Orange Capital Ships - Old Thread

[Korpen]

That marginally better deck penetration is like 1500-3000 yards decreased IZ for the same armor. Being able to penetrate 3" deck armor at 13.1ky, 3.5" at 17.3 and 4" at 19.9 is something to consider (2500lbs @ 2290fps). For 15"/45 with 2000lbs shell the corresponding values are 15.8, 20 and 22.8.

Just do not forget to take the worse belt penetration into account when looking at IZ. Granted that at 17km the difference is only about 0,5cm.
And you got much smaller danger zone from the larger gun.
Basically I do not think the almost 20% increase in weight is motivated by the extreamly marginal increase in preformance. :)

[P3D]

The effect of danger zone difference is negligible for the to hit probabilities, compared to the effect of range - I made that calculation for WWII guns, and the to-hit chance difference is less than 30% (relative) for the 14"+ caliber guns of WWII. And that is the 16"/45 with superheavy shells vs. the light shells of the Bismarck. Difference compared to the Colorado (effectively same gun, lighter shells) is 11% or less.

Moreover, your argument can also be repeated for 14"/50 vs 15"/45 - i.e. marginal improvement (<0.5") in penetration for 20% larger weight.

[Borys]

For 2500 lbs you need 42cm, no?
Borys

[P3D]

For 2500 lbs you need 42cm, no?
Borys

USN superheavy is 2700lbs.

2500lbs is the baseline 'heavy' shell vs. the 2100lbs light one. Equivalent weights scaled for different calibers: 1050 for 12", 1500 for 13.5" and 1650 for 14". From a /40 length gun the MV should be ~2300fps.

[Borys]

For 2500 lbs you need 42cm, no?
Borys

USN superheavy is 2700lbs.

2500lbs is the baseline 'heavy' shell vs. the 2100lbs light one. Equivalent weights scaled for different calibers: 1050 for 12", 1500 for 13.5" and 1650 for 14". From a /40 length gun the MV should be ~2300fps.

Nobody had a 2500lbs "heavy" 16" shell. Historical weights were 2050-2250 lbs. We are in 1914, not 1940.
The feasability of the Russian 2450lbs shells was suspect.
I believe that the USN superheavy needs some 25 years of advances in metallurgy.
Yes, I admit I tend to go for heavy shells - but I can downscale to the historical 1400 for my 13,5", and 1950lbs for my 15".
Borys

[P3D]

If I scale up the dimensions of the Habsburg (or CSA) 1500lbs 13.5" shell I get 2500lbs shell weight, so it is perfectly feasible with the tech of the day.
The 'heavy' shell weights I am using is very close to that of Russian shells for the same calibre, although slightly larger (1038, 1660, 2461lbs for 12-14-16") so the historical data supports it. You don't have to like it, that's true, but it's there.

[The Rock Doctor]

Revisiting an earlier point:

Back to the 8x15" ship. It might be the only ship class using that caliber, as the 16" gun will be developed in two years. Should I modify the design for 12x13.5" with minimal weight changes?

I'd say yes.  Easier logistics, more uniform shooting performance from your squadron, and probably cost-effective given the money involved in developing the 15" and its turret.  I believe you already have a 13.5" triple in service.

[P3D]

As the politicians wanted two battlecruisers laid down (see Kaap Kourier), the Navy agreed on the following design. As without finished turbines the ships cannot be laid down earlier than 1916, armament and some armor will be built in advance (like main gun turrets, 750t each).

Orange Fast Battleship laid down 1916

Displacement:
   35,000 t light; 36,681 t standard; 39,045 t normal; 40,936 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   772.62 ft / 770.00 ft x 93.00 ft x 33.00 ft (normal load)
   235.50 m / 234.70 m x 28.35 m  x 10.06 m

