Topic: OT Battlecruisers,Dreadnaughts and Battleships.

[ModelsPlease]

Hiya folks MP here. I personally always wondered what the difference between BC,DN and BB. And I went surfing and found this interesting article.............

All battleships were dreadnaughts by World War 2, and all the effective ones in WW 1 were, also. The distinction came about in 1905 when the Royal Navy battleship Dreadnaught was completed. It introduced quite a few innovations, but the main thing that distinguished Dreadnaught from previous battleships was its armament. Until then, battleships had the main battery, to fight other battleships, and some smaller batteries for closer range fighting. All these guns were controlled individually. Dreadnaught introduced an armament of all one caliber (eight 12-inch, IIRC), all centrally controlled to fire at once. The idea was to deliver the most powerful salvo possible, all at once, at as long a range as possible. Obviously, an enemy battleship that couldn't return a comparable volume of fire was doomed.

Dreadnaught also introduced steam turbine propulsion to battleships, which put the existing vertical triple expansion steam piston engines to shame.

Obviously, every navy that could started building similar battleships and, to distinguish them from the old ones, the name "dreadnaught" caught on.

>I imagine that the term had something to do with
> the proliferation of warship types--there were battlecruisers and
> battleships and I bet that the term "battleship" was invented because
of
> an arms control treaty.


"Battleship" is quite a bit older than "dreadnaught," and came about as a shortened form of "line-of-battle ship," the old sailing ship of the line.

Battlecruisers were an idea conceived by the "father" of Dreadnaught, Admiral of the Fleet "Jackie" Fisher. He wanted to replace existing cruisers with "battlecruisers," which were like dreadnaughts built for speed. To get speed, they sacrificed armor, but left the all 12-inch armament. The idea was to use them as cruisers, to scout for the battleships, to destroy enemy shipping, to counter enemy cruisers &c. Any existing cruisers would be easy pickings, and battleships that couldn't be outfought could be outrun. Unfortunately, since they had the same guns as battleships, the temptation was to use them to augment the battle fleet. This was what happened at the battle of Jutland in 1916, and their insufficient armor proved disastrous. This type of vessel fell out of fashion after that, only the British building a few up to WW2.

So if I understand this right they're pretty much the same thing other than armorment.So now my question is.Why aren't they the same size in the game ????

[Sandman3D]

Easiest answer is, that the designers didn't know they were basically the same. Also, the images you get in your mind are of different sized ships.

[Wicked Zombie]

Something that always bugged me about SFC (besides the FDN and FBCH mix-ups) was the DN and BB designations. Not only are they different sizes in SFC, they're also noticeably different in armor, weapons, and systems. In SFC terms, Dreads are inferior to Battleships, which is ironic since in the 'real' navies, they were the atom bombs of their day. Countries nearly went bankrupt trying to outdo other nations in Dreadnought construction, and they even signed treaties to reduce production of these new wonder-weapons.

Battlecruisers don't seem that different in basic terms at least. They do pack a punch and can bring down a bigger ship if handled properly. They've always been considered 'pocket battleships' - the power of a BB, but the weaknesses and speed of a cruiser.

Of course, in the real navies carriers are now the main ships of a fleet with the rest of the vessels providing support. In SFC, they aren't as effective since you'd be lucky to take down a battleship with a squadron of fighters before they were shot down and the big B turned it's guns on you. You can't get a lucky strike on a ship's 'rudder' or bomb the bridge in a flyby since SFC ships have heavier defenses. Fighters tend to lose their edge when they have shields and accurate ADD fire to contend with.

That's not to say carriers and smaller ships can't bring a larger vessel down, it just requires more patience, skill, and a bit of luck.

You'd be surprised the useless information that seeps into your brain when you fall asleep watching the History Channel...

[Reverend]

This is a very intelligent course of study... in agreement with WZ and ModelsPlease; with ST technology, surely the roles of such vessels over time began to blur, then change. Present-day fighters can (minus enemy fighter interaction) destroy any ship, given proper armament. Like WZ said, ST technology has not only increased, but transformed the concept of vessels and fighters.

