New Zion Cruiser

[P3D]

But Zion does not have technology to hit anything beyond 6000 yards.

[Ithekro]

At present no, but that won't last forever either.

[Desertfox]

The conclusion of those exercises was that the NS ships have abysmal hit probabilities at long ranges, takes a long time to get the range determined, due to the fact that the only way available to determine the range is by ranging shots, and they have practically zero chance to hit anything but the water if a distant target moves at a speed higher than 3 knots.

Those excercises showed that NS could reliably hit moving ships at 10,000yds. If you care to look there is one buried in the archives, somewhere around 1899. Noone said anything about it. And Constitution has the record for the longest hit to date (17,000yds) at the Battle of taiwan Strait.

The US does not sold the source code documentation (which was my point). That would have made the Chinese job to reverse-engineer the stuff almost trivial.

I didnt say I was giving them documentation (thought it wouldnt be out of character, as the US has done it with Israel), they dont need documents to fire shells.

But Zion does not have technology to hit anything beyond 6000 yards.

Which is exacly why NS is helping them.

[Borys]

Ahoj!

Those excercises showed that NS could reliably hit moving ships at 10,000yds.

One off result, never achieved again. The New Swiss are working on it. On a good day the NS can consistently hit moving ships at up to 8,000 yards.

Borys

[Korpen]

Take a look at my ships, they have heavier than normal deck armor and heavy shells, consistent with long range fire.

If you have upper belts, there is not much point in thick deck armour.  While it depends on the exact measurements of the ship, even the guns with the lowest  Vo will be unlikely to be able to hit the deck without first passing trough the upper belt at any ranges under 160hm.

[Earl822]

OOC: This is what I meant by acting as an independant ship designer ;D

IC:

Dear Sirs,

Armstrong & Witworth would offer the following design to New Zion for Construction in the yards of New Zion, as a potential answer to their need for a suitable ship for service in the Mozambique Channel, where the nature of the waterway requires a ship that can sail at its top speed for extended periods, for instance, at 20knots this ship can sail for over 1000nautical miles, giving it an advantage over most of the vessels presently in operation in that area.
Faster, less well protected versions of this design are avaliable from this office at request,

Yours Faithfully,

D Gauntlett Esq, Chief Designer, Armstrong & Witworth Co Ltd.

Mount Zion, New Zion (Armstrong & Witworth Design Dept) Coast Defence ship laid down 1907 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   5,000 t light; 5,424 t standard; 6,023 t normal; 6,503 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   393.00 ft / 393.00 ft x 61.00 ft x 16.75 ft (normal load)
   119.79 m / 119.79 m x 18.59 m  x 5.11 m

Armament:
      4 - 10.00" / 254 mm guns (2x2 guns), 500.00lbs / 226.80kg shells, 1907 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      4 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1907 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side ends, evenly spread
      12 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1907 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, all aft, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
      12 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns in single mounts, 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1907 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 2,600 lbs / 1,179 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 200
   4 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes, 4 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   6.50" / 165 mm   230.00 ft / 70.10 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
   Ends:   3.50" / 89 mm   163.00 ft / 49.68 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   7.00" / 178 mm   2.00" / 51 mm      6.00" / 152 mm
   2nd:   1.50" / 38 mm   0.50" / 13 mm      0.50" / 13 mm

   - Armour deck: 1.50" / 38 mm, Conning tower: 8.00" / 203 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 12,500 shp / 9,325 Kw = 20.23 kts
   Range 4,285nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,079 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   341 - 444

Cost:
   £0.535 million / $2.142 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 325 tons, 5.4 %
   Armour: 1,513 tons, 25.1 %
      - Belts: 702 tons, 11.7 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 301 tons, 5.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 454 tons, 7.5 %
      - Conning Tower: 57 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 625 tons, 10.4 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,436 tons, 40.4 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,024 tons, 17.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 1.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     8,254 lbs / 3,744 Kg = 16.5 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 1.6 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
   Metacentric height 3.4 ft / 1.0 m
   Roll period: 14.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.50
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.17

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has low quarterdeck
   Block coefficient: 0.525
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.44 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.82 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Forecastle (10 %):   14.25 ft / 4.34 m
      - Mid (40 %):      14.15 ft / 4.31 m
      - Quarterdeck (25 %):   6.00 ft / 1.83 m (14.15 ft / 4.31 m before break)
      - Stern:      6.00 ft / 1.83 m
      - Average freeboard:   12.29 ft / 3.75 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.2 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 118.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 16,344 Square feet or 1,518 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 110 lbs/sq ft or 535 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.95
      - Longitudinal: 1.52
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform


Mount Zion

[Korpen]

OOC: This is what I meant by acting as an independant ship designer ;D

IC:

Dear Sirs,

Armstrong & Witworth would offer the following design to New Zion for Construction in the yards of New Zion, as a potential answer to their need for a suitable ship for service in the Mozambique Channel, where the nature of the waterway requires a ship that can sail at its top speed for extended periods, for instance, at 20knots this ship can sail for over 1000nautical miles, giving it an advantage over most of the vessels presently in operation in that area.
Faster, less well protected versions of this design are avaliable from this office at request,

The main problem with high sustained speed for a coal burning ship is not the total amount of fuel, but the rate at witch it can be shovelled into the boilers. Few coal firing ships was capable of top speed for much more then a few hours at best.

Other then that, i do not think the ship is bad, but not very good either. Iam not convinced that 25cm guns is enogh fo fight of anything other then old armoured cruisers.

And the ship needs a deeper belt, as there is a real risk that the bottom of the belt will be above the waterline (example: http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Niemcy/Battleships/1910_Von_der_Tann_class/Von_der_Tann_02.jpg), i do not really know what the effect i called.

