Navy of Deseret

[Tanthalas]

when I got the email about the restart (a little later than the rest of yall sorry bout that) little lightbulbs went of in my head.  Here was the chance I had never had in the Nverse to do things my way.  No preconcived notions, no existing backstory, most importantly no existing ships, so I wasnt tied to any developmental theory.  I said to myself SCORE, now where do I want to end up at startup (not knowing the startup year I speculated 1885 as this would split the diferance on 1880 or 1890) I said ok I want to build Brandenburg (kinda tweaked but the basic principal) at startup, and I dont want any jerks and stops in my progression from 1860-1890.  To do that I simmed first the end then worked backwards to the begining, using my trusty copy of Conways I dug up ships that fit my profile, then adapted them to fit what I viewd as a logical progression.

To do this I had to go from Masted Turret ships in 1860 to full on AQY predreads with turret and barb in 1890

1860 Masted Turret ships 2X2X11 with steam engines capable of pushing them at 14.36 knots (based loosley on HMS Scorpion although roughly doubled in size page 20 or 28 for digital versions) ship comes out slower than HMS monarch I say SCORE.

1870 first real decision year switch to barbs, or stay turrets and jump to 3  I chose to jump to AQY here as it just felt better than abandoning a "proven tech" (as shown other places there are several period examples) switch from ML to BL guns at some point in the decade, i insist on the same speed as the previous type (but round it up to 15 knots cause I like even numbers)

1880 decision to abandon turrets and switch to the now proven (hopefully by world events) tech of Barbettes (open with possibly light weather shields) has to be as fast or faster than the preceading type.

1890 SMS Brandenburg (well a modified extensivly version but it was the origin of the idea)

all of these years are intended to be flexible, 1870 could be any year from 1870-1879 same with the rest, its flexible to fit world events.  However I find it easier to adapt the ships to apropriat date if I base them in mid decade.

[Nobody]

I have a question. There was a time were ships carried main batteries of different calibers, sometimes even with different number of guns in them, e.g. a 12" single + a 10" double mount. When was this period?
I have to agree that the ship in question looks very much like a too early Brandenburg with its 3 centerline twins, but is it impossible to build? I think not. HOWEVER, don't forget that S.M.S. Brandenburg did NOT have a uniform main battery! As the center turret had different (older and shorter) guns. Combined with my first question, I think no one should complain if you used a center 12" and end 10" mounts.

[Walter]

Tan put 2+2 together.

Sorry, but to me it looks more like a case of hindsight being 20/20 than 2+2.

I just always liked the symetry of AQY *shrugs* its just my thing.

There is no symetry with AQY, unless the guns in Q turret stick out on opposite ends. :)

Of course, you'll have to reach the proper tech level for each individual component- like the 17" guns...

As I see it, he does exactly the same thing of what you are caling 2+2 (several times actually). Regarding the 17" gun, the monster guns are from the mid 1870s so that tech would be around.

OH... just noticed that there was no barbette armor- so it'll go off like a firecracker.

Maybe it's me, but I see 14" of barbette armor in the sim...

how far can it steam at top speed, I wonder?

I would guess far enough when the speed is needed. No doubt that vessel's supposed to stay fairly close to Mexico.

Steadiness and Seakeeping suck as well; any kind of weather will render this ship as dangerous as a fishing cork.

No doubt he's glad to be in the Pacific and the Carribean with their gentle seas...
...and the occasional tropical storms and tsunamis... :D

And she has a 35 foot draft! Where you gonna park the thing?!?!

On the seabottom, right outside the harbor of course. ;D

HMS Prince Albert: A-Q-Y full turrets - 1864

Strange... Looking in my book, it looks more like A-B-X-Y with single 9" ML guns.

Redoubtable was armed with six 10.8" breech-loaders- three in barbettes and four in broadsides.

Uhm... minor nit... 3 + 4 = 6?

He is not designing a PERFECT SHIP.

No, but it is getting rather close. Sure it still has some flaws but to me this is a design that would change thinking and designing all over the world... in the mid 1870s. All the ideas I had I can now throw out of the window as I have been looking more at period vessels than going along the path of complete fantasy...

Hmm... That is a very dangerous vessel indeed. The surface radar will not be able to pick that one up. :D

My plan for Mexico was to have broadside armored frigates in the Pacific.

