Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
fbifiles

U.S. Battlecruiser Line

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

41
[NWNB]
Members
43 posts
3,276 battles

Prologue
    So because my memory sucks and I forgot to tack this on Battlecruisers part 2 I'm adding this. I'll copy-paste this on all my battlecruiser line posts, so it goes around. They're two things that I want to note.

    1. I was not able to find enough designs to make a 100% battlecruiser tree for every nation except the U.K., so some are early designs for battleships or cruisers, but before you go running for the pitchforks, all of the tier X designs, for example, would be at tier VIII at best if there were battleships. So they aren't as powerful as same tier battleships. I mean most of us here have seen a tier X cruiser melt a tier VIII battleship (or a tier X BB for that matter).

    2. The largest guns we have on current battlecruiser are the 12.2 inch (310mm) guns on Azuma (and Yoshino). However, some of these designs had guns as big as 16 inch (406 mm). Now just put the torches down and hear me out. Only two of these designs are locked into 16 inch guns (not counting the Japanese because I can't make a full battlecruiser line for them). The only two battlecruisers locked into 16 inch guns are (one of) the Brit tier IX and X battlecruisers. The British built their battlecruisers with guns of contemporary battleships, so I guess that makes it ok for them to have 16 inch guns (the alternative was 18 inch guns). Two other designs have 16-inch guns as a gun option, but I can exclude those 16's if necessary. All of the other big guns at tier X are 12 inch (305 mm), 14 inch (356 mm), or 15 inch (380/381 mm). Now that that's out of the way...

1.interduction
    U.S. battlecruisers are interesting, at least to me, because the U.S.N. never commissioned any battlecruisers (the Alaska class doesn't count because they weren't classified as capital ships). However, the U.S.N. did look into battlecruisers before and during WWI and into "large cruisers" (like the Alaska class) before the war in the Pacific. The interesting part comes from U.S. shipbuilding philosophy. At the time (1900 to 1920) the U.S.N. valued armor and firepower over speed (see the standard types for a prime example). However, by definition, battlecruisers go against this policy, favoring speed over armor, so the result is a fast battleship like ship design. Later (1940) when the U.S.N. drew up the designs that would become the Alaska class, speed was a significant factor alongside armor and firepower in those designs, all of which had a speed of 30 knots or better.

2. overview and general info
    The general playstyle will likely be a mix of battleship and cruiser playstyles like battlecruisers in general. However, this battleship/cruiser playstyle mix will be emphasized with the U.S. main (tier III to X) line The main part of the line will likely play like a mix of battleship and cruiser playstyles. Being able to jump from a role usually performed by battleships to a role usually performed by cruisers and back again. This jack of all trades playstyle would define them. However, as a downside, the main lines stealth, from tier VII up, would be somewhat poor. They would have close to battleship levels of concealment. The tier VII was 920 feet long. The tier VIII was 1000 feet long. The tier IX was 1063 feet long. To put that into context, the Kurfurst (or the H 42 which the Kurfurst was based off) comes in at 1000 feet (305 meters). This and the fact that these ships don't have battleship survivability, would not mix well.

    The "large cruiser" split line would likely specialize in the cruiser-killer role. With Alaska like guns and auto bounce angles, this split line's capability to effectively counter even Moskva or Henri IV sized cruisers should be quite good. As a consequence of this, the ships of the "large cruiser" split would be slightly more vulnerable than most battlecruisers to battleships and even some battlecruisers for two reasons. 1) they would be more vulnerable to capital ship shellfire compared to other battlecruisers and 2) their guns (no bigger than 12 inch) would not have the hitting power of their battlecruiser piers. However, this doesn't mean that you have to limit your playstyle, you're still playing a ship from a quite versatile line

    The ships from both the mainline and the split line are still U.S. cruisers and would have the versatility that U.S. cruisers are known for. This battlecruiser line (particularly the mainline) would be one of the most versatile battlecruiser lines if not one of the most versatile ship lines in the game. However, as with most U.S. ships, the lack of specialization can be more harmful than helpful in some situations. This Jack of all Trades capability is their greatest strength but is also their greatest weakness.

3. ship by ship analysis
    This battlecruiser line has a split at the mid-tiers leading to two tier X's. All of the battlecruiser lines I'm going to have a split like this with one line with bigger guns but are nearly battleship size and the other being smaller but with smaller guns.

