Plan Red

[cjcafiero]

In looking over the competing designs for the British N3 and G3 there seems quite a bit of similarity, except for their armor ratings...I gave them 5+ and 4+ respectively, the other designs gave them 6+.

6+ seems a bit excessive to me, all the ships cancelled from the Washington Treaty would have likely had suspect horizontal armor schemes in comparisson to the ships built later (Bismarck, KGV, Rodney, NC, SD, Iowa, etc), and the N3 and G3 were very similar except that the G3 used lighter guns and armor in order to gain about 8 knots in speed (a considerable increase in speed).

Bottom line, I don't see them as well armored as Iowa and Yamato, for example...I might be persuaded to give the G3 a 5+, but I'll need some convincing...any thoughts?

 

[DM]

I have drawings showing the armour schemes in some detail. They are easily capable of being granted a 6.

btw be very careful when relating anything to Bismarck's 6!

EDIT - I ought to add, Matt has issued the design system to the playtest team (of which I am one) and the statting of the G3 and N3 is in line with that system.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

According to what I read, the G3 would have been comparable to the Iowas, 20 years before they were built. That's not bad going.

 

[cjcafiero]

Well, let's take a look...

G3 Battlecruiser (as designed) Vas Armor Rating disputed
Belt: 14"
Turrets : 14"
Deck 9" to 4.5"

N3 Battleship (as designed) VaS Armor Rating disputed
Belt: 15 inches
Deck: 8 inches
Barbettes: 15 inches

King George V (as built) VaS Armor Rating 6+
Belt: 15"
Turrets: 13-19"
Deck: 6"
CT: 4"

South Dakota Battleship (1920's version) VaS Armor Rating est. 5+
13.5 inch belt
3.5 inch deck
13.5 inch barbettes
18 inch turrets
16 inch CT

North Carolina Battleship (as built) VaS Armor Rating 5+
12 inch belt
5.5 inch deck
16 inch barbettes
16 inch turrets
16 inch CT

South Dakota Battleship (as built) Vas Armor Rating 6+
12.2 inch belt
6 inch deck,
17.3 inch barbettes,
18 inch turrets
15 inch CT

While the G3 is similar in some, respects to the Iowa, it is actually closer to the North Carolina and less than the KGV in many respects...using the "all or nothing" system on the N3 and G3, the whole deck wasn't 9". Another consideration is the qualitative improvement in the scheme, as well as thickness of armor. For example US belts tend to thinner than their British counterparts, but much more inclined...I would accept that ships built in the 40's generally had superior armor weight and scheme to ships designed in the 20's...I would accept the steel was quantitatively excellent in all cases, though again probably better per ton in the 40's than the 20's.

Speed is also an issue, the US North Carolina and South Dakota made 28 knots, the Iowa's 33...comparable to the G3, but not the N3...would the slower speed have mattered?

I think 5+ is appropriate for both the G3 and N3, my 4+ is clearly wrong..., though its hard to justify giving the North Carolina a 5+ and the South Dakota a 6+...I think if I had my druthers I'd drop South Dakota and KGV to 5+...

This is a good conversation!

For an interesting discussion on this topic see: http://www.combinedfleet.com/f_armor.htm

 

[DM]

Personally I'd push NC up to 6 myself, whilst dropping Bismarck to a 5. Part of the "problem" is that the bounding limits of the armour system in VAS does tend to bunch ships at the upper end. However, some useful comparisons can be drawn by looking at armour values attributed to ships in other rule systems such as GQ, where both NC and the Sodaks (and G3 and N3) would all come within the same armour class (BA, the best that it gets).

Now, that too could be looked at as being rather coarse, but in reality those fine points on armour thicknesses aren't nearly as critical as our numbers-driven minds may make them appear. Naval warfare is a highly dynamic activity. We consider armour thicknesses and slopes of belts, decks etc. whilst forgetting that ships roll and pitch and that shells do not always arrive perpendicular to the ships side. Simply looking at the armour thicknesses ignores a whole range of design details, some of which may be apparent (e.g. armour disposition), soem of which aren'ty (structural detailing, system layout - German WW1 ships are held up as paragons of internal subdivision, yet this ignores the fact that their pumping and flooding arrangements actually breached that subdivision making it no more effective than that of other countries; similarly Bismarck's armoured deck was in the wrong place (or rather her fire control system cable runs were) meaning that, despite the tickness of it the deck gave very little protection to the ship's "combat system", whilst also potentially increasing the effect of flood water on stability. I'm fortunate in that my "day job" involves the assessment of modern weapons against warships and other targets and we have exactly the same sort of issues, albeit different in nature. It is very easy to get wrapped up in the blast resistance of a particular design feature without taking the wider view and thinking about what that actually means to the overall survivability of the ship. With that in mind I'm happy to go with the values that are assigned at present.

 

[cjcafiero]

I agree with you DM.

I tend to look at the VaS armor values not as an expression of the absolute quality of a ships wieght and plan or armor, but more as a method of comparing those schemes from one ship to another.

Hence, for my part, I'm comfortable giving the G3/N3 duo a 5+, and saying they were as good as the North Carolina, but bit below the standard of Yamato and Iowa.

