Logi's Design Studies

[Logi]

Main battery is in triple 11" turrets,

The real challenge was to avoid triple turrets, since although these are concept sketches, they are made with estimates on RRC naval gun technologies. Triple 11" turrets will not likely come soon.

Belts are shorter to save weight, but really a 19'+ deep belt was unnecessary to begin with.

It was sloped 20 degrees for a 18 ft tall belt.

16'+ is more than fine even w/ wave motion.

Actually, the bow wave height and trough for 28kt is 7', in which added to 3' Chinese sea waves, require at least 10' underwater protection.

For your ship, the bow wave crest and trough is 8'. Add with a 3' Chinese wave, and in one motion, 11' of the underwater hull is exposed. Of this, a good chunk being unarmored.

Yes, the tall belt was quite necessary, it was the reason I didn't scale it back even though it was heavy.

A 4" deck will stop ANY N3 shell in existence/under design at this time.

Actually, quite false. It would stop any shell at normal battle ranges, but I am talking about engagements on the fringe, ranges of 30,000 yds. Here the 11" can compete with heavier armed battleships and sport the armor to be invulnerable there. It can penetrate enemy decks with the inferior 11" caliber whilst being protected from retaliation.

I was designing for a slug fest, I would give it less deck and more belt, sacrificing speed. Such are made to engage at 10-20 hyd after all. But this ship is designed for the edges of battle where it can escape easily if needed. It is meant to suppress for a few moments as a temporary support force, not a work in the battleline.

The 11" are modern 11"s, designed for firing at good range, not at low elevations. It is not meant to weave into the battleline but become a skirting element on the edge of battle. A nuisance that can be chased off but can return to harass again.

With the armor you gave it, it can't operate anywhere, anywhere useful, against 3" of deck armor. Belt armor is hopeless for the ship to talk about. So you rendered, with the deduction of deck armor, the ship completely useless. At that point, it is better to simply slim down the ship with 10" belt and 2" deck instead, for that is the useful amount for the amount of work the lower armor delegates it to.

This is simply because whilst 4" of deck may be good for battleships, 11" of belt is useless against large caliber ships. It turns the lower boundary of immunity far too high, making there be virtually no immunity zone.

[Sachmle]

At the ranges you're intending her to fight the odds of a belt hit are ~10% of all hits. Of course at 30,000yds the odds of hitting are like 2% anyway.

[Logi]

True, but close in and the 11" is useless. The solution would be somehow fit at least a 14" in there.

[Logi]

Perhaps something like this, an all forward armament of a quad 14" and a super-firing twin 14". Lighter belt, but not by much, a 4" deck, and heavy turret and barbette armor.

Misty Dragon, RRC Commerce Raider laid down 1922

Displacement:
    26,000 t light; 27,256 t standard; 28,287 t normal; 29,112 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
    660.00 ft / 640.00 ft x 90.00 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
    201.17 m / 195.07 m x 27.43 m  x 9.14 m

Armament:
      6 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (2 mounts), 1,650.00lbs / 748.43kg shells, 1922 Model
      Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
      on centreline, all forward, 2 raised guns - superfiring
      20 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (10x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1922 Model
      Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
      on side, all amidships
    Weight of broadside 12,060 lbs / 5,470 kg
    Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:        Width (max)    Length (avg)        Height (avg)
    Main:    12.0" / 305 mm    416.00 ft / 126.80 m    19.16 ft / 5.84 m
    Ends:    Unarmoured
      Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
        2.50" / 64 mm    416.00 ft / 126.80 m    35.00 ft / 10.67 m

   - Gun armour:    Face (max)    Other gunhouse (avg)    Barbette/hoist (max)
    Main:    18.0" / 457 mm    10.0" / 254 mm        15.0" / 381 mm
    2nd:    2.00" / 51 mm    1.00" / 25 mm        1.00" / 25 mm

   - Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
    Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
    Direct drive, 4 shafts, 98,187 shp / 73,247 Kw = 28.00 kts
    Range 6,000nm at 12.00 kts
    Bunker at max displacement = 1,857 tons

Complement:
    1,089 - 1,417

Cost:
    £6.729 million / $26.918 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
    Armament: 1,299 tons, 4.6 %
    Armour: 10,570 tons, 37.4 %
       - Belts: 4,130 tons, 14.6 %
       - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,347 tons, 4.8 %
       - Armament: 2,014 tons, 7.1 %
       - Armour Deck: 3,039 tons, 10.7 %
       - Conning Tower: 40 tons, 0.1 %
    Machinery: 3,331 tons, 11.8 %
    Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,433 tons, 36.9 %
    Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,287 tons, 8.1 %
    Miscellaneous weights: 367 tons, 1.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
    Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
      34,881 lbs / 15,822 Kg = 25.4 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 5.8 torpedoes
    Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
    Metacentric height 4.9 ft / 1.5 m
    Roll period: 17.0 seconds
    Steadiness    - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 55 %
            - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.68
    Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
    Hull has a flush deck
    Block coefficient: 0.573
    Length to Beam Ratio: 7.11 : 1
    'Natural speed' for length: 25.30 kts
    Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
    Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
    Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 35.00 degrees
    Stern overhang: 6.00 ft / 1.83 m
    Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
       - Stem:        20.00 ft / 6.10 m
       - Forecastle (20 %):    19.00 ft / 5.79 m
       - Mid (50 %):        19.00 ft / 5.79 m
       - Quarterdeck (15 %):    19.00 ft / 5.79 m
       - Stern:        20.00 ft / 6.10 m
       - Average freeboard:    19.16 ft / 5.84 m
    Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
    Space    - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96.4 %
        - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 136.5 %
    Waterplane Area: 41,073 Square feet or 3,816 Square metres
    Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
    Structure weight / hull surface area: 178 lbs/sq ft or 869 Kg/sq metre
    Hull strength (Relative):
        - Cross-sectional: 0.95
        - Longitudinal: 1.55
        - Overall: 1.00
    Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
    Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[Laertes]

