A very Serious Question.

[Tanthalas]

Would this ship be acceptable? I dont plan to build it but i am curious about the answer(once you all give opinions ill let ya in on the kicker about it)

USS Question, QandA Experiment laid down 1912

Displacement:
   25,614 t light; 27,015 t standard; 31,401 t normal; 34,910 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   806.82 ft / 791.00 ft x 91.00 ft x 31.00 ft (normal load)
   245.92 m / 241.10 m x 27.74 m  x 9.45 m

Armament:
      9 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (3x3 guns), 864.00lbs / 391.90kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      20 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (10x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
   Weight of broadside 9,026 lbs / 4,094 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   9.00" / 229 mm   443.00 ft / 135.03 m   11.45 ft / 3.49 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 86 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   12.8" / 325 mm   8.00" / 203 mm      13.0" / 330 mm
   2nd:   1.00" / 25 mm   1.00" / 25 mm            -

   - Armour deck: 5.20" / 132 mm, Conning tower: 10.60" / 269 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 72,355 shp / 53,977 Kw = 27.00 kts
   Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 7,896 tons

Complement:
   1,179 - 1,533

Cost:
   £2.248 million / $8.992 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,128 tons, 3.6 %
   Armour: 9,343 tons, 29.8 %
      - Belts: 1,976 tons, 6.3 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 2,376 tons, 7.6 %
      - Armour Deck: 4,765 tons, 15.2 %
      - Conning Tower: 227 tons, 0.7 %
   Machinery: 2,885 tons, 9.2 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,007 tons, 38.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,787 tons, 18.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 250 tons, 0.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     54,861 lbs / 24,885 Kg = 63.5 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 4.9 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
   Metacentric height 5.4 ft / 1.6 m
   Roll period: 16.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.59
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.50

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
     and transom stern
   Block coefficient: 0.493
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.69 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 32.49 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 3.30 ft / 1.01 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      31.00 ft / 9.45 m
      - Forecastle (22 %):   27.00 ft / 8.23 m
      - Mid (40 %):      27.00 ft / 8.23 m (19.00 ft / 5.79 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (22 %):   19.00 ft / 5.79 m
      - Stern:      19.00 ft / 5.79 m
      - Average freeboard:   22.55 ft / 6.87 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 59.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 172.6 %
   Waterplane Area: 49,529 Square feet or 4,601 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 129 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 166 lbs/sq ft or 809 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.97
      - Longitudinal: 1.29
      - 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
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest

[Logi]

again, I'm not super experineced by I'll try...

Maybe its just me, but IMO a ship of 25k tons should have around 20k broadside weight. I doubt you need so much deck armour, as

plunging fire doesn't have alot in this time period

I would probably give it 12 12" guns (4 turrets) as other battleships have 14"-13.5" guns. When will you need 12000nm at 15 kts, it would help if I knew what the range ast max speed was. But all in all its a ok design (to me)

[maddox]

Why lug the belt then?  Why not a fully armored armored hull?
With that deck you're protected against any plunging fire.
And with that speed you can dictate range to any ship with guns large enough to hurt.

[P3D]

AoN requires the relevant technology available to research from 1912.
The belt is shallow and most probably will not protect either the waterline or just expose the vitals.
Any hits on the totally unprotected ends would take over any speed advantage. I'd hit this ship with large-caliber nose-fused HE to destroy buoyancy reserve.
You will not need thicker than 4" armor until mid-1930s. The lack of TDS might not be a good idea long-term - 27kts might be enough not to be threatened by destroyers, but if you use the hindsight for WWII-level deck armor you should not discount torpedo bombers either.

[Tanthalas]

I was waiting for you to chime in P3D, Everyone missed the "problem" (or atleast by my interpitation of the rules its a problem)  its USS Alaska I went through all the stock ships in SS (woot for a new install where i havnt boogerd em all up).  The WW2 Vintage BBs & BCs all use mount and hoist on their secondaries.  I didnt even trim Alaska up much (like fixing the horible armor layout / the over heavy deck for our period).  the point was I was wondering if mount and hoist secondaries were ok (I even simed Iowa and it wouldnt work with turreted secondaries but was perfect with mount and hoist).

edit
I should have pointed this out before what I am realy wondering is this.  Is this just a bug in SS or were what I always thought were turreted secondaries realy just mount and hoist?

[Korpen]

I am just going to say: She got a transome.
..and leave it at that.

[Tanthalas]

I am just going to say: She got a transome.
..and leave it at that.

LOL i didnt even notice that.  as I stated above my question was about the secondary guns, (aka were the alaskas and the iowas realy equiped with mount and hoist for their twin 5" mounts or is this a bug in SS)

[maddox]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm


It looks as if the twin 5" L38 turrets were what we call mount and hoist.

A ring welded/rivetted to the deck(with re-enforcements), a box of good steel over the gun mounts, a hole in the deck and a hoist dipping down trough a steel tube to get the munition up from the magazines.

[Tanthalas]

Thanks M now off to come up with a real BC ^.^ (what my DD is finished and if I might have to fight people that build BCs I better have my own)

[Korpen]

Thanks M now off to come up with a real BC ^.^ (what my DD is finished and if I might have to fight people that build BCs I better have my own)

Just remember that twin mouts have to developed before one can start mounting twins.

As for the ships itself, either increase belt height or lower the amount of fuel, she carries so much fuel that it will be about 1m difference between full and normal load. This leave only around 1m of protection above water when fully loaded, with wave motion it could mean that damage above the belt can cause flooding, further submerging the belt...

[Tanthalas]

I think DF may already have developed a twin 4" or 6" got to look again, that was just a half assed example of what I was thinking about (I would also likley mount more and larger guns on it to say 13.5s or something like that)

[P3D]

NS should have finished the relevant cruiser tech by 1909 or so, I guess they have twin 6" hoists too.
The US 5" was mount and hoist, the UK 5.25" was full turret.
For the same caliver the Nverse difference should be regarding that what armor you put on it.
But if you want full 6" turret then by the newest rules don't need to have new techs just develop the turret. They are kosher.

[Tanthalas]

im still operating under the old rules i think, mount and hoist can only have 1" armor right? also is it just me or is 6" a tad heavy for a QF gun.

[Korpen]

NS should have finished the relevant cruiser tech by 1909 or so, I guess they have twin 6" hoists too.
The US 5" was mount and hoist, the UK 5.25" was full turret.
For the same caliver the Nverse difference should be regarding that what armor you put on it.
But if you want full 6" turret then by the newest rules don't need to have new techs just develop the turret. They are kosher.

Actually, if one goes strictly by what the rules in the rules section say, the BB tech do neither allow or disallow turreted secondaries. At the same time the cruiser tech says:

Battleship Architecture is not valid for guns 6.5" and smaller. To have armored turrets with small guns, this technology is required.

So going by what is written, I have a hard time seeing turreted secondaries as being in accordance with the rules.

[The Rock Doctor]

I'd like to know from the original mod group:

-Why did the 1910 CL tech allow twin-mounted batteries?

-Why did the 1912 BB tech allow it?

-How was the difference in dates accounted for?