Which reminds me- someone correct me on this.....
(this is having nothing to do with above conversation) I "thought"" in ST/SFC/SFB terms, that Dreadnaughts were 'inferior' to Battleships.... Battleships being the penultimate starship. Is this correct?

[Lord Schtupp]

The term "Dreadnought" is an overused term to characterize the technologically advanced battleships built between the HMS Dreadnought lauched in 1906 and the start of WW1. The Royal Navy classified the HMS Dreadnought as a battleship, she was the only one in her class.  There was no DN Class until the advent of Star Fleet Battles in 1979.

The Battlecruiser is more of a proper class, really a fast manuverable battleship to keep up with and support cruiser squdrons. not an overgunned cruiser. Consider the most famous battlecruiser, HMS Hood. When built in 1918, she was the largest warship afloat and stayed the largest until she was sunk IIRC (Not too sure about that, but name a warship larger before 1941 - Yamato maybe?). Anyhoo, 40000 + ton displacement, typical cruiser was about 6000-8000. And she was bigger than the Bismarck.

[Lord Schtupp]

Yea the only way for a CV to defeat a BB is to fly in with her fighters, launch massive drones or heavy weapons to overwhelm one shield and score big damage that way, the CV really only has the one chance in the opening salvo, otherwise the BB can pick off the fighters then get to work on the CV as long as the BB can distribute it's hits among the remaining 5 shields.

Good topic MP - 

[ModelsPlease]

You're correst in that line of thought.But it would appear the DN should be the premier ship then the BB followed by the BC.Using shipedit BB ands BC should have the same weapons but BC's should have less armour.So in terms of cost,perhaps carriers should cost most,the DN's followed by BB's and BC's ?And WZ brings up another excellent point.Carriers should be the largest ships in the game.Loaded with fighters but no real offensive weapons.Just lots of AA units. Does this sound a more realistic and appealing train of thought ? Obviously you have to stick with a WWII mind set,otherwise all those ships go bye bye and you're left with AC,DD,FF,and Missile cruisers  ,and that's no fun.But I think an adjustment is in order for the BB,DN,BC's.
-MP

[Lord Schtupp]

IMO the whole fighter/carrier concept  as implemented in SFB/SFC is seriously flawed. Fighters slower than their prey doesnt make any sense. Fighters that have no chance attacking even a FF size ship also make no sense. They die like flies. In SFB, the only use for fighters (and have them let a reasonable chance of surviving) really is to launch a drone wave in a stand-off attack. I beleive the best fix here is to make all fighters have a speed of 32 and to let them be hit by only anti-fighter defenses like ADDs and ph3s, not by main ships weaponry. Or easier yet just give them double hit points.

You're correst in that line of thought.But it would appear the DN should be the premier ship then the BB followed by the BC.Using shipedit BB ands BC should have the same weapons but BC's should have less armour.So in terms of cost,perhaps carriers should cost most,the DN's followed by BB's and BC's ?And WZ brings up another excellent point.Carriers should be the largest ships in the game.Loaded with fighters but no real offensive weapons.Just lots of AA units. Does this sound a more realistic and appealing train of thought ? Obviously you have to stick with a WWII mind set,otherwise all those ships go bye bye and you're left with AC,DD,FF,and Missile cruisers  ,and that's no fun.But I think an adjustment is in order for the BB,DN,BC's.
-MP

The Battleship has always been the king. Sure in WW2 the carrier was the true monarch but in ship to ship combat the BB is supreme. The DN isnt historically a ship class, but if you wanted to make a DN class that had basis in historical fact then the DN would simply be a X-BB. ONly one or two would be built and yes it would then it would  be the premiere ship type, but it would still be classed as a BB. The current placement of the DN is due solely to the designers of Star Fleet Battles.

[Rod ONeal]

I think that the BB in SFB represents the "modern" BB with 16" guns and all the defenses, like the New jersey, Massachusetts, etc. In the SFB universe the current modern warships (like real life missile cruisers, etc.) were built before the BBs would have come into service, IE: X-ships, thus making them obsolete before their time. The sole exception to this being the Klingon B10.

The DN and BCH are classes that SFB uses that are just logical wartime extensions of the CA. Not necessarily representations of our real life navy. The class designations are just taken from real life, but the classes themselves are made to fit into the game.

