Netherlands design study for 1917 program

[damocles]

Tirpitz and the plans for the Mackensens involved geared diesels.

Battle damage. Nevada and West Virginia would have been goners at Pearl Harbor if they hadn't had unit machinery and  the extensive compartmentalization that such turbo electric drive gives. Given diesels of sufficient power, the range edge and fuel efficiency would have offset the weight. The Siam war should have taught the Dutch similar lessons.

Now as to naval philosophy.
   

About the Dutch fleet. I think adapting to a significantly different naval philosophy would take more resources than available. Korpen's fleet was a deterrent fleet, capital ships with speed to catch cruisers, and guns to damage capital ships - with no "cruisers" built for trade protection.

1. Riskflotte never works.  If the fleet was supposed to deter it failed. Fleets fight either a trade war, or sea control, or sea denial when war comes. They cannot just sit there. The bluff will be called as it was at Jutland and here on the sim.
2. These paper studies are design trials, more intended to provoke comment and get used to a design program that is unfamiliar, at least to me.
3. The torpedokruizer is my fitst stab at an idea for shaking things up in the Riksflotte. Holland cannot build a massive fleet of cruisers and battleships to fight sea control a la Jutland. Korpen realized this and tried to build a few raiders and a sea denial fleet (hence all the mine warfare which ticked off so many people). He when forced to use that type navy for a true naval war found that he was reluctant to risk his expensive and few ships against a stronger coalition. His Riskflotte became a Sitzflotte when his allies needed him to fight. For reasons complicated  which I still don't understand the war snowballed out of control and too many people got involved in what was just supposed to be a very limited and short war. It simply was not possible to fight it after a certain point.   
4. I inherited that navy and the lessons from that war and I'm working on it. I've been here less than a couple weeks and I still am surprised by some of the results
Anyway back to naval theory Nverse 1918
5. Torpedojager are useless except for local defense. We won't see true ocean going destroyers until the current Nverse tech limits improve. In the meantime, the cruiser rules means that effective  gunpower at ranges of 7000 meters or less predominates for second class battleships and large cruisers. That happens to also be the effective range of 1913 series torpedoes interesting enough. So if I can get the knack of designing a  10,000 mile, 10,000 ton cruiser with a huge torpedo broadside down, I have a fairly good capital ship killer for second tier powers like I'm likely to have trouble with in the foreseeable future. Shellfire cripples, torpedoes kill.   
6. The 30 knot speed is based on a design compromise. I can't get everything I want out of a ship. I have to balance
7. All those New Swiss Zeppelins need a reminder that they are potential targets and not welcome near the Riksllotte. With balloon guns I can at least make a lot of noise and with enough of them my chances of bagging a Zeppelin are not nil.

For the present 

Naval guns
5cm/L30 QF
5cm/L45 QF

7,5cm/L40 QF  6,5kg single mounts 1905
8,8cm/L30 QF, 9kg, single mounts 1890
8,8cm/L50 QF, 9kg, single mounts 1900

10cm/L30 QF, 15kg, Single mounts 1880
10cm/L50 QF, 17kg, Single mounts 1905

12cm/L45 QF, 21kg, Single, twin and casemate mounts. Horizontally sliding wedge breach-block
12cm/L50 QF, 24kg, Single, twin and casemate mounts. Horizontally sliding wedge breach-block, fixed ammunition. 20,8kg for a HE shell, 29kg for SAP ammo.
Both 12cm guns use the same ammunition.

15cm/L40 BL, 40kg Single and casemate mounts 1880
15cm/L45 BL, 45kg Single, twin and casemate mounts 1900, Horizontally sliding wedge breach-block

21cm/L40 BL 120kg Singe and double turrets. 1888

24cm/L40 BL 190kg  Singe and double turrets 1898
24cm/L50 BL 190kg  Singe double and triple turrets 1904

26cm/L35 BL 230kg Singe and double turrets 1880
30,5cm/L38 BL 400kg Singe and double turrets 1890, Horizontally sliding wedge breach-block

30,5/L45 BL 410kg Double turrets 1905, Vertically sliding wedge breach-block
35cm/L40 BL 600kg Double turrets 1905, Vertically sliding wedge breach-block

35cm/L45 BL 600kg Double turrets 1909, Vertically sliding wedge breach-block
38cm/L40 BL 820kg shell Double turrets 1909 Vertically sliding wedge breach-block

38cm/L45 BL 885kg shell Double turrets 1913 Vertically sliding wedge breach-block

Are my preferred cannon of choice upgraded to year 1915. I'll poke at the design studies until I get something I like, but it may take some practice.

The hammer and anvil ships are no accident. I wanted to try springsharp with some of the post WWI designs that were actually contemplated.   
   
D. 

[P3D]

The weight difference between turboelectric and reduction gear transmission is significant, and electric transmission is also less efficient. Add in heavy weight diesels and you have an engine that weighs twice as much as a compact TE machinery. Will look up the numbers.
Diesel does not scale up easily either. Larger engines are slower (they need time to burn all the fuel in the cylinder) and so less compact.. To get more power, you had to add more engines (leading to heavy transmissions and increased losses).
A strange SS2/3 quirk is that increasing bunkerage increase structural weight by only a minimal amount. In Nverse you pay for light displacement, so adding bunkerage is the next thing to free.

The Netherlands' Riskflotte IMO worked. It required, however, that the Dutch ships had technological advantage - larger guns and fire control. It was a great adaptation of Fisher's battlecruisers, fight long-range where you have the advantage. So no one attacked them despite their precarious geopolitical situation. Until they started a war  without adequate diplomatic support, and the DKB decided they could 'risk' their ships (inferior on paper) for the time until more people lined up against the Dutch.

However, that technological lead disappeared, so indeed the philosophy should be revisited.

Tirpitz and the plans for the Mackensens involved geared diesels.

Battle damage. Nevada and West Virginia would have been goners at Pearl Harbor if they hadn't had unit machinery and  the extensive compartmentalization that such turbo electric drive gives. Given diesels of sufficient power, the range edge and fuel efficiency would have offset the weight. The Siam war should have taught the Dutch similar lessons.

Now as to naval philosophy.
   

About the Dutch fleet. I think adapting to a significantly different naval philosophy would take more resources than available. Korpen's fleet was a deterrent fleet, capital ships with speed to catch cruisers, and guns to damage capital ships - with no "cruisers" built for trade protection.

1. Riskflotte never works.  If the fleet was supposed to deter it failed. Fleets fight either a trade war, or sea control, or sea denial when war comes. They cannot just sit there. The bluff will be called as it was at Jutland and here on the sim.