Do fighters and battleships have the same problem?

[mike wightman]

It wasn't the design philosophy that was at fault - the German pocket battleships of WW2 pretty much continued it.

There is no evidence of any british BC having its armour belt or deck armour penetrated.

The problem was a design flaw and a training routine - shutting the doors to the magazines from the turrets, stacking cordite bags where they had no place to be to increase rate of gunnery.

 

[pendragonman]

It wasn't the design philosophy that was at fault - the German pocket battleships of WW2 pretty much continued it.

There is no evidence of any british BC having its armour belt or deck armour penetrated.

The problem was a design flaw and a training routine - shutting the doors to the magazines from the turrets, stacking cordite bags where they had no place to be to increase rate of gunnery.

1) Ok, how is a design flaw not a philosophy flaw? Designs are BASED on build philosophy. Further, I guess turret armor doesn't count to you?

2) Did any German PB stand up to a BB? No. They were designed as commerce raiders from the start. Their speed was to outrun convoy defenses, or catch convoys (depending on point of view).

 

[mike wightman]

I'm not trying to be snarky - the philosophy behind the battlecruiser concept is sound. A heavily armed and armoured cruiser that can catch and defeat enemy cruisers. The british were stupid in their tactical deployment at Jutland, the Falklands shows a better example of what they could do.

Even the design flaw is debatable since it was training routines and bad practice that caused the magazine fires that blew up the british battlecruisers. I have a memory of one BC at Jutland being saved because the Royal Marine gunnery officer in command of the turret ordered the doors closed as his dying act. The cordite lift doors could be made to automatically close I suppose but sailors intent on increasing their rate of gunnery would just jam them open so they could get the charges faster. They also stacked cordite bags in places it was against regs to do so, and yet this was allowed by their superiors because it increased the rate of gunnery.

As to your second point have you ever heard of a little ship called the Bismark? It's not an example of a german PB taking on a BB, rather another example of british stupidity in yet again pitting CB vs BB.

At the Battle of Denmark Strait, Bismarck engaged and destroyed the battlecruiser HMS Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy, and forced the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to retreat

 

[pendragonman]

I'm not trying to be snarky - the philosophy behind the battlecruiser concept is sound.

Even the design flaw is debatable since it was training routines and bad practice that caused the magazine fires that blew up the british battlecruisers. I have a memory of one BC at Jutland being saved because the Royal Marine gunnery officer in command of the turret ordered the doors closed as his dying act. The cordite lift doors could be made to automatically close I suppose but sailors intent on increasing their rate of gunnery would just jam them open so they could get the charges faster. They also stacked cordite bags in places it was against regs to do so, and yet this was allowed by their superiors because it increased the rate of gunnery.

As to your second point have you ever heard of a little ship called the Bismark?

Bismark is not a Pocket Battleship. Bismarck and her sister ship Tirpitz were the largest battleships ever built by Germany, and two of the largest built by any European power. Further, it wasn't just Bismark against the two British ships. Prinz Eugen (sp?) was in company.

The Deutschland class cruisers were the Pocket Battleships: Deutschland, Admiral Scheer, and Admiral Graf Spee.

 

[mike wightman]

That wasn't quite the point I was trying to make.

The germans built pocket battleships while the british continued with battlecruisers - similar design concepts.

The battle cruiser was meant to hunt down and kill enemy cruisers, not stand in the line of battle.

If there was such a flaw in the philosophy behind a battle cruiser/pocket battleship the british would have stopped employing them and the germans wouldn't have gone with the pocket battleship concept.

The lesson from the Bismark is that the british were still employing battlecruisers and thinking they could be useful in battleship vs battleship engagements.

 

[BillDowns]

If there was such a flaw in the philosophy behind a battle cruiser/pocket battleship the british would have stopped building them and the germans wouldn't have gone with the pocket battleship concept.

Uh, not necessarily. The Treaty of Versailles limited Germany to ships of 10,000 tons or less and weapons less than 12". The pocket battleships were an exercise in getting the most bang for their buck. And they were intended for commerce raiding. Quite a few British & French politicians were upset at this circumvention of the Treaty's intent.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_class_cruiser

The lesson from the Bismark is that the british were still building battle cruisers and thinking they could be useful in battleship vs battleship engagements.

Highlights mine. The Hood was the last battlecruiser built by the British. She was laid down in 1916, launched in 1918, and commissioned in 1920. Post-WWI designs, which were never built, were for fast battleships, not really battlecruisers. Only the UK and Japan actually used the term "battlecruiser" afterwards.

 

[mike wightman]

Poor choice of words on my part, which I was already editing when you posted.

 

[Carlobrand]

I'm not trying to be snarky - the philosophy behind the battlecruiser concept is sound.

