Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby phavoc » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:30 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:35 pm
For Fisher, they were the successors to first class armoured cruisers.

The Deutschlands were a solution to a German dilemma, the need to power project in the Baltic, and/or sockblock the French, while not appearing to defy the provisions of Versailles. The eleven inchers are at the low end of capital class guns, whereas nine point twos tended to be the prewar limitation for cruiser guns. You have a substantial secondary anti surface armament.
Battlecruisers did great... till some idiots in the back office thought they'd make a great secondary for real battleships fighting real battleships.

It's unfortunate that they were never given real leave to practice their calling - that of hunting and killing anything smaller than themselves. The Deutschland, Graf Spee and Scheer were some damn fine cruisers that, at least until the Brits sank them, caused all kinds of problems that were outsized to their class. Typical CA's of the time mounted 8" guns, while these had 11". They were only "pocket" to build a tougher CA and fit within the naval treaty limitations.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:58 pm

The problem for the battlecruiser was a lack of deployment opportunities and the arrival of fast battleships which outmoded them.

The pocket battleship on the other hand was a very interesting sufficiency exercise where you trim the battleship as close to a heavy cruiser as possible while still having the triad of traits for a battleship.

What I find interesting is the zumwalt is classified as a destroyer with its displacement almost at 15,000t ...
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby phavoc » Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:53 pm

baithammer wrote:
Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:58 pm
The problem for the battlecruiser was a lack of deployment opportunities and the arrival of fast battleships which outmoded them.

The pocket battleship on the other hand was a very interesting sufficiency exercise where you trim the battleship as close to a heavy cruiser as possible while still having the triad of traits for a battleship.

What I find interesting is the zumwalt is classified as a destroyer with its displacement almost at 15,000t ...
The deployment issue is one that would be just as valid in the 52nd century as well. The classification issue of BC vs. 'fast battleship' vs 'battleship' vs 'dreadnoughts' remains the same. Traveller could have BC's anchoring CA squadrons, or having BC squadrons assigned to hunt down and kill CA's, or heavily escorted convoys. It's a question of whether or not two BC's could handle a single BB. For wet navy issues it would be a question of gun calibers vs opponents armor. The typical BB should outrange and out-armor a pair of BC's, thus the BC's would probably come out on the losing end of a fight. Question would be would wet-navy translate the same into space navy?

The heavier guns of the Deutchsland class definitely provided a bonus against opponents. It's funny how they built the Hipper class as heavier (by 4k tons), but put the standard CA 8" guns on them.

I think the issue with the Zumwalt is that the USN didn't want to say they built a modern CA. Kind of like the IJN didn't want to say they built a new CV. The USN did the same thing during WW2, with the Alaska class. Their official label was CB (large cruiser), but they would have been a BC in any body else's navy.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5506
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby Condottiere » Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:30 pm

Formulaically, the Iowas are the world's biggest battlecruisers.

You have to look at the development of battlecruisers, and the Deutschlands, in the context of their navies' constraints and the prevailing arms races.

I've covered this territory before, in context of the Fighting Ships of the Solomani and Mongoose High Guard.

Basically, the natural evolution of the battlecruiser is the fast battleship, of which the Hood could be considered an intermediate step; however, you still have to cover all the other missions that large cruisers would be tasked with, and that would be the supercruiser of which the seventeen thousand tonne Des Moines might be the epitome with nine eight inchers.

Outside of the Yamato class and whatever Hitler had planned, most navies tend to build just large enough ships to accomplish their planned missions, and even Yamatos had some logic behind them, built larger than the expected size of future American battleships, which would be constrained by the locks of the Panama canal, and by the fact that the Japanese could only build a limited number of hulls.

Our Deutschlands are likely to resemble the Azhanti High Lightnings, but with the current design ruleset, would be a minimum hundred thousand tonnes.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby phavoc » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:27 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:30 pm
Formulaically, the Iowas are the world's biggest battlecruisers.

You have to look at the development of battlecruisers, and the Deutschlands, in the context of their navies' constraints and the prevailing arms races.

I've covered this territory before, in context of the Fighting Ships of the Solomani and Mongoose High Guard.

