Battleships for Alliance navy

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:14 pm

The Grand Alliance navy, powerfull as it, still have a significant disadvantage; they lacked proper battleline. They have destroyers as the "fast wing", and the carriers as long-range air support, but what they didn't have - is the durable ships, capable of withstand the enemy attacks. Neither destroyers, nor steam frigates and Homeships really durable; they would be very wunerable for rifled guns... and it could be a lot of situation, when the Alliance Navy may be forced to stand and fight, without the capability of staying out of range.

It's especially significant, because the opposing navies - especially Grik's - have a good experience with ironclads. Also, the appearance of League of Tripoli, with their modern navy, made the proper battleline for Alliance Navy essential.

So. What type of heavy armored ship could the Alliance build in near future? And how exactly it could be done - because the proper battleships of World War II is a VERY complicated machines...
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Pokermind on Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:21 am

Hmm, the two Walker Clones will come on line soon. What exactly is on the construction list is unclear other than a mention of four stack cruiser and 'Gold Plater' more modern Destroyers. Santa Catalina or 'Santi Cat' is a converted freighter with a little extra armor, and weapons including a 20' section of an Amagi 10" Naval rifle and Baalkpan copies of a 4"/50s.

Poker
avatar
Pokermind

Posts : 199
Join date : 2015-07-02
Age : 64

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Pokermind on Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:48 am

Only her pre-conversion silhouette see: http://www.taylorandersonauthor.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Scale-Silhouettes.jpg Taylor mentioned he has worked on new silhouettes but hasn't sent me a copy yet.
avatar
Pokermind

Posts : 199
Join date : 2015-07-02
Age : 64

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:35 am

But all this ships aren't really durable. The Alliance have enough troubles with "Arata Amagi"-class, and was able to deal with them only due to torpedoes. If, for example, Griks would come with the idea of ironclads with proper anti-torpedo defense - well, they may even try the round-hulled ironclads, like russian "Popovka"'s, when the hull is working as a enormous anti-torpedo bulge! - than the Alliance destroyers would be forced to come in their gun range and face serious damage.

avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:41 am

And i have a few ideas. What about the ferrocement as the hull material? It would be hard for Alliance to build the battleship's hulls from iron and steel - but the ferrocemen is much lighter to produce in large quantites! And the Alliance definitely isn't against the really big ships.

So. What if they build battleships from reinforced concrete? It's pretty durable, easy to repair, almost invunerable to sea conditions. They could build hull as big as "Salissa" from the ferrocement relatively quickly. And they could build it really thick to compensate their inability to produce modern, thick armor plates. A few feet of ferrocement between the two 6-10 inch Harvey plates would work as good as Krupp cemented armor. They are pretty capable of producing Harvey armor, i think.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:36 am

Abba's patent for the concrete armor for battleships:

https://www.google.com.ar/patents/US906846
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Maybe Bradford could help

Post by Ceejay on Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:08 am

As an Australian he would be aware of the substantial deposits of iron ore and coal there. This would provide all the raw materials needed for ship construction. Of course it would take time to develop the necessary infrastructure needed to produce the steel then the shipyards
avatar
Ceejay

Posts : 31
Join date : 2015-08-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:28 am

As an Australian he would be aware of the substantial deposits of iron ore and coal there. This would provide all the raw materials needed for ship construction. Of course it would take time to develop the necessary infrastructure needed to produce the steel then the shipyards

Yes, but that exactly the problem. To make a really large quantites of high-grade steel, it would need a lot of time, workforce, and additional industry established. I think, the concrete is more logical solution.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Ceejay on Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:23 pm

I agree as far as the hull is concerned but even so there is a requirement for large quantities of steel for engines, armaments etc. not to mention the reo for the concrete.
So maybe the focus could be an increase in carrier power as opposed to the battle line as in our timeline. Concrete hulls, wooden flight deck, and wood and fabric airpower would more achievable than a dreadnought

Still going to need that steel eventually
avatar
Ceejay

Posts : 31
Join date : 2015-08-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:28 pm

I agree as far as the hull is concerned but even so there is a requirement for large quantities of steel for engines, armaments etc. not to mention the reo for the concrete.

