Spanish Navy

[snip]

Going by the Ekaterina II class barbette ships, I do not think you ship is wide enough. The Ekaterinas had a 69 foot beam, and yours has a 60 foot beam. I am skeptical that this arrangement would fit. Speaking of which, you appear (as others have said) to be attempting to make a pre-dread way to early. I have yet to come across a ship from this time that mounts both 12" and an intermediate (7-10") caliber. Without tech rules, I cannot say if this sort of design will be allowed, but it has no OTL president that I can find, and so I will question its legality on those grounds alone until we get definitive rules on the subject.

[Logi]

Speaking of which, you appear (as others have said) to be attempting to make a pre-dread way to early. I have yet to come across a ship from this time that mounts both 12" and an intermediate (7-10") caliber.

Um I pointed out the French Devastation class a while ago, in fact I even listed it's armament which is considerably more heavy than mine. Did you even bother reading my posts?

In fact, Jeftge even simmed the refitted ship in SS3 awhile ago. (Ie: The refitted version removed two of the 10.6" secondaries).

Even better, take a look at HMS Alexandra. (2x11", 10x10", 6x3.75")
Or perhaps HMS Temeraire. (4x11", 4x10", 6x3.75")

Do you want more proof that such ships existed? It's not something so out of place as you make it. Oh, the bonus is that the ships I mentioned are all laid down before 1877 making my Gloria design younger than them!

Going by the Ekaterina II class barbette ships, I do not think your ship is wide enough. The Ekaterinas had a 69 foot beam, and yours has a 60 foot beam. I am skeptical that this arrangement would fit.

You do realize that they mounted the guns side by side, which takes considerably more beam than the staggered wing format that I have. Going by the blueprint, the turrets are also 8-5 ft off the edge of the ship.

Fortunately, because the reworked layout (reduced slightly superstructure and wider beam of 60' allows the staggered wing turrets to be 5-6 ft off the edge. So yes, it fits.

In fact, I'm not sure why you are saying you're skeptical that it fits, I even drew the ship out dimension by dimension in a 3d model. And that was with a 2' slimmer hull and turrets pushed much further out and to the ends than they needed to be.

Here's the picture of the reworked arrangement! It fits! Now imagine that I moved the forward staggered wing turrets side-by-side and you quickly see that it will need more beam to hold that arrangement- on the order of 5-10' more. Btw, that's approximate how much more beam the Ekaterina II class had over my design. In other words... it makes sense.

And the new isometric.

[Tanthalas]

I'm afraid I have to agree with snip, to modern logi.  As to the weapons your trying to compare apples and oranges, both the ships you mention have Muzzle loading guns not Breach Loaders, Both are Sailing ships with aux steam plants, Both are Central Battery ships.  Your ship on the other hand looks an awfull lot like a predread from your own picture.  Now I dont know what the rules will look like, but I imagine somthing like your ship isnt going to be allowed untill around 1885 (much to my Chagrin as I want to build AQY predreads).

[Logi]

Muzzleloader - Breechloader, I forget to change that, but it doesn't affect the SS so I can easily change that. As for masted ship vs mast-less ship, that really is a matter of the admiralty's mind. It doesn't mean that it's something odd!

For example, Captain Cowsper Cole had the mastless turret ship idea for a long time and pushed it relentless towards the Admiralty, but the Admiralty refused to accept the idea until the 1880s.

For another matter, I can easily covert the ship to a brigantine! The reason I don't need masts is because the range on the ship is already 3000 nm, more than enough for anywhere the ship wants to go. If I need to have sails, I can simply reduce the engine range to make up for the weight.

In fact, you forget you were the one who told me to remove the sailing rigging I originally had on the Gloria design because it didn't need it if it has a range of 3000nm @ 10 kts! I had it masted as a brigantine style ship beforehand.

---

Anything, given the right design requirements can look like a pre-dread. Take one of those central battery ships and give it the requirement to hold 3 turrets of 12" rather than 2, and that the beam is limited so you can't place them side by side. Where are you going to put them? Keep in mind that the secondaries have to be able to fire and not just in calm seas.

Naturally to get the right balance of topweight, you must either go all centerline (impossible due to design short hull) or staggered aft and a centerline (having the two staggered balance each other and the centerline one not needing balance for that axis). Or, if you are creative, have all of them staggered with increasingly small stagger amounts on each mount to balance.

I can place the main guns in the middle, but then where would the secondaries go? Towards the side? (I can't place them down one deck because of the fire-in-all-seas requirement) If it's towards the end, having the main battery fire over them would destroy the guns beneath (historical argument vs superfiring). If I place the guns towards the end, then I can place everything in the center to balance the weight. I no longer have to worry about blast issues everywhere and I can actually store the secondaries in a place safe from blast and with a useful firing arc.

