Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

568
[MD]
[MD]
Member
592 posts
3,090 battles

Hello Everyone

Again, while reading on wikipedia about Hipper, i found out that there's a successor to the famed Admiral-class battlecruiser from the 1920s, designated 'J3' class.

Conqueror.thumb.png.f4cc1e1b60ef84d43dd5dbcefdadcd54.png

She was designed to fix many of Hood's problems, and match the US' Lexington-class battlecruiser. Supposedly, it has a marginally improved protection scheme (i believe more resistance to plunging fire) while mounting three triple 15 in/381 mm Mk. I guns, targeted to achieve 32 knots. Further works resulted in G3 and eventually Nelson-class. From afar, it looks like a larger Renown with triple turrets. Interested, i decided to tinker some aspect of the design (courtesy to shipbucket.com for the design!), and here it is:

525965287_HMSDukeofEdinburgh.thumb.png.fc37e1561f3bb7db2306d1f562262067.png

Instead of the triple 15 inchers, i have it replaced by a twin 18 in/457 mm Mk. II gun, and gave it Renown-style superstructure. Essentially, it's a tea-powered Georgia minus the modern thingy.

Some specifications i can found:

  • Main Battery : 3x3 15 in/381 mm (original), 3x2 18 in/457 mm (proposed)
  • Secondary Battery : 6x2 and 6x1 6 in/152 mm gun (original design), could be supplemented by QF 4 in like Hood was IRL or replaced by either 5.25 in/133 mm or 4.5 in/114 mm dual purpose guns.
  • Anti-Aircraft Battery : Not found, possibly Vickers 40 mm Pom-Poms
  • Protection : 305 mm angled main belt, 51 to 102 mm deck
  • Speed : 32 knots

Keep in mind these are her original 1920s spec, any hypothetical refits like the one done on Renown or (supposedly) Hood will significantly enhance her performance. If i were correct, Hood is planned to mount sixteen to twenty 5.25 in/133 mm DP gun found on KGV, and her armor belt reinforced to withstand more punishment. This could be also done to J3 as well considering their similarities.

1954254943_HMSDukeofEdinburghRetrofit2.thumb.png.1bd7982a134284f39cde5b2685b181f6.png

This is a hypothetical retrofit of the design, with aforementioned DP gun and changes like flare bow and catapult.

I named her HMS Duke of Edinburgh, and thought she will fit in T9 as a teabag Georgia or mini-Thunderer.

Well...any opinions?

Edited by Earl_of_Arland
New sketches
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[FORCE]
Member
2,326 posts
12,150 battles

Instead of having speed boost, she should have the superheal, and probably DFAA. Name her Howe, or Anson (both were planned for the cancelled Admiral-class, and used on 2 King George V-class). And of course, this ship should be at T9 because Thunderer is already at T10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
568
[MD]
[MD]
Member
592 posts
3,090 battles
1 hour ago, Sir_Feather said:

Instead of having speed boost, she should have the superheal, and probably DFAA.

I agree with the superheal. Nothing is more fragile than old battlecruiser from 1920s. Though why DFAA? Her AA (assuming she uses Hood's proposed config) will be between Monarch & Lion, not the strongest, would DFAA be useful?

1 hour ago, Sir_Feather said:

Name her Howe, or Anson (both were planned for the cancelled Admiral-class, and used on 2 King George V-class).

Sure, why not? Though i like Duke of Edinburgh more.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[FORCE]
Member
2,326 posts
12,150 battles
1 hour ago, Earl_of_Arland said:

Though why DFAA? Her AA (assuming she uses Hood's proposed config) will be between Monarch & Lion, not the strongest, would DFAA be useful?

I said probably. Because I don't think Hood's proposed config is sufficient for a T9 ship. Unless this ship would be at T8, the main guns would have to be the 3x3 381 mm. But that would just make her a faster Monarch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,153
[-CAT-]
Member
2,284 posts
11,287 battles

@Sir_Feather

J2 with 381 mm = T7
J2 with 457 mm = T8

The true British Georgia is a T9 Lion hull armed with 6 - 457 mm. And I assume WG is going to name her "Temeraire"
T9 Georgia is probably an improved Iowa hull, maybe Illinois or Kentucky hull, then WG slapped her with 6 - 456 mm.

 

British battlecruisers usually sacrifice armor for speed.
German battlecruisers usually sacrifice caliber size or number of turrets for speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,459
Member
4,695 posts
8,752 battles

3x3 381 Tier 8 without any unnecessary gimmick.

3x2 457 is a completely different beast and should be careful about tiering. T9? Sure, but with some dum-dum gimmicks (super heal being one). Also, underwhelming secondary, as expected of RN BBs.

