Logi's Design Studies

[Kaiser Kirk]

Lower BC variant, 1" thicker main belt, 0.521 BC (Brooklyn Class level), 2" thicker gun face, 0.5" thicker gun barbette.

Ok, I'm not keen on the combination of a small beam and low BC when the historical ships featuring triple 16" had both greater beams- even when deducting for the TDS depth, and higher BCs- which means more beam abreast of the turrets for supporting structure.  Not being trained in naval engineering, using analogies like that is the best I can do.

So given the a-historical beam, why is a Brooklyn class cruiser a good guide for the BC needed for a ship featuring triple 16" guns?

[Sachmle]

Sufficift to say, if 6 16" guns could be shipped on 15,000t w/ decent armor, someone would have done it. I'm pretty sure you need a lot more beam to handle those guns, even if you move them as close to the middle as possible.

NoCar, SoDak, and the Iowa's had 33m beam, hell the Gangut w/ triple 12" guns had a wider beam than your last one. (26.9m vs 25.6m)

[Logi]

That's because:

1) Look at the recoil on the ship.

2) Look at the fact that it has absolutely no TDS, and is very easy to sink via torpedo.

3) It has shit armor.

No nation was as limited in industrial capacity to build a ship that they would lower armor and survivability so far. Any nation IRL that was so limited in industrial capacity for shipbuilding had no use for such ships and likely didn't even have the guns for it. This sort of ship fills a very unique role, it's a minimalist design, not something most nations would even consider building. Germany, for example, liked this sort, but demanded higher speed. Speed forces several thousand more tons (in concordance with more machinery and more armor). The USA and UK could afford to build ships and wouldn't have accepted the low armor (and perhaps not the high recoil either).

Small nations didn't have a fleet that required a battleline at all.

According to beam, it has more than enough to hold the guns. The problem is the high recoil and the fact that it has no TDS. Most ships were designed with more beam because high recoil was unacceptable. There is also the fact that they needed to have a TDS, have a lengthy superstructure which pushes the fore and aft turrets to areas of less beam, etc.

A good TDS accounts for 30 ft or more of beam width. Which is why ships like NoCar, SoDak, and the Iowa (which all have very good and functioning TDS) have much higher beam and BC.

Also, the BC on the Iowa is misleading the beam at the fore turret wasn't what you would expect from a 0.637 BC ship. The beam of the Iowa class at the fore turret is ~60 ft. It's widely known that it fits, just the TDS there is subpar.

Do I need to model the damn ship out in real architecture for you guys to accept there's enough space? Because I can, it just takes a looong time.

Note: Also note the how far the triple are placed in the Gangut. It needs a much high BC to carry the fore and rear turrets. If the ship carried only two triples with the same minimalist superstructure, it could run on a cruiser-like BC.

Edit: Nvm, I not modeling it. I remember why I hate those modeling anything. It always takes days to do, with hours of number-crunching.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I have sometimes found it frustrating when somebody challenges me to 'draw it' to prove it works.  That's not a talent of mine, I can cut & paste a little now, but it's still time intensive.  In one case it was a ship meant as a sort of armored cruiser as long as Ise with six triple 8" turrets. Despite pointing out a historical battleship that length with six turrets, it was rejected unless I could draw it. I felt I had a good analogy and was disadvantaged by being required to draw it - some could have and persevered, not really so easy for me,  and so was not pleased with the discussion.


There is a great deal I don't know about what is possible. As such, I like to look to historical analogies.

However, there is no good analogy here.
Väinämöinen was a cramped arrangement with  twin 10" on a beam 9m less.
Sverige was a cramped arrangement with twin 11" on a beam 7m less.
The Ambercrombie class monitors had twin 14" on a beam 1.4m more.
The Roberts class monitors had twin 15" on a beam 0.4m more.

Like your vessel, none of these had TDSs nor massive armor.  They would seem to be reasonable analogies for your vessel in construction. However, none of these had triple 16" turrets, the closest are twin turrets of smaller bores.

So, the sticking point becomes how to explain how the enhanced weight of a triple 16" turret with it's greater shocks and  barbette diameter is reasonable given the lesser amount of support available in a narrower beam than what we see for smaller lighter less recoil intensive turrets. 

[Logi]

Also, the BC on the Iowa is misleading the beam at the fore turret wasn't what you would expect from a 0.637 BC ship. The beam of the Iowa class at the fore turret is ~60 ft. It's widely known that it fits, just the TDS there is subpar.

The Iowa could fit a triple 16"/50 firing a superheavy shell with ~60ft of beam at the turret with a TDS, though subpar. I can't see why this ship can't do it when it has more beam at turret and no TDS at all.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Well, when I scale a top-down view of Iowa, get 0.6" athwart #1 turrets and 0.8" amidships. Which makes 81. Deducting the TDS and there may be some merit.