I preferred the early draft, although I'd not have gone with a Richelieu setup - she's going to be spending as much time moving away as moving towards, after all.

As regards armour schemes - if she's faster, she gets to choose engagement range. She seems to be set up to fight at very long ranges, where (as you point out) a modern 11" will kill 3" deck plating on the off chance a hit actually manages to be scored. This being the case, your main belt might need to be higher, but it can be very thin - belt armour isn't really a factor at long range, but you're not always going to have the luxury of fighting at your ideal range.

Finally, why a 2" conning tower? Might as well not have one at all. BLU is coming to the belief that, since many captains choose not to fight from within the conning tower, but risk injury for the greater visibility from the bridge, conning towers may be obsolete.

[Sachmle]

Finally, why a 2" conning tower? Might as well not have one at all. BLU is coming to the belief that, since many captains choose not to fight from within the conning tower, but risk injury for the greater visibility from the bridge, conning towers may be obsolete.

Me and Logi already discussed this on one of his earlier designs. Basically it's comes down to this; If you can't/won't devote the armor needed to STOP a large caliber AP round, then just put enough on it to stop HE from CL/DDs and let the AP rounds pass through. 2" is a little thin even for 4-6" HE rounds, but meh.

[Laertes]

2" conning tower probably won't weight enough to affect the design.

- Laertes
(Is still unsure over whether I should have said "effect" instead of "affect")

[The Rock Doctor]

These designs remind me of the Indian battleship I built over in Wesworld.  For a middle power, it's not a bad investment - you pretty much need a treaty-max ship to have a decisive edge over her.

[Guinness]

For Laertes: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx

I think the chances of hitting anything with 11" guns at 30k yards in our period (presumably 11"L45 or 11"L50) would be virtually nil, especially with only 6 guns. Salvos will be slow, c. 1920 pre-radar fire control simply won't be accurate enough, and spotting splashes at 30k yards is tough.

And if a ship is counting on extreme range being the decisive edge, it better have sufficient speed to keep the range of engagement that large. If I'm the Admiral of the opposing force and I have more and bigger guns, and probably better armor too, I'd just work my hardest to close the range until I start scoring frequent hits.

All that said, I think we tend to concentrate too much on single-ship engagement scenarios. I say we, as I'm to blame too. How many single ship vs. single ship capital ship actions ever took place OTL or in the Nverse? Not many. Most useful to consider may be squadron or division level tactics. How would a division of 2 or 3 ships work against a prospective enemy division of 2 or 3? Can fielding, say, 4 smaller ships vs. 2 larger ships be an advantage, etc. etc.

[Desertfox]

Well the strange thing about the 2nd Pacific War, with the exception of Tarakan, just about all the battles were 1 vs 1 or 1 vs 2. The first Rift Sea battle was a 2 vs 2 and a 1 vs 1. Larger engagements have been exceedingly rare.

[Ithekro]

Most of the combatant nations have their fleets spread out or have small navies to begin with (or at least small in the numbers of capital ships they can send to any given area).

Few nations have the numbers to do line tactics that battleships are designed to engage in broadside fire like the old days of sailing ships.  This is pretty much why there hasn't been a "Jutland" yet.

[snip]

It would also be a result of the much lower than OTL building capacity, Even for nations the can build extensive battlelines, its not the smartest thing to do so due to the lack of escorts. If you want a balanced approach, you cant have a huge battleline

[Borys]

Ahoj!

For Laertes: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx

I think the chances of hitting anything with 11" guns at 30k yards in our period (presumably 11"L45 or 11"L50) would be virtually nil,

Specifically - 0,0.
No hits over 25K, ever ...
Borys

[P3D]

Ahoj!

For Laertes: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx

I think the chances of hitting anything with 11" guns at 30k yards in our period (presumably 11"L45 or 11"L50) would be virtually nil,

Specifically - 0,0.
No hits over 25K, ever ...
Borys

25km, yes, 25k yards, no - both Warspite and Sch hit at ~26,000 yards.

[Jefgte]

... 25km, yes, 25k yards, no - both Warspite and Sch hit at ~26,000 yards...

IMO, that must be our max hit distance.


Jef