Less is More, and sometimes, More is More

[Desertfox]

Which is why NS could not tolerate the 12,000hp per shaft rule. Such a ship would be too much of a threat.

[Carthaginian]

Which is why NS could not tolerate the 12,000hp per shaft rule. Such a ship would be too much of a threat.

Why?
If I can build with 12000shp, so can the Swiss.
So, if you're more interested in speed, you could sacrifice something else in order to get it. I wanted this ship to be able to withstand an engagement with a battle cruiser, but it's not possible to do that and make it able to at least keep the range open and hope to survive. So, I sacrifice protection and will hope that orders including "AVOID ALL SHIPS BIGGER THAN YOURSELF" in them will be sufficient.

[Ithekro]

Well you also need to build big so you can fit in that monster engine.  That requires a bigger slip and/or dock and a larger port to put them in.  Rohan has only just finished the port, slip, and dock expansions, just in time to lay down a new class of Battlecruisers that need them.  Thing is, they aren't any faster than the previous model...only have a fourth turret for better aft and broadside firepower over the Snowmanes.  Now if Rohan were sporting for speed, these would have fewer twin turrets and might be able to keep up with the new Confederate cruiser, but she would still be huge.

[Sachmle]

The cruiser that Teddy was recently examining. She's fast enough to not be caught (even by a BC), able to beat most cruisers in a gun duel, and long-ranged enough to not be a Confederate ship at all. She's designed to be the centerpiece of a Pacific cruiser group.  I'll do a drawing if she's liked.
25.60 kts

How much faster does one need to be to be able to effectively "outrun" or better out range another ship?  If 1 or 2 kts doesn't make a great deal of difference in the short term, like the beginning of a "chase" when the ships all already in range of each other than I fear your cruiser will have issues with those BC's she can "outrun". Most fall in the 24kt range w/ Snowmane @ 24.33kts being the current speed champion to my knowledge. So if my math is correct you'd be 1.27kts faster under perfect circumstances. Plenty to keep the range if you're out of firing range to begin w/, but if 11,12, or 13" shells are already falling around you I don't know if 1.27kts is gonna save your ass.

[The Rock Doctor]

3-4 knots is usually what I think of as "too fast to be caught" with any certainty. 

Gumyas isn't, in my mind, fast enough to escape a current BC without risk of damage, but I don't think she'd find herself in that position often or at all.  There's not a lot of geography or crappy weather (hurricanes aside) in the usual CSN operating areas that would let a very large warship like a BC sneak up on her and get within gun range undetected.  If that worst case happens, then, as noted, she's more expandable than something larger. 

In that respect, I think she's "good enough", and certainly useful in trade-protection and raiding missions.

[Carthaginian]

OK... let me say why she's 'fast enough to not be caught.'

Two ships sight each other on the visible horizon (aprox. 15 miles). Both of these ships are capable of high speed- my AC is able to go 25.5 knots, and the BC is capable of doing 24.5 knots. The BC is not within gun range yet, and my ship firewalls it, running balls out away from the BC.

In all realistic circumstances, the BC will NEVER CLOSE THE RANGE. This is doubly so because most every BC on the planet uses coal as it's primary fuel, requiring stokers- who get tired rather quickly- to keep up steam, and upon who's continued performance the ship depends. MY oil-fired boilers have no such problems with exhaustion.

I can do 25.5 knots till I run out of oil.
it can do 24.5 knots till it's stokers drop dead.

I have not only a 1 knot speed advantage, but after an hour or so at flank speed, I'm going to have a lot more than that, because the BC's boiler rooms will become hell pits of men dropping from injury, exhaustion and dehydration. Mine will be neat and tidy, with men in oil-stained shirts checking flow lines and sprayers and then retreating to a water keg while doing no serious work.

Yes, inclement weather and terrain can change that. It can change anything. It can enable that expensive BC to be caught by a BB that's 4 knots slower and has as much a firepower/armor advantage over the BC as the BC has over my AC. It's a risk that ships that choose speed over protection take, no matter what their size or mission.

[Korpen]

OK... let me say why she's 'fast enough to not be caught.'

Two ships sight each other on the visible horizon (aprox. 15 miles). Both of these ships are capable of high speed- my AC is able to go 25.5 knots, and the BC is capable of doing 24.5 knots. The BC is not within gun range yet, and my ship firewalls it, running balls out away from the BC.