Armament:
      9 - 13.50" / 343 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,230.19lbs / 558.00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, majority forward
      6 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
      12 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1916 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
      8 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1916 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      16 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns in single mounts, 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1916 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 13,132 lbs / 5,956 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 120
   18 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13.3" / 338 mm   540.00 ft / 164.59 m   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
   Ends:   5.00" / 127 mm   180.00 ft / 54.86 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
     50.00 ft / 15.24 m Unarmoured ends
   Upper:   5.00" / 127 mm   300.00 ft / 91.44 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
     Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      2.00" / 51 mm   540.00 ft / 164.59 m   40.00 ft / 12.19 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   15.0" / 381 mm   8.00" / 203 mm      14.0" / 356 mm
   2nd:   2.00" / 51 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      1.00" / 25 mm
   3rd:   5.00" / 127 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      1.00" / 25 mm

   - Armour deck: 3.50" / 89 mm, Conning tower: 13.00" / 330 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 164,382 shp / 122,629 Kw = 31.00 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 4,256 tons

Complement:
   1,388 - 1,805

Cost:
   £5.664 million / $22.655 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,641 tons, 4.2 %
   Armour: 13,413 tons, 34.4 %
      - Belts: 5,470 tons, 14.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,598 tons, 4.1 %
      - Armament: 2,700 tons, 6.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 3,323 tons, 8.5 %
      - Conning Tower: 322 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 6,125 tons, 15.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,321 tons, 34.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,045 tons, 10.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 1.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     45,138 lbs / 20,474 Kg = 36.7 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 6.1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
   Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
   Roll period: 16.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.56
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.578
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.28 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 27.75 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      30.00 ft / 9.14 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Mid (66 %):      24.00 ft / 7.32 m (16.00 ft / 4.88 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (20 %):   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Stern:      16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Average freeboard:   21.76 ft / 6.63 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 107.8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 128.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 51,320 Square feet or 4,768 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 176 lbs/sq ft or 860 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.98
      - Longitudinal: 1.17
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[The Rock Doctor]

Are the torpedoes considered necessary on a capital ship of this size?

She certainly sets the benchmark for the type.

[P3D]

The ship will get cruiser instead of ship-of-the-line designation, and expected to conduct missions alone or leading other frigates. In the former case, the torpedoes will come handy, as they'd sink enemy ships faster than shells.

[Guinness]

An interesting difference on doctrine there. To me, something this big operating independently would generally use it's big guns against anything big enough to hurt it, and it's secondary armament against anything not.

I can see a torpedo as useful for dispatching a wounded opponent, or in a close range, poor visibility action, but that's about it. But I guess if you really wanted to be able to sink a merchantman and make a very quick getaway, a torpedo is probably a good choice. In that case, one would probably need less tubes, and more reloads.

All that said, this is an interesting ship. Well armored against similarly armed opponents and fast, but maybe underarmed for it's displacement. It would certainly need to be able to run from the coming generation of 15" armed BC/Fast BBs.

[P3D]

An interesting difference on doctrine there. To me, something this big operating independently would generally use it's big guns against anything big enough to hurt it, and it's secondary armament against anything not.

I can see a torpedo as useful for dispatching a wounded opponent, or in a close range, poor visibility action, but that's about it. But I guess if you really wanted to be able to sink a merchantman and make a very quick getaway, a torpedo is probably a good choice. In that case, one would probably need less tubes, and more reloads.

All that said, this is an interesting ship. Well armored against similarly armed opponents and fast, but maybe underarmed for it's displacement. It would certainly need to be able to run from the coming generation of 15" armed BC/Fast BBs.

The number of torpedoes is the total on board, not TTs.

This is the ship that can be built with the minimal amount of delay. If I used 15" guns, a ship with 4T2 would displace 40,000t.

[Guinness]

The number of torpedoes is the total on board, not TTs.

Ok, so that's how that works. I'd been wondering about that.

While on the subject of the murky inner workings of SS2, what's the deal with bunkerage? When you edit in SS2, you end up with one value on the "engines" tab for the bunkerage, but then the report has another which is roughly 55% more. Is the range in the report that for the full load capacity it's reporting, or that for the "Bunker" on the engines tab (which I'm guessing is the load at either standard or normal displacement)?

[P3D]

The one in the weight breakdown is for normal displacement.

[Tanthalas]

Certinly puts a crimp in my next planed class....