So naturally, the design falls in the format that it current exists at! In fact, look at the French Formidable class! 3 15" turrets all centerline in 1878. The HMS Dreadnought also adopted the centerline turrets in 1875 (note that it also doesn't have sails).

As for the lack of armament, you can simply look to the fact that they either carried excessive amounts of armor, were a lot faster (2 kts is a very bit deal in composite strength at this time ), or some combination of the two! There is no physical or mental barrier that say you can't substitute armor and speed for weaponry! That is exactly what my design is doing - it's simply a period design that favors firepower more in the "holy tri-force"!

[Tanthalas]

Look Logi, you are suffering from a case of 20/20 hindsight.  Personaly I dont care what you build in the European Atlantic as im likley to never see it.  That said your getting welded to a single idea which may or may not end up being legal under the sim rules.  I told you once before what I suspect they are going to look like and that your 3 turret ships with full up predread secondary and Tritary batteries are likley to be unsuitable for your startup fleet.  Personaly I question if my 1877 ship will fit under the rules but I wont have any way of knowing untill they are posted.

My advice would be initialy come up with a less capable ship in say 1865 then build groups of them progressing up to what your working on for 1877 in like 1880-85.  Odds are that will fit alot better than just droping a full up predread into your fleet in 1877.

[Logi]

You notice I did sim a 1862 year ship. I have no intention of just "dropping" a predread into my fleet in 1877. In fact, I had planned a rather gradual expansion of my fleet, starting from 1860. 1 large ship (I'd hardly call 7,000 tons large considering the size of other ships of the period) and some minor other ships per year, is not exactly huge. It's a gradual buildup, not a sudden "drop" as you seem to think it is.

I am not getting welded to an idea. To be honest, whether I get to build the Gloria doesn't really matter to me. I did the model as part of my daily 3d modeling practice. What I'm welded to is the idea that if it's logical and there is no technical resistance to an idea (this including the naval architects having access to the information), it would work!

There is no engineering reason why the Gloria can't be done. The turrets can fit on the beam, and there's enough space for an engine. There's nothing so out of period about it other than the fact that, I, as a designer, like to focus more heavily on firepower than any other aspect of the ship. That's all I was pointing out. It doesn't need a ship that looks the same because it's not doing anything revolutionary in the design. It's pretty much the same as other ships of the period!

If you want to make the point that the naval architects of the time were raging idiots who couldn't think of the idea (not surprising as there are all manners of quality in the professions) or that any naval admiralty of the type would dead-set not allow it, I can't argue! There might be a real reason why it can't be done in that direction (human factors). But to say that the mounts can be moved, or the engine has no room for placement - that is what I argue against. There is no reason, engineering-wise, that it can't be done!

For example, when I pointed out that other ships had an intermediate battery as well and you said they were masted, I thought it was a non-issue! Far before 1877, even in the Devastation class of 1870 (British), it was thought that masts should be gotten rid off. The reason they were kept on was that without the sails, they wouldn't be able to operate too far from friendly coaling stations. - That is a design requirement, not something revolutionary in change!

If I removed the requirement of having the range to reach friendly refueling stations, suddenly you would have mastless battleships (ironclads and other ships of war) everywhere from 1877 and back. That said, why would Iberia need such a range for it's fleet? If there's no requirement for huge range of action caeteris paribus, then it's perfectly fine and logical to remove the masts. Removing the masts does not automatically make a ship pre-dread. If so, that makes it so that the HMS Captain class (in 1866) was being heavily considered to be made into a pre-dread (also note that the HMS Captain carried 7.5" secondaries).

---

Regarding 20/20 Hindsight.
1) I form an obsolete doctrine for the fleet of the period, this forms the requirements and constraints of the design
2) I look at other ships of the period and this forms the 2nd set of requirements of constraints.
3) Then, and only then, do I start to design. When I design I only think about the threats it will feel in the period (in this case other ships of line in a broadside shot-trading slug-fest). From there I design a base ship then optimize the tonnage.

At no point in my design process do I think about anything outside of the period. If torpedoes have not been invented, I don't even bother thinking about them. If small ship action hasn't happened, don't bother thinking about anti-small ship batteries. If the only ships it's likely to meet in the period are rammers, bother thinking about broadside mounts (it will either be charging in or away) . What is known is at the time of being laid down is part of the requirements and constraints, I don't design a ship to do things outside of it's requirements and constraints! If I did, not only would my ships be needlessly larger, so there is simply no room for thinking about things outside the period because that's not part of the requirements and constraints.

