Rohan ships 1916, 1917, & Beyond

[Tanthalas]

I speced the armor out using Big Gun, which while not the most accurate atleast gives a guy somewhat of an idea.  Realy these have better coverage and protection than the preceading BB classes.

[Guinness]

I'm in the camp that believes BigGun is somewhat optimistic, and prefer NAaB. Of course, I'm also in the camp that doesn't believe inclined belts on BBs are worth it. Internal inclined belts in particular are likely to admit water into the hull of the ship even while holding shells out, which seems a dangerous design feature. And as we've pointed out, inclined belts are necessarily taller than non-inclined in most cases, which means they are giving back some of their weight savings.

But that's just me.

[Valles]

OTOH, for someone like me, whose construction is being limited by the quality of his armor foundries, they're just skippy. ^_^

[ctwaterman]

Hey I was just reading an Article concerning the Action of British, USN, and German Fuzes and Shells post Jutland.

I wonder how many of us actally realize our AP shells of this time period have really unreliable fuzes or that the filler of our shells explodes under compression of hitting armor even with cork replacing the Fuze ?????

As a note German AP Shells at Jutland were specked to penetrate 1/2 diameter plates at up to 30 Deg Oblique and still have reliable fuze action.

Krupp got it right....  but then at the Battle Ranges of Jutland the British 13.5" and 15" shells didnt need to Explose to do an awful lot of damage ;)

[Tanthalas]

Ctw, thats right up there with the interesting little factoid that no armor over 8" was penitrated at Jutland.

[Sachmle]

Ctw, thats right up there with the interesting little factoid that no armor over 8" was penitrated at Jutland.

Was 9".

Hey I was just reading an Article concerning the Action of British, USN, and German Fuzes and Shells post Jutland.

I wonder how many of us actally realize our AP shells of this time period have really unreliable fuzes or that the filler of our shells explodes under compression of hitting armor even with cork replacing the Fuze ?????

As a note German AP Shells at Jutland were specked to penetrate 1/2 diameter plates at up to 30 Deg Oblique and still have reliable fuze action.

Krupp got it right....  but then at the Battle Ranges of Jutland the British 13.5" and 15" shells didnt need to Explose to do an awful lot of damage ;)

Yep...Thank FSM I'm "Germany" :D

[Valles]

*sends spies to steal DKB fuse designs*

[P3D]

The "APC shell" tech assumes the shell performance of Krupp (early) WWI shells.

I consider NaAB more useful, myself, even if it could be more user-friendly.

[Sachmle]

The "APC shell" tech assumes the shell performance of Krupp (early) WWI shells.

I consider NaAB more useful, myself, even if it could be more user-friendly.

I agree on NAaB. User friendly it is not, semi-accurate it is.

[Carthaginian]

That's the only reason that I prefer BigGun-it's just EASY.
NAaB has never worked for me, exactly. Granted, I've never put the time in to learn it completely, but there are just too damn many variables and boxes and things that you can neglect. Even with Sam walking me through it the other night, I couldn't get it to work.

[Tanthalas]

I have never got it to work either, and I figure Big Gun is close enough

[Nobody]

"FSM"?

I agree on NAaB. User friendly it is not, semi-accurate it is.

But much more user friendly than the programs by Natan Okon on which it is based. Without any recent updates it's just another tool which needs reprogramming btw.

[Carthaginian]

'FSM' = Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Ithekro]

I agree with the notion that anyone that wants to take on Rohan at sea will have to come to them, since one thing that Rohan does not have that the USA did in that time period is an oversea's possession (Philippines) which was the cornerstone of most American battle plans (the retaking or holding of the said location and the chain of islands needed to keep it supplied in the long term).  Rohan has none of that.  Central American Gondor is the main area that might be invaded with South American zone in present day Chile being a secondary concern.  Neither of these areas will require all that much effort or logistics to defend as a group of islands across the Pacific Ocean would.  Gondor has a canal and two coasts, and can move the fleet around in days or a week rather than a month to shift forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Also Gondor was well defended last I checked rather that the weak Asiatic Fleet the US had.  "Chile" is weakly defended I believe, but again, its not that far away from other Rohirrim territory that it can't be relieved by existing vessels.

Rohan was operating on the notion of firepower in numbers if I recall.  It had a rather top heavy fleet with lots of battleships and overly large cruisers when it started in 1898.  It also tended at the time to be one of the slower fleets in the world based on the "they need to come to me anyway" model.  This has shifted due to changed in fire control making it possible for combat to take place outside of "at the time" Rohirrimm weapon ranges, and the need to catch fast raiders the were becoming the rage in the Pacific (Swiss and DKB vessels of 1906...the first battlecruisers).  Firepower is still prime...but only if you can catch and hit the target before they hit you.

[Tanthalas]

with the RNT a fact of life now I had to rework the third Asfolath class ship slightly so here it is.

Arroch(Asfaloth treaty compliant single ship), Rohan Fast Battleship laid down 1918 (Engine 1920)

Displacement:
   35,200 t light; 37,473 t standard; 43,871 t normal; 48,989 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   808.00 ft / 792.00 ft x 118.00 ft x 31.00 ft (normal load)
   246.28 m / 241.40 m x 35.97 m  x 9.45 m

Armament:
      8 - 15.50" / 394 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,951.00lbs / 884.96kg shells, 1918 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      16 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (6 mounts), 45.56lbs / 20.67kg shells, 1918 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, evenly spread
      4 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (2x2 guns), 45.56lbs / 20.67kg shells, 1918 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      8 - 1.50" / 38.1 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.69lbs / 0.77kg shells, 1918 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, evenly spread
      8 - 0.00" / 0.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.00lbs / 0.00kg shells, 1918 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 16,533 lbs / 7,499 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   500.00 ft / 152.40 m   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 97 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1.50" / 38 mm   500.00 ft / 152.40 m   29.00 ft / 8.84 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   6.00" / 152 mm      12.0" / 305 mm
   2nd:   2.00" / 51 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      1.00" / 25 mm
   3rd:   2.00" / 51 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      1.00" / 25 mm
   4th:   2.00" / 51 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      1.00" / 25 mm

   - Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 8.00" / 203 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 4 shafts, 118,837 shp / 88,652 Kw = 28.00 kts
   Range 10,778nm at 19.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 11,516 tons

Complement:
   1,515 - 1,970

Cost:
   £6.950 million / $27.799 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,978 tons, 4.5 %
   Armour: 11,823 tons, 27.0 %
      - Belts: 4,534 tons, 10.3 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 805 tons, 1.8 %
      - Armament: 2,718 tons, 6.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 3,553 tons, 8.1 %
      - Conning Tower: 214 tons, 0.5 %
   Machinery: 4,155 tons, 9.5 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,747 tons, 38.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 8,671 tons, 19.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 497 tons, 1.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     62,106 lbs / 28,171 Kg = 33.4 x 15.5 " / 394 mm shells or 10.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
   Metacentric height 8.4 ft / 2.5 m
   Roll period: 17.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 76 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.41
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.18

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has raised forecastle
   Block coefficient: 0.530
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.71 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 28.14 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 64
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 29.75 degrees
   Stern overhang: -8.00 ft / -2.44 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      28.00 ft / 8.53 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   28.00 ft / 8.53 m (19.00 ft / 5.79 m aft of break)
      - Mid (60 %):      19.00 ft / 5.79 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   19.00 ft / 5.79 m
      - Stern:      19.00 ft / 5.79 m
      - Average freeboard:   20.80 ft / 6.34 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 152.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 64,014 Square feet or 5,947 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 120 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 199 lbs/sq ft or 973 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.98
      - Longitudinal: 1.13
      - 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