1908 Confederate CDS (projected)

[Carthaginian]

The Confederate Navy is planning a class of small but well-armed Coast Defense Ships for it's lower-priority areas. They will be armed with the same main guns as our battleships (for ease of manufacturing and logistical simplicity) and will feature a small secondary battery for combating small cruisers and torpedo boats. The 2.75" guns are going to be developed soon and will be added after they are built; 57mm guns will be included in the designs as constructed. It is hoped that these ships will be able to adequately handle the minimal threat posed by the Democratic Republic of Mesoamerica's negligible navy, for the next decade at least.

They are intended to operate in a squadron the Virginia, sharing the same top speed and main guns, allowing the ships to steam and fight as a unit. They will be produced concurrently with the Nuevo Leon-class, and will replace the pre-dreadnoughts in the Pacific fleet, which will be retired as the new ships enter service. They are also designed with a secondary mission as coastal bombardment ships, able to go close inshore with their shallow drafts.




Fort Morgan, Confederate States of America Coastal Defense Ship laid down 1908 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   5,200 t light; 5,465 t standard; 5,841 t normal; 6,142 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   360.00 ft / 360.00 ft x 60.00 ft x 16.00 ft (normal load)
   109.73 m / 109.73 m x 18.29 m  x 4.88 m

Armament:
      2 - 13.50" / 343 mm guns in single mounts, 1,250.00lbs / 566.99kg shells, 1905 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      6 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 100.00lbs / 45.36kg shells, 1907 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships
      8 - 2.75" / 69.9 mm guns in single mounts, 12.50lbs / 5.67kg shells, 1908 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 3,200 lbs / 1,451 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 80

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   6.00" / 152 mm   250.00 ft / 76.20 m   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
   Ends:   3.00" / 76 mm   110.00 ft / 33.53 m   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
     Main Belt covers 107 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   6.00" / 152 mm   3.00" / 76 mm      3.00" / 76 mm
   2nd:   3.00" / 76 mm         -         3.00" / 76 mm
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 6.00" / 152 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 9,249 shp / 6,900 Kw = 18.50 kts
   Range 5,600nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 677 tons

Complement:
   333 - 434

Cost:
   £0.576 million / $2.304 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 399 tons, 6.8 %
   Armour: 2,087 tons, 35.7 %
      - Belts: 1,236 tons, 21.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 229 tons, 3.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 580 tons, 9.9 %
      - Conning Tower: 42 tons, 0.7 %
   Machinery: 420 tons, 7.2 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,282 tons, 39.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 641 tons, 11.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 11 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     7,320 lbs / 3,320 Kg = 6.0 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 1.8 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
   Metacentric height 2.9 ft / 0.9 m
   Roll period: 14.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.53
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.592
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 18.97 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 68
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 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 (20 %):   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
      - Mid (50 %):      10.00 ft / 3.05 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
      - Stern:      10.00 ft / 3.05 m
      - Average freeboard:   10.64 ft / 3.24 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 89.7 %
   Waterplane Area: 15,673 Square feet or 1,456 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 95 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 111 lbs/sq ft or 544 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 1.45
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[P3D]

Does not have enough gun tubes to hit anything. 2 main guns might be justified in the 1890s, counting on the 6"-s to wreck the ship and then make the coup de grace from short distance. But there's a good chance that only two guns won't hit anything at distance, so its deterrent value is diminished. Ranging would be close to impossible.
160 main battery round might not be enough for shore bombardment either. RN monitors had 200-220 (14-15")-round magazines.

Similarly, 3x6" battery on one side is fewer than what a cruiser can bring into a head-on engagement. The 3" guns are useful only against TBs.

Armor: not really good against 8-10" guns. A ship with say 6x9.2" or 8x9.2" broadside would score 5-6 times as many hits, with the ability to penetrate the belt. I also doubt you need 6' underwater belt (10' freeboard).

The deck-mounted 6" is against the rules. Casemates with 6" armor IMO would be a better solution.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Secondaries with shield on deck not possible?

Borys

[P3D]

We argued that we don't want turreted secondaries. Deck mounts might be allowed for coastal battleships, but they cannot be protected to any adequate level, so there's the reason to put them into the casemates.

[Walter]

We argued that we don't want turreted secondaries.

So what you are saying is that if I put my secondaries in C/E turrets, it is against the rules... while it was done in RL before 1900...

Deck mounts might be allowed for coastal battleships, but they cannot be protected to any adequate level, so there's the reason to put them into the casemates.