The effectiveness of ftrs (or lack of) in SFB is based on Trek (SFB) technology. Imagine if Navy ships had shields to protect them and were able to take damage, like in SFB. Ftrs would be far less effective than they are in real life. The same goes with relative speed of the ftrs compared to the capitol ships in the game. During actual combat situations the ftrs are quite a bit faster than full size ships. Not 10X faster, like real life, but faster none the less. You can't do speed 30 all the time and charge your other combat systems. Besides, how much fun would it be if a single F-14 ftr could destroy 6 ships, like in real life. It would make the current game as we know it obsolete.

There are rules in SFB (small target modifiers) to make ftrs harder to hit with heavy weapons than they are with typical defensive weapons. They just aren't in SFC. Just like there are other rules to make fighters more survivable, besides human control, that also aren't in SFC. Chaff, EW pods, erratic maneuvers, HETs, carrier EW lending etc...

There are typical carriers in SFB, with very little armament. "Historically", they were the first carriers designed. The philosophy was to deploy them much the same way that real carriers are used today, as a stand off weapons delivery system. People realised that the best tactic was to have your carrier (even though it was poorly armed) join your ftrs in battle though. This created the "Strike-class" of carrier that we generally use in game. Fighters are an augmentation of the ships fighting ability rather than the main armament.

This is one of the reasons that the impending source code release is so exciting, to me. We talk about "real" G-racks and plasma bolts. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to see "real" SFB fighters as well. 

[Reverend]

Oh, thanks for the info guys.... I get it..

aye, I am interested too in seeing what people like you all and Firesoul come up with after that is released.

[dogfighter]

for me the term dreadnought stands for the most powerfull ship. battlecruiser is a cruiser with lots of heavy weapons. battleship is about the same as a dradnought. oh and yamato was the biggest WWII battleship.
the term battleship is kinda stupid, i think - it just says a ship built for battle-in that focus even a light ship can be a battleship. however. i always thought the designation FF,DD,CL and so on is somewhat lame.
in star trek we mostly hear class names. terms like cruisers or battlecruisers are only used for dramatic reasons - they just sound mor dangerous.
btw. in the old days the ships were designated for their weight and displacement, not armament.
and what is a frigate?(dont answer - i know what it is). in some countries a frigate is called destroyer,in some frigate. in fasa frigates are more like a cruiser. in sfc they are just tiny ships.
i like the destroyers and frigates in sfc but still i think they should have used class names.

just my 2cents

and i have to agree - the fighters in sfc arent very efective. tot slow, tot easy to destroy and they are too weak when it comes to firepower. star trek never had a focus on fighters - maybe because starwars used fighters extensivly. i can live without sfc carriers. pseudo fighters can be fun if u give them a weak excess damage value and a high explosion value - kamikaze - or armed guided mines.



ed

[zerosnark]

Wow.

A few thoughts: Designations change over time, driven both by technology and politics.

In SFB terms, the "dreadnaughts" came about because the old FJD techmanual showed a fed Dreadnaught Class, alongside the classic Fed Heavy cruiser, Scout, Destroyer and Tug. The Klingon D7 in Trek was always depicted as a "battlecruiser", but it was always implied that the Fed Heavy cruisers were tactical equivilents. Steve Cole in writing Starfleet Battles created the Battleships, carriers, and frigates.

What was said above about WWI battlecruisers is correct; with one modification. The Battlecruisers tended to be physically larger than the battleships. They were larger because they carried battleship armament *and* were significantly faster. This required long, thin hulls PLUS big engines.

In WWI, battlecruisers were used correctly. They were used to hunt commerce raiders. They were also used to scout for the enemy battlefleet. The only problem was, once they *found* the enemy battlefleet, things went downhill quickly. At Jutland and Dogger Bank, the British and German Battlecruisers duked it out. What was learned was that the British ships had both inferior armour AND had a design flaw in the powder magazines. These flaws cost the British three battlecruisers at Jutland, and suddenly no one wanted to have battlecruisers anymore.

