage.

If (and when) war breaks out, the 15x6" design can always be taken off the shelf, dusted off and put into service.

The RN felt happy having only 8 guns to other's 9 or 10. The 8" twin had a firing cycle of 8 seconds compared to a USN triple of 18 seconds. IIRC Shropshire achieved the best ROF of any CA to date with 8 full broadsides in under a minute during the action at Suraigo Strait on guns and mountings that were 20 years old.

Cheers,

Looks like they had worked the bugs out... 8 full broadsides in less than a minute really is quite impressive. Never knew the british 8" mounts were able of such a rapid fire. That´s close to or equal to 6" triples, though.

So I´ll surely stick to twins for my cruisers. :o)

But just to throw a spanner in the works, if you were in my position, with a dramatically smaller number of vessels, where the N2 rule is already against you, which way would you go?
you are already outnumbered on hulls, so do you go better quality or more hulls?

And I must admit, Denmarks next cruiser design is giong to be aroound 5000 tons.

Well CG, if I´d be outnumbered anyway I´d also opt for quality. There´s no other choice, though. It might lead you to a similar situation the Germans faced prior to WW2 and why they choosed not to care about treaties. They simply had to make sure their single ships are superior.

Quoted

Another idea is to have 15x 150mm guns much like the large CLs in the real world.

Well, there are other options. How about a main-gun caliber of 180mm or 190mm? Going with heavy/superheavy shells, you might get a greater weight-of-broadside than opposing 203/210mm cruisers, and even if you don't you do have the "more shells in the air per salvo" advantage...

Germany is doing much the same this time around, although they're generally treaty-compliant. Granted, the Emdens and Karlsruhes aren't great light cruisers, but the Ersatz Arconas, coming out in 1925, should be pretty mean. Stats are posted in my sketch thread if you haven't seen them.

India's really waffling on the CA issue. Coming events aren't going to help that debate at all. Maybe I'll not replace them at all, and just go for a run of powerful 8kt CLs.

Regarding the 10 kt super-CL concept, the question for South Africa is whether the guns will penetrate average CA armor at the ranges you expect to be fighting in. If so, then sure - the huge volume of fire will overwhelm anything lacking adequate armor.

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen
Well, there are other options. How about a main-gun caliber of 180mm or 190mm? Going with heavy/superheavy shells, you might get a greater weight-of-broadside than opposing 203/210mm cruisers, and even if you don't you do have the "more shells in the air per salvo" advantage...

You´re right, this is another interesting alternative. However, I´d need a new caliber never used before. This would slow the design/building process and make me loose the main advantage of the lighter 150mm shells (ROF) because I doubt a 190mm gun could be handled much faster than a 210mm one. At least 190mm shells are too ehavy to be manhandled if necessary. From both WW1 and WW2 we know how fast crews get exhausted that had to handle 150mm shells (like on german destroyers or cruisers in general). Another factor is weight of mounts as the 190mm guns would be much heavier than 150mmers. I´m pretty sure it is not possible to place 15x 190mm on 10kts and put adequate armor on the vessel, combined with what speeds and range the RSAN needs.

Regards,

HoOmAn