While I agree with you that the casemates are the better option, it is ridiculous to say that the deck-mounted 6" guns are against the rules... which is what you said...

[P3D]

The rule is there to force people to put smaller (4.5-6") guns into casemates on battleships. Otherwise some players would build turreted secondaries, looking like ships from the '20s-'30s. 5-6" in deck mountings are unprotected, and no naval board would have allowed them.

This is not the first discussion about the topic BTW.

[Korpen]

The rule is there to force people to put smaller (4.5-6") guns into casemates on battleships. Otherwise some players would build turreted secondaries, looking like ships from the '20s-'30s. 5-6" in deck mountings are unprotected, and no naval board would have allowed them.

This is not the first discussion about the topic BTW.

To be honest i do note really see the problem, as we are limited to shielded deck mounts rather then gunhouses, they will never be as well protected as casemates, so it is simply a choice for the designer if he or she wants them to maximise the protection of the secondaries or to maximise the degrees they can fire over. Both systems have their advantages, but i do not think the rules should forbid ships to carry guns in deck mounts, as that is after all the most basic form of mounting, after all, doing that would outlaw almost all cruisers.

[Ithekro]

What about something a little more expensive, but with twice the main battery.  Thus you would not need to research a single turret mount for the 13.5" guns.

Fort Morgan

Confederate States of America Coastal Battleship laid down 1908 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   5,644 t light; 6,113 t standard; 6,560 t normal; 6,892 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   300.00 ft / 300.00 ft x 62.00 ft x 16.00 ft (normal load)
   91.44 m / 91.44 m x 18.90 m  x 4.88 m

Armament:
      4 - 13.50" / 343 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1,250.00lbs / 566.99kg shells, 1908 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 100.00lbs / 45.36kg shells, 1908 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all amidships
      8 - 2.75" / 69.9 mm guns in single mounts, 12.50lbs / 5.67kg shells, 1908 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 5,900 lbs / 2,676 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   8.00" / 203 mm   195.00 ft / 59.44 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
   Ends:   3.00" / 76 mm   105.00 ft / 32.00 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   8.00" / 203 mm   3.00" / 76 mm      3.00" / 76 mm
   2nd:   3.00" / 76 mm         -         3.00" / 76 mm
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 8.00" / 203 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 6,605 shp / 4,927 Kw = 16.00 kts
   Range 6,000nm at 10.00 kts (Bunkerage = 805 tons)

Complement:
   363 - 473

Cost:
   £0.856 million / $3.423 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 733 tons, 11.2 %
   Armour: 1,712 tons, 26.1 %
      - Belts: 666 tons, 10.1 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 397 tons, 6.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 589 tons, 9.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 60 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 300 tons, 4.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,887 tons, 44.0 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 916 tons, 14.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 12 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     6,174 lbs / 2,800 Kg = 5.0 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 1.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
   Metacentric height 3.0 ft / 0.9 m
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.84
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.772
   Length to Beam Ratio: 4.84 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 17.32 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 66
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
      - Mid (50 %):      11.00 ft / 3.35 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
      - Stern:      11.00 ft / 3.35 m
      - Average freeboard:   11.48 ft / 3.50 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 91.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 15,914 Square feet or 1,478 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 80 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 143 lbs/sq ft or 697 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.00
      - Longitudinal: 2.41
      - Overall: 1.09
   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

[maddox]

The verdict on deckmounts , turreted secundaries and such is simple.

Twin mounts and/or larger deck mounts (5"+) in unpowered applications are slow and cumbersome. Imagine to turn a few tons by hand. If the pivot instalation is smooth running and perfectly balanced it can't be aimed in any seaway as the ships movement will swing the gun easier than people can handle it, and even then, once the gun moves, that mass will want to keep on moving.
So friction brakes, hydraulic compensators and such increase the mount weight and reduces the ease of operation.
That is why those mounts are represented by mount and hoist. And extra misc weight is asked for to represent the extra power needed to operate these mounts.
And then the danger and problems of the open stored shells and propellant.

In effect, no designer (N-verse speaking) would think about using any important gun un or lightly protected if it is possible. Of course, specialised applications are possible. But that has dis- and advantages the moderators will see per application, using history and common sence as guidelines.


For example. France has some stupid gun concepts. Like a twin 165 QF in a deck mount and hoist. Fully armored on the Ville Class armored cruisers. These guns are not useable against any fast target and the total idea doesn't work. (remember this when you meet one of the 5 ships of this class).