Yes, indeed. The Alliance already have a sufficiently powerfull steam engines for the Home-class carriers; they probably wouldn't be able to build high-powerfull turbines for some time, but the triple-expansion machines should be fine.

So maybe the focus could be an increase in carrier power as opposed to the battle line as in our timeline. Concrete hulls, wooden flight deck, and wood and fabric airpower would more achievable than a dreadnought

Yes, but not completely effective. Their air forces mainly consisted of relatively outdated (by 1940th means) machines, and it wouldn't be impossible for Griks to increase their air defense to the level, when the Alliance carriers wouldn't be able to inflict crippling losses. This already happened - the Alliance air power was eventually unable to prevent the Kurokawa ironclads of reaching India, and if Kurokawa have more effective anti-aircraft weaponry, it may pretty well became a complete naval disaster for Alliance Navy.

Also, the League. They definitely have modern aircrafts, so they would be perfectly able to provide their ships with sufficient fighter support - no to mention, the effective anti-aircraft defense and quite possible - radars (it was French, who invented cavity magnetrons, after all!). The "Savoie" could possibly stand against the attack of all Alliance carriers together, especially if she have some modern fighter screen (and the French Navy was really good in floatplane fighters). So, they need something to be able to stand against the enemy battleline at least temporarely.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Ceejay on Fri Aug 07, 2015 2:53 am

Aircraft delivered torpedoes would seem to be the next step. Low level aerial attacks would be difficult to stop given the low cyclic rate of weapons employed by both the Grik and the Dom and could be very effective against their heavies. Something in the way of a Fairey Swordfish would be within the alliance's capabilities and would be viable given the opposition's level of technology

I am looking forward to finding out more about the league (haven't finished Hell's Strait yet) but I suspect they are in much the same boat - sorry - as the alliance with their only modern airpower/navy being what they brought with them. Regarding Savoie - if she is a pre WWI dreadnaught she's not likely to have much in the way of triple A. Even if she did, a very limited strike by obsolescent biplanes was able to hit Bismark which was very well equipped with AAA. While Bismark certainly wasn't seriously damaged the swordfish did get through her air defences and survive. If the Alliance used a mob attack using both dive bombers and torpedo planes as per the USN on Yamato, they would stand a good chance of taking the Savoie down.
avatar
Ceejay

Posts : 31
Join date : 2015-08-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Fri Aug 07, 2015 6:23 am

Aircraft delivered torpedoes would seem to be the next step. Low level aerial attacks would be difficult to stop given the low cyclic rate of weapons employed by both the Grik and the Dom and could be very effective against their heavies. Something in the way of a Fairey Swordfish would be within the alliance's capabilities and would be viable given the opposition's level of technology

Probably, but the construction of aerial torpedoes isn't a simple task. Also, Griks could defuse this problem - partially - by placing their heavy ships in the center of order of anti-aircraft escorts.

but I suspect they are in much the same boat - sorry - as the alliance with their only modern airpower/navy being what they brought with them.

We didn't know how long they was here. Probably more than Alliance - seems that they arrived in late 1930th. And they initially have much more than Alliance.

Regarding Savoie - if she is a pre WWI dreadnaught she's not likely to have much in the way of triple A.

But she isn't. She is at least as refitted as real-world "Lorraine", and probably even more. Which means, she carry at least eight 3-inch AA guns and multiple machineguns - more than enough to guarantee, that "Nancy"'s and "Shooters" didn't stand a chance.

If the Alliance used a mob attack using both dive bombers and torpedo planes as per the USN on Yamato, they would stand a good chance of taking the Savoie down.