The other reason no-one wanted battlecruisers anymore was the development of "fast battleships", such as the Queen Elizabeth class. Only a tad slower than the battlecruisers, they sported full armour AND full guns. Yes, they clearly outclassed all the other ships. At Jutland, these battleships were supporting the British Battlecruisers and joined the battle slightly after the German/British battlecruiser clash. They also bore the BRUNT of the entire vanguard of the German High Seas fleet while the British Battlecruisers turned away and BEFORE the main bulk of the British Grand Fleet joined the battle. What was learned was the the four (or was it five?) QE's were really tough ships, and in the short term held their own quite well against the main German Fleet.

Of course, from the German side, it was not a good day. The German fleet did not expect to meet the ENTIRE British fleet. They only learned that the British fleet was present when BULK of the fleet crossed in front of the German fleet and began firing. (Crossing the TEE, full fire power of the British ships against 1/2 of the fire power of the German fleet: Note: The British also had twice the battleships of the Germans). The day got worse for the Germans when the British managed to cross the TEE a second time.

The only consolation was the weakness of British Battlecruisers (Lost three, almost lost a fourth) resulted in higher British losses. But at the end of the day, the British fleet was at sea, while the German fleet ran for home and did not deploy again.

[Lieutenant_Q]

The Hood was indeed the largest ship a float until she was sunk.  The Yamato was not commisioned until 1942-43.

Fighter Combat in space is problematic at best, on the open seas, it doesn't take a lot to sink a ship, and the weapons that fighters today carry are powerful enough for the job.  In space though, a hull breach isn't going to destroy a ship the way a hull breach would sink a ship.  Many "Destroyed" ships at sea are not that badly damaged, they just couldn't stay afloat.  Generally starships are much tougher than their modern day wet navy counterparts, which means that the day of the carrier can be left in the 20th and 21st centuries, and Cruisers will become the ship of the day in the 22nd century and beyond.  The day of the Battleship is past, and I do not see it coming back in the future.

[Azel]

See in trek fighters are relatively useless as the starships can pic them off with more than enough phasers and hull strength to handle them
look at the computer tech in ST,...not much is getting passed them...also the fighters in Trek are tough as they are really small ships
rather than striaght fighters...they are more like the old YB's and Blackwidows of WW2 rather than P51's or P-40's

[Dawntreader]

One way though that a ship could easily be destroyed is to do structural damage.  The fighters would only have to do enough damage to cause the ship to be unable to handle the pressure of the atmosphere within and stress from weapons fire and maneuvering.  In a way the reverse happened to submarines.  Subs are designed to pretty much sink.  A torpedo doesn't completely destroy the sub, but it does cause enough structural damage to cause it to implode.  The fighters can also try to hit the fuel tanks, crippling it.

[Merlinfmct87]

Another point to consiter is that America has the most advanced and largest navy on the planet(and they are still overworked, but that's another forum)... so it's a bit like pitting 1x vs early years.

Merlin

[ModelsPlease]

I came across this comparison table...............

Firepower Table
Year  Navy         Ship  PCT  Total  Gun Size  Cal.  Qty.  Rate 
1939  Germany  Bismarck  118%  16,920  15 inch 47  8  3 
1942  USA         Iowa  100%  14,400  16 inch  50  9  2 
1936  Germany   Scharnhorst  95%  13,612  11 inch  55  9  2.5 
1923  Britain      Nelson  90%  12,960  16 inch  45  9  2 
1941  USA         South Dakota  90%  12,960  16 inch  45  9  2 
1919  USA         Tennessee  88%  12,600  14 inch  50  12  1.5 
1939  Britain       KGV  88%  12,600  14 inch  45  10  2 
1940  Japan       Yamato  86%  12,393  18 inch  45  9  1.75 
1913  Japan       Fuso  79%  11,340  14 inch  45  12  1.5 
1913  Britain       Queen Elizabeth  75%  10,080  15 inch  45  8  2 
1915  Germany    Bayern  75%  10,080  15 inch  45  8  2 
1919  Britain        Hood  75%  10,080  15 inch  45  8  2 
1935  France       Richelieu  75%  10,080  15 inch  45  8  2 
1935  Italy          Vittorio Veneto  61%  8,775  15 inch  50  9  1.3 
1919  Japan        Nagato  52%  7,488  16 inch  45  8  1.25 

After reading the comments so far ( and this is a great topic) is it logical to follow this train of thinking.

