Iberia BB1912

[P3D]

There are more cruisers with 27-28kts around than with 26. I have a 8x13.5" design with 12" armor and 27kts (although full oil firing) with realistic BC.
You can get 27kts easily with 8x13", even if only B is superfiring., on a 715'x90'x30 or so hull.

[P3D]

Like this:

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1912

Displacement:
   25,895 t light; 27,076 t standard; 29,036 t normal; 30,604 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   717.00 ft / 717.00 ft x 90.00 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
   218.54 m / 218.54 m x 27.43 m  x 9.14 m

Armament:
      8 - 13.00" / 330 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,098.50lbs / 498.27kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      16 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all amidships
   Weight of broadside 10,516 lbs / 4,770 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100
   2 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   452.00 ft / 137.77 m   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   265.00 ft / 80.77 m   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
   Upper:   4.00" / 102 mm   452.00 ft / 137.77 m   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
     Main Belt covers 97 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1.50" / 38 mm   452.00 ft / 137.77 m   30.00 ft / 9.14 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   7.00" / 178 mm      12.0" / 305 mm
   2nd:   4.00" / 102 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.50" / 64 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 80,528 shp / 60,074 Kw = 27.00 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,528 tons (67% coal)

Complement:
   1,111 - 1,445

Cost:
   £2.489 million / $9.957 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,315 tons, 4.5 %
   Armour: 10,216 tons, 35.2 %
      - Belts: 4,883 tons, 16.8 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 753 tons, 2.6 %
      - Armament: 2,301 tons, 7.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,035 tons, 7.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 244 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 3,419 tons, 11.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,546 tons, 36.3 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,141 tons, 10.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 1.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     36,850 lbs / 16,715 Kg = 33.5 x 13.0 " / 330 mm shells or 5.5 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
   Metacentric height 5.2 ft / 1.6 m
   Roll period: 16.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 62 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.54
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.525
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.97 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26.78 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   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:      29.45 ft / 8.98 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   18.74 ft / 5.71 m
      - Mid (50 %):      18.74 ft / 5.71 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   18.74 ft / 5.71 m
      - Stern:      18.74 ft / 5.71 m
      - Average freeboard:   19.60 ft / 5.97 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96.7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 141.3 %
   Waterplane Area: 43,994 Square feet or 4,087 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 166 lbs/sq ft or 809 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.14
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[miketr]

There are more cruisers with 27-28kts around than with 26. I have a 8x13.5" design with 12" armor and 27kts (although full oil firing) with realistic BC.
You can get 27kts easily with 8x13", even if only B is superfiring., on a 715'x90'x30 or so hull.

I am not worried about 18,000 ton BC's I have scene being considered with very narrow hulls and 7 to 8.5" armor belts.  Yes they can catch my AC design but none of them really want to though.  My design has more armor, thicker armor and a TDS that is worth something.  I noticed the Dutch Design and Baltic Design, any else building large ships? 

I feel that the 1 superfing designs with 4 turrets on the center line are gimics.  I can't think of any historic design like that.  Something just bothers me about these very long narrow designs; I can't help thinking that in a real fight with anything able to trade blows with them that their handling would go down the drain as they take on water.   

Your design is also closer to 26,000 tons light we are again into monster country for ship size.

I am not trying to be negative, the feed back and suggestions are helpful.  Right now I am looking for people to point out the flaws as whatever I build next is going to be a massive investment in time and resources and I want to get it right.

Michael

[Carthaginian]

The problem you are facing, Mike, is that we're hitting a wall in 'cruiser'  production. Ships are getting very large because people are wanting to build battle cruisers... but battle cruisers are inherently flawed concepts (as I've said before) because they cannot safely combat another battle cruiser. Ships with cruiser armor and battleship guns make great cruiser killers, but they can't combat another ship of their own type because they lack the armor to safely face the guns, and lack the speed to successfully escape them.

That's where you're hitting your problem.

