Construction question (example KONGO)

Hi all, I was looking through the construction rules and found a cunundrum. The rules state that a ship is given units according to the original, as built specs. Wouldn't this make the older ship classes who were refitted and improved between WW1 and WW2 like Repulse, Nagato, Fuso, and QE less popular? Also, is the speed of a ship governed by the as built specs as well?
I was looking at the KONGO class BC and originally they were built as approx 26230 tons and are class 4 with 4.5 units. The real ship had a top speed of 14 knots. After refits in 1931 and again in 1937, she was approx. 31720 tons, her hull lengthened by 8.5 meters and her a top speed increased to 30.5 knots. She was also reclassified as a Battleship. Given this data, she would be class 5 battleship with 5.5 units, the same as Scharnhorst. Now, Kongo has superior fire power, 8 x 14' guns vice 9 x 11' guns, the armour is comparable; Kongo -main belt 8in-3in, barbettes 13 in, turrets 12in,conning tower 10in, middle deck 4.7in over magazines and 3.2in over machinery. Scharnhorst -main belt 14 in, turrets 4-13 in, conning tower 8-14 in, upper deck 2 in, armour deck 3-4.5 in, and torpedo bulkhead 3 in. Since Scharnhorst has been given Battleship Status iaw 2008 Treaty Combat Construction Battling and Safety (CBS) Rules, shouldn't Kongo, and maybe even Repulse, be give the same status?
This is just me thinking out loud about things that make me go HMMMMMMM.
J

 

I agree with you. You didnt make a case for Repulse, but i know they were up armored.
makes me go hmmmmm too.

 

Actually the rule on units is the same as it is in the other fast gun clubs. The only exception in the other clubs is the Nagato which is bumped up to 6 units in it's rebuilt form. The original is 5.5 units. None of the rest actually get more units based on rebuild specs, so a ww1 renown and a ww2 renown are both 4.5 units in the other clubs. We don't give the Nagato 6 units ever, as she is not supposed to be a "counter" to NC or anything else. Basically, we just ditched the exception.

Speed is determined by refit. What you'll see is that generally the "as built" ships are fastest, the rebuilt versions can take more damage and may turn better due to length to beam ratio and greater hull volume. QE is a good example. I'm told that the Malaya actually obtained the full 25 knots she was designed for, although I haven't seen this in print so they are 25 knot ships. After all the bulging and rebuilds however, they were no longer good for that much speed. The rebuilds IIRC are good for about minimum fleet speed, but turn better and have more hull volume. The idea is to make both the ww1 and ww2 versions of the rebuild ships viable and desirable. You generally get your choice between more speed and more survivability.

As for the Kongo vs Scharnhorst, there is a distinct difference. Scharnhorst was a battleship. She was designed as one, and was always called one by the Germans (schlactshiff). The British are the only ones who ever called it a battlecruiser, and they tended to rate ships as battlecruisers based on speed rather then any kind of armor formula (they even rated Vanguard as a fully armored battlecruiser). This annoying misclassification has been carried on for years, because the two major publications which discuss warship systems (Conways and Janes) are both British publications, and used the British classification.

Kongo on the other hand was reclassified as a battleship for political reasons. She wasn't a true battleship. She was a battlecruiser, and her protection (Hiei) wasnt sufficient to stop San Fransisco's (a Heavy Cruiser) 8 inch shell from hitting her in a critical area and flooding her steering, which prevented her escape from the field after 1st Guadalcanal. Battleships don't get crippled by heavy cruisers. Soft killed (things like losing your rangefinders so you can't shoot effectively) yes, but crippled...no.

If you really want to look at something that would be nasty under our format, take a long look at a WW1 Nagato. She's like 26 or 27 knots, should turn exceedingly well and has good weapons placement options.