 

[DM]

Of course thats the joy of a simple system such as VAS. Its simple to alter the data to suit your own interpretation.

 

[Fitzwalrus]

Of course thats the joy of a simple system such as VAS. Its simple to alter the data to suit your own interpretation.

What?!?! :shock:

Tinker with a published ruleset??

I'm shocked - shocked, I say - to hear that some one would even consider such a thing!!!

(BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... I knew I couldn't say that with a straight face.... )

 

[DM]

Try sucking on a lemon when you say it. Works for me

 

[DM]

I've run a few of the "Plan Red" designs through some of the VAS design algorithms. There are a few differences:

Lexington:

Damage: 40/14
Crew: 52/18
Torpedo AD 2
Speed: 7 (both the 16" and 14" versions)

South Dakota:

Armour: 6+
Damage: 39/13
Crew: 48/16
Torpedo AD 1

Colorado:

Damage 37/13

I haven't looked at the gun stats yet but they look pretty good from here.

Incidentally, whilst going through Friedman's design history I've come across at least 78 battleship design studies covering the complete range of sizes, shapes, armament, spped and protection. many of these (especially the big ones) were done as "maximum battleship" studies to gauge the biggest ship the USN could possibly come up against, if some unscrupulous country was to ignore treaty limits

Another thing I hadn't appreciated going through Friednam's book was the extent of the design experience from the RN that was given to the US after WW1, in particular the design and redesign of the Hood and the incorporation of post-Jutland lessons. I suppose I shouldn't have been that surprised; the same thing happened in 1982.

 

[cjcafiero]

Thanks for the feed-back DM!

I'll be tinkering with the Plan Red ships tomorrow, so I'll look to incorporate your feedback. I'm going to try and finish the U.S. battleline and post it this weekend.

Friedman's books are awesome.

Post 1982 ship design. Interestingly, while the U.S. did incorporate Royal Navy lessons from the Falklands in various refits and new designs, my understanding is also that the Royal Navy became much more interested in U.S.N. damage control procedures...a traditional strong point of the U.S. Navy...(off topic here) but makes me wonder if some countries shouldn't get advantages in damage control in VaS. Japan's damage control procedures seemed pretty awful, by comparison U.S. ships were very difficult to sink by 1944...

 

[DM]

There has always been a high degree of cross-fertilisation in NATO DC/FF activities (its part of what I do for a living) but that process was galvanised to a greater extent after 1982. At least two non-RN ships involved in incidents after ther Falklands survived because of lessons learnt during the conflict and resulting changes in design, procedures and equipment.

Japanese DC procedures were indeed a bit shoddy (to say the least) when compared with their Allied opponents. It is doubtful whether US or RN carriers hit to the extent of Nagumo's vessels at Midway would have been lost.

 

[cjcafiero]

Here are the first revisoins, based in part on feedback from DM and others (thanks!)

Maine – class Battleship (rev 2.0)

Ships of this Class: Maine, Kearsarge, Oregon, Kansas

These huge vessels were part of a World War I design study that was never ordered and eventually supplanted by the South Dakota class. The Maine’s show a marked British influence, and might have been built in the absence of any disarmament treaties. These enormous ships violated a classic American design restraint by being unable to transit the Panama Canal.

Speed: 4 in. Armor: 6+ Special Traits: Aircraft 3, Armored Deck,
Turning: 1 Damage: 50/17 Torpedo Belt
Target: 4+ Crew: 60/19 In Service: 1930

Weapon Range AD DD Special
A Turret (2x 18 in) 42 2 4 Super AP
B Turret (2x 18 in) 42 2 4 Super AP
X Turret (2x 18 in) 42 2 4 Super AP
Y Turret (2x 18 in) 42 2 4 Super AP
Secondary Armament 16 8 1 Weak
AA 6 4 -- --

Length: 800 feet (est.) Displacement: 70,238 tons Speed: 21 kts. Crew: 2500

South Dakota – class Battleship (rev 2.0)

Ships of this Class: South Dakota, Montana, North Carolina, Iowa, Alabama, Massachusetts

Designed to be (at the time) the fastest and most powerful U.S. battleships afloat, the South Dakota’s featured a very powerful main armament of twelve 16 inch guns (of greater caliber and elevation than those used on the preceding Colorado class) and a protection scheme marginally improved over previous classes, but incorporating lessons from the Great War, as well as inspection of captured Imperial German vessels. Speed was improved by three knots over previous designs with a unique, trunked, single funnel located amidships. Canceled by the Washington Naval Disarmament Treaty with several units nearly a third complete, the guns were eventually transferred to various shore batteries, and the hulls expended as targets, the lessons being applied to the later North Carolina and South Dakota class fast battleships.