Probably... if there wouldn't be any fighter escort for her. And what if it would be? The League could have aircraft carriers in comission, or at least, they could jury-rig escort carrier from avaliable cargo ships. What if the Alliance air forces would be forced to attack through the opposition of D.520 or Lorie 210?
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Pokermind on Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:29 am

Check out the PB-5D a drawing Taylor Anderson sent for the Destroyermen Wiki http://destroyermen.wikia.com/wiki/PB-5D_%22Clipper%22



Notice the long hard point under the wing either a very large bomb or a torpedo IMHO

Poker
avatar
Pokermind

Posts : 199
Join date : 2015-07-02
Age : 64

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:36 am

Notice the long hard point under the wing either a very large bomb or a torpedo IMHO

Maybe, but she would be a perfect target for any anti-air defense during the torpedo run. Definitely wouldn't work against League's ships.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Pokermind on Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:27 pm

And while the AA is fireing at the sittiong duck the new P-1D divebombers take out the BB a'la Midway and the Japanese carriers where the CAP was pulled down to destroy the torpedo planes.
avatar
Pokermind

Posts : 199
Join date : 2015-07-02
Age : 64

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:34 pm

And while the AA is fireing at the sittiong duck the new P-1D divebombers take out the BB a'la Midway and the Japanese carriers where the CAP was pulled down to destroy the torpedo planes.

The problem is, this wouldn't work. Not with the Alliance type of planes. And i remind you, the BB is much more durable than the carrier. If the battleships instead of carriers was attacked at Midway, none of them would be disabled.

The japanes carriers at Midway was doomed because of japanese method of refueling and arming aircrafts inside the hangar. I.e. the explosions inside the hangars led to the secondary detonations. But the battleships haven't got anything like that. They would survive. And "Savoie", that came to 20-25 km near the allied fleet would exterminate this fleet. She is far more powerfull than "Amagi", and she probably have surface search radars to keep destroyers away even at night.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:46 pm

Simply; sending "Clippers" against "Savoie" is generally the same thing as simply shot their crews. The "Savoie" anti-air three-inch guns would just massacre the four-engine boats, long before they would be able to drop the torpedoes. And the P-1D is simply unable to carry bombs, big enough to really do harm to a battleship. The "Savoie" 13,2-mm machineguns would deal with divers.

And we currently talking about only the "Savoie". And what if she came with escorts, or with a carrier of her own? The Alliance fleet would be forced to run all the way from Madagascar to the Baalknaap!
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Sat Aug 08, 2015 2:00 pm

P.S. The real "Lorraine" in 1939 was armed with eight 75-mm AA guns (model 1922) and four quadruple 13,2-mm AA machineguns as an anti-aircraft weapons. More than enough to deal with the whole air wing of Alliance carrier.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Ceejay on Mon Aug 10, 2015 11:07 am

Admittedly fighter cover complicates things but I would image that the Alliance will also field escort fighters. I agree CVs more vulnerable than BBs but Prince of Wales and Repulse were still sunk as were a couple of British CAs. While there was no friendly fighter support in either case it would be no guarantee of seeing off an attack

Given scarcity of resources I still see carrier air as the better option.
avatar
Ceejay

Posts : 31
Join date : 2015-08-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:05 pm

Admittedly fighter cover complicates things but I would image that the Alliance will also field escort fighters

Yes, but what good Alliance carrier fighters could do against, for example, D.520? They would not be able to break the League's fighters runs for Alliance bombers, simply because Alliance fighters are slow. The best Alliance could do is to try and swarm the League's fleet - and i doubt that would do much better.

but Prince of Wales and Repulse were still sunk as were a couple of British CAs

But they were sunk by the modern bombers, not by the outdated for 20 years or more.

Given scarcity of resources I still see carrier air as the better option.