In all realistic circumstances, the BC will NEVER CLOSE THE RANGE. This is doubly so because most every BC on the planet uses coal as it's primary fuel, requiring stokers- who get tired rather quickly- to keep up steam, and upon who's continued performance the ship depends. MY oil-fired boilers have no such problems with exhaustion.

I can do 25.5 knots till I run out of oil.
it can do 24.5 knots till it's stokers drop dead.

I have not only a 1 knot speed advantage, but after an hour or so at flank speed, I'm going to have a lot more than that, because the BC's boiler rooms will become hell pits of men dropping from injury, exhaustion and dehydration. Mine will be neat and tidy, with men in oil-stained shirts checking flow lines and sprayers and then retreating to a water keg while doing no serious work.

Yes, inclement weather and terrain can change that. It can change anything. It can enable that expensive BC to be caught by a BB that's 4 knots slower and has as much a firepower/armor advantage over the BC as the BC has over my AC. It's a risk that ships that choose speed over protection take, no matter what their size or mission.

Well, first I should say i am using the BCs I am building as benchmark.
That said i cannot say i much like her, se is not a bad ship, but she lacks the firepower i would expect from a modern ship of this size.
The 23cm guns simply lack punch against both older armoured cruisers, as well as against modern ships of the same size. Even with capped shells they will not penetrate 20cm armour at 7000m under ideal circumstances.
She is however a very nice ships for running around shooting up old light cruisers.

Hm, did I call a ship under gunned? That has never happened before...

I if compare her to my most recently laid down design (comparisons are always fun ;))
Inbhir Nis is 400ton larger, but 0,6kts slower
Gumyas is more survivable, but have only half the broadside (and the difference in ROF is marginal at beast).
Inbhir Nis has a thicker main belt, but her armour is far less extensive.

I would that Inbhir Nis is better against ships in the same category and head-.to-head, Gumyas might have an advantage engaging light cruisers, and ships with large (10+) numbers of medium calibre guns.


EDIT: had put in one m too many in 7000m, and from 7000mm everything will penetrate...

[P3D]

9" APC would penetrate 8" KC at 8000yards, FWIW.

BTW I am using the following shell properties for AP/APC shells in NaAB. Penetration figure is for a shell fired from a 12"/50 gun at a WWII class A armor at 5ky.

SAP - French Uncapped Average AP/Common (13.3")
AP - German Uncapped AP (15.5")
APC - German APC L/3.2 (17.6")

[Korpen]

9" APC would penetrate 8" KC at 8000yards, FWIW.

BTW I am using the following shell properties for AP/APC shells in NaAB. Penetration figure is for a shell fired from a 12"/50 gun at a WWII class A armor at 5ky.

SAP - French Uncapped Average AP/Common (13.3")
AP - German Uncapped AP (15.5")
APC - German APC L/3.2 (17.6")

Great to know, thanks. :)
I used British soft capped for my estimate, but is seems the result was the same, maybe a little less in my run.

While original KC seems to be a given for the belts, what do you use for deck armour?

[P3D]

WWI Class B.

[Carthaginian]

I just refuse to build a BC.
It's honestly a moronic concept, as I illustrated in the other thread.
"I'm going to build a ship without immunity to a certain caliber gun, then deliberately send it up against a ship with that caliber gun in hopes that my ship kills the other before it dies."
Damn, how stupid can one get.

I want a ship that is just as fast, just as capable, and totally encourages the avoidance of that situation. I DO NOT WANT a battle cruiser; I want a heavy cruiser, for lack of a better term... a large fleet scout that is demonstrably faster and cheaper than a BB, yet not armed in such a way that it encourages one to believe that it can face a ship mounting BB-grade guns. I'm having difficulty doing so, but be damned if I build a BC just to keep up with the Joneses. I don't have a far-flung empire to cover and thus nave no need for a fast second-class BB that will never hold up properly in a fleet action.

I need a long-range, independent scout.

[Ithekro]

While your argument on the coal verses oil would work for Snowmane of 1906 (Coal and oil fired boilers) it won't work for the Felaróf of 1909 as she is entirely oil fired.

And the basic problem with a BC is not in and of itself, but how they were used.  The temptation to use the 12" guns against larger targets is rather great, but they are designed to take out the lesser armed armored cruiser and light cruisers of their age, rather than take on BBs directly.  That others started to build BCs of their own was probably not counted on...much like having other building Dreadnoughts does not seem to have been counted on by the Royal Navy.