You're trying to build a ship that has battleship guns, battle cruiser speed, and battleship armor- a 'fast battleship.' Problem is, though we are at a tech level where battle cruisers are becoming feasible, we are not yet at a point where a 'fast battleship' is feasible... at least not without building them to 'monstrous proportions.'

Any ship with battleship guns ATM is going to have to make one of three tradeoffs:
1.) speed for armor and firepower
2.) armor for speed and firepower
3.) firepower for speed and armor

[P3D]

In Nverse with no treaty in sight we will have a continuum of armored cruiser designs from 6x8" up to full-fledged fast battleships, everyone can pick his own from the spectrum.

[Carthaginian]

In Nverse with no treaty in sight we will have a continuum of armored cruiser designs from 6x8" up to full-fledged fast battleships, everyone can pick his own from the spectrum.

Yes, but the tendency of humanity is to want the biggest and best of everything.
This is pushing the 'cruiser' out of existence and pulling us straight into development of the 'fast battleship' 20 years too early at least. The 'armored cruiser' and by extension, the 'heavy cruiser' is an outdated concept in our world... part of why I'm yet to build one.

[Valles]

Of the original designs, I rather like BB-1912, though I don't think that anything of the tonnage of the other designs really deserves the name 'cruiser'. 15k tons, tops.

That said, I recently had the interesting realization that the design spec for my Point Cruisers is... very similar to a battlecruiser, really. They carry heavier armor and armament than any ordinary cruiser and are designed from the ground up with the ideal of being able to slaughter such. Given that they're armored vs battleship guns (or, rather, than the new-construction ones will be) and small enough to field in superior numbers, I'm starting to wonder if they might not be a far better investment than I realized when I started trying to fit them into my doctrine.

[P3D]

Only 10 years too early if you consider Kaga and G3, and less with Hood, Ersatz Yorck and Caracciolo taken into account.

But yes, some navies will lack the number of middleweight cruisers, and a ship can be only in one place. Not the CSA, though.

[miketr]

AC-1912c2, Iberia Armored Cruiser laid down 1912

Displacement:
   23,500 t light; 24,517 t standard; 26,418 t normal; 27,939 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   650.00 ft / 650.00 ft x 94.00 ft x 27.25 ft (normal load)
   198.12 m / 198.12 m x 28.65 m  x 8.31 m

Armament:
      8 - 12.01" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 865.70lbs / 392.67kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      14 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all amidships
      8 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
      8 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm guns in single mounts, 3.81lbs / 1.73kg shells, 1912 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 8,501 lbs / 3,856 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100
   4 - 20.0" / 508 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   410.00 ft / 124.97 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   240.00 ft / 73.15 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Upper:   4.00" / 102 mm   410.00 ft / 124.97 m   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
     Main Belt covers 97 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1.50" / 38 mm   410.00 ft / 124.97 m   24.32 ft / 7.41 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   8.00" / 203 mm      12.0" / 305 mm
   2nd:   4.00" / 102 mm         -               -
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -
   4th:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

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

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 80,000 shp / 59,680 Kw = 26.91 kts
   Range 10,500nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,422 tons (67% coal)

Complement:
   1,035 - 1,346

Cost:
   £2.191 million / $8.763 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,063 tons, 4.0 %
   Armour: 8,789 tons, 33.3 %
      - Belts: 3,997 tons, 15.1 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 553 tons, 2.1 %
      - Armament: 2,424 tons, 9.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,586 tons, 6.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 229 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 3,397 tons, 12.9 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 9,952 tons, 37.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,918 tons, 11.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     36,424 lbs / 16,522 Kg = 42.1 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 5.5 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
   Metacentric height 5.6 ft / 1.7 m
   Roll period: 16.7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.48
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.555
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.91 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 25.50 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   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:      27.00 ft / 8.23 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Mid (50 %):      20.50 ft / 6.25 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   20.50 ft / 6.25 m
      - Stern:      20.50 ft / 6.25 m
      - Average freeboard:   21.97 ft / 6.69 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96.2 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 168.1 %
   Waterplane Area: 42,856 Square feet or 3,981 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 165 lbs/sq ft or 804 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 1.37
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

OK I have pushed the design as much as I can, later I will play with the draught a bit but I think this is about  the best combination of armor, speed and firepower I can hope for at this time.