     As for the individual ships in the line

Tier III Memphis class

image.png.f7c0a8fe8541b891864e3767d15fbec6.png
    The Memphis class (originally the Tennessee class) cruisers were outgrowths of the Pittsburgh class (originally the Pennsylvania class) cruisers (themselves outgrowths of the St Louis class cruisers). The Memphis class had a primary armament of four 10 inch 40 caliber guns in two twin turrets (2-A-2 config). The 10"/40 cal's had pretty good performance for a 40 caliber gun, firing a 510-pound (230 kg) shell at 2700 fps (823 m/s). With a sizeable secondary battery of fourteen 6 inch guns and only four main guns, she would remind many of Mikasa.

Tier IV 2x2 12 inch gun design
     This design, like the tier V and VI, were very early designs for a U.S. battlecruiser (so early they didn't get a design number). The basis for this one was a larger Memphis class with its secondary battery removed in favor of better armor, 12 inch guns, and, more importantly, a higher top speed. She would likely have an 8 to 10 inch (203 to 254mm) belt and a 25.5 knot top speed.

Tier V 3x2 12 inch gun design
    This design, like the tier IV and VI, were very early designs for a U.S. battlecruiser (so early they didn't get a design number). This one could best be described as a three turret Wyoming with a longer hull. She would have had the same armor scheme as the Wyoming. One thing worth noting is that none of her turrets were superfiring. Her speed would have been 25.5 knots; however, I'm tempted to raise that to 26.5 knots for balance.

Tier VI 4x2 12 inch gun design
    This design, like the tier IV and V, were very early designs for a U.S. battlecruiser (so early they didn't get a design number). This one, like the design before it, was based on a longer hull Wyoming. However, this design would have had eight guns in four turrets (probably 2-2-A-2-2 config, superfiring: yes). As before she would have had the same armor scheme as the Wyoming. Her speed was 25.5 knots, but it might need an increase to 27.5 knots for balance.

Tier VII S-584-024

image.thumb.png.b185b8d4f36018ed3f5500cbec7de252.png
     This design was the first proper U.S. battlecruiser. She would have had a main battery of eight 14 inch guns. She would likely have 14"/45 cal (Mark 8, New York, 10,300 max AP shell dmg ) guns as stock and 14"/50 cal (Mark 7, New Mexico, 10,500 max AP shell dmg) guns upgraded. She would have had a good armor scheme for a battlecruiser, refer to design drawing above for more. She was designed to make 29 knots.

    base concealment: ~15.5 km

    This design, along with the tier VIII and IX, were not part of the Lexington class design. These designs would probably get a fictional mid to late 1930s refit for stock and mid-1940s refit for the top hull. Starting from tier VII, the battlecruisers in this part of the line would have somewhat long reload times for a battlecruiser (25 sec or more).

Tier VIII S-584-078

image.thumb.png.79aa9db47829242c0109589857c5dcc5.png
    This design was a farther development of the tier VII. One thing to note would be the odd armor layout of the belt armor. Her armor belt (10 inches thick) was far below the waterline, but she had an 8-inch thick turtleback. Refer to design drawing above for more. This might have to change to a more conventional armor belt layout for balance (because it's power creeping the Germans, plus these battlecruisers aren't meant for brawling). The 1930s refit being the excuse to justify this. She was designed to make 30 knots. Gameplay-wise, she would likely have two gun options 1) ten 14"/50 cal (Mark 7, New Mexico, 10,500 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 2-3-A-3-2 config and 2) eight 16"/45 cal (Mark 5, Colorado, 12,400 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 2-2-A-2-2 config.

    base concealment: ~16 km

Premium Tier VIII Lexington class

image.thumb.png.25da9b37c996724f7d928751600fb7d0.png
    The Lexington class just had to little armor to fit in this tree, so for the sake of having her here, I made her a premium. She would have a 5 to 7 inch armor belt (from wiki), vomit inducingly bad armor overall (6-inch thick turret face for goodness sake!) and a somewhat exposed citadel. With all of that, it's safe to say she wouldn't have high survivability, but she would make up for this in three ways. 1) she would make 33 to 35 knots 2) she would have a good chunk of health (65,000 to 70,000 while most battlecruisers at this tier have 55,000 to 60,000) and 3) she would have eight 16"/50 cal (Mark 7, Iowa, 13,500 max AP shell dmg or the 16"/50 Mark 3s she had historically, if they can fire the 2700lb Mark 8 Super Heavy Shell for the same shell damage) with a good (25 sec) reload. Those three things (particularly the 3rd one) would give her a rather unique playstyle.

