"Those agile armoured cruisers" Topic

Just picked up a copy of Naval Thunder: Clash of Dreadnoughts the other day and it looks to be a pretty good set of rules. I notice, however, that armoured cruisers get a turn rate (in this case based on number of movement points lost per turn) superior to that of battleships. This seems to be pretty standard among WWI rules sets and yet everything I can find on the subject suggests that just the opposite is true.

Example: the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, in its article on shipbuilding, shows that HMS Drake had a tactical diameter nearly twice that of HMS Dreadnought and the predred HMS King Edward VII (okay, I know tactical diamater and turning radius are not precisely the same thing but they're close enough for game purposes). Apparently, the balanced rudder design that was standard for dreadnoughts and late-model predreds wasn't introduced into armoured cruisers until the entire type was already on its way out (e.g., HMS Minotaur and even this ship couldn't turn as tight as the Dreadnought).

Does it matter? Depends on your time vs movement scale, I guess. I'm just curious as to why it never seems to show up in dreadnought-era rules.

I should point out that I have not as yet seen the WWI version of Victory At Sea. Since the original WWII version is the only set of naval rules I have ever played that allows the Yamato to out-turn a Fletcher-class destroyer (it could, in fact, and quite handily) I have high hopes.

LT

Almost every ship in VAS- Dreadnoughts has the same turning arc (3) although I think that may change with the first pass at errata.

(okay, I know tactical diamater and turning radius are not precisely the same thing but they're close enough for game purposes)

Diameter is twice the radius, isn't it?

Actually, that's been pointed out to me.

When I release the first update, it will modify the movement core rules so that all ships turn the same, and present an optional rule to allow for the tight tactical diameters of battleships.

Trying to convince people new to naval gaming that battleships turn more tightly than cruisers by putting it in the core rules seemed like a tough sell. So instead it will be an optional rule that the old hands like yourself can take advantage of.

>Diameter is twice the radius, isn't it?

In geometry, yes, but 'tactical diameter' and 'turning radius' are slightly different. The tactical diameter is the distance gained to the right or left of the original course when a turn of 180° with a constant rudder angle has been completed. The turning radius is (by the most common definition, at least) the smallest circle the ship can describe while making a 360 degree turn (and, thus, it isn't actually a radius at all). These definitions would seem to indicate an identical distance but a. tactical diameter is usually calculated to take into account the distance the ships moves forward between the point the helm is put over and the point the ship actually begins to turn and b. the turning radius is the smallest possible circle while the tactical diameter may not necessarily be.

People with actual marine engineering experience may now step in and point out what a dummy I am.8>)

LT

Trying to convince people new to naval gaming that battleships turn more tightly than cruisers by putting it in the core rules seemed like a tough sell. So instead it will be an optional rule that the old hands like yourself can take advantage of.

I admit I've never understood this approach. I remember seeing a similar statement on TMP by a gentleman who had published a set of sailing ship rules that contain utterly incorrect rules for governing the relationship between sails, wind direction, and speed. When I mentioned this, his rejoinder was that he thought that an accurate depiction of how ships actually sail would be too confusing for his players. Having already paid actual cash money for his rules I was a tad bit insulted by the idea that he thought his prospective players would have trouble understanding a concept that can be explained accurately in a single sentence. In all honestly, your rules are better but I think you may have underestimated your audience a bit.

LT

Well I certainly hope I haven't insulted anyone! I guess I should offer some more clarification.

In writing Naval Thunder I wanted to write a set of rules that would appeal to everyone from people who have never played a naval wargame before, to people who have been doing it many years.

The optional rules are intended to make attaining that goal possible. No one set of rules could appeal to everyone, so instead the rules were designed to allow players to make Naval Thunder the game they want it to be.

Rightly or wrongly my estimation is that many (but not all) players new to naval wargaming probably won't care about the tactical diameter of battleships versus cruisers and would just find a rule calling that out to be annoying. Taking this approach allows them to easily ignore that rule, while still allowing those people interested in maximizing historical accuracy to do so.

In no way am I trying to imply that anybody couldn't or wouldn't understand why that rule is in place (although re-reading my post I can easily see how that is a conclusion that could be reached). I'm just trying to give people the rules that they want, and not force them to play with the ones that they don't.

Maybe everybody who buys Naval Thunder will play with the agile battleships rule. . . but it really costs nothing to make it optional rather than core, in case there are those few people out there that want it the other way. I could certainly see that being something that would be ignored during convention demo play for example.

Hopefully that clears up a little of why I am taking the optional approach with that rule, and maybe you can even buy into it. In any case, the agile battleships rule will be there for you to use as much as you please. :)

I remember that one.

The difference between a battleship and an armored cruiser though is length to breadth (not considering hull designs, etc). If all things are equal, it is harder to turn a longer, narrower hull than it is a shorter, wider one.

A King Edward VII Predread had a 5.4 to 1 length to breadth ratio.

A Drake class armored cruiser had a 7 to 1 length to breadth ratio.

A King George V WWI battleship had a 6.2 to 1 length to breadth ratio.

A lot though depends on underwater hull form in the area of the rudder. For example, the Japanese Yashima and Fuji were identical except that Yashima had a different hull form in the rudder area, and could turn much tighter.

I seem to recall the British early armoured cruisers of the Powerful class were considered among the least handy ships ever built.

On a similar vein, the US WW2 ships with the worst turning radius in the fleet were the Lexington and Saratoga fleet carriers and the Alaska class CB's.

The Powerful, with a length:beam ratio of 6.7:1, ended up with a tactical diameter of 1120 yards, as opposed to the Dreadnought's 440 yards (and the Yamato's 640 meters).

I wasn't aware that the Lexington, Saratoga, and Alaska were so unhandy. You learn something every day.

LT

I've never seen it written but I suspect her poor handling was one of the reasons Saratoga didn't operate with the Essex class ships later in the war: She could not maneuver within the standard AA escort box.

Naval Thunder: Clash of Dreadnoughts has been updated with the new turning rules.