Basically, the natural evolution of the battlecruiser is the fast battleship, of which the Hood could be considered an intermediate step; however, you still have to cover all the other missions that large cruisers would be tasked with, and that would be the supercruiser of which the seventeen thousand tonne Des Moines might be the epitome with nine eight inchers.

Outside of the Yamato class and whatever Hitler had planned, most navies tend to build just large enough ships to accomplish their planned missions, and even Yamatos had some logic behind them, built larger than the expected size of future American battleships, which would be constrained by the locks of the Panama canal, and by the fact that the Japanese could only build a limited number of hulls.

Our Deutschlands are likely to resemble the Azhanti High Lightnings, but with the current design ruleset, would be a minimum hundred thousand tonnes.
Why would you consider Iowa's to be battlecruisers? Where do you draw the line between battleship and battlecruiser? Main armament? Displacement?? Armor level???

The "fast" battleship really just means a battleship that can keep up with a carrier task force (30+ knots). The nomenclature changed with the advent of carriers and the shift away from battleships ruling the waves.

The "modern" workhorses of the navies really was heavily influenced by the London Naval treaty. The major powers had agreed to ship and armament limitations, and then rumors of cheating by other navies had other navies working on 'killers' to off-set or compete with the others. The Deutschland class was built to stay within the Versailles treaty limitations. The Admiral (of which the Hood was part of) class were very similar to first-line battleships, but they didn't have the armor. Comparing the Iowa to the Hood, the Iowa had more armor, a heavier caliber gun and about 8,000 tons on the Hood. Dimension wise they were about the same.

I would expect a Traveller BC to be around 100,000 tons, with BB's out displacing them by at least a 2-1 ratio. That's because Traveller ships-of-the-line tonnage is going to be based upon larger-sized dreadnoughts like the Tigress. These ships are so massive and expensive that even the Imperium can't afford a complete fleet of them. Plus you invest a great deal of money in a single hull that you can only have in a single place. A pair of 250k Dton battleships means you can place them in two places at once, and still outmass and outgun most opponents navies.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 am

It'll be more nuanced than that, as composition will depend on whether there are any active wars, state of the economy and/or demobilization from previous wars.

If there isn't any active wars for several decades and status quo has remained steady in that time, its hard to justify building large capital warships which is where battlecruisers and pocket warships become more attractive at least as a stop gap.

Another scenario is where resources to build warships are constrained but neither capital nor technology are limited, essentially you expend more capital on technology and reduction in material per unit produced.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5506
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby Condottiere » Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:39 pm

You need numbers to successfully subcategorize warships, and the run up to the Great war provides this, otherwise Fisher's foray into revolutionizing cruiser warfare would have ended up as an oddity, or as a second class battleship class.

Treaty obligations tended to homogenize capital ships, especially as there were limits on numbers and individual hull tonnage, the lines get blurred.

However, the real ships intended to hold the line during the Great Patriotic War were intended to be the twenty eight knot twelve gun Montanas with sixteen inch armour, compared to the thirty three plus knot nine gun Iowas with twelve inch armour.

Comparing the Hood to the Iowas is pretty much the same as comparing a technological level thirteen Zeus class battlecruiser against a technological level fourteen Diaspora.

The difference in technology levels gives a distinctive edge during combat, something that I don't think is really addressed in Traveller, however Fighting Ships of the Solomani specifically states that the Solomani tended to provide room for upgrades, though design rules prohibit stripping the hull of stated initial technological level armour and replacing it with something better.

Since we're puddling around in the Interwar period, it's not that capital ships have to keep up with aircraft carriers, it's that carriers have to keep up with the main fleet units. The Americans lucked out when they converted their unfinished large battlecruisers, the Saratoga and Lexington, into for that time massive fast fleet carriers, and then cheated by immediately adding another three thousand tonnes to each, though technically allowed by Treaty though intended to improve protection during a SLEP.

While the Fleet Air Arm conducted an internecine conflict with the Royal Air Force, the Japanese and Americans were refining the finer aspects of carrier warfare, in which the Japanese Kongo class did get assigned the mission to escort their fleet carriers, since they could keep up despite being uparmoured.