The argument I'm hearing atm is - you've designed a ship for the period that fits with the period's ship goals. However, it's an efficient design for the tonnage, therefore let's make it a worse design for no real reason. That's like saying, we designed the Admiral class to do all the things it could do historically, but because it seems a be good of a design (since it fulfills the design requirements and constraints imposed by the nation at the period) let's either reduce it's armament or slow it down. If you want less capable ships, you might as well tell me to design to 1.20 composite strength, since that is how I design - the best possible ship to complete the mission requirements within the constraints imposed by the period and national needs. The only way for me to make a less capable ship is therefore, simply setting the composite strength limit higher for my designs. - You might say remove the hindsight - but since I'm not thinking about anything other than what is available in 1877 and what Iberia wants out of her ships in 1877, there is no hindsight to eliminate.

[Tanthalas]

So to paraphrase the books you are insisting on writing for every responce.  I dont care what the rules are likley to say, I want to build what I want to build.  My naval Designers get everything perfectly right the first time, including adding a battery of small guns in a world where QFs havnt been invented yet and there arent even any TBs to make it necessary.

Like I said I realy dont care, but if you can build that I can build a knock off of Brandenburg in 1877 (which the whole sim came out against when I posted my AQY with secondaries)

[Carthaginian]

Logi, there is NOTHING like what you are building anywhere in the world at this time.
There is no three turret heavy gun armed ship with medium caliber guns in twin mounts and casemated tertiary guns. You are building a style of ship that wouldn't exist for another ten years.

This is you going completely 'Hindsight' on design- then you say it's OK because you can design something far advanced and then backtrack some designs that support developing it.

I just don't buy it.

[Logi]

First off, I apologize, i'm tired and having been explaining the same thing over and over. I write way too much such states.

1) You are creating a complete strawman argument. It's not adding a battery of small guns when it's not necessary (how do you explain ships of line  of the period and even earlier using 2-3 pdrs then? Those are even lighter guns and they held dozens of them).

2) I didn't even know about the Brandenburg until you first pointed it out. As I said, I don't look at anything beyond the period when I design my ships.

3) I already proved that it's not that there's nothing like what I'm building anywhere in the world. There are multiple examples - in fact I even specifically listed some of them.

4) I don't think about anything that didn't exist before the period, so your accusations of hindsight are simply baseless. I'm not backtracking either, since they were some of the models I used for the base of my ship in the first place.

5) I don't care if you don't buy it. I'm not selling you anything. But I've given an sound argument and you given nothing, I think that settles the argument until a mod comes in and says dead-end that I can't do it.

If I sound peeved, that's because I am. Mostly because I've been giving an argument and your counter-argument is... simply you object and you don't have a real argument. I don't count rehashing the same argument that I've disproved to be a counter-argument.

[Carthaginian]

Logi- All I have seen in this thread is the mention of the Monitor having a turret and the French BB's of a later period having large intermediate guns.

This looks nothing like any period ship that I can find.

[Jefgte]

Cart and Tan have more right than wrong.
Your concept, SS and drawing, looks more like a PD as a vessel of 1877.

Made a ship with a central citadelle or 2 Cole Ericson turrets or barbettes and sails.
In 1877, sails are useful for crossing Atlantic ...

IMO, your SS & drawings must be inspired by the real Spanish ships of this period.


Jef  ;)

[Logi]

I used Monitor turret to estimate size of turret on my ship. The French BBs were of the same period.

That said, I have no intention of building the Gloria (larger ver) because it's an inefficient vehicle for the broadside weight it carries.

[Carthaginian]

I used Monitor turret to estimate size of turret on my ship. The French BBs were of the same period.

That said, I have no intention of building the Gloria (larger ver) because it's an inefficient vehicle for the broadside weight it carries.

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/frameset6.html
Funny, this French battleship 'of the same period' looks NOTHING LIKE your ship- though the Hoche of 9 years later does have two calibers of heavy gun in barbettes.

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/frameset4.htm
This U.S.N. Battleship, including armament and layout of turrets, is the closest things I can find to your ship... the Indiana class was launched in 1895.

[Jefgte]

...the Hoche of 9 years later does have two calibers of heavy gun in barbettes.

I suppose, not sure, that they install 2 main calibers, 1 big & 1 medium to increase the ship ROF
340 - 4mn
270 - 2mn

???

Jef

[Carthaginian]

...the Hoche of 9 years later does have two calibers of heavy gun in barbettes.

I suppose, not sure, that they install 2 main calibers, 1 big & 1 medium to increase the ship ROF
340 - 4mn
270 - 2mn

???

Jef

That's exactly why they did it, Jef... the larger guns of the day couldn't fire fast enough to be useful, so they had to have something that could punch through upper/end armor and yet fire fast enough to make themselves useful.