Other stupid idea is the 140mm QF gun. Only the strongest gunners can work with this 50kg+ shell+propellant casing. Some ships will be capable to utilise these guns well, but others don't have the manpower. This also will effect the battles fought by these ship.

[Korpen]

The verdict on deckmounts , turreted secundaries and such is simple.

Twin mounts and/or larger deck mounts (5"+) in unpowered applications are slow and cumbersome. Imagine to turn a few tons by hand. If the pivot instalation is smooth running and perfectly balanced it can't be aimed in any seaway as the ships movement will swing the gun easier than people can handle it, and even then, once the gun moves, that mass will want to keep on moving.
So friction brakes, hydraulic compensators and such increase the mount weight and reduces the ease of operation.
That is why those mounts are represented by mount and hoist. And extra misc weight is asked for to represent the extra power needed to operate these mounts.
And then the danger and problems of the open stored shells and propellant.

In effect, no designer (N-verse speaking) would think about using any important gun un or lightly protected if it is possible. Of course, specialised applications are possible. But that has dis- and advantages the moderators will see per application, using history and common sence as guidelines.


For example. France has some stupid gun concepts. Like a twin 165 QF in a deck mount and hoist. Fully armored on the Ville Class armored cruisers. These guns are not useable against any fast target and the total idea doesn't work. (remember this when you meet one of the 5 ships of this class).

Other stupid idea is the 140mm QF gun. Only the strongest gunners can work with this 50kg+ shell+propellant casing. Some ships will be capable to utilise these guns well, but others don't have the manpower. This also will effect the battles fought by these ship.

So, if IO understand you correctly, all cruisers with 15cm mounts and hoist  will have guns with reduced effectiveness, as i know i at least do not have extra misc weight for the guns?

And from my experience with "modern" QF guns in 15cm, you pretty much need two-three people to handle the shot.
From the pictures in Allied artillery of world war one (Ian V. Hogg), that seems to be the case of the historic 15cm French coast artillery piece as well.

[maddox]

It all depends on situation Korpen.  You can imagine that a 6" gun won't be capable to track a TB very well , but  will be devastating if it hits. So a good gun crew can anticipate both the speed of the TB and the handling of their own gun.
(just like a hunter will anticipate the speed of a bird and the lead needed to give the buckshot a good chance).

It's not reduced effectiviness, but rather the other way around. People investing will gain advantages... Just like in the real world.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
No Korpen, SINGLE 6 inch mount and hoist guns are OK. They are light enough to be effectively manpower operated.
The problem is that SS does not distinguish between manually operated mount&hoist with (or without) a shield, and a weatherproof enclosed power operated mounting.

Borys

[Korpen]

Ahoj!
No Korpen, SINGLE 6 inch mount and hoist guns are OK. They are light enough to be effectively manpower operated.
The problem is that SS does not distinguish between manually operated mount&hoist with (or without) a shield, and a weatherproof enclosed power operated mounting.

Borys

I think i never talked about anything but single mounts.
I did look trough NavWeaps, and as far as i can find, there were no power operated single or casemated guns in this period.
The only possible case were the Russian 152 mm/50 pattern 1908, as that is not clearly stated if it was manual or not.
So i think the debate about powered deckmounts are unnecessary at the moment, I hope it is safe to assume that all non-turreted guns are unpowered in train and elevation.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Yes, it boils down to Rule Numer One :)
We tried to make the rules dissuade players from trying to push through enclosed twin power mounts beforer 1920.
Navweapons does not mention this, but there was a twin 6 inch turret&barbette dating to 1900 or so, on the early County class RN ACs. But it did not work correctly, and the RN decided that 6 inches was too small a calibre to bother with in turrets anyway, so the later Counties had single 7,5 inch gun turrets instead.

Borys

[Korpen]

Ahoj!
Yes, it boils down to Rule Numer One :)
We tried to make the rules dissuade players from trying to push through enclosed twin power mounts beforer 1920.
Navweapons does not mention this, but there was a twin 6 inch turret&barbette dating to 1900 or so, on the early County class RN ACs. But it did not work correctly, and the RN decided that 6 inches was too small a calibre to bother with in turrets anyway, so the later Counties had single 7,5 inch gun turrets instead.

Borys

More then one class, as the Swedish HMS Flygia had twins in enclosed gunhouses.

But i find that usally people hed pretty good reasons for doing what they did back then.
And note that i only mentioned singles. ;)