I call it a light BB not a BC

[Tanthalas]

The 3-2 xxx 3 arrangement just seems awkward...why not sacrifice a little armor or speed somewhere else for an extra gun?

she was born as 9X11", I saacrifised the gun to get SHP down to a number that was somewhat close to 48K (was like 49586 in 9 gun trim)  and the idea was to be light enough fast enough and armed/armored enough to take on any BC afloat at the curent time (oh and the reason for light is I think a BC should cost less than a BB not more)

[The Rock Doctor]

I like the quirkiness of the 3-2-3 arrangement.

[Sachmle]

As do I. Very Erstatz Tegetthoff.

[Tanthalas]

I like the quirkiness of the 3-2-3 arrangement.

Im rather fond of her, she is a long whore compared to my BBs but meh you cant have everything LOL

[Korpen]

I just couldnt stay caved to the BC Builders


Italia-SBB-1910, Italia Scout Battle Ship laid down 1910 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   16,000 t light; 16,719 t standard; 17,693 t normal; 18,472 t full load

Janszson-fodder! ;)

[Tanthalas]

Even Crazier (and tbh proly better)


Italia-SBB-1910, Italia Scout Battle Ship laid down 1910 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   14,800 t light; 15,535 t standard; 16,623 t normal; 17,493 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   557.00 ft / 550.00 ft x 77.00 ft x 23.25 ft (normal load)
   169.77 m / 167.64 m x 23.47 m  x 7.09 m

Armament:
      9 - 11.00" / 279 mm guns (3x3 guns), 666.00lbs / 302.09kg shells, 1910 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, majority aft, 1 raised mount aft - 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
     6 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
      2 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (1x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1910 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in a deck mount with hoist
     on centreline forward, 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 7,025 lbs / 3,187 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100
   2 - 20.0" / 508 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   308.00 ft / 93.88 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   242.00 ft / 73.76 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Upper:   4.00" / 102 mm   308.00 ft / 93.88 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 86 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   5.00" / 127 mm      9.00" / 229 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: 9.00" / 229 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 48,218 shp / 35,971 Kw = 25.00 kts
   Range 8,525nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,958 tons

Complement:
   731 - 951

Cost:
   £1.562 million / $6.248 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 878 tons, 5.3 %
   Armour: 5,106 tons, 30.7 %
      - Belts: 2,519 tons, 15.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,325 tons, 8.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,136 tons, 6.8 %
      - Conning Tower: 126 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 2,192 tons, 13.2 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,425 tons, 38.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,823 tons, 11.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 1.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     20,070 lbs / 9,104 Kg = 30.2 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 2.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 4.0 ft / 1.2 m
   Roll period: 16.1 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.69
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.13

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.591
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.14 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23.45 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 53
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.26 degrees
   Stern overhang: 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      23.00 ft / 7.01 m
      - Forecastle (22 %):   23.00 ft / 7.01 m
      - Mid (50 %):      23.00 ft / 7.01 m (14.00 ft / 4.27 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (22 %):   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
      - Stern:      14.00 ft / 4.27 m
      - Average freeboard:   18.50 ft / 5.64 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85.6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 148.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 30,711 Square feet or 2,853 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 147 lbs/sq ft or 718 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 1.45
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[P3D]

I'd increase misc. weight to 300t so you could install an FC system later.

I'd Also add both some beam and draught. That might allow you to keep the ship within lvl 2 size and powerplant limitations. Also, I'd have two single mounts for the 3" AA not one twin. I'd also prefer single 0.75" guns that could be easier operated by one person - as by the USN/RN practice of WWII.

Or wait 6-18 months with laying the ship down, until you get the next turbine tech.

[Sachmle]

12 - Fire Control system
FC requeries Miscelenous Weight
Battleships (+15K) - 250 tonnes
Cruisers - 100 tonnes
Destroyers - (-2K) 25 tonnes

Italia-SBB-1910, Italia Scout Battle Ship laid down 1910 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   14,800 t light; 15,535 t standard; 16,623 t normal; 17,493 t full load

Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 1.2 %

Seems to have enough misc weight already, as she's not 15kt so she only needs 100t misc weight for FC.

[Tanthalas]

I'd increase misc. weight to 300t so you could install an FC system later.

I'd Also add both some beam and draught. That might allow you to keep the ship within lvl 2 size and powerplant limitations. Also, I'd have two single mounts for the 3" AA not one twin. I'd also prefer single 0.75" guns that could be easier operated by one person - as by the USN/RN practice of WWII.

Or wait 6-18 months with laying the ship down, until you get the next turbine tech.