Tier IX S-584-072

image.thumb.png.fdd4807373cfa3de59426ee86bd58d4b.png
    This design was a further development of the U.S. battlecruiser (semi-fast battleship) concept (although this design came before the tier VIII (S-584-078)). She had a proper armor belt except over A and Y turrets. Over A and Y turrets she had no armor belt but an 8 inch turtleback. Again this might need to be changed for balance. She was designed to make 29 knots, but her late 1930s refit could increase her speed to ~31 knots. As for her primary armament, she has two options 1) twelve 14"/50 cal (Mark 7, New Mexico, 10,500 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 3-3-A-3-3 config and 2) eight 16"/45 cal (Mark 6, North Carolina, 13,100 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 2-2-A-2-2 config. Interestingly enough, the reload of her 16 inch guns (~25 sec) would be lower than her 14 inch guns (~28 sec), this could help close the DPM gap between the two guns.

    base concealment: ~16.5 km

Tier X early N.C. design B
    This was the second design (out of something like 77) for what would become the North Carolina class battleships. This design was for a ship with twelve 14"/50 cal Mark B (1500 lb AP shell, 2700fps AP shell velocity (823ms) ~10,800 max dmg?) guns in four three-gun turrets (3-3-A-3-3 config same as the Montana). The next design that was drawn up (design C) had eight 16"/50 cal (mark 7 I think, but I could be wrong) in four two-gun turrets (2-2-A-2-2 config) but was otherwise the same as design B. Design C's guns, assuming they fire the 2700lb Mark 8 SHS,  could be a viable gun option for this tier X. Her secondary battery would likely consist of 20 5'/38 cal guns in ten two gun turrets, the standard U.S. high tier battleship secondary config. The stealth issue would get a little better at tier X.

    stats
        health: 76,500 to 79,000
        base concealment: ~16 km
        turning circle: ~790 m
        rudder shift time: ~15 sec
        speed: 32.5 knots (for balance)
        armor: likely similer to N.C.
        guns: tweive 14 inch (356mm) guns likely doing 10,800 maximun shell damage for a DPB of 129,600 damage or eight 16 inch (406mm) guns likely doing 13,500 maximum shell damage for a DPB of 108,000 damage
        gun range: ~21 km
        torpedos N/A
        base reload: 30 sec for 14 inch guns, 26.5 sec for 16 inch guns
        AA: a lot like B hull Iowa

    Her speed originally was 30.5 knots, But 32.5 knots might be better suited for balance. She would likely have an armor scheme similar to, if nor the same as, the N.C. This would likely extend to the torpedo protection. Her artillery is interesting, with the 14 inch guns shes a lot like Montana, I.e., her shells individuality aren't much but put all 12 of them together and you get a very powerful broadside (for a ship of her class), that can reliably do (some) damage to pretty much any ship she can face. The 14s would be the ships equivalent to a Swiss army knife.  However, with the 16-inch guns, she should be able to fight alongside the team's battleships without to much trouble, unless she gets focused. The 16s would be especially useful if you want to be able to pose much more of a threat to battleships and other battlecruisers. The lower reload time of the 16s compared to the 14s would help close the DPM gap between them (at least that's the plan). Her AA would be good for a battlecruiser but might be subpar compared to the AA of the tier X U.S. battleships or cruisers. As for consumables, She, and the other mainline ships, probably won't get any specialized consumables. They'll likely look like this:
        Slot 1. Damage Control Party
        Slot 2. Repair Party
        Slot 3. Catapult Fighter/Spotter Plane
    In the right hands, this ship (and the other mainline ships in general) could fulfill pretty much any role that a player can come across in a battle. Just not as good as ships better suited to that role.

    This line has a split to it. This split will likely be excellent in the cruiser-killer role with Alaska like guns and auto bounce angles. If you liked playing the Alaska, you should like this split. The AA of this split would be pretty powerful in the high tiers (tier VIII+), but they wouldn't have DFAA to boost the AA.

