New Build to suplement the curent 10" cruisers

[Desertfox]

Exaclly why NS built them. The use of a small but powerful fleet capable of switching fronts rapidly was the base of the NSN and was used succesfuly, striking the Dutch at Tarakan then hitting the Germans at Rabaul in the space of 3 weeks.

Now looking at battle results:

Tarakan, Dutch (German style, small guns, heavy armor) vs Swiss (British style, big guns, less armor)
Dutch unable to penetrate Swiss armor, Swiss destroy several Dutch turrets after penetrating heavy armor. Had Swiss gunnery been as good as the Dutch, the Dutch would have suffered a heavy defeat at Tarakan, as it was had the Dutch used cordite a couple of Dutch ships would have exploded.

Japan, German (1 FBB heavy armor) vs Swiss (2 BC light armor)
Schanhorts comes within an inch of blowing up, had she used bag casings instead of copper casings she would have blown up. Constitution survives 13x12" hits with limited damage.

The Great Pacific War seems to have validated the BC concept. Speed and firepower over armor is what the NSN learned.

[Sachmle]

Japan, German (1 FBB heavy armor) vs Swiss (2 BC light armor)
Schanhorts comes within an inch of blowing up, had she used bag casings instead of copper casings she would have blown up. Constitution survives 13x12" hits with limited damage.

The Great Pacific War seems to have validated the BC concept. Speed and firepower over armor is what the NSN learned.

This isn't the best example considering it was two on one. Even if Scharnhorst was superior to either Swiss BC alone, the combined firepower of 2 is hard to overcome. If anything this validates the heavy armor concept because she stood up to 2 12" armed ships and survived.

[Korpen]

Exaclly why NS built them. The use of a small but powerful fleet capable of switching fronts rapidly was the base of the NSN and was used succesfuly, striking the Dutch at Tarakan then hitting the Germans at Rabaul in the space of 3 weeks.

Now looking at battle results:

Tarakan, Dutch (German style, small guns, heavy armor) vs Swiss (British style, big guns, less armor)
Dutch unable to penetrate Swiss armor, Swiss destroy several Dutch turrets after penetrating heavy armor. Had Swiss gunnery been as good as the Dutch, the Dutch would have suffered a heavy defeat at Tarakan, as it was had the Dutch used cordite a couple of Dutch ships would have exploded.

I think the Swiss were very lucky not to lose all or some of their ships there considering how small their belts are. If shipping 1000 tons of water (on a normal load), the main belt and end belts of australia should be submerged, 2000 ton of water would have killed United states (submerged the ends), who could be sunk without penetrating the main belt (as it is so shorth).
In  addition, you got quite lucky with your hits, 15cm +17cm highly curved barbarette is not something a 30cm shell is likely to penetrate, doing it twice is fantastic luck.
The single largest reason the swiss survived was that they simply was luckier.

[Desertfox]

The fight of Japan quickly became one to one after Alliance got taken out by a lucky strike. Schanhorts survived mainly because Swiss gunnery was pretty atrocious.

Actually it was 3 times, twice on Flanders and once on a BB.

Just pointing out that even if the concept is flawed, battle results aren't helping one bit, as they seem to say the concept works fine.

[Tanthalas]

Could we please return this thread to its intended purpose instead opf debating weather or not whoever had tha better ship.  is the 6X11" ship worth building?

[Ithekro]

The main problem you may find, as with any two turreted ship, is that if you loose a turret, you are out 50% of your main firepower.  This design is balanced fore and aft so you have the same amount of firepower if you are chasing a target or running from something.  In the systems I have, there is no difference between 10" and 11" guns in terms of firepower and range.  There may be a slight difference in armor penetration when things have to be checked verses critical hits.

[Tanthalas]

so Basicly I may as well build 6X10" and save the extra weight?