Fast battleships developed for the same reason fighter planes got faster, speed is life and you need to catch the blighters if you want to bring them to battle, with projected battle speed of about twenty eight knots; post Jutland, the upper speed was around twenty three knots, and since treaty obligations obliged you to keep so many of the old clunkers around, that was a liability.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:06 am

However, the real ships intended to hold the line during the Great Patriotic War were intended to be the twenty eight knot twelve gun Montanas with sixteen inch armour, compared to the thirty three plus knot nine gun Iowas with twelve inch armour.
Considering the Montana class were never built and battleships ended up defending the carrier groups ...
it's not that capital ships have to keep up with aircraft carriers
Aircraft carriers were mainly built on cruiser hulls which classify them as capital ships.
Treaty obligations tended to homogenize capital ships, especially as there were limits on numbers and individual hull tonnage, the lines get blurred.
In reality the opposite occurred due to everyone trying to find the edge to maximize within or close to the limits as possible.
though design rules prohibit stripping the hull of stated initial technological level armour and replacing it with something better.
If using mgt High Guard there is no rule about prohibiting upgrading armour to a more advanced version, hull upgrades on the other hand are restricted.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2452
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:14 am

baithammer wrote: If using mgt High Guard there is no rule about prohibiting upgrading armour to a more advanced version, hull upgrades on the other hand are restricted.
Armour is the hull, it is not added to the hull. See MT.
Armour and other parts of the ship integral to the hull (such as configuration or reinforced structure) cannot be changed under any refit.
MgT TCS.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby phavoc » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:56 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:14 am
Armour is the hull, it is not added to the hull. See MT.
Armour and other parts of the ship integral to the hull (such as configuration or reinforced structure) cannot be changed under any refit.
MgT TCS.
In baithammer's defense he did say MGT High Guard. I suppose we'd have to say v1 HG or v2 HG, but by default I think most discussions are now referring to v2.

Virtually anything can be refitted to a ship if you want to spend the money. Wet navies have lengthened ships, replaced boilers, added armor, etc. But adding armor isn't just welding more plates on the outside. Sensors & airlocks have to be moved, weapon emplacements changed, internal structures have to be modified to support the extra mass as well as the impact (a ship without sufficiently strong internal structure would collapse when struck externally).

At some point there might be a v2 TCS. Hopefully this time the editors will go through and clean it up better than the MGT v1... it was littered with references of tech to previous versions.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:36 am

Armour is the hull, it is not added to the hull. See MT.
Which is contradicted by Mgt 1ed High Gurard..
Armour
The basic hull provides some protection from anti–ship weapons
fire, but it is possible to add heavier armour to the hull for added
defence.
Armour is its own component not part of the hull itself and is why it has its own set of options instead of being rolled into the structure options.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby phavoc » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:05 pm

baithammer wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:36 am
Armour
The basic hull provides some protection from anti–ship weapons fire, but it is possible to add heavier armour to the hull for added defence.
Armour is its own component not part of the hull itself and is why it has its own set of options instead of being rolled into the structure options.
That may be how the rule is worded, but that's not how it works. A LOT of rules are poorly worded in the book and don't provide proper explanation. You can't just keep welding on slabs of armor without adding structural support to make the armor work from the insides, to move sensors, turrets firing arcs, etc.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5506
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby Condottiere » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:05 pm

Like a lot of things, it simplifies the design process, since warships don't universally have a homogeneous armoured belt, and prioritize what they want protected.

Once navies figured out that carrier air wings can extend the reach of a strike force way beyond the horizon, the day of the battleship was over, combined with the extended reconnaissance range aircraft gave, it was hard to surprise a carrier strike group, which paranoia accounted for carriers still armed with eight inch guns and opting for an armoured flight deck. Or it should be hard to do so.

With the realization that the Axis powers offered no real threat in terms of a battle line, outside of the Yamatos no more super heavy battleships were built, and even the last sister of that class was converted into a hybrid aircraft carrier.

If light attack craft proved dangerous to capital ships, Traveller Navies would rebalance their compositions.

One primary difference between our current carriers and those in Traveller, is that if they are at sea, they tend to be very difficult to locate, and if located, very difficult to hit; security in obscurity isn't that much of an option in space for a hundred thousand tonne hull, and going by current designed performance, they can't run, and as can be seen, they can't hide, unless they jump.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:42 am

You can't just keep welding on slabs of armor without adding structural support to make the armor work from the insides, to move sensors, turrets firing arcs, etc.
Which isn't what is being referred to, a refit subtracts components that are no longer useful and replaces it with more functional upgrades.