Tier V S-511-14 (Virgin Islands class?)

image.thumb.png.c411bd8409b497daccdca29aa4001e9e.png
    You might have already noticed that this design bares a resemblance to the tier IX U.S. heavy cruiser Buffalo. However, there are two other designs like this on in Shipscribe. This design is the smallest of the three at 15,750 tons standard. The other designs came in at 17,000 tons standard (S-511-25) and 20,000 tons standard (S-511-29). I think the Buffalo is based off the 17,000 ton design (S-511-25). Her speed wasn't listed. However, she had 120,000 SHP, which would allow her to make 30 to 32 knots.

    When it comes to balance, we can't just put a Buffalo copy at tier V. So using the Buffalo as a starting point. These would be the changed to her stats I'd make to start with.
    reload time: 15 sec
    health: 33,500 to 36,000
    base concealment: ~14 km
    gun range: ~15 km
    speed: 30 to 32 knots
    Mark 21 AP shell (5000 dmg) replaced with Mark 19 AP shell (4600 dmg)
    A heavily nerfed version of Buffalo's AA suite

Tier VI S-511-16 (Samoa class?)

image.thumb.png.9efde5420b30ba99f48982bed6245920.png
    This design comes in two variants. The first design was very similar to the tier V (S-511-14) with twelve 8 inch guns in a 3-3-A-3-3 config. The other had the same hull but with six 12"/50 cal (Mark 8, Alaska, 8,900 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 2-2-A-2 config. She had a speed of 33 knots. The 8 inch gun option would have a reload of 15 seconds, while the 12 inch guns would have a reload of 13 seconds. Her 8 inch guns would likely use the Mark 19 AP shell.

    I couldn't find any information regarding the armor scheme for either this design or design S-511-14. However, given the design tonnage, firepower, and hull size, it's safe to say that the armor scheme for design S-511-14 wouldn't differ much from the Buffalo. Design S-511-16 came in at about 17,500 tons standard, meaning it might be a little better. However, I don't think it would have improved by much.

Tier VII S-511-17 (Puerto Rico class?)

image.thumb.png.088b93621fae9b1bf9e31fd79f001ab9.png
    Design S-511-17 was an intermediate design between the small, heavy cruiser sized approach and the large, mini battleship sized approach. She had an interesting arrangement of her main battery. She had seven 12"/50 cal (Mark 8, Alaska, 8,900 max AP shell dmg) guns in a 2-2-A-3 config. She was listed to make 33.5 knots. Her design drawing didn't have any information on her armor, but, Garzke and Dulin's Battleships U.S. Battleships in WWII did, see below. She should make a good intermediate design linking the tier V and VI to the high tier designs.

    belt over magazines: 10.1 inches (257mm) thick
    belt over machinery: 7.7 inches (196mm) thick
    turret face plate-triple: 12.9 inches (328mm) thick
    turret face plate-twin: 14.2 inches (361mm) thick
    turret roofs: 5 inches (127mm) thick
    turret sides and backs: 6.5 inches (165mm) thick
    barbettes: 13.6-10.6 inches (345-269mm) thick
    conning tower sides: 13.6-10.6 inches (345-269mm) thick
    main deck: 2 inches (51mm) thick
    second deck: 3 inches (76mm) thick

Tier VIII S-511-7 (Philippines class?)

image.thumb.png.09f002d45d5853c3d6d4e185432b2128.png
    This design was basically a proto Alaska (at least In design, not chronologically). She had the same firepower as the Alaska. Mark 8, Alaska, 8,900 max AP shell dmg guns in a 3-3-A-3 config. She had 150,000 SHP powerplant allowing her to make 33.5 knots. The design came at 25,600 tons standard. With that tonnage, she might have roughly the same armor scheme as the tier VII (S-511-17). Her AA would be pretty good for the tier. The tier IX and X would likely also have great AA.

Tier IX Guam class
    The Guam class would likely be the tech tree equivalent of the Alaska. Her stock hull would not likely differ from Alaska as she is ingame, albeit with a slight nerf in her health and AA. Her upgraded hull would incorporate a historical AA upgrade that wasn't carried out: the removal of her two catapults and replace them with two twin 5"/38 cal guns mounts (for a total of 8 mounts, up from 6). Besides that, her mid-range AA would likely consist of 10 quad 40mm Bofors and four twin 3 inch Mark 33 guns. Short-range wouldn't differ much from Alaska. Her speed would likely remain the same at 33 knots. Her armor wouldn't likely change either.