[Tanthalas]

another thought I had since 10" and 11" are basicly the same

Italia-BC-1910, Italia Battle Cruiser laid down 1910 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   15,473 t light; 16,105 t standard; 17,056 t normal; 17,817 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   551.12 ft / 545.00 ft x 80.00 ft x 25.00 ft (normal load)
   167.98 m / 166.12 m x 24.38 m  x 7.62 m

Armament:
      8 - 10.00" / 254 mm guns (3 mounts), 500.00lbs / 226.80kg shells, 1910 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1910 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all amidships
      2 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (1x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1910 Model
     Quick firing guns in a deck mount with hoist
     on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
      20 - 0.75" / 19.1 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0.21lbs / 0.10kg shells, 1910 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 5,031 lbs / 2,282 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   338.00 ft / 103.02 m   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
   Ends:   5.00" / 127 mm   207.00 ft / 63.09 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Upper:   5.00" / 127 mm   338.00 ft / 103.02 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
     Main Belt covers 95 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1.50" / 38 mm   338.00 ft / 103.02 m   22.96 ft / 7.00 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   5.00" / 127 mm      10.0" / 254 mm
   2nd:   4.00" / 102 mm   3.00" / 76 mm            -
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm   1.00" / 25 mm            -
   4th:   1.00" / 25 mm   1.00" / 25 mm            -

   - Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 48,458 shp / 36,150 Kw = 25.00 kts
   Range 7,300nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,711 tons

Complement:
   746 - 970

Cost:
   £1.378 million / $5.513 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 629 tons, 3.7 %
   Armour: 6,436 tons, 37.7 %
      - Belts: 3,270 tons, 19.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 431 tons, 2.5 %
      - Armament: 1,441 tons, 8.4 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,123 tons, 6.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 171 tons, 1.0 %
   Machinery: 2,203 tons, 12.9 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,005 tons, 35.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,583 tons, 9.3 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 1.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     24,132 lbs / 10,946 Kg = 48.3 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 4.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 4.3 ft / 1.3 m
   Roll period: 16.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 63 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.44
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.17

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.548
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.81 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23.35 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 9.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      26.00 ft / 7.92 m
      - Forecastle (19 %):   22.00 ft / 6.71 m
      - Mid (50 %):      22.00 ft / 6.71 m (15.00 ft / 4.57 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (19 %):   15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Stern:      15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Average freeboard:   18.80 ft / 5.73 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 143.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 30,362 Square feet or 2,821 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 137 lbs/sq ft or 671 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.95
      - Longitudinal: 1.48
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[P3D]

There's no difference if Ithekro is simming the battle. There is one if I do.

[Ithekro]

How are you mounting eight guns in three turrets?  Two triples and a twin?

How much difference is there from 10" to 11" in your system P3D?  In the two I have here the only difference is armor penetration by one set, and that can be negated depending on the technology of the shell used.

[P3D]

There's even difference between 13.5" and 14" guns, even if it's not much.

[Tanthalas]

             ll
lll             lll
sort of like that tripple at deck level superfiering twin over it tripple aft

[Carthaginian]

Just wondering, but is it possible for all the battles to be simmed with the same system? Whichever is easiest/fastest would be fine, but it'd be nice to know that results would be the same form one mod to the next.

[Ithekro]

Superfiring a twin over the aft triple mount?  Hmmm.  I suppose this is a better arrangement if the vessel will be fleeing from enemy contacts or fighting in line actions.

I'm presently using "Fire When Ready" because that is what we game with  locally for larger actions in the predreadnought period.  It is still fuctional at present, but may become obsolete in the near future as it doesn't cover dreadnoughts very well.  When General Quarters 3 get a World War One suppiment I was thinking of using that as it can handle larger actions in the proper time period.

I've not gotten a handle on "War at Ses" yet.  Perhaps it is too detailed for my quick and easy type dice rolling battles (no ship models, just basic range bands, and assumed orientation of the vessels relative to each other based on preceived need of that vessel...is it advancing, retreating, fighting in line, rudder jammed, or evading smaller vessels?)

[Tanthalas]

no the twin and the one tripple are foreward, with a tripple aft, just like I lay out my BBs actualy only 8 guns instead of 9