My view on cruisers is smaller cruisers and large cruisers.  Anything in between the two will have the worst of both worlds I feel.  Besides I have 6 cruisers in the 10,000 to 15,000 ton range already so I think I am covered there at least.

Michael

[P3D]

El Derfflingero!

[miketr]

El Derfflingero!

A little light but yes.

Michael

[Carthaginian]

Only 10 years too early if you consider Kaga and G3, and less with Hood, Ersatz Yorck and Caracciolo taken into account.

But yes, some navies will lack the number of middleweight cruisers, and a ship can be only in one place. Not the CSA, though.

Every time says Hood I hear "largest submarine afloat." :D
Hood was a flawed ship, if for nothing other than her handling. High seas rendered the ship virtually unlivable, and even in calm seas the quarterdeck was best visited with hip-waders, if at all. When it was realized that her already augmented armor was still insufficient, the problem was made worse when even more armor was bolted on and she lost another 2 feet of freeboard.

Considering that the Hood's primary operating area was the North Atlantic, more attention should have been paid to her habitability... of course, this could have been remedied easily had she been made survivable rather than blisteringly fast to begin with. ;)


And no, the CSA won't be short of mid-sized cruisers as we really don't need any for our given situation. Those that I have will be scrapped and I'll concentrate on lighter scouts and a solid battleline to secure my territory.




Mike,
That one I like... a bit heavy, but good balance.
Build her.

[P3D]

Or not having her proposed rebuild postponed until war erupted...

[Ithekro]

Frankly, by 1941 Hood was old.  While she was still a decent ship, quite large and fast even in 1941, she was still out of date and over 20 years old.  While battleship technology advancvement was not quite as great between 1921 and 1941 as it was in the era we are dealing with, just imagine one of our ships, say Rohan's Eomer.  She's from 1895 and has had one major refit (in 1901).  She might get one more small refit to keep her in service until enough dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts get completed.  But take her in 1916 against a historical modern super-dreadnought like say HMS Warspite.  Eomer would get creamed even with a technology refit for modern fire control and the newest quality guns and shells of her type.  At our age, even ten years is enough to get a ship sunk.

While Hood could muster a good fight, she happened to be unlucky in her last fight.  One wonders if the ship was really all that flawed, or just her number was up.  First hit knocked out her fire control, which is a tiny target high on the mast.  Last hit was against some secondary (or even teriary) magazine that seems to have chain reacted through open hatches.  Both seem more like bad luck than a design flaw.

[Carthaginian]

While Hood could muster a good fight, she happened to be unlucky in her last fight.  One wonders if the ship was really all that flawed, or just her number was up.  First hit knocked out her fire control, which is a tiny target high on the mast.  Last hit was against some secondary (or even teriary) magazine that seems to have chain reacted through open hatches.  Both seem more like bad luck than a design flaw.

Well, IIRC, arrangement of secondary magazines was something that was a problem in a LOT of ships, not just British.

As for Hood's design- whether for 1921 or 1941.
Her protection was inadequate when designed (a problem with a lot of British warships) and became worse as time went on. The bolt-on armor additions negatively impacted a bad design sea-keeping wise even more, making her the wettest capital ship in almost any navy. She handled poorly no matter how well she laid her guns, and here crews prayed for smooth water so they didn't drown in their racks- the midshipman's berths were known to flood regularly in poor weather.

That's my argument for 'bad design', not so much that she should have been able to face Bismark on even terms because they had the same main gun caliber.