To emphasize the "battlecruiser" aspect of the design, give +8% Speed Boost and US BB heal (instead of the Deadpool RP the RN BBs have).

 

4 hours ago, Sir_Feather said:

the superheal, and probably DFAA

A long, hard, fat no. DAAF is useless on BBs anyway. The DAAF on Hood was stupid before and is stupid now.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[FORCE]
Member
2,326 posts
12,150 battles
30 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

J2 with 457 mm = T8

I don't think 457 mm for a T8 could be a good idea. 406 mm on NC (plus her premium cousins), Vladivostok, and 410 mm on Amagi & Kii are already strong enough to overmatch T10 CAs (excluding supercruisers). I mean that caliber could a bigger balancing problem than the upcoming Yashima for T10. because this T8 ship could be used against T6 & 7 (although it is rather the MM"s issue).

 

28 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

To emphasize the "battlecruiser" aspect of the design, give +8% Speed Boost and US BB heal (instead of the Deadpool RP the RN BBs have).

Or just tune its top speed to be over 32 knots without speed boost. None of the teabag BBs/BC are fast after all. The superheal is quite a must because this battlecruiser might only be covered with 32mm armor around the ship or actually even less because the rule is to sacrifice armor for more speed, and the BBs only got 32mm to begin with. And even then, the BBs still melt faster than Kremlin because every CL with IFHE literally ignore the 32mm armor.

Edited by Sir_Feather
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,153
[-CAT-]
Member
2,284 posts
11,287 battles
20 minutes ago, Sir_Feather said:

I don't think 457 mm for a T8 could be a good idea. 406 mm on NC (plus her premium cousins), Vladivostok, and 410 mm on Amagi & Kii are already strong enough to overmatch T10 CAs (excluding supercruisers). I mean that caliber could a bigger balancing problem than the upcoming Yashima for T10. because this T8 ship could be used against T6 & 7 (although it is rather the MM"s issue).

Hmmm.... good point. T9 for the 457 mm  sounds reasonable. Plus some gimmicks to counter her paper thin armor. Plus, current MM is busted anyway.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,427 posts
5,999 battles
1 hour ago, S0und_Theif said:

T9 Georgia is probably an improved Iowa hull

It is a preliminary design made during a certain stage in the development of the Iowa-class. The model is originally made back to the genesis of the game when WG presumably decided that they possibly need some sort of "Iowa prototype" to fill in a hypothetical blank. Though in the end it has been shelved until early 2019.

c9Q5-287qZvT3cS1hc-u0.thumb.jpg.8f9ddb46ef4a4e2221f52362abadb75c.jpg

Remember Shinano?

003335ih6dza6s6ihdcc1w.thumb.png.11833eebc0e653f6e0557948a3e05afc.png

Official USN model of that said design (Pardon the Chinese-language caption).

Also as WG has already broken the glass ceiling of 460-mm main guns, is it possible to implement Incomparable? Though she would possibly need many gimmicks ranging from large cruiser dispersion (to make her being able to hit targets with so few guns) and Georgia's speed boost (her original concept is being faster than any previous capital ships) to shorter fuse (to reduce overpens, though possibly British HE shells could mitigate that) and the pre-nerf "submerged" British citadel configuration (279-mm belt according to the original projected specifications).

Personally speaking I think the current Georgia already shares some of the concepts of Admiral Fisher's Incomparable proposal: a fast capital ship, armed with a minimum number of the heaviest naval gun possible and being fast enough to run down even cruisers.

Edited by Project45_Opytny
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,459
Member
4,695 posts
8,752 battles

Forum keeps "this site is unavailable" or some sh*t to me...

 

The Georgia appeared the first time in the loading screen of Two Brothers map, which was in 2017 (???)

How far back some designs are lol? Tone please?

 

1 hour ago, Sir_Feather said:

The superheal is quite a must because this battlecruiser might only be covered with 32mm armor around the ship or actually even less because the rule is to sacrifice armor for more speed, and the BBs only got 32mm to begin with. And even then, the BBs still melt faster than Kremlin because every CL with IFHE literally ignore the 32mm armor.

You have to make it different than Monarch somehow. Superheal may be the RN thing at this point, but this is just making Monarch obsolete (assuming the ship isn't already obsolete right now).

DAAF is not the way...

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[FORCE]
Member
2,326 posts
12,150 battles
27 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

Forum keeps "this site is unavailable" or some sh*t to me...

Same sh*t also happens to me.

 

28 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

You have to make it different than Monarch somehow. Superheal may be the RN thing at this point, but this is just making Monarch obsolete (assuming the ship isn't already obsolete right now).

DAAF is not the way...

Well my idea for this ship is to be a T9 because 457mm for T8 is ridiculous, and of course to fill up the role of Teabag Georgia

DAAF. is solely because this ship is basically a T9 Thunderer (albeit less armor).

For T8, I would rather suggest Renown with the last refit configuration. Without superheal of course because Renown was actually fast but had small profile (Hood was gigantic).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,459
Member
4,695 posts
8,752 battles
6 minutes ago, Sir_Feather said:

Well my idea for this ship is to be a T9 because 457mm for T8 is ridiculous, and of course to fill up the role of Teabag Georgia

To clarify, I was talking at the 3x3 381, not the 3x2 457.

 

8 minutes ago, Sir_Feather said:

 DAAF. is solely because this ship is basically a T9 Thunderer (albeit less armor).

Also 1 less turret. If the AA is modernized, surely the ship would be fine at T9. I mean I simply don't see the need of DAAF for a BB. That's all, it is just an opinion :fish_book: 

 

10 minutes ago, Sir_Feather said:

 For T8, I would rather suggest Renown with the last refit configuration. Without superheal of course because Renown was actually fast but had small profile (Hood was gigantic).

For me, even refit Renown can hardly break it to T7... Few guns, thin armor... It'd need many unnatural buffs to get to T8 :Smile_hiding:

If WG want, of course, they can push her into T8/9 as a cruiser (like Siegfried). I'm just kidding, please don't hate me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,153
[-CAT-]
Member
2,284 posts
11,287 battles
2 hours ago, Sir_Feather said:

Well my idea for this ship is to be a T9 because 457mm for T8 is ridiculous, and of course to fill up the role of Teabag Georgia

DAAF. is solely because this ship is basically a T9 Thunderer (albeit less armor).

For T8, I would rather suggest Renown with the last refit configuration. Without superheal of course because Renown was actually fast but had small profile (Hood was gigantic).

T3 - Indefatiguable

T4 - Princess Royal / Queen Mary

T5 - Tiger

T6 - Renown (1942)

T7 - Admiral Class (1942 Refit)

T8 - J3 (381 mm - 9 guns) or J2 (381 mm  - 8 guns)

T9 - J3* (406 mm / 419 mm - 9 guns) or J2* (406 mm / 419 mm  - 8 guns)

T10 - K3 (457 mm - 9 guns) or K2 (457 mm  - 8 guns)

*Note - J2, J2*, and J3* is hypothetical and not real.

 

Just remember that these are battlecruisers. Armor is paper thin. But speeds reaching 31 to 33 knots without speed boost (T3 - T5, 26 - 28 knots).
They could get the British cruiser half speed acceleration as a gimmick.
Maybe 2/3 acceleration? :Smile_hiding:

 

As for a 6 gun - 457 mm modified J3, :Smile_unsure:

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
568
[MD]
[MD]
Member
592 posts
3,090 battles

I reworked the sketches a bit, here's the result

215854176_HMSDukeofEdinburghRetrofit.thumb.png.975a5d4abbe13767d86a2e5c119d595d.png

Hypothetical retrofit, with 5.25 in/133 mm DP gun and abundance of Bofors 40 mm and Oerlikons 20 mm.

Is this a lot better for T9?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,427 posts
5,999 battles
1 hour ago, S0und_Theif said:

T3 - Indefatiguable

T4 - Princess Royal / Queen Mary

T5 - Tiger

T6 - Renown (1942)

T7 - Admiral Class (1942 Refit)

T8 - J3 (381 mm - 9 guns) or J2 (381 mm  - 8 guns)

T9 - J3* (406 mm / 419 mm - 9 guns) or J2* (406 mm / 419 mm  - 8 guns)

T10 - K3 (457 mm - 9 guns) or K2 (457 mm  - 8 guns)

*Note - J2, J2*, and J3* is hypothetical and not real.

 

Just remember that these are battlecruisers. Armor is paper thin. But speeds reaching 31 to 33 knots without speed boost (T3 - T5, 26 - 28 knots).
They could get the British cruiser half speed acceleration as a gimmick.
Maybe 2/3 acceleration? :Smile_hiding:

 

As for a 6 gun - 457 mm modified J3, :Smile_unsure:

Genrally speaking if there will be a British BC branch that would be so.

T3 we have the Indefatigable-class (I perfer New Zealand as she is much luckier than her two sisters, and I've seen proposals to make Invincible, the first battlecruiser ever, a commorative premium just like Dreadnought). T4 Lion-class and we have to use the name Princess Royal, again Queen Mary could be that sort of "commorative" and Tiger would be like a British-flavored Kongo I guess. Besides their Great War vintage configurations I suppose there should be hypothetical refits like Orion and Iron Duke that add some Vickers, Pom-poms and 102-mm DP guns to their hulls.

I wonder how can we make G3 more suitable to this game... on the other hand Izumo has already been much better at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,153
[-CAT-]
Member
2,284 posts
11,287 battles
46 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

T3 we have the Indefatigable-class (I perfer New Zealand as she is much luckier than her two sisters, and I've seen proposals to make Invincible, the first battlecruiser ever, a commorative premium just like Dreadnought). T4 Lion-class and we have to use the name Princess Royal, again Queen Mary could be that sort of "commorative" and Tiger would be like a British-flavored Kongo I guess. Besides their Great War vintage configurations I suppose there should be hypothetical refits like Orion and Iron Duke that add some Vickers, Pom-poms and 102-mm DP guns to their hulls.

At T4 I really like Queen Mary due to her better stats. But, like the Hood, she also drakonated detonated. Hence Queen Mary as a T4 premium is also appealing.

 

46 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

I wonder how can we make G3 more suitable to this game... on the other hand Izumo has already been much better at present.

T8 Rodney (9 - 406 mm / 419 mm, ABC configuration)

T9 H3a (6 - 457 mm, AB configuration)

T10 G3 / N3 (9 - 457 mm, ABD configuration)
G3 will have 33 knots but armor is sacrificed to 305 mm belt.
N3 will have 406 mm belt armor but speed is sacrificed to 25 knots. As well as a shorter length compared to G3. But, if N3 is the same length as G3, she can reach 28 knots easy.

*Note - Yes, G3 is originally armed with 9 - 406 mm, but since the T9 - H3a is already armed with 457 mm, might as well upgun the G3.

 

I still dont like Izumo's current configuration (A-140 J0) as a tech tree. She is at best a T8 - T9 premium. Even if WG buffed her significantly.
I prefer (A-140 I), 10 guns, ABXY.
A good transition from T8 Amagi (10 guns, 410 mm, ABXYZ) to T9 Izumo [A-140 I](10 guns, 410 mm, ABXY) to T10 Yamato (9 guns, 450 mm, ABX).
Izumo (A-140 J0) is the only T9 ship I will never keep in port (Unless she is a premium like Bajie which I also did not get).

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
685
[SALT]
Member
2,030 posts
10,542 battles

 

147c6ef6b8.png

889c83e336.png

6b1f51aba1.png

 

J3 basicly dead design, Because Admirality decided

1. She dont offer much improvement from Admiral class

2. She outclassed by Foreign design, Admirality particularly compared her Amagi and Lexington

Admirality decided  to Retrofit admiral class instead, would be better return of investment. but the only ship in the class have "fun and engaging moment" instead

 

 

ofc the 1921 Design winner was G3, but as you can see from all competing design above. G3 is one of the weirdest one out there 🤣

If G3 is implemented, it will be realy awkward to play. I would prefer K2 instead of J3 though

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
568
[MD]
[MD]
Member
592 posts
3,090 battles
5 hours ago, humusz said:

J3 basicly dead design, Because Admirality decided

1. She dont offer much improvement from Admiral class

2. She outclassed by Foreign design, Admirality particularly compared her Amagi and Lexington

Admirality decided  to Retrofit admiral class instead, would be better return of investment. but the only ship in the class have "fun and engaging moment" instead

True. For her weight of 48.000t, she is basically a Warspite with lesser armor in exchange for speed. Meanwhile, Amagi mounted more guns with larger calibre, similar protection scheme and speed.

5 hours ago, humusz said:

I would prefer K2 instead of J3 though

K2 or K3 is basically a Thunderer (their playstyle would be the same, minus the armor). There's a reason why J3 is more developed compared to them, the others are too big and heavy (55.000t) to fit into any major british port at the time. I chose J3 because she is larger pseudo-Renown, and to accompany theme from Georgia-Ohio, replace the turrets with 18 inch guns.

History wise, i thought up where RN actually built a J3 as sucessor to failure of Hood, and during construction refitted with 18 inch guns. Does that sounds plausible?

Edited by Earl_of_Arland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
685
[SALT]
Member
2,030 posts
10,542 battles
9 hours ago, Earl_of_Arland said:

True. For her weight of 48.000t, she is basically a Warspite with lesser armor in exchange for speed. Meanwhile, Amagi mounted more guns with larger calibre, similar protection scheme and speed.

K2 or K3 is basically a Thunderer (their playstyle would be the same, minus the armor). There's a reason why J3 is more developed compared to them, the others are too big and heavy (55.000t) to fit into any major british port at the time. I chose J3 because she is larger pseudo-Renown, and to accompany theme from Georgia-Ohio, replace the turrets with 18 inch guns.

History wise, i thought up where RN actually built a J3 as sucessor to failure of Hood, and during construction refitted with 18 inch guns. Does that sounds plausible?

The thing is is the J3 cant mount 18 inch.

its design to be sleek and narrow profile, you can see at the Schematic, its realy narrow. 18 inch gun required largerTurret Ring, and Beam for stability. J3  hull also considered to light - and some studies suggest it would have same problem with Upgunned trial of Battlecruiser Furious. Hull fatique, Cracking, instability, inaccuracies

J3 is designed realy2 fast, compared to other Design its have Higher Engine output  (151.000 shp), lighter hull, sleeker profile, less armor. its even considered less balanced design compared to Admiral class, its an egg, a fast egg

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
568
[MD]
[MD]
Member
592 posts
3,090 battles
6 minutes ago, humusz said:

The thing is is the J3 cant mount 18 inch.

its design to be sleek and narrow profile, you can see at the Schematic, its realy narrow. 18 inch gun required largerTurret Ring, and Beam for stability. J3  hull also considered to light - and some studies suggest it would have same problem with Upgunned trial of Battlecruiser Furious. Hull fatique, Cracking, instability, inaccuracies

Well, are the twin 18 inch much larger than triple 15 inch turret? I take into consideration that British designed twin turret are usually smaller than even their smaller caliber triple or quadruple designs (Note,  KGV quads and Hood twins as example). And from shipbucket's scale, the 18 inch Mk. II turret are actually smaller in profile than the triple 15 inch Mk. II?

Furious' case are different, it was barely armored with super light structure. I believe Hood and to some extent J3 are very strong in their overall structural strength. 

Well, even if yes somehow it's too unstable, why Georgia is fine then?

14 minutes ago, humusz said:

J3 is designed realy2 fast, compared to other Design its have Higher Engine output  (151.000 shp), lighter hull, sleeker profile, less armor. its even considered less balanced design compared to Admiral class, its an egg, a fast egg

Again, the same case would apply to Georgia, yet it still fine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
685
[SALT]
Member
2,030 posts
10,542 battles
29 minutes ago, Earl_of_Arland said:

Well, are the twin 18 inch much larger than triple 15 inch turret? I take into consideration that British designed twin turret are usually smaller than even their smaller caliber triple or quadruple designs (Note,  KGV quads and Hood twins as example). And from shipbucket's scale, the 18 inch Mk. II turret are actually smaller in profile than the triple 15 inch Mk. II?

Furious' case are different, it was barely armored with super light structure. I believe Hood and to some extent J3 are very strong in their overall structural strength. 

Well, even if yes somehow it's too unstable, why Georgia is fine then?

Again, the same case would apply to Georgia, yet it still fine?

Georgia is bassed on prelimenary IOWA. IOWA/Georgia also have Way larger displacement therefore great stability and sufficient beam.

The US always considered all their new Battleship to carry 18 inch gun. that because in development The gun's size and weight meant that fewer 18-inch guns could be carried than 16-inch gun on a ship of a given size is a Design Requirement. 

US, dont pick the 18 Inch simply because the Gun have way to low of Barrel life. only 125 while 16"50 rated for 250. 

that means the Battleship with such gun would have half effective deployment time in wartime, as Changing the Barrel require extensive Drydocks for quite long time. and US have 2 Ocean to cover. it would made their Navies in serrius shortage of capital ships on strategical levels

For US, their choice to shelfed 18 inch was not technical difficulties, or Design defficiency but strategical decision.

 

its actualy same for UK, they preffer Low velocity Gun. (as High velocity gun have low Barrel life). and They have Lots of colonies to Patrol spaning worldwide. they cant afford having ships that require such Heavy maintance and Low effective deployment time in wartime - or they cant maintain Naval presence effectivly

Edited by humusz
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,695
[TLS]
Member
4,070 posts
20,266 battles

I suggest Ultimate Admirals: Dreadnoughts to satisfy all your papership needs and to see the difficulty in balancing the different aspects of a ship. No need to wait for other people to design your dream paper ship.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
2 posts
771 battles

In my view, Concept of Battlecruiser is the cruiser which can fight against battleships.  the speed was the weapon for the ship. However, I think Hood was lost because it was the biggest battlecruiser.  it was battlecruiser bigger than battleship. so it lost its own weapon. Speed. In my view, Lion class battlecruiser should be the maximum size for battlecruiser.  less than 30,000 with 14 inches .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×