Speed: 5 in. Armor: 5+ Special Traits: Aircraft 2, Torpedo Belt
Turning: 1 Damage: 39/13 In Service: 1924
Target: 4+ Crew: 48/16

Weapon Range AD DD Special
A Turret (3x 16 in) 38 3 3 Super AP
B Turret (3x 16 in) 38 3 3 Super AP
X Turret (3x 16 in) 38 3 3 Super AP
Y Turret (3x 16 in) 38 3 3 Super AP
Secondary Armament 14 6 1 Weak
AA 6 4 -- --
Port Torpedoes 8 1 4 AP, One-shot
Starboard Torpedoes 8 1 4 AP, One-shot

Length: 684 feet Displacement: 43,200 tons Speed: 24 kts. Crew: 1191

Colorado – class Battleship (rev 2.0)

Ships of this Class: Colorado, Maryland, Washington, West Virginia

The last American battleships designed during the Great War, these vessels commissioned into the 1920’s. The Washington Naval Disarmament Treaty led to Washington being expended as a target, but during the time-frame of PLAN RED these ships would still be very powerful, albeit slow, assets to the American battleline.

Speed: 4 in. Armor: 5+ Special Traits: Aircraft 3, Torpedo Belt
Turning: 1 Damage: 37/13 In Service: 1920
Target: 4+ Crew: 84/28

Weapon Range AD DD Special
A Turret (2x 16 in) 35 2 3 AP
B Turret (2x 16 in) 38 2 3 AP
X Turret (2x 16 in) 38 2 3 AP
Y Turret (2x 16 in) 38 2 3 AP
Secondary Armament 14 4 1 Weak
AA 6 4 -- --

Length: 624 feet Displacement: 34,946 tons Speed: 21 kts. Crew: 2100

Tennessee – class Battleship

Ships of this Class: Tennessee, California

The Tennessee’s were a logical follow-on to New Mexico class battleships with slightly better underwater protection and a number of minor improvements. The (for the time) heavy armament of 14”/50 main guns in four triple turrets provided heavy firepower and the ships were among the most modern in the U.S. Fleet during the period. Along with their contemporaries, the Colorado’s, they were often referred to as part of the “big five” of the battleline.

Speed: 4 in. Armor: 5+ Special Traits: Aircraft 2, Torpedo Belt
Turning: 1 Damage: 34/11 In Service: 1920
Target: 4+ Crew: 86/29

Weapon Range AD DD Special
A Turret (3x 14 in) 35 3 2 AP
B Turret (3x 14 in) 35 3 2 AP
X Turret (3x 14 in) 35 3 2 AP
Y Turret (3x 14 in) 35 3 2 AP
Secondary Armament 14 4 1 Weak
AA 4 4 -- --

Length: 624 feet Displacement: 34,858 tons Speed: 21 kts. Crew: 2375

Lexington – class Battlecruiser (rev 2.0)

Ships of this Class: Lexington, Saratoga, Constellation, Ranger, Constitution, United States

Officially, these large, fast vessels were classed as “Cruiser, Capital” or “CC” to make clear that their role was not to stand in the battle-line (where their cruiser-type armor would put them at a critical disadvantage), but rather to act as fast, powerful scouts for the battle fleet, as well as run-down enemy raiders. Cancelled by the Washington Naval Disarmament Treaty, Lexington and Saratoga were completed as carriers, and the others scrapped.

Speed: 7 in. Armor: 4+ Special Traits: Aircraft 2, Torpedo Belt
Turning: 1 Damage: 40/14 In Service: 1925
Target: 4+ Crew: 52/18

Weapon Range AD DD Special
A Turret (2x 16 in) 37 2 2 AP
B Turret (2x 16 in) 37 2 2 AP
X Turret (2x 16 in) 37 2 2 AP
Y Turret (2x 16 in) 37 2 2 AP
Secondary Armament 14 3 1 Weak
AA 5 3 -- --
Port Torpedoes 8 2 4 AP, One-shot
Starboard Torpedoes 8 2 4 AP, One-shot

Length: 874 feet Displacement: 44,638 tons Speed: 33 kts. Crew: 1297

Note: An earlier alternative design, which replaced the main armament with five twin turrets of 14 in. guns (A,B,Q,Y,Z) was also seriously considered. This particular version was recast after experiences in the Great War. As these ships were never completed, player’s should feel free to experiment. Statistics for the 14 in. gun version would have the following main gun statistics:


Weapon Range AD DD Special
A Turret (2x 14 in) 35 2 2 AP
B Turret (2x 14 in) 35 2 2 AP
Q Turret (2x 14 in) 35 2 2 AP
X Turret (2x 14 in) 35 2 2 AP
Y Turret (2x 14 in) 35 2 2 AP

Speed increased to 35 knots
Armor decreased to 3+.

I'm almost finished with the New Mexico's (very similar to the Tennesse's) and Pennsylvannia's. Just working on the air-group for Ranger (a Lexington carrier conversion) and playing around with Constitution, A Lexington-based cruiser-carrier hybrid.[/i]

 

[cjcafiero]

I made a quick Yahoo Group to post my Plan Red stuff in a clearer format. Feel free to play with it at:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/VictoryatSea/

 

[DM]

Do you have to subscribe to the group to access the files, or is it agroup with open access (indeed, if such a thing is possible with a Yahoo group)?

 

[cjcafiero]

Just ask to join, and I'll admit you. Keeps the spam and porn out that way...

 

[DM]

I'll pop over directly