Classification for "Large Cruisers"?

[Maguro]

Would be nice to have a separate designation for cruisers that are not quite BC's but are too heavy to be a CA. This class would apply to designs like the Deutschland, Alaska's or the IJN's project B-65.

[Silamon]

You can make a Deutschland heavy cruiser.

Limited to 2 turrets, 10k tons, up to 12 inch guns iirc.

Not sure about b65.

But realistically those should have just been called battlecruisers anyway. They called the Alaskas "large cruisers" as a way to get funding for more capitals.

Edit:
An example of Deutschland class being accepted by ship designer:
http://prntscr.com/P5ja5beml8Go

[Maguro]

Originally posted by Silamon:

You can make a Deutschland heavy cruiser.

Limited to 2 turrets, 10k tons, up to 12 inch guns iirc.

Not sure about b65.

But realistically those should have just been called battlecruisers anyway. They called the Alaskas "large cruisers" as a way to get funding for more capitals.

Edit:
An example of Deutschland class being accepted by ship designer:
http://prntscr.com/P5ja5beml8Go

The designer will not allow a CA to have guns over 10 inches in calibre, it says the ship is a BC.

[Silamon]

Originally posted by Maguro:

The designer will not allow a CA to have guns over 10 inches in calibre, it says the ship is a BC.

I posted the limitations for it in the comment you quoted.
2 turrets, up to 12 inch guns, 10k tons max.

[Maguro]

Originally posted by Silamon:

Originally posted by Maguro:

The designer will not allow a CA to have guns over 10 inches in calibre, it says the ship is a BC.

I posted the limitations for it in the comment you quoted.
2 turrets, up to 12 inch guns, 10k tons max.

You are right about the displacement cap. This limitation really hampers the super CA design and leaves you with a weak BC sadly.

[Andrew Cree]

Originally posted by Silamon:

Originally posted by Maguro:

The designer will not allow a CA to have guns over 10 inches in calibre, it says the ship is a BC.

I posted the limitations for it in the comment you quoted.
2 turrets, up to 12 inch guns, 10k tons max.

Have they upped it? It used to be only 11" guns, max to allow for a Deutschland-class Panzerschiffe (Armoured Cruiser)..

And the above comment about Alaskas - those are modernised, first gen Battlecruisers.

[Silamon]

Originally posted by Maguro:

Originally posted by Silamon:

I posted the limitations for it in the comment you quoted.
2 turrets, up to 12 inch guns, 10k tons max.

You are right about the displacement cap. This limitation really hampers the super CA design and leaves you with a weak BC sadly.

"Super CA" is just battlecruiser by another name. Like I mentioned, the Alaskas were classified as such because the politicians didn't want to pay for more capitals but they were willing to pay for more cruisers... And the admirals wanted more capitals, and the navy would take whatever they could get.

And thus, the not quite battleship, not quite cruiser, but definitely not battlecruiser was born.

Same reason the Deutschland class existed. It was a bit of rules lawyering around the treaty. German navy couldn't build ships over 10k tons because of the treaty, but they wanted *something* with big guns. Thus the deutschland class was born, despite them making little sense to exist otherwise. They didn't call them heavy cruisers at first, rather "Panzerschiffes" because by the treaty requirement heavy cruiser could not have over 8 inch guns. They were reclassified as heavy cruiser later when the treaty was no longer in effect.

[Silamon]

Originally posted by Andrew Cree:

Originally posted by Silamon:

I posted the limitations for it in the comment you quoted.
2 turrets, up to 12 inch guns, 10k tons max.

Have they upped it? It used to be only 11" guns, max to allow for a Deutschland-class Panzerschiffe (Armoured Cruiser)..

And the above comment about Alaskas - those are modernised, first gen Battlecruisers.

I'm pretty sure you could have 12 inch guns in rtw2 for Deutschland style ships as well, but if not you definitely can in RTW3.

I posted a screenshot of one being accepted by the designer in 1941.

Edit: this one was done in rule the waves 2:
http://prntscr.com/uuO0do1Kv40C

[Maguro]

Originally posted by Silamon:

Originally posted by Maguro:

You are right about the displacement cap. This limitation really hampers the super CA design and leaves you with a weak BC sadly.

"Super CA" is just battlecruiser by another name. Like I mentioned, the Alaskas were classified as such because the politicians didn't want to pay for more capitals but they were willing to pay for more cruisers... And the admirals wanted more capitals, and the navy would take whatever they could get.

And thus, the not quite battleship, not quite cruiser, but definitely not battlecruiser was born.

Same reason the Deutschland class existed. It was a bit of rules lawyering around the treaty. German navy couldn't build ships over 10k tons because of the treaty, but they wanted *something* with big guns. Thus the deutschland class was born, despite them making little sense to exist otherwise. They didn't call them heavy cruisers at first, rather "Panzerschiffes" because by the treaty requirement heavy cruiser could not have over 8 inch guns. They were reclassified as heavy cruiser later when the treaty was no longer in effect.