The assessment of Beam - TDS = appropriate min width is reasonable. Both Iowa and Sodak had 17.9' wide TDS or 35.8' each side, giving a beam of only 72.2 feet. Though there are still support structures in this area, so there may be structural aspects that are not apparent.

On the other hand, I have read wing turrets on early dreadnaught produced design problems because they had to have supporting structures, Iowa certainly have the length forward and the beam aft to be transfering loads via internal structure. Your vessel does not.

Further, for all the examples I listed above for possible analogies,  the maximum beam is what is listed, not what is directly abreast the turret, and your mounts are not in the center of the vessel and it has a lower  BC than the BBs so it ill be proportionately narrower than those vessels.

So.. there is some data to support your position, and there is still some reasons for concern.

Frankly, the disparity between what you propose and the beam choices for the monitors suggests there is some consideration that is being missed- there would no great reason to make them wider than needed since they were to be cheap bombardment platforms. For my 2cents the disparity with historical precedent trumps.

However, I'm just a fellow player discussing this matter.

It sounds like "there oughta be a rule" of min turret size : beam, but I don't know if we want to go there.

[Logi]

I scaled it down via pixels, I got ~60 ft for turret #1. I reckon that's more accurate than a ruler.

The reason why such ships like monitors have wider beam, I have gone through. Such cheap bombardment platform still need ship stability and lower recoil effect.

For comparison, this ship is very close to ends-on-fire only. Monitors typically don't accept such high recoil rates as though the ship is designed to be cheap, it needs a decent margin of stability for accuracy. And you even mentioned another point for the wider beam of monitors. It doesn't have as much space in the ship because the monitors have drastically shorter length. You mentioned transferring loads via internal structure, did you think that's why Monitors needed a wider beam?

The BC is lower than a typical BC, but it is also much closer to the center than a BB. Compare it to an Alaska class, then. It has closer BC to that and if you look at the top-down view of an Alaska class, there is more than enough space for the triple 12"s.

[Kaiser Kirk]

1. Well, it came out pretty squarely on the 0.6 and 0.8 marks, so I'm not sure why we're getting differences. Could be the top-down pic I took off the web was off. Only so much time I want to invest here.

2. True, I've been discounting the recoil argument. The recoil argument presumes SS is accurately modeling recoil for non-standard cases. Considering SS cuts a fair number of cases and seems to best represent standard cases, no, I don't buy that a ship that close to tolerances and beyond historical precedents is "ok".

3. The Alaska with triple 12" on a 92ft beam and no TDS is a bad example. I would presume her beam is more a result of desired speed generating a length and hull form with a desired L:B ratio leading to the beam. A 92ft beam and triple 12s and a low BC used as an analogy for a 84ft beam and triple 16s with a low BC undermines your position. This is one reason I stayed away from using it, just not terribly relevant.

4. It has occurred to me that one of the 'unknown' factors is likely metallurgy. Better steels with greater strength should allow a 1940 designer to do more with less than a 1920 designer. In the case of the USN in particular, the widespread use of expensive STS for common elements could lead to less massive a support structure needed and  help explain relatively narrow beams abreast turrets.

5. Sorry Logi, the more I look at this, the more I reach the conclusion that we are unlikely to convince each other. I find substantial doubts. Having been on the other side of such discussions, I realize that's probably going to be a point of frustration for you, as I'm sure you feel you have a good case. Indeed, I have found enough that I understand *why* you have your opinion, just not enough to conclude that you are likely correct.

So, thanks for the talk, I'll bow out.

[Logi]

You are correct that metallurgy could be a factor. Youare probably correct with the beam on the Alaska, but I used the Alaska as an example of what that sort of BC looks like rather than for it's beam.

I've realized a while ago that it would be impossible to convince each other, but it was a nice talk. I did get a bit frustrated at points, but it was enjoyable overall, thanks for the talk.

[Logi]

Ofc if you aren't as anal as I am about building time, for 2 kton ton I can get this;'

For 1kton additional, you can get what I posted before; http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3146.msg68824#msg68824

Minimalist Concept Study,  Light Battlecruiser laid down 1923

Displacement:
   17,000 t light; 18,127 t standard; 19,629 t normal; 20,830 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   540.00 ft / 540.00 ft x 90.00 ft x 26.00 ft (normal load)
   164.59 m / 164.59 m x 27.43 m  x 7.92 m

Armament:
      6 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (2x3 guns), 2,048.00lbs / 928.96kg shells, 1923 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      12 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (6x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1923 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships
      2 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (1x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1923 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
     on centreline amidships
   Weight of broadside 13,065 lbs / 5,926 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   9.00" / 229 mm   350.00 ft / 106.68 m   12.77 ft / 3.89 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
     Main Belt sloped 20 degrees externally, vertical height of 12 ft.

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   11.7" / 297 mm   5.00" / 127 mm      8.50" / 216 mm
   2nd:   0.50" / 13 mm   0.50" / 13 mm      0.50" / 13 mm
   3rd:   0.25" / 6 mm   0.25" / 6 mm            -

   - Armour deck: 1.50" / 38 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 63,142 shp / 47,104 Kw = 26.00 kts
   Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,703 tons

Complement:
   828 - 1,077

Cost:
   £6.581 million / $26.325 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,633 tons, 8.3 %
   Armour: 3,963 tons, 20.2 %
      - Belts: 1,766 tons, 9.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,214 tons, 6.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 936 tons, 4.8 %
      - Conning Tower: 47 tons, 0.2 %
   Machinery: 2,110 tons, 10.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,994 tons, 45.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,629 tons, 13.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     20,563 lbs / 9,327 Kg = 10.0 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 2.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
   Metacentric height 5.6 ft / 1.7 m
   Roll period: 16.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.69
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.544
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23.24 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
   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:      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:      18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Average freeboard:   19.01 ft / 5.79 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98.7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 147.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 33,718 Square feet or 3,132 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 91 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 193 lbs/sq ft or 941 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.92
      - Longitudinal: 2.10
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[Logi]

Downgunning, increasing displacement, increasing speed, armor up...

Minimalist Concept Study,  Light Battlecruiser laid down 1923

Displacement:
   18,000 t light; 19,026 t standard; 20,568 t normal; 21,802 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   540.00 ft / 540.00 ft x 90.00 ft x 27.00 ft (normal load)
   164.59 m / 164.59 m x 27.43 m  x 8.23 m

Armament:
     6 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (2x3 guns), 1,687.50lbs / 765.44kg shells, 1923 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
     12 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (6x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1923 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships
     2 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (1x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1923 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
     on centreline amidships
   Weight of broadside 10,902 lbs / 4,945 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
  - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   11.6" / 295 mm   350.00 ft / 106.68 m   12.77 ft / 3.89 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
     Main Belt sloped 20 degrees externally, vertical height of 12 ft.

  - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   14.0" / 356 mm   6.00" / 152 mm      10.0" / 254 mm
   2nd:   0.50" / 13 mm   0.50" / 13 mm      0.50" / 13 mm
   3rd:   0.25" / 6 mm   0.25" / 6 mm            -

  - Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 70,311 shp / 52,452 Kw = 26.50 kts
   Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,776 tons

Complement:
   858 - 1,116

Cost:
   £6.120 million / $24.479 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,363 tons, 6.6 %
   Armour: 5,535 tons, 26.9 %
      - Belts: 2,277 tons, 11.1 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,329 tons, 6.5 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,880 tons, 9.1 %
      - Conning Tower: 49 tons, 0.2 %
   Machinery: 2,350 tons, 11.4 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,423 tons, 41.0 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,568 tons, 12.5 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 329 tons, 1.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     23,572 lbs / 10,692 Kg = 14.0 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 2.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
   Metacentric height 5.6 ft / 1.7 m
   Roll period: 15.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.57
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.549
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23.24 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
   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:      21.00 ft / 6.40 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:      19.00 ft / 5.79 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): 88.6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 142.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 33,873 Square feet or 3,147 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 178 lbs/sq ft or 869 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.92
      - Longitudinal: 2.07
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[Logi]

CSA Battlecruiser Test;

Main belt does not have the same height as typical CSA layout, compromised on weight to achieve 27 kton package.

CSA Battlecruiser Concept Study laid down 1923

Displacement:
   27,000 t light; 28,342 t standard; 30,325 t normal; 31,911 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   650.00 ft / 650.00 ft x 97.00 ft x 31.20 ft (normal load)
   198.12 m / 198.12 m x 29.57 m  x 9.51 m

Armament:
      6 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3x2 guns), 2,000.00lbs / 907.18kg shells, 1923 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      20 - 4.75" / 121 mm guns (10x2 guns), 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 1923 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships
      2 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (1x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1923 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
     on centreline amidships
   Weight of broadside 13,027 lbs / 5,909 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   450.00 ft / 137.16 m   12.77 ft / 3.89 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 107 % of normal length
     Main Belt sloped 20 degrees externally, vertical height of 12 ft.

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1.50" / 38 mm   450.00 ft / 137.16 m   35.00 ft / 10.67 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   16.0" / 406 mm   7.00" / 178 mm      11.0" / 279 mm
   2nd:   3.00" / 76 mm   2.00" / 51 mm      2.00" / 51 mm
   3rd:   2.00" / 51 mm   1.00" / 25 mm            -

   - Armour deck: 3.20" / 81 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 133,847 shp / 99,850 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,569 tons

Complement:
   1,148 - 1,493

Cost:
   £7.999 million / $31.997 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,403 tons, 4.6 %
   Armour: 8,751 tons, 28.9 %
      - Belts: 2,948 tons, 9.7 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 874 tons, 2.9 %
      - Armament: 2,286 tons, 7.5 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,580 tons, 8.5 %
      - Conning Tower: 63 tons, 0.2 %
   Machinery: 4,473 tons, 14.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,042 tons, 39.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,325 tons, 11.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 330 tons, 1.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     36,745 lbs / 16,667 Kg = 21.8 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 5.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
   Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
   Roll period: 16.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.67
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.540
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.70 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 25.50 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
   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:      25.00 ft / 7.62 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Mid (50 %):      23.00 ft / 7.01 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   23.00 ft / 7.01 m
      - Stern:      24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Average freeboard:   23.51 ft / 7.16 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 106.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 168.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 43,573 Square feet or 4,048 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 189 lbs/sq ft or 923 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.93
      - Longitudinal: 1.83
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[Logi]

Increase to the the last battleship class of the CSA's size:

It has the same armor as the last BB of the CSA with marginally better belt. It has a better secondary battery, better secondary and main battery armor. Obviously much higher speed.

CSA Battlecruiser Concept Study laid down 1923

Displacement:
   30,500 t light; 31,916 t standard; 34,055 t normal; 35,766 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   676.00 ft / 676.00 ft x 100.00 ft x 32.00 ft (normal load)
   206.04 m / 206.04 m x 30.48 m  x 9.75 m

Armament:
      6 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3x2 guns), 2,000.00lbs / 907.18kg shells, 1923 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      20 - 4.75" / 121 mm guns (10x2 guns), 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 1923 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
      12 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1923 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on centreline, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
      2 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1923 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 13,010 lbs / 5,901 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   438.00 ft / 133.50 m   17.02 ft / 5.19 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
     Main Belt sloped 20 degrees externally, vertical height of 16 ft.

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1.50" / 38 mm   438.00 ft / 133.50 m   36.50 ft / 11.13 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   17.0" / 432 mm   7.00" / 178 mm      13.5" / 343 mm
   2nd:   3.00" / 76 mm   2.00" / 51 mm      2.00" / 51 mm
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm   0.50" / 13 mm            -
   4th:   1.00" / 25 mm   0.50" / 13 mm            -

   - Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 142,017 shp / 105,945 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,850 tons

Complement:
   1,253 - 1,629

Cost:
   £8.462 million / $33.847 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,401 tons, 4.1 %
   Armour: 11,241 tons, 33.0 %
      - Belts: 4,204 tons, 12.3 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 887 tons, 2.6 %
      - Armament: 2,587 tons, 7.6 %
      - Armour Deck: 3,494 tons, 10.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 68 tons, 0.2 %
   Machinery: 4,747 tons, 13.9 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,803 tons, 37.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,555 tons, 10.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 308 tons, 0.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     43,253 lbs / 19,619 Kg = 25.6 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 6.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 5.9 ft / 1.8 m
   Roll period: 17.3 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 56 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.61
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.551
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.76 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26.00 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
   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:      24.50 ft / 7.47 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   23.50 ft / 7.16 m
      - Mid (50 %):      23.00 ft / 7.01 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   22.00 ft / 6.71 m
      - Stern:      23.00 ft / 7.01 m
      - Average freeboard:   23.01 ft / 7.01 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 97.3 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 164.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 47,222 Square feet or 4,387 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 188 lbs/sq ft or 919 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.94
      - Longitudinal: 1.66
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[Delta Force]

Aren't both of those secondary armaments rather heavy? No battleships of this era, at least in USN service, had more than 16 secondary guns, and didn't have large AA armaments either until their later refits. I don't think that aircraft were much of a danger to a battleship in realistic wartime conditions anyways, at least until the mid 1930s. Billy Mitchell was a visionary, but the aircraft he used in his experiments were too primitive to do much damage to a battleship unless using 2,000 pound bombs.

[Logi]

I agree the AA weaponry is too heavy, but it's what is on the last BB of the CSA. A lot of nations here have ships with absurdly large AA complements, I dislike it, but there's nothing I can do about it. I'm designing to a standard, the CSA's.

The secondary armament, on the other hand, is not too small. Perhaps it is a habit that comes from designing RRC ships, but N-Verse proves the swarm theory to be very very effective. The destroyer/torpedo-boat attack is extremely deadly and has been used over and over in several wars, breaking through thick screens. That's why there is sufficient warrant for very heavy secondary batteries in N-Verse.