Even the design flaw is debatable since it was training routines and bad practice that caused the magazine fires that blew up the british battlecruisers. I have a memory of one BC at Jutland being saved because the Royal Marine gunnery officer in command of the turret ordered the doors closed as his dying act. The cordite lift doors could be made to automatically close I suppose but sailors intent on increasing their rate of gunnery would just jam them open so they could get the charges faster. They also stacked cordite bags in places it was against regs to do so, and yet this was allowed by their superiors because it increased the rate of gunnery.

As to your second point have you ever heard of a little ship called the Bismark?

HMS Lion, a Lion-class battlecruiser, was struck in a turret by a 12 inch round, killing the turret crew. THe turret commander, a Marine officer, ordered the magazine doors shut and the magazine serving that turret flooded before he died. Shortly afterward, cordite charges kept ready below the turret for the next shots (which of course could no longer occur) were ignited by fire and exploded, causing further damage and killing more crew - but they did not trigger an explosion in the nearby magazine because it was flooded and isolated. HMS Indefatigable, an Indefatigable-class battlecruiser, was less lucky - she suffered two magazine explosions in quick succession and sank with only two survivors. HMS Defence, a Minotaur-class armored cruiser, also sank from a magazine explosion, as did the battlecruisers Queen Mary and Invincible.

Investigation concluded the cause was a combination of poor handling of the cordite charges (the charges intended to propel the shell from the gun) and poor design of the magazine doors and loading arrangement. Among other findings, British gunners had fallen into the habit of storing a few cordite charges below the turret in order to speed loading and increase the fire rate, and these exploded when the turrets were hit and caught fire. Additionally, the magazine bulkheads weren't strong enough to resist explosions in the turret and had doors that opened inward into the magazine, therefore more likely to be blown open by an explosion in the turret. Lion's flooded magazine resisted the turret explosion - just barely - thanks to the water flooding the magazine.

 

[pendragonman]

HMS Lion, a Lion-class battlecruiser, was struck in a turret by a 12 inch round, killing the turret crew. THe turret commander, a Marine officer, ordered the magazine doors shut and the magazine serving that turret flooded before he died. Shortly afterward, cordite charges kept ready below the turret for the next shots (which of course could no longer occur) were ignited by fire and exploded, causing further damage and killing more crew - but they did not trigger an explosion in the nearby magazine because it was flooded and isolated. HMS Indefatigable, an Indefatigable-class battlecruiser, was less lucky - she suffered two magazine explosions in quick succession and sank with only two survivors. HMS Defence, a Minotaur-class armored cruiser, also sank from a magazine explosion, as did the battlecruisers Queen Mary and Invincible.

Investigation concluded the cause was a combination of poor handling of the cordite charges (the charges intended to propel the shell from the gun) and poor design of the magazine doors and loading arrangement. Among other findings, British gunners had fallen into the habit of storing a few cordite charges below the turret in order to speed loading and increase the fire rate, and these exploded when the turrets were hit and caught fire. Additionally, the magazine bulkheads weren't strong enough to resist explosions in the turret and had doors that opened inward into the magazine, therefore more likely to be blown open by an explosion in the turret. Lion's flooded magazine resisted the turret explosion - just barely - thanks to the water flooding the magazine.

Thank you. That is another design flaw. I forgot about that one.

 

[Vladika]

Making battleships true battleships

Hello everyone. I’m a long term traveller player. Started when CT first came out and loved it ever since.

I’ve been a quiet observer of this board, and others, for some time and figure it’s time to throw my hat in the ring.

I’ve “listened” to the ongoing battleship flame wars and battleship vs cruiser and battleship vs battle riders for some time. I, like all of you, have thoughts on all of these issues, as well as fighters… (BTW Traveller High Guard does have submarines too, think on that awhile.)

Anyway, at the certain risk of getting roasted over a slow fire by someone, here is a thought on making battleships true battleships in traveler CT High Guard.

First off hull size per se has nothing to do with a ship being a battleship of some type, or a cruiser. I would suggest, in addition to its planed use, that Armor, Armament and Survivability make up a battleship. That being said, there is a justification for larger hull sizes to take greater damage.

“Extra hits” due to weapon size above 9 are NOT actual hits but extra DAMAGE due to ONE hit.

Therefore, reduce the number of “extra” damage by the difference of the weapon size verses target size. Firing weapon size minus target hull size equals extra damage.

Examples:

Firing WEAPON size T – target HULL size K = 8 “extra hits” NOT 18 as otherwise would occur.
Firing WEAPON size T – target HULL size T = 0 “extra hits” NOT 18 as otherwise would occur.

EVERY Spinal weapon still gets at least one shot. That can account for the “Lucky” shot of Bismarck/ Prince Eugen on the Hood.