Guess you can throw that plan out of the window now with a design like that around. ;D

HOWEVER, don't forget that S.M.S. Brandenburg did NOT have a uniform main battery!

Hmmm... Considering that the original design does have a uniform battery, doesn't that makes it more advanced than S.M.S. Brandenburg?

[Tanthalas]

for the 1880 ship (the one posted at the start of this thread) I was pictureing a uniform battery of 11/35 (the out of date gun used in the Q turret on Brandenburg class and the oldest gun navweps has data on) granted its 10 years ahead of time but I think (based on the limited data generaly available) that it would proly be a fairly accurate gun for my uses.  

as to mixed main battery there were to my knowlage a couple times it was done the french apear to be big on it in alot of their predreads, then again just before the dawn of the dreadnaught era everyone got big on it.  England was doing 12" main 10" secondary main, the US was doing 12" main 8" secondary main France was doing like 12" main with 10.8" secondary mains everyone played around with alot of diferent mountings for them with varying degrees of sucsess.

in 1877 only 2 years after my 1875 laydown date the french layed down Amrial Duperre which had 4X1X13.4" A, A (wing turrets gack) QY (or possibly XY looking at the pictures), a 6.4" bow chaser, 14X1X5.5", and 18 1pounder revolvers (gatling guns?) on aproximatly the same tonage I used.  their ship was 2 knots slower than the one I simmed However had Vastly heavier armor (like it wont fit in spring sharp heavier) was shorter (almost 100' shorter), Wider (only by a foot though) and had a deaper draught (3') and if I take their shp number of 7300 I still end up doing 15.58 knots so I simply used the remaining tonage to bring me up to 15 knots (yes I had left over composite strength).

[Carthaginian]

He is not designing a PERFECT SHIP.

No, but it is getting rather close. Sure it still has some flaws but to me this is a design that would change thinking and designing all over the world... in the mid 1870s. All the ideas I had I can now throw out of the window as I have been looking more at period vessels than going along the path of complete fantasy...

He was also looking at period vessels, Walter- as I pointed out.
He just looked at them differently than historic figures did.
Instead of taking the 'more fast firing medium caliber guns' view or the 'as many big guns as possible' view, he took another idea from them 'split the difference between the two.' His nation is looking at the idea of the 'shotgun principle' as being the best path to take. More turrets, smaller guns- it'll be the direct opposite of Acadia's general path (which is to mount the largest gun possible on the smallest ship).

Tan wants to build ships that make Agincourt a logical design progression rather than a WTF oddity. This is why he has a large number of mounts with smaller guns.


When we see solid rules, I have no doubt that the ideas that we are all bandying about will change massively- I doubt that my 3500 ton ship with 13.4" guns will survive the introduction of the real rules.
:D

[TexanCowboy]

Walter's got a point here; ship's like this sorta destroy the impact of those who are going for OTL sorts of flawed designs. That and Project Sofia alone raise the bar a good 7 years.

[snip]

Walter's got a point here; ship's like this sorta destroy the impact of those who are going for OTL sorts of flawed designs. That and Project Sofia alone raise the bar a good 7 years.

Sofia has two variants that are basically the same aside from armament layout. I figured the people would flip about an AQY on the A variant in 1880, hence the adoption of AAY in the C variant. Sofia C basically being the Ekaterina II class battleships in all but name and slight armor alterations, I figured that it would be acceptable unless the rules (which would be very helpful about now) were very specific as to the exact armament layout. Even so, AAY provides a clear advantage for the role I envision my BBs filling. On the argument of historical precedent, guess I get to consider an ABXY in 1885. It might be useful for an AC, but not for my BBs. Still, the proof of historical consideration is there.

[TexanCowboy]

Snip, if you look at the picture, that's AAYY, not ABXY.

[snip]

Im talking about the all-centerline design in the second row

[Tanthalas]

Snip I *think* the one on the second row would be APQY and looks rather like I envisiond my first dreadnaught period ship looking (although with fewer guns as I imagined it with tripples)

[Carthaginian]

Guys, the sad truth is that PLENTY of ships are not plain, USA standard A-Y layout ships with two twin turrets. MANY nations used wing turrets or barbettes, all centerline multiple turrets or barbettes, strange caliber combinations. It seems that the predominate view here is that you MUST build American/British-style ships and cannot try to expound on some of the more innovative designs that were available at the time.

I can safely say that if ya'll have a problem with Tan planning to do A-Q-Y ships, then you won't like my fleet- as it will definitely have ships that are, while not A-Q-Y in layout- are certainly based on my nation's unique needs and will NOT resemble very many ships built in OTL... because my nation's needs are not going to be anywhere near the needs of any nation on OTL.

OPEN YOUR MINDS- that's what this is all about! ;D
Stretch your imaginations... find a ship that interests you in history and ask yourself "What if my nation built this, then decided that it was the best thing sine sliced bread?" Sure, follow historic example, but don't be afraid to fold, spindle and mutilate it to fit your needs. :)

[Tanthalas]

I'm not going to bother responding to that at the risk of starting a flame war.

I deleated an entire post because when I read it I decided it was to enflametory.  I figure we all just want to build the ships we want to build.  At the moment we have no guidelines whatsoever, we oculd find out tomorow that everything any of us want to build is in violation of the rules.  Now I dont expect that to happen, but hey anything is possible.  Lets just try and get along ok, im willing to change my plan if I find out I cant go the route I had Planned we should all try to maintain that level of flexability.

[Tanthalas]

Since there were so many complaints about DDS Archangel im posting its predicesor DDS Manticore, and I finaly struck on a class name I like.  Year is 1870 so it will have a laydown year sometime in the late 1860s to allow for comissioning.

The ship is loosley based on this ship
the main guns are based off this gun however fireing a lighter shell.

DDS Manticore, Dominion of Deseret Armored Turret Frigate laid down 1870

Displacement:
   9,100 t light; 9,421 t standard; 10,866 t normal; 12,022 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   341.00 ft / 341.00 ft x 62.00 ft x 27.00 ft (normal load)
   103.94 m / 103.94 m x 18.90 m  x 8.23 m

Armament:
      6 - 11.00" / 279 mm guns (3x2 guns), 464.00lbs / 210.47kg shells, 1870 Model
     Muzzle loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turrets
     on centreline, evenly spread
     Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
      8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns in single mounts, 31.89lbs / 14.47kg shells, 1870 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
     8 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
   Weight of broadside 3,039 lbs / 1,379 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 60

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   221.00 ft / 67.36 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
   Upper:   4.00" / 102 mm   221.00 ft / 67.36 m   4.00 ft / 1.22 m
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   6.00" / 152 mm            -

   - Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 10.00" / 254 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 7,401 ihp / 5,521 Kw = 14.98 kts
   Range 4,300nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,602 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   531 - 691

Cost:
   £0.893 million / $3.571 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 381 tons, 3.5 %
   Armour: 2,990 tons, 27.5 %
      - Belts: 1,149 tons, 10.6 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,127 tons, 10.4 %
      - Armour Deck: 608 tons, 5.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 106 tons, 1.0 %
   Machinery: 1,814 tons, 16.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,864 tons, 35.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,766 tons, 16.3 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 51 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     7,873 lbs / 3,571 Kg = 16.9 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 1.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 2.9 ft / 0.9 m
   Roll period: 15.3 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 67 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.51
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.52

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has low quarterdeck
   Block coefficient: 0.666
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.50 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 18.47 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 44
   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:      14.00 ft / 4.27 m
      - Forecastle (15 %):   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
      - Mid (50 %):      14.00 ft / 4.27 m
      - Quarterdeck (20 %):   7.00 ft / 2.13 m (14.00 ft / 4.27 m before break)
      - Stern:      7.00 ft / 2.13 m
      - Average freeboard:   12.60 ft / 3.84 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 80.8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 82.6 %
   Waterplane Area: 16,438 Square feet or 1,527 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 158 lbs/sq ft or 772 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.91
      - Longitudinal: 2.34
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

[P3D]

Combining best features of historical ships (or historical projects) is just uncreative hindsightitis.

[Carthaginian]

Combining best features of historical ships (or historical projects) is just uncreative hindsightitis.

Combining the best features of ships that came before your design is EXACTLY WHAT NAVAL DESIGNERS DO, P3D.

Trying to lock-step everyone into building the same generic type of ships is what is uncreative.