I do not suggest to give away the carrier forces, i merely suggest to supplemet them with battleships. The carriers&battleships diadem would be much better than just carriers or just battleships.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Ceejay on Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:03 am

While there is a possibility that the League may have "modern" fighters this is yet to be confirmed as are most things about them. In any case land based air cover is only of use when the fleet operates within its range. Lets see what they have. In the mean time the most pressing problem is to counter the superior numbers and more primitive technology of the Griks and Doms.

While BBs may be desirable there is no indication that the Alliance has access to the raw materials, the infrastructure or the technology necessary to construct them. By focusing on building carrier task forces the alliance can produce a good enough weapon to defeat the naval forces they currently face.
avatar
Ceejay

Posts : 31
Join date : 2015-08-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Pokermind on Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:56 am

The Super P-1[D?] with stacked engines and .30 cal. MGs is mentioned in Straits of Hell and the illustration of PB-5D comes from Taylor Anderson. We have no idea when they will reach the battlefront. We do know the alliance air power was pretty thrashed in the second battle of Grik City due to storm damage.
avatar
Pokermind

Posts : 199
Join date : 2015-07-02
Age : 64

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Tue Aug 11, 2015 6:33 am

While there is a possibility that the League may have "modern" fighters this is yet to be confirmed as are most things about them. In any case land based air cover is only of use when the fleet operates within its range.

And what the problem for League to build escort carriers (if they already haven't got one)?
In the mean time the most pressing problem is to counter the superior numbers and more primitive technology of the Griks and Doms.

And we already saw, that the air superiority failed to stop both Griks and Doms fdrom closing to the gun range. And we knew, that Kurokawa is working on the aeroplanes - fighters and twin-engine bombers - and rebuiling one of his ironclads into something knoted with his airfoce. Again, the air cover - this time, to superior number of technologically inferior ships.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Dilandu on Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:48 am

Generally, what the main problems in building a battleship?

- Hull composition: as i mentioned before, ferrocement would work quite fine, and take a lot less resources than steel-hull ships. Alliance already used concrete for harbour docks.

- Armor; If my calculations are correct, the concrete-steel composite (Harvey steel plates over the thick layer of reinforced concrete) would work. Alliance should already have started something like that, because we knew, that they planned to build cruisers. And cruisers need armor, if only for decks.

- Powerplants; Alliance already have suffuciently powerfull steam engines for Home-class carriers.

- Guns; the main problem is guns. The Alliance currently worked with only small rigfles, but even the cruiser-grade 6-inch would need some more capable technology. I think, the wire-wound guns would pretty much be possible for Alliance to build. basicallym you need only a relatively strong inner tube, that reinforced by a layers of wire.

- Fire control; eventually the same type, that used on destroyers. Just larger, and with a lot more capable rangefinders - and they are just optical systems. They may already have at least parts of fire control system from "Amagi"; probably also "Hiokame" have something to salvage in therms of directors.
avatar
Dilandu

Posts : 153
Join date : 2015-07-23
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Admin on Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:03 am

Well, the problem is:
- being able to know the technology. Even in our world malor parts were secret and destroyermen don't know them.
- you need a HUGE industrial capacity to produce hardened steel. It's really complicated. Keep in mind that our world needed 25 years to produce more than small samples
- you need an incredible of highly specific tool, training and raw materials. The probme is not steel. It's manganeze, molybdene, tin, copper, tungsten... (for example to produce a single long duration bulblight you need a tiny quantity of tungsten). To produce them you need mines and know where to dig. To support them you need coal, food and so on.

Specific example: producing high quality optics (the ones that you use un DD and battleships) is incredibly complicated. In our world no more the FIVE companies were able to produce them. (other were able to make less efficient ones). Read for instance: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-078.htm

To make things short: producing a hull: not impossible. Producing engines: possible with low speed ones -no turbines and so on). Optics and large guns: no way. They need to come back to 1860-1880 technology first.










Admin
Admin

Posts : 73
Join date : 2015-07-01

http://destroyermen.forumactif.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Battleships for Alliance navy

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum