All Someone asked me why battleships, and battlecruisers that have the same displacement have different units like in the fast-gun clubs, when we also have them set up with different pump capacities. I am not proposing a rule change. I just thought it was a very interesting question. Mikey
Interesting thought Mikey. I've recently been doing some thinking on that myself. I'm not so sure the idea doesn't have a little bit of merit. We definitely want battlecruisers to be weaker then battleships. The pump rule makes them weaker...defensively. The question is, should a ship that traded defense for speed, ALSO give up firepower for speed? I can see merits to both sides of the argument.
Interesting point. You could say that a battlecruiser is being penalized twice. I guess you would have to look at gun size also?
I don't think so really. We don't really look at gun size for anything else, it's all pure displacement.
If you put a battleship and a battlecruiser head to head, chances are (not always, but commonly) the battleship would have won. The idea of penalizing them in pumping makes sence, esp due to their lack of armor.
That's the deal. We're presently giving them less units AND less pump capacity...kind of a double whammy. I think what we're discussing is to leave the pump capacity as is (BCs get less, as it should be) but allowing them to have the same amount of units as a battleship of the same displacement. That way they have the firepower, without the protection.
That could get nasty though if BB and BC's have the same firepower, but the BCs have more speed to pick and choose when and where to engage. I don't see having less of a pump capacity as being much of a penalty in Treaty ... sinks are fairly rare as it is now.
On paper yes. In reality not so much. Take the 700 foot long Lion class. With Kongos and Derfflingers comparable, it's as good a place as any to start. If you gave it the same number of units as a battleship, it would be 5.0 units and class 5 rudder at 28 knots. Compare that with a SoDak @680 ft long, but 6.0 units and class 6 rudder, bigger pump, better hull volume. Ditto NC, only 729ft and 28 knots. 648 ft QE @25 knots still turns better, has 25 rounds more, better hull volume, better pump. Ditto Fuso (24ish knots) and Ise (also 24ish knots). It's only a four second speed advantage over them, and still less firepower. Kongo and Derfflinger are only 27 knots as built. The shorties are still going to turn better, and out maneuver the BCs, which means the BB will be taking lighter damage. Long ladies single rudder ladies like the Renown (30ish knots), Alaska (33 knots) would jump to the 5.0-5.5 range...and be opposed by 5.5 unit 31 knot scharnhorst with twin rudders, not to mention the multi rudder 30ish knot 6.5 unit Bismarcks and VV's, which have better hull volume, more units, more rudder, bigger pumps. So realistically, you're not making BCs into any kind of supership, you're more closing the gap with what they are fighting against anyways. The other thing to remember is, realistically, you are only giving most of these ships 25 rounds of BBs and rudder area. That's not a major change that will alter the balance of the universe. The main thing that will happen, is the BCs will stick around on the pond longer to shoot up their extra ammo, and end up TAKING more damage so they are more likely to be sunk.
Put that way, it does sound reasonable. Perhaps a test ship or two to try it out during the next battle might be a good idea.
Isn;t there are Renown or Repulse out there right now? Why not do like Mike M suggested and try it out. I would be interrested in the difference it makes. If nothing else, it would be fun to have a few extra rounds. There is a Kongo mold in the future here in Halifax, right after Takao. I guess I like the variety of the Japanese ships. J
I'd imagine a radical change like that would require some testing to judge the impact. Right now, I wouldn't even say it's a proposal...it's just a discussion.
All I am not proposing a change here. Just following up on a topic that I find rather interesting. Currently, we have seperate pumping volumes for battleships, and battlecruisers. But as we have already discussed in this thread, although some battlecruisers traded off protection for extra speed, some traded off a turret, which meant that they had less guns, but about the same protection. Also. At some point, there emerged the fast-battleships. But as some navies labeled the new capitalships according to speed, I am not sure just when the battlecruisers became fast-battleships. This thread will deal mainly with pump capacities. I will start another thread about units. Mikey