J and even N size Meson weapons stop being decisive weapons. That I do consider a drawback as both should pack a wallop. (Maybe HALF the size difference [make it a positive 1 if it comes out negative] PLUS HALF the tech difference between 11 [when meson spinal weapons begin] and the weapon tech level as a MINIMUM for EXTRA damage?)

Example:

(Firing WEAPON size J – target HULL size K)/2 + (15-11)/2 = 3 “extra hits” as a MINIMUM.

Also, I fully realize that armor plays no part in these thoughts. So be it. If you don’t armor up, secondary weapons will annihilate you. It is your choice to make.

Some thoughts on armor for ships:

Armor 0 = merchant ship hull scantling
Armor 4 = destroyer hull scantling (safe from internal explosions)
Armor 6 = light cruiser armor level (crew safe)
Armor 11 = heavy cruiser armor level (maneuver drives safe)
Armor 14 = battleship armor level (safe from non-nuclear secondary weapons)

Note the difference between scantling and armor.

Ships with less armor and higher Jump and/or agility would be battle cruiser and light cruiser types.

Ships with heavy armor, large spinal mounts and high screen USP would be heavy cruiser to battleship types.

Size obviously plays into this but consider naval historic battleships.
Consider the German “pocket battleships”, USS Alaska class “Fast Battleships”, German Scharnhorst and Gniesnow “Light Battleships”, USS Nevada Class small and slow, and then USS Missouri Class. All had different sized armament, speed and armor and all were considered battleships. The smaller ones would probably be annihilated by the larger Classes but they were still battleships.

Here’s a computer analogy from WWII that would apply to traveler HG battleships (as well as others).

US ships in general had very good range and direction finders; think of those as being one tech level of “computer” above say Japanese and Italian battleships. Then, for another tech level difference, consider RADAR location, direction and ranging systems.

 

[HG_B]

I'm not trying to be snarky - the philosophy behind the battlecruiser concept is sound. A heavily armed and armoured cruiser that can catch and defeat enemy cruisers. The british were stupid in their tactical deployment at Jutland, the Falklands shows a better example of what they could do.

I'm probably mistaken but, I thought that only heavily armoured "battle cruiser" in the world at the time of the Falklands war was a U.S. Iowa class BB. The UK deployed a heavily armoured ship to that war??

 

[PFVA63]

I'm probably mistaken but, I thought that only heavily armoured "battle cruiser" in the world at the time of the Falklands war was a U.S. Iowa class BB. The UK deployed a heavily armoured ship to that war??

I suspect that he is referring to the Battle of the Falkland Islands during WWI, where the UK deployed two Battle Cruisers to intercept a German fleet of Armored Cruisers and Light Cruisers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands

 

[mike wightman]

Lol, yes, that is the battle of the Falklands I was referring to.

 

[Australis]

For a historical model with spinal weapons and a line of battle consider the battle of Lepanto and 16th century Mediterranean galley warfare in general. Both Venetian and Turkish valleys had as their main armament 1 or 2 very heavy cannon firing directly over the bow of the ship. Fleets formed in long lines of battle FACING FORWARD not line astern like later age of sail vessels.

Of course, cannon technology was such that even the big "spinal" cannons were used more to clear the decks in Dvance of boarding than as a decisive weapon in their own right.

 

[McPerth]

“Extra hits” due to weapon size above 9 are NOT actual hits but extra DAMAGE due to ONE hit.

Therefore, reduce the number of “extra” damage by the difference of the weapon size verses target size. Firing weapon size minus target hull size equals extra damage.

Examples:

Firing WEAPON size T – target HULL size K = 8 “extra hits” NOT 18 as otherwise would occur.
Firing WEAPON size T – target HULL size T = 0 “extra hits” NOT 18 as otherwise would occur.

This is already represented in the weapon rating vs ship size criticals. Do you suggest the extra damage rolls be treated in a similar way?

Also, I fully realize that armor plays no part in these thoughts. So be it. If you don’t armor up, secondary weapons will annihilate you. It is your choice to make.

I guess armor is not told about in most those discussions for two reasons:

-It is taken for given that most capital ships will have the heaviest armor they can at their TL.

-The main ship killer (or at least mission killer) will be meson guns, and armor does nothing against them.

Armor is quite taken into account in most discussions regarding to secondary weapons (or ships without spinals, as all the gebil/hamster discussions), as the fact that most of those nuclear missiles that hit will not do damage due to it is always accounted for.

Of course that shows a bias toward high TLs, where MG are plentiful and armor heavy enough as to nullify most damage even by nuclear missiles...

Some thoughts on armor for ships:

Armor 0 = merchant ship hull scantling
Armor 4 = destroyer hull scantling (safe from internal explosions)
Armor 6 = light cruiser armor level (crew safe)
Armor 11 = heavy cruiser armor level (maneuver drives safe)
Armor 14 = battleship armor level (safe from non-nuclear secondary weapons)

As you give the levels of armor, battleship level is not attainable until TL14 (unless planetoids are used).