Tier X S-511-6 (Hawaii class?)

image.thumb.png.a4bbd716e74b834883eb1a8c6383139e.png
    This design was the largest design considered, coming in at a whopping 38,700 tons standard. She was armed with twelve 12"/50 cal (Mark 8, Alaska, 8,900 max AP shell dmg, the same as other ships of the split from tier VI) in a 3-3-A-3-3 config (again just like the Montana). She had a secondary battery of sixteen 5"/38 cal guns in eight twin mounts. She had a 212,000 SHP powerplant and was listed to make 33.5 knots. From the design drawing, she appears to have pretty decent torpedo protection. Once again, the design drawing doesn't seem to have any information regarding her armor scheme. With a design tonnage of 38,700 tons standard, her armor should be pretty good compared to the other "large cruiser" designs, however, not so good by battlecruiser standards.

    stats
        health: 72,000 to 75,500
        base concealment: ~15.5 km
        turning circle: ~870 m
        rudder shift time: ~14 sec
        speed: 33.5 knots
        armor: see below
        guns: tweive 12 inch (305mm) guns likely doing 8,900 maximun shell damage for a DPB of 106,800 damage
        gun range: ~20 km
        torpedos: N/A
        base reload: 28 sec
        AA: eight twin 5"/38 cal guns long range, ten quad 40mm Bofors and six twin 3"/50 cal Mark 33 mid range, ~40 single 20mm Oerkilon mounts.

    When it comes to her armor, to be honest, I had to guess the armor because I couldn't find anything about it. So going by the 38,700-ton displacement and allowing for several thousand tons of displacement growth during construction (the Iowas gained 12,500 tons during construction, going from 45,000 tons to 57,500 tons) these are the values I've come up with (feel free to yell at me in the replies for doing something wrong here)
    armor belt: 11 inches (279mm) thick
    lower armor belt: 6.5 inches (165mm) thick
    armored deck: 5.5 inches (140mm) thick
    citadel deck: 0.75 inches (19mm) thick
    citadel torpedo bulkhead: 2 inches (51mm) thick
    torpedo protection plating: 1.06 inches (27mm) thick
    upper forward athwartship: 11.4 inches (290mm) thick
    upper aft athwartship: 10.2 inches (260mm) thick
    lower forward and aft athwartship: 2 inches (51mm) thick
    barbette: 14 inches (356mm) thick
    turret face plate: 13 inches (330mm) thick
    turret roof and sides-back: 6 inches (152mm) thick
    turret sides-forward: 6.5 inches (165mm) thick
    turret back and floor: the same as the Alaska
    conning tower sides:11.4 inches (290mm) thick
    conning tower roof: 7 inches (178mm) thick
    fore and aft end plating: 1.06 inches (27mm) thick
    midships plating: 1.2 inches (30mm) thick
    midships deck: 1.4 inches (36mm) thick
    superstructure: 0,75 inches (19mm) thick

    The armor would very much be WIP considering I had to guess the values, and the only knowledge I have about warship armoring is from reading things like Garzke and Dulin's Battleships U.S. Battleships in WWII. She would be best used in the cruiser killer role. With twelve accurate, good damage guns sporting improved auto bounce angles, she would pose a threat to any cruiser. As for how much of a threat she would pose to that cruiser would mainly depend on the skill of both captains. Her 12 inch guns do have a long reload, however, and that reload would help reign in her damage output. That reload is something her captain is going to have to take into account when playing her. Like Alaska, she (and the other ships in the split) won't be able to go AP only like the Soviets can. Her AA would be vary powerful, but with no DFAA, she wouldn't be able to merderize planes in an instant like a dedicated AA cruiser can. Her speed would be good enough to get around the map, but not so good to allow her to chase most cruisers down. As for consumables, they'll likely look like this:
        Slot 1. Damage Control Party
        Slot 2. Repair Party
        Slot 3. Catapult Fighter/Spotter Plane/ Servalance Radar

    The reason why Servalance Radar is in the consumables list is not just because Alaska has it, but also because the split line ships aren't very capital ship-like. Their smaller and more cruiser like than most other battlecruisers. That's why I gave them radar, also if they need a nerf the radar could go. I would really like to see how this ship plays.

