Centerline Turrets

[Blooded]

Hello,

I want to make sure the ships I am planning/building will be 'legal'.

Earl had laid down 3 'Drednought's in 1905 with:

      8 - 13.39" / 340 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,250.00lbs / 566.99kg shells, 1905 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount - superfiring

This had not been countered until the 'Preussen' in 1908:

      8 - 14,00" / 356 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.372,00lbs / 622,33kg shells, 1908 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring

I started my counter 'Conqueror'-renaming to 'Monarch' 2H-1908:

      8 - 13.39" / 340 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,250.00lbs / 566.99kg shells, 1905 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring(added)
     Aft Main mounts separated by engine room

It had been suggested by another player that maybe the Drednought designs were a counter to other designs. But as far as I can see No other ships seem to be designed like this except maybe 'Triunfante' 6x2 12" , but her front end has side by side turrets and 12" Guns.

Before things went any further I wanted to make sure everyone is OK with these ships ( I believe all 3 to be too modern truthfully).

English ships turret layout went from Majestic-1893(Glory-1892) and Duncan-1899+(King-1898) type designs to Lion-1909+(Drednought-1905) and now Tiger-1911(Monarch-1908). Not a very realistic progression. I am not sure but I picture 'Preussen' to be similar to the Mackensens-1914?- with closer superfiring turrets in the rear(Bayern style).

I plan on building more 'Monarch' Style ships so I don't want to cross any lines.

[maddox]

Nverse II history.

The progression of Earl822's ships came trough the coorperation of the French.

The UNK was/is the main turbine deliverer to France, and in exchange France delivered 340mm twin turrets. 

The reason, simple, the main enemies the UNK had to fear at that time were France and Rohan.
Both having very large and dangerous battleships.

And even if the treaty of New York was binding, you never know when that "republique" sparks another revolution.

In effect, you can build Dreadnaught alike ships and better.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
I am not quite sure what this is to look like:

on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring(added)

I can understand one superfiring - Q over Z, aka HMS Tiger or HIJMS Kongo or SMS Mackensen - but the other one is firing over what?
Borys

[Tanthalas]

I think it was just intended to be like a 4 turret ship, think Braymen

[Blooded]

Hello,

Honestly, I am not sure what is considered superfiring in the Kongo/Tiger Case. I would consider B superfires over A and Q over Z (although with a distance between them).

Since no description or picture was created for Earls Drednought I'm not sure How he envisioned it. Since it is 4 turrets on the 'ends' with one superfiring, I would assume the front turrets would have to be superfiring(as having A and B at the same level up front wasn't done) with a small rear structure(or none) in between the two rear turrets(like the RL Drednought).

I figured with the 'new' Baltic design with 4 turrets on the ends with 2 superfiring it would have to be like RL Bayern/Bismark/etc..

I figured the next logical step for UNK would be to copy the Bayern style or go for a Kongo/Tiger style and raise the Q turret to superfire. I liked the Tiger style so I went with 'centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts' it did not add superfiring so I added it. If Centerline,distributed doesn't work like that I guess I have some redesigning to do.

If you think Earls design is meant to be something else please let me know. I still think they are all too modern with only superfiring rears in use during RL 1908 and superfiring forward turrets beginning in RL1909 as far as I can tell (at least with Guns over 12").

[P3D]

SS considers any turret that superfires. Tiger, Kongo Q/X turret counts as superfiring, like classical ABQXY and ABXY arrangements. OTOH the A turret of the Dreadnought should also be superfiring, not as raised freeboard fore of the midbreak (the actual raised freeboard is pretty short).
Lowered Quarterdeck (e.g. QE) should be simulated similarly with 2 raised turrets, the shorter barbettes have lower weight. Sim a ship with lower freeboard after midbreak, and armor weight will be different for all fore and all aft arrangements.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Blooded - now I understand the idea.
Maybe sim
"3x2 - on centerline, evenly distributed, one raised" + "1x2 - on centerline, majority fore, all raised"

If there is a significant difference versus
"on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts"
I'd suggest going with the convulted arrangment. If nothing changes - i.e. change to lenght of armour necessary to cover magazines and machinery - then I think your original idea for layout is OK.

Borys

[The Rock Doctor]

I appreciate the concern, but I think the Navalism world is more suitable for the evolution of a dreadnought than our historical world.  Navalism went from two-turret pre-dreadnoughts to a fairly large group of three-turret semi-dreadnoughts; from there a four-turret or five-turret design is not such a grand leap of thought.  From that perspective, I think the Norman version of Dreadnought is perfectly acceptable; somebody has to be first, and Earl did joke that it ought to be somebody who could call their new ship "Dreadnought".

If there was a facet of the Norman Dreadnought I don't like, it's the gun caliber.  I figure folks are jumping to higher calibers a bit early for my own liking, but the train has left the station in that regard.

I agree that the logical progressions from Earl's Dreadnought is Bayern or Tiger; a Konig/Iron Duke layout is also an option.