[Earl822]

In which case, NZ better stop wasting money on warships, and put all its efforts into building a series of powerful coastal fortresses.

[The Rock Doctor]

The belt depth is probably fine, considering that the freeboard aft is only six feet.  On the other hand, that limited freeboard bothers me some.

Personally, I don't really buy into the coastal defence battleship concept much.  They're little more than speedbumps to capital ships, can't get near cruisers, and are not cost-effective for countering enemy torpedo craft.  This is particularly true in New Zion's case, where there's no geography (island chains, fiords) conducive to hide-and-shoot tactics.  Build a battleship, or don't build a battleship: don't build half a battleship.

The Zionites would be better off putting some gun installations to cover their key ports, and acquiring the Swiss submarines (and perhaps some torpedo-boats) to defend themselves.

[Korpen]

The belt depth is probably fine, considering that the freeboard aft is only six feet.  On the other hand, that limited freeboard bothers me some.

Personally, I don't really buy into the coastal defence battleship concept much.  They're little more than speedbumps to capital ships, can't get near cruisers, and are not cost-effective for countering enemy torpedo craft.  This is particularly true in New Zion's case, where there's no geography (island chains, fiords) conducive to hide-and-shoot tactics.  Build a battleship, or don't build a battleship: don't build half a battleship.

The Zionites would be better off putting some gun installations to cover their key ports, and acquiring the Swiss submarines (and perhaps some torpedo-boats) to defend themselves.

The point is that while they will most likely loose to battleships, it means that those battleships will not be somewhere else.
This risk theory is based on making sure NZ is not alone in a conflict, so that is something their politician have to work towards (while at the same time making sure they do not get dragged into someone else's conflict).

Generally combined arms beats non-combined, so it is a good idea for the NZ to at least have some artillery ships to back up lighter combatants. But i guess fortifications will be on the top of the prioritylist. :)

[The Rock Doctor]

Valid point that those foreign (DKB?) battleships won't be elsewhere.  On the other hand, the foreign power may not find it necessary to engage the coastal BBs.  Hard to say - depends on the enemy's objectives for the region.

Risk theory is good, but an alliance with NS is trading a low-risk-of-war/low-chance-of-success for a high-risk-of-war/high-chance-of-success that could still be quite devastating to the NZ economy and military.  Considering the wide range of powers NS has traded fire with in the past decade, NZ now also has a much more extensive range of possible adversaries and threats than it did as an unaligned nuetral.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Coastal battleships are not to fight battleships. They trade speed and range for guns and protection. They are the size of a small Armoured Cruiser, but you need a battleship to chase them away.

As to this Norman designed ship - I'd shorten her and go for a block coeficient of around 0,65-0,70. Maybe decrease draght slightly. And cut down speed to 15-16 knots.

As it is now, to force my way past this 5$ ship I would need to send a 15$ ship ...

Borys

[Korpen]

Valid point that those foreign (DKB?) battleships won't be elsewhere.  On the other hand, the foreign power may not find it necessary to engage the coastal BBs.  Hard to say - depends on the enemy's objectives for the region.

Risk theory is good, but an alliance with NS is trading a low-risk-of-war/low-chance-of-success for a high-risk-of-war/high-chance-of-success that could still be quite devastating to the NZ economy and military.  Considering the wide range of powers NS has traded fire with in the past decade, NZ now also has a much more extensive range of possible adversaries and threats than it did as an unaligned nuetral.

That was the reason i put in the bit about being dragged into someones elses conflict.

I guess their best bet is to try and play their neighbours (France, Egypt, Italy and the Netherlands) against each other (By making sure that it is everyone's best interest that NZ do not belong to someone else), and make sure that they do not get snatched up by anyone, but avoiding getting to close to any one power, as that increases the risk of conflict radically. So i doubt they would ever go into formal alliance with the NS, as NS is far away, but France and DKB is right next door...

[The Rock Doctor]

As it is now, to force my way past this 5$ ship I would need to send a 15$ ship ...

If you want to sink it without taking any significant damage in return, yes, you do.  However, any predreadnought has an advantage in armament and protection, and the speed differential may not be critical depending on the circumstances of the action.  An armored cruiser is a match for armament and protection, and likely faster.  Either can fight the CDBB to a standstill, and NZ then loses the battle of attrition.

Besides - you don't need to sink her.  Put a few holes into her and the Zionites will be challenged to repair her with their limited tech base and resources.  Meanwhile, you've got the Mozambique channel to yourself for a few months.

[Desertfox]

One off result, never achieved again. The New Swiss are working on it. On a good day the NS can consistently hit moving ships at up to 8,000 yards.

Any sucker can hit up to 8,000 yds just look at the Battle of Tsushima (1904). With proper training and tactics NS can hit up to 10,000 yds reliably, and possibly more. Its hard but not impossible, and Im not looking for decisive results in such and engagement.


Who does NZ have to fight on the sea?

Italy, Does she have any major ships in the area?

France, No amount of BBs is going to stop her.

Egypt, A fleet of old decript ships, a couple of modern CCBBs could stop the Egyptian fleet.

DKB, Most probable enemy. Has the problem that it cannot concentrate all of its forces at one point without leaving its back uncovered. Currently the Germans have PD, 2 GK, 3PzK, 2 KK, 3 GTB, 2 TB, and misc gunboats. The Swiss designed CCBBs as designed are the equal to the GKs and the PCs where to be rebuilt with Swiss help. The rebuilt PCs can match the PzKs, and NZ can probably aquire some DDs.

Considering that, spending around 9 BPs (with scrap providing half) NZ can pretty much match the German African Fleet with the exception of PD. The German Home Fleet can not support the African Fleet without leaving DKB vulnerable to a Swiss counter stroke.