What I should have built.

[Korpen]

With hindsight, this is something I should have built back in 1907 instead of the much less usefull battleships I did build. Would have had a better navy now if I had.
The wisdom of hindsight... *sigh*

25kts and 8x35cm guns, she would have been a terror in her generation.

Jacob van Heemskerck, Netherlands Frigate laid down 1907 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   17 200 t light; 18 320 t standard; 20 266 t normal; 21 824 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   675,85 ft / 672,57 ft x 73,90 ft x 28,54 ft (normal load)
   206,00 m / 205,00 m x 22,52 m  x 8,70 m

Armament:
      4 - 13,78" / 350 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1 322,77lbs / 600,00kg shells, 1907 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      4 - 13,78" / 350 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1 322,77lbs / 600,00kg shells, 1907 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on side, all amidships
      14 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52,72lbs / 23,91kg shells, 1907 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
     8 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
      6 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns in single mounts, 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 1907 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side ends, evenly spread
     6 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
   Weight of broadside 11 439 lbs / 5 189 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 107

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   7,56" / 192 mm   410,11 ft / 125,00 m   13,12 ft / 4,00 m
   Ends:   1,97" / 50 mm   262,47 ft / 80,00 m   9,84 ft / 3,00 m
   Upper:   2,95" / 75 mm   328,08 ft / 100,00 m   8,20 ft / 2,50 m
     Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   11,0" / 280 mm   4,72" / 120 mm      7,68" / 195 mm
   2nd:   11,0" / 280 mm   4,72" / 120 mm      7,68" / 195 mm
   3rd:   2,95" / 75 mm   2,76" / 70 mm      2,95" / 75 mm
   4th:   0,79" / 20 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 1,77" / 45 mm, Conning tower: 9,84" / 250 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 48 080 shp / 35 868 Kw = 24,98 kts
   Range 6 815nm at 12,00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3 504 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   849 - 1 104

Cost:
   £2,125 million / $8,499 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1 416 tons, 7,0 %
   Armour: 4 868 tons, 24,0 %
      - Belts: 2 265 tons, 11,2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
      - Armament: 1 359 tons, 6,7 %
      - Armour Deck: 1 085 tons, 5,4 %
      - Conning Tower: 158 tons, 0,8 %
   Machinery: 2 380 tons, 11,7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 8 226 tons, 40,6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 066 tons, 15,1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 310 tons, 1,5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     19 131 lbs / 8 678 Kg = 14,6 x 13,8 " / 350 mm shells or 2,2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
   Metacentric height 3,8 ft / 1,2 m
   Roll period: 15,9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,83
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,04

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0,500
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9,10 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 25,93 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 41 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0,00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      22,97 ft / 7,00 m
      - Forecastle (18 %):   17,22 ft / 5,25 m
      - Mid (60 %):      17,22 ft / 5,25 m (9,84 ft / 3,00 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   9,84 ft / 3,00 m
      - Stern:      9,84 ft / 3,00 m
      - Average freeboard:   14,69 ft / 4,48 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 92,6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 107,5 %
   Waterplane Area: 33 115 Square feet or 3 076 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 95 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 167 lbs/sq ft or 815 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,98
      - Longitudinal: 1,13
      - Overall: 1,00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate

[Korpen]

If I had built the first design, then the follow-up would have been something like this (Instead of the 30cm armed frigates).

WJ, Netherlands Frigate laid down 1909 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   17 200 t light; 18 323 t standard; 20 266 t normal; 21 821 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   675,85 ft / 672,57 ft x 73,90 ft x 28,54 ft (normal load)
   206,00 m / 205,00 m x 22,52 m  x 8,70 m

Armament:
      8 - 13,78" / 350 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1 322,77lbs / 600,00kg shells, 1907 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
     Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
      14 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52,72lbs / 23,91kg shells, 1907 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
     8 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
      6 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns in single mounts, 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 1907 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side ends, evenly spread
     6 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
   Weight of broadside 11 439 lbs / 5 189 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 111

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   8,07" / 205 mm   393,70 ft / 120,00 m   13,12 ft / 4,00 m
   Ends:   1,97" / 50 mm   278,87 ft / 85,00 m   9,84 ft / 3,00 m
   Upper:   2,95" / 75 mm   328,08 ft / 100,00 m   8,20 ft / 2,50 m
     Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   11,0" / 280 mm   4,72" / 120 mm      7,68" / 195 mm
   3rd:   2,95" / 75 mm   2,76" / 70 mm      2,95" / 75 mm
   4th:   0,79" / 20 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2,17" / 55 mm, Conning tower: 9,84" / 250 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 48 080 shp / 35 868 Kw = 24,98 kts
   Range 9 158nm at 12,00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3 498 tons

Complement:
   849 - 1 104

Cost:
   £2,097 million / $8,390 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1 416 tons, 7,0 %
   Armour: 5 261 tons, 26,0 %
      - Belts: 2 333 tons, 11,5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
      - Armament: 1 444 tons, 7,1 %
      - Armour Deck: 1 327 tons, 6,5 %
      - Conning Tower: 158 tons, 0,8 %
   Machinery: 2 185 tons, 10,8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 8 008 tons, 39,5 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 066 tons, 15,1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 330 tons, 1,6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     19 476 lbs / 8 834 Kg = 14,9 x 13,8 " / 350 mm shells or 2,2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,05
   Metacentric height 3,5 ft / 1,1 m
   Roll period: 16,6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,94
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,03

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0,500
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9,10 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 25,93 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 41 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0,00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      22,97 ft / 7,00 m
      - Forecastle (18 %):   17,22 ft / 5,25 m
      - Mid (62 %):      17,22 ft / 5,25 m (9,84 ft / 3,00 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   9,84 ft / 3,00 m
      - Stern:      9,84 ft / 3,00 m
      - Average freeboard:   14,83 ft / 4,52 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89,6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 109,1 %
   Waterplane Area: 33 115 Square feet or 3 076 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 95 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 162 lbs/sq ft or 792 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,99
      - Longitudinal: 1,08
      - Overall: 1,00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate

[The Rock Doctor]

You're kind of stuck now. 

Given any thought to re-engining the battleships?  Could they be pushed up to 25 knots?

[Korpen]

You're kind of stuck now. 

I know, but I wanted to design something, and the future builds are already done. :)

Given any thought to re-engining the battleships?  Could they be pushed up to 25 knots?

No, that would require a major rebuild, not worth it. I generally do not really consider it worth to spend allot of money and resources on major upgrades of older ships, most of the time a smaller upgrade is better as that frees up the money for a new ship.

[The Rock Doctor]

The BBs are a decent design, potentially worth investing in despite their limitations.  It's not like they're older pre-dreads or semi-dreads.

[Guinness]

The recoil effect on the first ship is a bit high. The recoil effect on the second ship is very very high.

For what it's worth, the van Heemskercks are probably better ships than their direct Confederate contemporaries of the Oklahoma class.

The problem isn't that you've built bad Dreadnoughts, it's that you've only built two of them, at least in my humble opinion. In a concentrated fleet action, all your BCs are going to be in trouble if they run into a numerically equivalent fleet of real battleships, unless they run.

But now that you are already down this road where the vast majority of your capital ships are battlecruisers, then yes, it probably makes sense to only build battlecruisers, at least until the technology catches up and you can protect them more adequately.

[Korpen]

The BBs are a decent design, potentially worth investing in despite their limitations.  It's not like they're older pre-dreads or semi-dreads.

Some investment is done; they are both being converted to oil firing during 1916.

The recoil effect on the first ship is a bit high. The recoil effect on the second ship is very very high.

For what it's worth, the van Heemskercks are probably better ships than their direct Confederate contemporaries of the Oklahoma class.

The problem isn't that you've built bad Dreadnoughts, it's that you've only built two of them, at least in my humble opinion. In a concentrated fleet action, all your BCs are going to be in trouble if they run into a numerically equivalent fleet of real battleships, unless they run.

Well, never said they were bad ships. :)
But as you point out, in the direction my navy is heading more BCs is far more usefull then BBs.

[Guinness]

Well, I suppose if you really wanted to, you could stretch those BBs to make room for more boilers and maybe lose some armor here or there. With 1916 engines, you might be able to make them fast enough.

It would be pretty expensive though.

Or you could sell them to someone friendly for a good price.

[mentat]

I like the 1907 BC design - although prefer a bit more armour as well - I'm just greedy  I guess

Not sure about radical upgrades with the BBs - since sounds ahistorical with this period and I am not familiar with the details on the BBs in question

The key point to my mind is the liberating potential of 1916 Engine Tech - with 140k shp - there is no longer the hard choice between a BB  OR a BC - everyone can have both in the same ship (if prepared to pay the high price of course)

- all of which sounds great to me - now it is possible to build: 8 x 15 inch , good protection and 28+ knots - should one ask for more ?! ;D

[Korpen]

I like the 1907 BC design - although prefer a bit more armour as well - I'm just greedy  I guess

Well, more armour would result in a reduction in firepower, as lower speed would not be an option.

Not sure about radical upgrades with the BBs - since sounds ahistorical with this period and I am not familiar with the details on the BBs in question

The battleship in question, she is a solid but unexiting ship. It should be mentioned that at the time she was laid down, 21 knots was a high top speed.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=676.msg7415#msg7415

The key point to my mind is the liberating potential of 1916 Engine Tech - with 140k shp - there is no longer the hard choice between a BB  OR a BC - everyone can have both in the same ship (if prepared to pay the high price of course)

- all of which sounds great to me - now it is possible to build: 8 x 15 inch , good protection and 28+ knots - should one ask for more ?! ;D

8x38 and 30+ knot speed I would say, some ballast (armour) could be usefull I guess, as long as it do not have too big an impact on the capabillities of the ship.