Note the difference between scantling and armor.

I'm afraid I don't understand what do you mean when you say scantling here (I'm not sure if the problem is mainly linguistic here, but the translation I've found in Google Translator confused me even more, instead of helping).

 

[HG_B]

I'm afraid I don't understand what do you mean when you say scantling here (I'm not sure if the problem is mainly linguistic here, but the translation I've found in Google Translator confused me even more, instead of helping).

OED:


2 Measured or prescribed size, dimensions, or calibre. †a.2.a with reference to material objects generally.

2.b techn. with reference to the measurement of timber and stone, and of ships or other vessels and of aircraft. *As applied to timber, the word usually denotes the sectional dimensions (thickness and breadth) of a beam etc., in contradistinction to the length. The scantling of a block of stone is its measurement in all three dimensions. In Shipbuilding, used in sing. and pl. for the dimensions of the various parts of a vessel, regarded collectively.

Obs. 7.7 concr. in technical use (see 2 b). A small beam or piece of wood; spec. one less than five inches square.

 

[Vladika]

Scantling

I'm afraid I don't understand what do you mean when you say scantling here (I'm not sure if the problem is mainly linguistic here, but the translation I've found in Google Translator confused me even more, instead of helping).

In this case it was used in its ship hull plate definition (thickness). I figured someone would object to destroyers having armor (they don't) so was attempting to point out that they did, and often still do, have thicker hull plates.

As for battleship armor not coming about till TL14 (by my chart) that was an unfortunate breakdown. USS Constitution was named "Old Ironsides" due to her armor like thick oak ribs and planking. Early analogies can be made for the difference in iron, soft steel and carbon steel armored hulls as technology progressed in battleship evolution.

So, obviously earlier TL ships could and would be able to be called battleships if armor rating progressed proportional to their tech levels.

 

[Vladika]

This is already represented in the weapon rating vs ship size criticals. Do you suggest the extra damage rolls be treated in a similar way?

Exactly. It seems the easiest "fix" to bring battleships to the forefront.

The way the rules are written it really makes little difference in whether a ship is killed by critical or "excessive" damage in one round.

For battleships to be survivable and justify their place in the scheme of the OT setting it appears to me that BOTH critical hits and "extra" hits would have to come into line.

This assumes you want battleships in the first place. I don't build ships any bigger than required to mount a descent sized spinal weapon anyway.

Some folks would say I build Heavy Cruisers, others might say Pocket Battleships or even Battleships. The term, or size, matters not to me: its the mission, or purpose that counts, not what its called.

 

[Carlobrand]

Exactly. It seems the easiest "fix" to bring battleships to the forefront.

The way the rules are written it really makes little difference in whether a ship is killed by critical or "excessive" damage in one round.
...

For particle accelerator spinals, extra damage rolls are already reduced by armor at a 1 for 1 ratio, and the rolls themselves are modified by the armor rating. Thus, for example, a TL13 Factor-R Particle Accelerator facing off against a ship with Factor 11 armor gets 5 extra rolls but can't penetrate well enough to do anything but a bit of weapons and fuel damage (9 weapons hits, on average). That's not something that needs fixing - in fact, it'd be nice to see the PA spinal get a bit more punch.

The killer in the battleship debate is the meson spinal and that "Fuel Tanks Shattered" result. The same TL13 ship with a Factor L Meson Gun gets 12 damage rolls, unmodified by armor, with a better than 75% overall chance of shattering the target's fuel tanks with one (or more, but that's pointless) of those 12 rolls. That pretty well leaves the target powerless and dead in space, so far as combat is concerned.

The odds of scoring a hit against a battleship-size target - assuming equal computers and the best agility (which is difficult to attain in a TL13 battleship with decent armor and firepower) vary between 15 in 36 and 26 in 36, and meson screens aren't very effective against the high-end guns. So, battleships tend to get hit with depressing ease, and tend to get crippled when they're hit.

Your idea of reducing the number of damage rolls helps, but not enough. The odds of crippling a battleship on a single hit are 4 in 36 - 11%. That's still bad enough that you're better off fielding more smaller ships and more spinals than one bigger ship. If the game wants battleships, that Fuel Tanks Shattered result needs to be adjusted the same way they adjusted the crew hits - make it less deadly when it happens, so the big boys can absorb more damage.

 

[Vladika]

If the game wants battleships, that Fuel Tanks Shattered result needs to be adjusted the same way they adjusted the crew hits - make it less deadly when it happens, so the big boys can absorb more damage.

Agreed

Also, your point about PAs was very on the money. Since my proposal left armor alone, just adjusted for size, I'll need to revisit just what it would do to PA hits.

Perhaps just making these adjustments for Meson spinal weapons. I will be rethinking this.