I will note that Rohan's BCs are not quite as thinned skinned as the British models.  a 9" Krupps belt is fairly thick in this age and better than Rohan's Harvey-Nickel armored Brego-class Battleships is thickness.

[Carthaginian]

That others started to build BCs of their own was probably not counted on...much like having other building Dreadnoughts does not seem to have been counted on by the Royal Navy.

This is the entire problem with BC's- if one nation builds them, another nation will counter.
This is the way of all things military; you cannot allow your adversary to get ahead.

Nothing that fast can threaten a BC but another BC due to gun size.
Nothing that heavily armed can catch a BC but another BC due to speed.
But, as a BC is not immune to another BC's fire, you wind up with a Catch-22.

[Korpen]

That others started to build BCs of their own was probably not counted on...much like having other building Dreadnoughts does not seem to have been counted on by the Royal Navy.

This is the entire problem with BC's- if one nation builds them, another nation will counter.
This is the way of all things military; you cannot allow your adversary to get ahead.

Nothing that fast can threaten a BC but another BC due to gun size.
Nothing that heavily armed can catch a BC but another BC due to speed.
But, as a BC is not immune to another BC's fire, you wind up with a Catch-22.

I think you found the catch for everone else, anything but a BB is at risk of getting shot up and sunk if it finds a BC.

And I have never really understood the need to protect a ship against its own guns, it seems so much more sensible to try and protect if from the enemies guns.  ;)

Jokes aside, i do not really find a real problem with a ship being "unbalanced", if that is what is required to do its job, in the case of a BC, finding and destroying everything running around the seas, with the exeption of the enemy battleline.
The most effective counter to a Battleship at sea is a better battleship of you own, i think the same applies to BCs, and destroyers as well for that matter.

[Carthaginian]

I think you found the catch for everone else, anything but a BB is at risk of getting shot up and sunk if it finds a BC.

Well, any BC that finds a BC stands just as great a risk... even more so, actually, because it's facing another tin-clad wonder that it can't run away from, and it's armor is insufficient to the task on slugging it out. It's a loose/loose situation.

I mean, I could build a BC if I wanted too...

Displacement:
   19,500 t light; 20,483 t standard; 21,971 t normal; 23,161 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   700.00 ft / 700.00 ft x 80.00 ft x 28.00 ft (normal load)
   213.36 m / 213.36 m x 24.38 m  x 8.53 m

Armament:
      8 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 800.00lbs / 362.87kg shells, 1910 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      18 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns in single mounts, 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 1910 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all amidships
     12 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
      10 - 3.50" / 88.9 mm guns in single mounts, 25.00lbs / 11.34kg shells, 1910 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
      16 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns (8x2 guns), 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1910 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 7,558 lbs / 3,428 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 125

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   8.00" / 203 mm   450.00 ft / 137.16 m   20.00 ft / 6.10 m
   Ends:   3.50" / 89 mm   250.00 ft / 76.20 m   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
   Upper:   8.00" / 203 mm   225.00 ft / 68.58 m   9.00 ft / 2.74 m
     Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   5.00" / 127 mm      8.00" / 203 mm
   2nd:   8.00" / 203 mm   5.00" / 127 mm      5.00" / 127 mm
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm   0.50" / 13 mm      3.00" / 76 mm
   4th:   0.50" / 13 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 10.00" / 254 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 48,000 shp / 35,808 Kw = 24.70 kts
   Range 6,000nm at 12.47 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,678 tons

Complement:
   902 - 1,173

Cost:
   £1.823 million / $7.293 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 994 tons, 4.5 %
   Armour: 7,672 tons, 34.9 %
      - Belts: 4,349 tons, 19.8 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,786 tons, 8.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,369 tons, 6.2 %
      - Conning Tower: 169 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 2,182 tons, 9.9 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,352 tons, 38.0 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,471 tons, 11.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     32,075 lbs / 14,549 Kg = 37.1 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.07
   Metacentric height 4.1 ft / 1.2 m
   Roll period: 16.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.67
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.46

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.490
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.75 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26.46 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 40 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
   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:      30.00 ft / 9.14 m
      - Forecastle (30 %):   26.00 ft / 7.92 m
      - Mid (50 %):      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:   21.28 ft / 6.49 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 68.7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 153.1 %
   Waterplane Area: 36,990 Square feet or 3,436 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 147 lbs/sq ft or 716 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.97
      - Longitudinal: 1.30
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily