Battleships of the Mark into the 1920s

[Laertes]

Too slow for my tastes; other than that, she looks terrifying.

[P3D]

The protection philosophy is the opposite of the US WWII battleship. Good belt armor (is that 13" armor line-of-sight or total thickness?) achieved by sacrificing armament protection.

As I mentioned earlier, It would make sense for Rohan to build a battleship that meets minimum requirements but nothing extra to make it affordable in numbers. These minimal requirement being 21.5-22kts speed, 8-9x15.5" guns, whatever armor and range is considered adequate.

I'd even go for a true all-or-nothing battleship. Ships would operate effectively in home waters, and some holes from opposing cruisers could be patched up in a few weeks. The upper belt itself is a waste of 1000t (and another 1000t of structural weight). Get it squeezed below 30,000t.

OTOH, if going for quality, there's no reason not to utilize the whole tonnage allowance, so increase turret/barbette armor and spend any leftover tonnage on 1-2ks extra speed.

[Laertes]

The protection philosophy is the opposite of the US WWII battleship. Good belt armor (is that 13" armor line-of-sight or total thickness?) achieved by sacrificing armament protection.

- Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   16.0" / 406 mm   8.00" / 203 mm      13.0" / 330 mm

16" of face armour, and he gets accused of sacrificing armament protection? I'd hate to see the balanced version of Eorl V R. ;)

[mentat]

  it's a Beast - impressive all round and outstanding Belt protection - I like  8)

[Ithekro]

For the style of armor protection?  I honestly don't know.  I didn't design it.  This was the last Battleship design from the previous thread on the subject.

[P3D]

The protection philosophy is the opposite of the US WWII battleship. Good belt armor (is that 13" armor line-of-sight or total thickness?) achieved by sacrificing armament protection.

- Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   16.0" / 406 mm   8.00" / 203 mm      13.0" / 330 mm

16" of face armour, and he gets accused of sacrificing armament protection? I'd hate to see the balanced version of Eorl V R. ;)

8" turret side armor would be penetrated by almost any large-caliber shells - the turret would face the ship it is aiming at, not necessarily the one shooting at the turret. Barbette armor is downright marginal.

[maddox]

I agree on the barbette.
But the rest of the turret is fairly well protected compared to otl battleships of the same size.

[Valles]

...hm. Really?

Huh.

I hadn't realized just how much of a freak Cross Mirage was.

[P3D]

I agree on the barbette.
But the rest of the turret is fairly well protected compared to otl battleships of the same size.

It somewhat hard to find data, but...

QE/R class: 11"
Standards: 9-10" inclined
Bayern: 250mm
Dunkerque: 250mm
Bismarck: 220mm

[Guinness]

I've got a bunch of data on details of armor schemes at home. If I get home, survive walking in the door (not a given with my wife home all day with two kids under 4), and need a diversion from the Braves infield defense later, I'll look it up.

[maddox]

Hmm, it seems you have different sources than I have.  

DK Browns Grand Fleet give the Q-E class 7 to 10 inch armor concerning main armament. On the other hand, it seems thin for a turret face.

On the other hand, does it matter that much?
When was the last Big Gun Battle in the Nverse?

[Laertes]

On the other hand, does it matter that much?
When was the last Big Gun Battle in the Nverse?

Surely you're not suggesting that battleships are obsolete?

- Laertes
(Feels Dudley Pound's pain)

[Logi]

I do not think the battleships are obsolete. They have not sen any combat, for sure, but nothing had dethroned it as king of the seas, that requires sinking said battleships often.

Rather I think it falls into this:

1) No one wants to risk their treasure ships.
2) Those that do, can't replace them, so they don't do it.

We haven't really seen a battle between powerful naval nations outside of the Pacific. The Pacific battles were filled with overgrown cruisers, nothing to prove or disprove battleship theory.

Thus the ones with battleships are locked in peace, and the one that breaks in war often never uses battleships.

[Guinness]

We haven't really had a Dogger Bank like battle here yet, much less Jutland. There was one significant battleline engagement in the last Iberia/Austria v. Ottomans beatdown, but it was somewhat inconclusive.

The reasons why we haven't had more capital ship on capital ship actions are debatable. I think Maddox's point is that it's perfectly understandable in the nverse if planners have begun to discount the value of line-of-battle style battleships given our history.

[Ithekro]

I'll likely need to redo it in the next few days.  The previous class design used 14 inches of armor on the turret faces and barbettes and 10 inches on the sides, though currently in service modern Battleships of the Mark use 7 inches on the sides (but still 14 inches on the face and barbettes).

16 inches on the barbette might be too much.  However 14" is just slightly more than historical on the Standards: 13.5" armor above the belt line but only 4.5" below the protection of the deck and belt armor.
Faces were 18" thick.  10" sides.  9" back, and 5" roofs.  That is on all the Standard triple 14" gun turrets from Nevada on including the 16" twins on the Colorados.

Means I need to buff the face a little (or leave it at 16").  The 13-14" barbette should be fine.  Side need to come up to 10".
Might make them 35,000 tons or so instead of down to 30,000 tons.

Please define how the armor belts are different within SS2 (sloped verse just thickness) as the Standards are pretty much 14" belts with the Colorados maybe being thicker in spots.