Had similar experience I did build a tarrantry inspired escort heavy cruiser with if I remember correctly 12 x 8" was very slow but in its one battle absolutely pummelled the targetNot touching that with a ten foot pole.
I lost a few months of my life with the 2nd game, and only stopped playing because how bad I was at the tactical part of the game, because hell if it wasn't awesome to build an entire navy from scratch...
Two reasons. First, firing angles. With three turrets forward, at least one isn't going to be able to fire directly foreward due to a turret being in the way, and most ships couldn't take the weight of triple superfiring. You also get limited arcs aft. Second, and more important, weight distribution and seakeeping. Putting so much weight on the bow tends to make it dig into the sea, so designers tended to prefer to put extra turrets aft rather than forward.So, I have question more to do with placement within a hull... Specifically, the turret arrangement; why, if given the option, do navies put the third turret to the rear of the funnels instead of to the front of the command structure? Is the main reason for this related to having the command structure closer to the front of the ship?
Wouldn't having less turrets to the rear be cheaper in terms of engineering and propulsion equipment? I'm just wondering why I see three rear turrets in a five turret setup more for battleships than cruisers?
I've designed some ships that have four turrets in front of the command/funnel structure with one turret sternside; I'm curious about why certain design elements seem to be more or less standard in their placement...
Wish that game wasn't so expensive...Rule the Waves III is eating all my time! It's like SpringSharp (that includes all classes of ship and subs)with a timeline and combat. So this post is totally on topic.
In the process of positioning the port catapult.
Would USN not be even more against the idea than Congress in case they got the idea that the 5 could act as replacement and save buying 5 more CVNs?I can imagine the response from any Congress to the idea of funding a conventional CV, building 5 of them and then sticking them in a reserve and paying to sustain them...
Is it not a matter of how many you operate? At some point you can have a steady build and training pipeline for both, and then it might well be worth it especially if you want to make export DE boats more attractive or operate in different locations ie shallow local seas and open oceans?There's very little justification for any power to build both imo.
Seems it might be a question that gets an answer, if the ROK builds them:Hey, smart naval nerdfolk, what's your opinion on arsenal ships? I think that they're a pretty neat idea that could be expanded upon and fleshed out conceptually and prove themselves useful, I'm wondering what the collective consensus is about them... >_>
Makes sense to me.I guess that, for Korea, it makes a kind of sense. With their limited land area, this would be a way of deploying a massive number of cruise missiles and long range SAMs, in a mobile "site", much harder to hit than a normal launch site. It will be a moving target, much better defended than a land site. Tag a couple of frigates for ASW and extra short range air defense and you're ready.
From memory Japan has also started making comments about some sort of “Arsenal” ship for SAM/ABM defence which again makes sort of sense…I guess that, for Korea, it makes a kind of sense. With their limited land area, this would be a way of deploying a massive number of cruise missiles and long range SAMs, in a mobile "site", much harder to hit than a normal launch site. It will be a moving target, much better defended than a land site. Tag a couple of frigates for ASW and extra short range air defense and you're ready.
Fixed positions too small in area to properly defend themselves. I know quite a few are being towedd back home for conversion or even breakup, so I guess you could cluster a few right offshore, but you'd still end up with a fixed position, easy to find and target. And I can't even imagine the cost of refiting them. It would be cheaper than, say, 25 years ago, thanks to VLS, but you'd still have to raze most of the superstructure and start over. Might as well build a new ship. At least you won't have a 20-40 yeat old hull as basis for your batery.While not ships how about the UK leveraging the North Sea rig building industry to create off shore SAM and ABM sites?
The Japanese did, initially, intend for a kind of arsenal ship to replace their land-based ABMs. It would have been slow, with good seat keeping and long patrol endurance. The overall concept was similar to the ABM-equipped San Antonio class proposals. Now, it looks like they are going to be 128 cell destroyers, probably very similar to the Sejong the Great class. With the amount of money the Japanese spend on missile stockpiles, a full-sized arsenal ship would be a waste for them.From memory Japan has also started making comments about some sort of “Arsenal” ship for SAM/ABM defence which again makes sort of sense…
You could do it without difficulty, but what would you rather your welders and riveters were doing. build warships and liberty ships or speedboats with attitude?The US produced a ton of wooden hulled PT boats during WW2, partly as an expedient way of getting some less expensive punch for the early days of the US involvement in the war. They had utility, but also a fair number of limitations.
Would it have made some sense to create a steel-hulled American equivalent of the German Schnellboot, maybe as a sidebar extension of the Two-Ocean Navy Act? The Schnellboots had longer range, were apparently decent enough sea boats for their size, with good performance. Of course, the caveat is which torpedoes get used.
Both craft could be produced at smaller shipyards, including any number of inland waterway locations (Great Lakes, Mississippi River, Ohio River, etc)