4. playstyle, quirks and other random bits
     As for upgrades, the U.S. battlecruisers might get access to the Artillery Plotting Room Modification 2 upgrade. This upgrade would lead to a playstyle changing choice. Do you take APR Mod 2 and reinforce your already good accuracy or take MBM 3 and do something about you appallingly long (for a battlecruiser) reload? If APR Mod 2 is in slot six then, by necessity,  Aiming Systems Modification 1 can't be in slot 3, so either leave slot three down one upgrade or add APR Mod 1. If you take APR Mod 2, you can improve your accuracy, and that allows you to land more shells on small or distant targets enabling you to play the long-range gunfire support role and/or hunt (or at least hit) destroyers more effectively. If you take MBM 3, you can improve your rate of fire, which would boost your DPM and increase the ships fires per minute with HE.

    The mainline battlecruisers would best be used of the player doesn't have any one role that they want to play. The player needs to learn to adapt to the changing battle around them to do well in the mainline battlecruisers With good armor and powerful broadsides; the mainline battlecruisers should be able to hold their own in a gunfight. Their armor is decent, and the citadel is about as high as the citadel on U.S. battleships. Note; sailing broadside to battleships, most battlecruisers, and some cruisers will still get you a one-way trip to the seafloor (this goes for both the mainline and split line all the way to tier III). The long reload times of U.S. battlecruisers is a line trait and are meant to balance out the powerful broadside that they have. One thing to note is that the arrangement of the secondary battery on the mainline battlecruisers would likely be akin to the secondary battery arrangement on refitted standard type battleships or heavy cruisers (like the Baltimore). The split line battlecruisers would be smaller and a little faster than their mainline cousins. Their stealth would be better too but the maneuverability, in general, would be a bit poor. The turning circle, in particular, would be just flat out bad for a ship of this type, being beaten out by quite a few of the battleships that she can see.

5. conclusion
    If I had to be honest, I spent more time on this battlecruiser post then I did in the others. What can I say, I like the design concepts used in U.S. battlecruisers. I had nicknames for the early N.C. design B and S-511-6; mini-Montana and micro-Montana, respectively, and that sums up the overall play style. I.e., if you like the Montana, you'll love the tier X U.S. battlecruisers. The next post I'll probably do will cover not one but two battlecruiser lines. One of them would be the Japanese battlecruisers (which won't be a complete line, unfortunately, not enough designs) and the other battlecruiser line will be a little surprise. I would like to see what you guys think of this battlecruiser line. Please let me know in the replies.

 

Go here to vote

Battlecruisers main post

 

Edited by fbifiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,124
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,734 posts
2 minutes ago, fbifiles said:

 They're two things that I want to note.

 

That's a really big two things :Smile_teethhappy:

(I didn't read it)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[-OG-]
Members
280 posts
7,262 battles

USN didn’t really explore the battlecruiser design. The Alaska was more of a large Baltimore cruiser and the Lexington class design study went from 1890-1924 or something like that. The only nation that produced the battlecruiser on a large scale was Britain but by the end they were more like fast battleships take Hood for instance. Germany only invested into battlecruisers because Britain was building them and japan explored the idea with the Kongo class being ordered from Britain. The USA in all honesty wasn’t actually all that concerned about being a global military power at the time. Most of their effort and money was put towards building up their infrastructure and improving daily life. It was only after one of their boats got sunk that America started to build war machines. USN was especially bad at the start of the war their most modern battleship that they could actually field was the Colorado’s then the Pennsylvania class and New Mexico class. Simply put the USA had no real interest of building battlecruisers, even if schematics were drawn, blue prints laid out, the USA wouldn’t have built them. 

  • Boring 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,387
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
13,498 posts
18,556 battles

This definitely did NOT need a second post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,685
[IRNBN]
Members
3,162 posts
8,575 battles
6 hours ago, Awe5ome said:

USN didn’t really explore the battlecruiser design. The Alaska was more of a large Baltimore cruiser and the Lexington class design study went from 1890-1924 or something like that. The only nation that produced the battlecruiser on a large scale was Britain but by the end they were more like fast battleships take Hood for instance. Germany only invested into battlecruisers because Britain was building them and japan explored the idea with the Kongo class being ordered from Britain. The USA in all honesty wasn’t actually all that concerned about being a global military power at the time. Most of their effort and money was put towards building up their infrastructure and improving daily life. It was only after one of their boats got sunk that America started to build war machines. USN was especially bad at the start of the war their most modern battleship that they could actually field was the Colorado’s then the Pennsylvania class and New Mexico class. Simply put the USA had no real interest of building battlecruisers, even if schematics were drawn, blue prints laid out, the USA wouldn’t have built them. 