Armour isn't the structure itself, its attached to specific points on the hull in order to provide a barrier to the underlying hull.

It should be pointed out however, that refits of this nature do require proper planning to avoid miscalculations and should entail using a ship architect in order to make the refit properly safe.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby phavoc » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:18 am

Condottiere wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:05 pm
Like a lot of things, it simplifies the design process, since warships don't universally have a homogeneous armoured belt, and prioritize what they want protected.
Traveller ships do. There is no concept of forward/aft/ventral/dorsal armor in Traveller.
baithammer wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:42 am
Which isn't what is being referred to, a refit subtracts components that are no longer useful and replaces it with more functional upgrades.

Armour isn't the structure itself, its attached to specific points on the hull in order to provide a barrier to the underlying hull.

It should be pointed out however, that refits of this nature do require proper planning to avoid miscalculations and should entail using a ship architect in order to make the refit properly safe.
A refit very much depends on what is being refit. In wet navies ships had additional armor added on top of the existing armor. Trying to remove the old armor and replacing it would have made a difficult and expensive operation even more so. Depending on what was done, some ships had additional torpedo bulges added on top of the ones they already had installed, some had new ones added. But certain areas, like keels, could not be armored except for what was there at the time of the laying of the keel. Obviously spacecraft don't have such limitations, but they still have many of the same ones that ocean-going vessels have.

Specifics weren't mentioned, but for the sake of argument a ship with crystalline steel as armor is going to increase the armor factor in the refit. Because the initial hull structure provides a base armor factor you could strip the external hull off and then re-build it with a higher TL armor, though that would be fabulously expensive to do.

Armor in Traveller covers the ship equally in all places. So it is homogenously applied everywhere. There is nothing setting aside external areas to have additional armor. Armored bulkheads are internal.

Pretty much any major refit where you are stripping a ship down to it's structure should, by default, require the participation of a naval architect and fully equipped repair facility or dockyard, depending on the displacement of the vessel.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:54 am

Because the initial hull structure provides a base armor factor you could strip the external hull off and then re-build it with a higher TL armor, though that would be fabulously expensive to do.
Hulls provide armour 0 unless planetoid or buffered planetoid so no the hull doesn't provide armour, it provides hull points.

This allows stripping off the old armour plating and applying a new set which would require time in docks and design work to make sure the new set works. ( Armoured Bulkheads are a completely different kettle of fish as that is more a hull structure.)
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby phavoc » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:32 pm

baithammer wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:54 am
Because the initial hull structure provides a base armor factor you could strip the external hull off and then re-build it with a higher TL armor, though that would be fabulously expensive to do.
Hulls provide armour 0 unless planetoid or buffered planetoid so no the hull doesn't provide armour, it provides hull points.

This allows stripping off the old armour plating and applying a new set which would require time in docks and design work to make sure the new set works. ( Armoured Bulkheads are a completely different kettle of fish as that is more a hull structure.)
Zero, for starships, is still armor. A starship with zero armor still resists or is impervious to non-starship weaponry.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5506
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby Condottiere » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:18 pm

The hull should actually have a stated percentage of volume, to be at least heavy machine gun proof.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:54 am

Armour 0 means armour 0, the only thing at spacecraft scale is the 1/10th damage from vehicle / personal weapons. Further, as long as the hull is tl9+ its self sealing.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:14 pm

After going through various suggestions on design considerations for Mgt 2ed, I've come up with a different design philosophy based on the armoured warship. In this case a heavier use of screens in particular the Meson screen which will need to use Reduced Size x2 to make it worth the effort and also requires 1,000 screens per 2dd to defend against.

Spinal weapons do 2d6 x1,000 damage, while 5 screens do 1d6x10 so in order to provide average damage deduction versus Meson Spinal weapons you need 1,000 screens per 2dd of Spinal weapons.

The aim is to keep these ship classes at there current displacement while trimming other systems to make for the displacement lost to screens. ( Biggest change is jump range reduced to Jump 3)

I refer to these designs as Screened ships.

Screened Battleship

Image

Screened Dreadnought

Image

From there I'll workout Pocket ships.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rikki Tikki Traveller and 9 guests