P3D do you ever not bitch when someone Comes out with a non conformist Idea?  Im a Lousy .003% over the SHP limit, Im under 15K tons so I fall into the Cruiser class FC (100 tons), the twin 3" mount is my signature on EVERY ONE OF MY SHIPS, and well guesse what im not the WW2 RN or USN, actualy NONE of us are... Im Italia and like every other player in the sim I do things my way, so what if its not as functional, it makes my ships Diferent and thats half the point of doing it.

[Korpen]

12 - Fire Control system
FC requeries Miscelenous Weight
Battleships (+15K) - 250 tonnes
Cruisers - 100 tonnes
Destroyers - (-2K) 25 tonnes

Italia-SBB-1910, Italia Scout Battle Ship laid down 1910 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   14,800 t light; 15,535 t standard; 16,623 t normal; 17,493 t full load

Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 1.2 %

Seems to have enough misc weight already, as she's not 15kt so she only needs 100t misc weight for FC.

Enough if he is willing to have a less capable system, at least.
The lower weight should mean smaller, lower tripods and much less equipment up high, so the efficient range would be much lower (smaller and fewer range finders), as such a system will be designed for the ranges were 15cm guns is efficient.

[Tanthalas]

it all goes back to my original argument Korpen, WHAT am I paying for when I install FC?

Tripods already got em
armored observation houses already got em
Range Finders 20 tons each tops sry guys they just arnt that big
so im paying 210 tons for a few bodies and some peices of Paper?  Sorry I just cant buy it.

[Korpen]

it all goes back to my original argument Korpen, WHAT am I paying for when I install FC?

Tripods already got em
armored observation houses already got em
Range Finders 20 tons each tops sry guys they just arnt that big
so im paying 210 tons for a few bodies and some peices of Paper?  Sorry I just cant buy it.

I am not a mod, so these opinions are my own.
You might already have masts that might be tripods; you pay for strengthening and making them suitable for mounting equipment on high, rather then just a single light lookout platform.
The range finders themselves do not weight all that much, the associated equipment might do (a bit depending on the system), and the director stations add some weight, as does the transmitting stations, its crew and support. It all adds up.

But sure I think you should be able to get away mounting a lighter system, that the vibrations in the unsuited tripods makes accurate long range spotting or directing impossible at high speed or when there is waves is really up to you...

[Korpen]

Im a Lousy .003% over the SHP limit, Im under 15K tons so I fall into the Cruiser class FC (100 tons),

Then why no reduce the speed to 24,97 or so you get an even 48 000 shp? It would look much better.

[Tanthalas]

it all goes back to my original argument Korpen, WHAT am I paying for when I install FC?

Tripods already got em
armored observation houses already got em
Range Finders 20 tons each tops sry guys they just arnt that big
so im paying 210 tons for a few bodies and some peices of Paper?  Sorry I just cant buy it.

I am not a mod, so these opinions are my own.
You might already have masts that might be tripods; you pay for strengthening and making them suitable for mounting equipment on high, rather then just a single light lookout platform.
The range finders themselves do not weight all that much, the associated equipment might do (a bit depending on the system), and the director stations add some weight, as does the transmitting stations, its crew and support. It all adds up.

But sure I think you should be able to get away mounting a lighter system, that the vibrations in the unsuited tripods makes accurate long range spotting or directing impossible at high speed or when there is waves is really up to you...

the problem is nothing about my masts is light... look at the drawings and the scale im using, Over Built has bene a theme with me from the begining.  I mount big freking armored eggs ontop of my masts remember LOL

Im a Lousy .003% over the SHP limit, Im under 15K tons so I fall into the Cruiser class FC (100 tons),

Then why no reduce the speed to 24,97 or so you get an even 48 000 shp? It would look much better.

Incase noone has noticed LOL I like nice even speed numbers =P

[Korpen]

the problem is nothing about my masts is light... look at the drawings and the scale im using, Over Built has bene a theme with me from the begining.  I mount big freking armored eggs ontop of my masts remember LOL

...And all hull plating Dutch warships are built out of 10cm think plating to which armour is then attached (what paying extra for it???)....

If you can point out were you either have assigned either misc weight or have excess hull strength to compensate for the heavy extra stuff in the masts I am willing to concede the argument.
But so far you argument seems to be "I have been drawing tripods, and should therefore get stuff for free", and that I do not buy.

And I am also very curios as to why Italy would feel the need to armour the lookouts position?

Incase noone has noticed LOL I like nice even speed numbers =P

They do not complain when people complain.