 

I just threw Repulse in there to keep the Allies quiet, I don't do British Ships.
J

 

Hawk, I was not aware the British did that and it is certainly confusing,( but wait til I tell Steve his Vanguard is a Battlecruiser, it should be fun!). Most of the info I got here came from Global Security, I use it for diagrams of ships mostly, but allot of the specs are supported by other sources. I remember reading about the Hiei, but I would chaulk that up to a "Lucky shot", like Bismarck's hit on Hood or Johnston's torpedo hit on Kumano. I understand the speed vs. survivability choice now, but would still like to see a Kongo class or even a Repulsive, I mean Repulse, on the water. From what most people I talked to about them say, too little fire power for the length of penetrable hull. The USS Alaska is in that same category isn't she, 4.5 units and a very long hull.
As far as a WW1 Nagato goes, she is good, but I think Scharnhorst is better.
J

 

It really depends on what you are looking for...Scharny is quick, but Nagato could probably turn inside her...and has that nice X turret that Scharny doesn't have. That being said, I think that a Scharny would be scary good in Treaty.

Last year, we actually had a Courageous and Renown on the water together. Renown did exceptionally well, Courageous not so much. I think everyone was surprised just how effective the Renown was. I think Mikey might have some pictures of both Renown and Courageous out there together.

The major issue with the Courageous, was that I didn't focus enough on her drive systems before I threw her out on the water. I had the fastest capital ship on the water, but I couldn't start or stop...and nobody could catch me. So, to get action, I had to go into the furball, where I proceeded to get pounded...and could not escape. Had I worked on my drive system so my acceleration and stopping were better, I think the Courageous would have done a better job. It comes down to me not putting in the work, and using the proper tactics to battle her properly.

So, if the Renown could do well, I'm sure that a Kongo would do fine as well.

 

Usually, I don't use wikipedia as a "reliable" source, but here's something for Steve in the first line if he doesn't believe you...

HMS Vanguard was a "Fully Armoured Battlecruiser" of the Royal Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_(1944)

I think there is something about it on the Vanguard web site as well.

 

isnt a full-armored battlecruiser a battleship?

 

More or less. It's just illustrative of the British tendency to classify a ship as a battlecruiser based on it's speed.

 

Outstanding! This is going to more fun than I thought. I would love to see some pics of Renown and Courageous. One of the guys here is building a Renown plug, very ambitious for his frrst project. The pics I've seen look good.
I had a similar issue with Scharnhorst last year, I could take off and get to speed fast enough but there was the little issue of taking 5 or 6 boat lengths to stop, it sucked and I ran over a couple of ships by accident. I had to keep to the outskirts of the battles, swoop in for a couple of shots and out again. I think I have fixed this issue and plan to try to test him tomorrow. The lake near me is thawed at one end, so I hope to get out, if it isn't raining too hard.
J

 

I shot Mikey an email and asked if he could look to see if he has the pictures, and to post them if he does. He's on the road a lot though, so no idea when he might get around to checking his email.

In addition to getting the Courageous from me, he's still got the Renown, and is building a Hood to run this year. Mikey is amassing quite the collection of long battlecruisers. If nothing else, we should be able to put a pretty impressive battlecruiser fleet out there!

 

Lookin' forward to seeing them.
J

 

I tried to post the photos from last year, but I have not been able to figure out how to auto-resize them, so they will be huge for the first day, but will probably be re-sized at midnight, and then will be too grainy to view.
I will go ahead and post a couple, and see what happens.
Sorry for the delay.
Mikey

 

Suffren, Courageous, Renown, and Markgraf.
It appears that the photos were auto re-sized in my user folder, and the ones that I didn't try to post , when I loaded them into the folder are fine. The ones that I up-loaded into my folder, and then tried to re-size myself, are grainy.
Looks like I can up-load photos into my user file, and then wait til after they are auto-re-sized, and they will load up fine in the forum. Way cool set-up.
Mikey

 

Renown, Newport News, and Courageous.

 

Mike D's Courageous.
Our fastest capital-ship so far.

 

Very nice pics. How effective are the BCs as combat models? Renown is realllllllly long, a good 6-8 inches longer than Kongo, (depending on the version). If a WW1 Kongo was built at 58 2/3 inches, a WW2 is 2 and a bit inches longer and faster too. What would her speed be? Does it work that if you build a refitted ship, does it get the new speed as well? How many rudders doea the Kongo class have. That is something I can't find anywhere, is there a site that has that info? (I know, lots of questions, but it's the cat in me, curious )
J