I have finally decided on a type of ship that I want to build for big gun combat: cruisers. I was thinking of finding a cruiser with a good top speed and be large enough to arm a bow and stern gun, along with torpedoes. So far the ones that I have considered are: HMS Belfast HMAS Australia HMS Leander USS Northampton Of those ships, which would be the easiest to build and fight with? I'm leaning towards Australia due to her larger size. Also, which other ships, allied or axis, meet those?
IJN Mogami will walk all over the ships you just listed. It's really fast (36 knots) and big, with twin rudders and a whole lot of firepower. Not even the best builders are insane enough to arm all the mains and torpedoes, but if you put a rotating triple up front, three torpedoes per side, and a fixed (or rotating) triple in the back, you'll have a very versatile and powerful heavy cruiser. I've often considered building exactly that ship for the role of torpedo-cruiser-killer. Pocket battleships are also good. They aren't fast, but they're more maneuverable than battleships and they've got the guns to play with the big boys. Indefatigable and Von Der Tann also fall in this category, and might even be more powerful than a pocket. The Italian Bolzano class CA is another good one. It's another VERY fast cruiser, but more suitable for gun armament than the Mogami. From your list of ideas, HMAS Australia is a no-no. It's a speed-based fighter, not a turning-based brawler, but it can't outrun the fast Axis battlewagons and doesn't have the firepower to chase them off, either. HMS Belfast is a very interesting possibility. .177" for its 6" guns isn't much smaller than the 3/16" guns for heavier 8" cruisers, and has similar performance. It's got similar displacement to the Australia, slightly better speed, and a much heavier weight of broadside. Anyone who gets within 3 feet of it will take the term "swiss-cheezy" to a whole new level. If your club permits it, try to build the "as-planned" version, with quadruple 6" guns instead of the triples they finally installed. Northampton isn't a bad choice. It's got less displacement than the others, but has a solid gun armament and torpedoes. Leander falls in the same boat as Australia. It's a smaller boat, has smaller guns, and isn't suited for front-line duty. An aggressive battleship or cruiser skipper will chase this ship all across the pond.
The Mogami here isn't a very successful warship, always seems to get itself blown out of the water. Prinz Eugen on the other hand is quite a useful ship.
I'd imagine that Katori is probably the resident expert on torpedo cruiser tactics. I'd not build any of the ships you listed and plan to run them as biggun ships. From reading a the posts from the big gun guys here, my opinion is that certain characteristics need to be met to really be a successful cruiser. - at least 35 knots - torpedo tubes for main armament - maneuverability is important - arming guns is optional rather then required. Trading broadsides with a battleship is invitation to disaster so don't tempt yourself. Fixed stern guns would probably be the best way to keep your side from facing away. ALlied ships that might do well: Kirov, Chapayev, Omaha, Tourville, Suffren Axis ships: Takao, Myoko, Tone, Mogami, Trento, Bolzano
For the best looking ship you have to go Axis. Hippers and Mogamis are real lookers. A completely irrelevant point combat wise of course. Then again I am a proponent of if it looks right it is right theory.
"Then again I am a proponent of if it looks right it is right theory. " That's why you should always build American. None of them are truly hideous unlike the other countries.
I like to say that the historical data defines the maximum performance, the builder allows the ship to reach that maximum performance, and the skipper uses the boat's maximum performance to his advantage. If any of these areas are lacking, the boat will do poorly on the water. Historically, Mogami has good speed, good armament, and good maneuverability. There was a Mogami nicknamed the "Vulture" in the WWCC that was considered for many years to be the most feared boat in the club, even over many battleships. Her skipper would cruise outside the battlefield, swoop in to score gun and torpedo hits on an unsuspecting victim, then use speed and turning to escape return fire. A couple years back, her skipper became more involved in his other hobby, fishing, and didn't maintain his boat. Mogami no longer reached the same performance she had before, and has been sunk every time she's come out in the last three years. Maintenance, part of the second category I mentioned for a good ship, faltered and the formerly feared ship performed poorly. Crzyhawk has the general guidelines for a cruiser (speed and/or turning, torpedoes, guns only for the largest boats), although I have seen exceptions. There is a USS Atlanta with torpedoes that does fairly well, even though she is slow and doesn't have any extra depth (she is vulnerable to rams and is the first warship sunk by an unarmed transport). She gets sunk a bit more often than other cruisers, but she is particularly good at sinking the Dutch Battlecruiser. She sank the DBC at least once last year, and sank her both sorties on the second day of the Maker Faire. Her skipper is pretty good on the pond, but is also a great builder. There was an Omaha that was sold to a guy in Australia, and a few torpedo guns were sent over as well. Darren, have you seen or heard of that ship at all?
That would be my choice for a torpedo cruiser as of now if/when I do big gun (the closest is a MWC group that will be my primary outlet will dabble in big gun later). 35 knots 3 tubes per side (if torpedos are allowed) and several spots for 6inch guns with some interesting placements those casements might be interesting but I would most likely do fixed sterns. 3 inch armor belt. The only kicker is the one rudder when compared to some others. But it does have the speed.
What exactly prohibits the Australia from being a good cruiser? Here lack of armour? Anyways, if I go with the Belfast, how many of her turrets could be armed (keep in mind I am also planning on putting torpedoes on her.) My idea was to use the cannons to punch through convoys and the torpedoes against battleships. Finally, how easy is it to build a cruiser, compared to, say, a Queen Elizabeth class battleship?
It's the speed mainly. She simply isnt fast enough to effectively get away from the axis fast BBs. She's also got a TON of target area with those high sides. Honestly, Belfast isn't a much better choice. You really need to get a cruiser into the 35 knot range.
True, I think I will go axis. I have always liked the Capitani Romani or the Narvik-class ships, but I think they would be to small to arm the cannons. Alternitivly, if I can find hulls for them, I could use the Allied Fletcher, Tribal, or D class destroyers, at the expense of size.
Solid Allied alternatives would be the Soviet Kirov and Chapayev class ships. The Chapayevs especially I think have a lot of potential to be really solid ships in biggun. They look pretty awesome too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapayev_class_cruiser
I think BDE has plans for both the Kirov and Chapayev. I know they have plans for the slightly larger and slower Sverdlov, which unfortunately isn't legal in most clubs (not laid down til '49ish)
Which makes a better torpedo cruiser, the Capitani Romani class, Narvik (Z) class, or the Fantasque class.
in 144th? I'd have to say the Capitani, as it is the largest, and thus easiest to make. I'd stay away from destroyers though for your first boat.