As a heads-up:  the final "Triunfante" design dropped the side-by-side layout and went with six turrets on the centreline, USS Wyoming style.

[Blooded]

Hello,

Great information guys! I do appreciate the explanations, i want to do my best to sim up the ships properly.

I was not aware of the short foredeck idea, I would have thought of the RL Drednought as having 30-35% of length as forecastle but the side cutouts should really not be considered. Leaving maybe around 12.5%. Makes alot of sense. So I will do up the Monarch with 3 raised turrets(two front and Q). The drednought should have 2 raised(both front).

I agree the caliber is large step as well. 12" guns are far more economical in regards to ship size. Don't know why but I always liked the Wyomings(and Ise as well) most don't care for the ship and a half look.

Thanks again!

[Borys]

Ahoj!
The Habsburg fleet ordered this ship:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/JonEngland/AginSeydlitz-1.jpg
The SMS Siligia.
Borys

[Tanthalas]

Ahoj!
The Habsburg fleet ordered this ship:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/JonEngland/AginSeydlitz-1.jpg
The SMS Siligia.
Borys

EEK TURRET FARM.....I find myself horibly torn on the subject of guns, while the standard large gun of the RN is the 12", i realy like the 14" tripple

[Ithekro]

You'll likely find that most of the accelerated problems started in Rohan with the use of three turrets starting with the laying down of Theoden in 1893.  Rohan, at the time, was involved in a prolonged Cold War with the Anahuac in Mexico and Central America.  The Mark's concepts involved more guns rather than speed or even armor in some cases.  With 6 x 12" and 8 x 9" guns, the Rohorrim Battleships had ample firepower over their enemy who used standard 4 main guns predreadnoughts.  The Anahuac always tried to stay a little ahead of Rohan in terms of gun diameter.  Thus they used 250mm guns over the 9 inch, and 300mm guns over the 11 inch.  This resulted in the use of 330mm guns over the 12 inch in their last model of battleships.  Rohan began to counter this by designing a 14 inch cannon in 1899.  This guns was finished, but with the post-war depression (lack of BP to build ships and lots of ships to rebuild and scrap) these were never mounted on a warship.  In 1902 new technology allowed for an improved model of 14 inch gun to be made that was stronger.  These are the guns fitted to the Freawine and Walda, and also to be fitted to the Helm Hammerhand-class battleships.

As for ships with more than 3 main turrets, that can be blamed on the French and Rohan.  France was building battleships in 1899 that had two main caliber twin turret types (12" and 340mm).  None of these three ships were ever completed as designed.  One and half of another were melded together as the horror that is the Greater Napoleon.  The lead ship was held up do to this project and later (gifted) to Rohan as payment for the lease of the Grand Canal Zone due to Rohan's protest over the arrangement in the post-Anahuac War years.  This ship along with her half finished sister (which was to be scrapped by (lost) and recovered by Rohan) became the first "All Big Gun Battleships" Arcadia and Shadowfax.  Arcadia being the type that was to beat was not all that hard, but it took time.  Being armed with 10 x 12 inch guns (in twins and triples) and with a turbine engine (oil fired was delayed) at 20 knots, Arcadia was briefly the most powerful ship on the planet.  Only Greater Napoleon could rival her, and it had the problem of breaking its own keel.  Arcadia also introduced triple turrets to the world  (because her main barbettes were designed to handle 340mm twins which Rohan did not have and the 14 inch mixed with 12 inch was not thought of as a useful design by Rohan, so a rather tight fit third gun of athe 12 inch type was fitted in a 14 inch twin turret.  Single sleeve.).  This of course lead to the rush to build other large battleships of the "Arcadia type" and the Brandenburg Scharnhorst gives us the first real Battlecruisers.  The Norman "Dreadnought" is easier to use in conversation however.

[Korpen]

I appreciate the concern, but I think the Navalism world is more suitable for the evolution of a dreadnought than our historical world.  Navalism went from two-turret pre-dreadnoughts to a fairly large group of three-turret semi-dreadnoughts; from there a four-turret or five-turret design is not such a grand leap of thought.  From that perspective, I think the Norman version of Dreadnought is perfectly acceptable; somebody has to be first, and Earl did joke that it ought to be somebody who could call their new ship "Dreadnought".

If there was a facet of the Norman Dreadnought I don't like, it's the gun caliber.  I figure folks are jumping to higher calibers a bit early for my own liking, but the train has left the station in that regard.

I wonder how much that have to do with the amount of armour placed on some of the newer battleships. After all pretty much all capital ships have more then 30cm of KV armour, and that is enough to stop an un-capped 30,5cm shell at around 5000m. Against ships with 35cm or belt, a 30,5cm gun would be unlikely to penetrate even if placed right next to the plate...

[The Rock Doctor]

Good point.  We probably are ahead of historical belt thicknesses here - I guess armor-rolling techniques are better in Navalism.

[Earl822]

Just as well as I dropped by, the answer here is that the centre turret is a deck higher than in the original Dreadnought Class.