Wait, wut? Are you kidding? What the hell history are you reading?

First, four of the Lexington-class CC's were actually laid down and under construction. They were only cancelled by the Washington Treaty, and two of the incomplete hulls went on to become aircraft carriers.

Second, the modern fleet that won WW2 in the Pacific was well under construction long before Pearl Harbor. The North Carolina class was laid down in 1937/38, and the first Essex-class carriers were begun in 1940.

Third, Franklin Roosevelt supported the various Carl Vinson-sponsored naval appropriations of the 1930's because of the economic boost to the ship-building, coal, and steel-making industries as part of his plan to spend his way out of the Great Depression.

Back to the books, mate.

 

Edited by So_lt_Goes
  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
230 posts
6 hours ago, Awe5ome said:

USN didn’t really explore the battlecruiser design. The Alaska was more of a large Baltimore cruiser and the Lexington class design study went from 1890-1924 or something like that. The only nation that produced the battlecruiser on a large scale was Britain but by the end they were more like fast battleships take Hood for instance. Germany only invested into battlecruisers because Britain was building them and japan explored the idea with the Kongo class being ordered from Britain. The USA in all honesty wasn’t actually all that concerned about being a global military power at the time. Most of their effort and money was put towards building up their infrastructure and improving daily life. It was only after one of their boats got sunk that America started to build war machines. USN was especially bad at the start of the war their most modern battleship that they could actually field was the Colorado’s then the Pennsylvania class and New Mexico class. Simply put the USA had no real interest of building battlecruisers, even if schematics were drawn, blue prints laid out, the USA wouldn’t have built them. 

The United States were very keen to become a global economic power from the turn of the century, and the modern US Navy was the means to that end.  The Spanish-American War was pure colonialism, and the cruise of the Great White Fleet was a rather blatant public relations demonstration.

Also, USS North Carolina (BB-55) and USS Washington (BB-56) were the most modern US battleships at the time the US entered WW2, having been commissioned in April and May of 1941 respectively. Prior to that, the extensively-modernised New Mexico-class were the most up-to-date technologically-speaking.

 

Edited by Hookie_Bell
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
107 posts
38 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

Third, Franklin Roosevelt supported the various Carl Vinson-sponsored naval appropriations of the 1930's because of the economic boost to the ship-building, coal, and steel-making industries as part of his plan to spend his way out of the Great Depression.

Indeed. I find it astonishing how many people fail to realise that military/naval power is essentially an economic engine, and that economics is the driving force behind all foreign policy.

Or were Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Constantine, Charlemagne, Clausewitz, Talleyrand, Metternich, Mahan, Sun Tzu, and Disraeli all wrong?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
517
[XG]
Members
316 posts
3,177 battles
6 minutes ago, Idaho_Spud said:

Dunno about a whole line of US CC's (too much paper) but give me the as-laid-down Lexington any time. I'd love to see these beauties in the game.

Oh, hellz yeah. The Lexington has been on my wish list since I started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
172
[KID0]
Members
108 posts
1,387 battles
8 hours ago, Awe5ome said:

japan explored the idea with the Kongo class being ordered from Britain.

Not just the Kongos. IJN intended to have 8 battle cruisers as part of the original 8-8 Plan and started building some of them before the treaties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
230 posts
18 minutes ago, Xidax_Gamer said:

Oh, hellz yeah. The Lexington has been on my wish list since I started.

I'll see your Lexington and raise you a G3. :Smile_glasses:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
236 posts
2 hours ago, Hookie_Bell said:

I'll see your Lexington and raise you a G3. :Smile_glasses:

I'd like to see these as well. We already have the Amagi in the game, so why not G3 and Lexington too? Maybe even one of Durand-Viel's French designs. The more the merrier, I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,685
[IRNBN]
Members
3,162 posts
8,575 battles
19 hours ago, Idaho_Spud said:

I'd like to see these as well. We already have the Amagi in the game, so why not G3 and Lexington too? Maybe even one of Durand-Viel's French designs. The more the merrier, I say.

As the available pool of actual and paper ships shrinks, so increases the likelihood of seeing more CC's in the future.

It wouldn't surprise me if one of WG's long-term planned strategies is to introduce true battle cruisers after the thrill of the large "super-cruisers" like Alaska wears off. With the CV Reeework still consuming resources and with Italian and French lines and pan-Euro ships already in the pipeline, it may be awhile though.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×