TOS Era - BB's are the baddest   WWI thinking
TMP Era - DN's are the baddest,BB's and BC's having the same armement but BC's have less shielding and hull armour.  WWII thinkng
TNG Era - Here is where I find conflict.During the Dominion War it is clear the Jem Hadar BB is the baddest ship one on one out there BUT and it is a huge BUT. Because of the movies we never got the chance to see a Sovie DN go toe to toe with one so the only comparison is to BC's.As for fighters,the Jem Hadar kamakazee tactics proved quite effective against the Galaxy. I agree fighters as they are now in SFC are useless other than launching drone salvo's.And the carrier ( though biggest ) is not a premier ship and perhaps after the source code is released we will see a change in that. I for one would love to have Kamikazee Jem Hadar fighters coming at me.

And ya can always add interim ships as X-classes  Ie: FBC-X - NX Excelsior et al.
-MP

[zerosnark]

A few thoughts:

1) Regarding the Hood: This ship was *envisioned* as a battlecruiser, but after Jutland the design was reworked and the end result was basically a "fast battleship", similar to the Queen Elizabeth class. In the end, the ship still had some weaknesses that traced it's roots to the designs original BattleCruiser origins.

2) In WWII, there basically were no battlecruisers. All the WWI battlecruisers were either scrapped, or extensively rebuilt in the 1930's to be "battleships".

3) The distinction between WWII "heavy cruisers" and "light cruisers" was a legal definition from the Washington Naval treaties. "Heavy cruisers" had 8" guns. "Light Cruisers" had 6" guns. Maximum size for both types was set at 10,000 tons. The concept was similar to having Fed Heavy cruisers armed with P1's and Fed Old Light cruisers armed with P2's.

In the 30's, the "light cruisers" grew from the typical 6,000  tons to the full treaty-allowed 10,000 tons. It was then realized that a 10,000 ton ship could have either 12-15 six" guns vs 8-9 eight" guns.  Combined with the fact that 6" guns could fire twice as fast as 8" guns, the new "light cruisers" could actually defeat new "heavy cruisers". Think of it as a Fed Heavy with 12 P2's vs a Fed Heavy with 6 P1's.

4) In Star Trek terms, I think the "cruiser terms" are confused. A Constitution class ship has a radically different mission profile than a Klingon D7. The D7 is a "Battle cruiser". Designed only for battle. A "Constitution" is a "Heavy Cruiser" -> designed both for Battle AND exploration. But these ships are tactically equal? Would a Fed Battle cruiser really look like a Fed NCL?

Wonder what a "light cruiser" would look like? Couldn't tell you. Technology marches on. A 60 year old OLD CL could have been a heavy cruiser in an earlier time. . . .

5) Fighters in SFB: Totallly wacked. Ever play the board game with Speed 8 early fighters? Standard tactic would be to move off at speed 16 and wait for the fighters to either be recovered or become seperated from the carrier. . .and then they get armed with scads of drones. . .crazy drone fests ugh! ugh! ugh!

[ModelsPlease]

Interesting......so is it safe to assume that perhaps we can say that assertain ships in SFC obtained thier classes due to wordings of treaties similar to that of R/L ? As the afore mentioned comparison of the Connie vs. D7 .

[Lord Schtupp]

Zerosnark you really know your navy history, but the as far as the Hood is concerned Im pretty sure it was always classed as a battlecruiser, and certainly used as such when sortied against bismarck. I agree that it was basically a fast battleship, I think this is really half of the defination of a battlecruiser, the other half being its role as to how its deployed. So I guess my point is that a battlecruiser is defined by two chacteristics: battleship firepower with cruiser speed (inferring lighter armor), AND a scouting and/or cruiser support role. So did the battlecruisers of WW1 have lighter armor or where they just built longer (greater fineness ratio ) with the same armor as a battleship?

Anyway too bad for Hood, its last refit they armored the front deck but not aft : of course thats were it gets hit.