I would say there is some difference between ships like the Alaska's and Deutschlands, and BC's like Hood and Amagi. More freedom to design in the space between the CA and full blown 40k plus displacement BC's would be nice. Maybe something like a destroyer leader but for CA's.

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by Maguro:

Originally posted by Silamon:

"Super CA" is just battlecruiser by another name. Like I mentioned, the Alaskas were classified as such because the politicians didn't want to pay for more capitals but they were willing to pay for more cruisers... And the admirals wanted more capitals, and the navy would take whatever they could get.

And thus, the not quite battleship, not quite cruiser, but definitely not battlecruiser was born.

Same reason the Deutschland class existed. It was a bit of rules lawyering around the treaty. German navy couldn't build ships over 10k tons because of the treaty, but they wanted *something* with big guns. Thus the deutschland class was born, despite them making little sense to exist otherwise. They didn't call them heavy cruisers at first, rather "Panzerschiffes" because by the treaty requirement heavy cruiser could not have over 8 inch guns. They were reclassified as heavy cruiser later when the treaty was no longer in effect.

I would say there is some difference between ships like the Alaska's and Deutschlands, and BC's like Hood and Amagi. More freedom to design in the space between the CA and full blown 40k plus displacement BC's would be nice. Maybe something like a destroyer leader but for CA's.

You can!

It's just that that space is also BCs, just cheaper ones. Most if not all of RTW3's classes can support variations like that.

I mean, there's absolutely nothing about an Alaska class that would prevent it from qualifying as a battlecruiser. I think I had battlecruisers smaller than that in my current game!

[Silamon]

Originally posted by Maguro:

Originally posted by Silamon:

"Super CA" is just battlecruiser by another name. Like I mentioned, the Alaskas were classified as such because the politicians didn't want to pay for more capitals but they were willing to pay for more cruisers... And the admirals wanted more capitals, and the navy would take whatever they could get.

And thus, the not quite battleship, not quite cruiser, but definitely not battlecruiser was born.

Same reason the Deutschland class existed. It was a bit of rules lawyering around the treaty. German navy couldn't build ships over 10k tons because of the treaty, but they wanted *something* with big guns. Thus the deutschland class was born, despite them making little sense to exist otherwise. They didn't call them heavy cruisers at first, rather "Panzerschiffes" because by the treaty requirement heavy cruiser could not have over 8 inch guns. They were reclassified as heavy cruiser later when the treaty was no longer in effect.

I would say there is some difference between ships like the Alaska's and Deutschlands, and BC's like Hood and Amagi. More freedom to design in the space between the CA and full blown 40k plus displacement BC's would be nice. Maybe something like a destroyer leader but for CA's.

The role battlecruisers were meant for originally was a ship that can perform scouting duties, beat enemy scouts, and get out of dodge before the enemy main fleet got there. That describes what the Alaska class was meant to do quite adequately.

The Deutschland class was too lightly armored and too lightly armed to be considered as such. It was simply an overgunned heavy cruiser by any other name to get around treaty restrictions. The alaska had heavy cruiser armor with battleship levels of armament, even if it was a pretty weak armament for a battleship. It's way too large for a heavy cruiser by any sane reckoning.

They were over 34k tons fully loaded, heavier than some battleships in ww2...

For a comparison, the Scharnhorst class battleship (arguably should have been a battlecruiser too, but thats a hot topic of debate... just like the super cruiser debate) came in at 38k tons fully loaded.
The Dunkerque class battleship came in at 26k tons under standard load and around 34k tons at full load.
Scharnhorst was armed with 9 11 inch guns while Dunkerque had 8 12 inch guns.
The alaskas were huge, and largely considered an abject failure. They were just more expensive Baltimores that were slightly better at shore bombardment. By the time they were built Battleships were becoming obsolete and battlecruisers as a concept was laughable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Ga5AHelj8&t

[IspartaPratapon]

By the 1940-1950 era, you're better off building a smaller fast battleship rather than a superlarge cruiser.

[philbill]

The 11" gun German cruisers were known as "Pocket Battleships"

[Silamon]

Originally posted by philbill:

The 11" gun German cruisers were known as "Pocket Battleships"

That was a PR thing in Britain, they wanted to scare the public into thinking Germany was building ships that were a lot more potent than they were in order to get more funding for their navy.

The only actual threat they posed was as a merchant raider, which they proved to be effective at... Early on in the war at least, before air power and radar and ship speeds all conspired to make them useless for the role. "Strong enough to outgun anything you can't outrun, and fast enough to outrun anything you can't outgun" doesn't really work when your cruiser is hitting 28 knots and battleships are doing 32.

They were slow, overgunned, poorly armored cruisers that were not particularly useful at anything but raiding, and even then they would have been better off with more 6 inch or 8 inch guns. They were a bad idea for the same reason OP didn't want to build them with the same limitation. Putting 11 inch guns on a ship less than 10k tons is just too limiting to be effective.