Iberian Navy

[Logi]

I haven't even looked at the rules in detail so calm your horses before you go labeling things as "willful ignorance". I posted because I didn't see a huge problem because I thought it was an incremental improvement.

The only thing I changed - literally - is replaced the 8" wing with 12" wing. Which I didn't find to be so off considering the base and certainly did not consider it a dreadnought. I throwing ideas on how the ship would change if I increased the allowed tonnage.

However if it is unsuitable, I can have another go at an incremental improvement. Which is difficult because the armor is quite sufficient, and having the speed change provides little to no benefit for a fleet action.

[snip]

You should know them from N3 as they are basically the same as far as Capital ship Architecture is concerned. There may be one change, but it will still not allow the design to be built.

[Tanthalas]

Ignorance of the law (or rules) is not an excuse.  Iregardless of how you "viewed" the ship it is clearly a violation of the rules which you should have known from N3 (after all we took that part virtualy intact from N3)

I haven't even looked at the rules in detail so calm your horses before you go labeling things as "willful ignorance". I posted because I didn't see a huge problem because I thought it was an incremental improvement.

The only thing I changed - literally - is replaced the 8" wing with 12" wing. Which I didn't find to be so off considering the base and certainly did not consider it a dreadnought. I throwing ideas on how the ship would change if I increased the allowed tonnage.

However if it is unsuitable, I can have another go at an incremental improvement. Which is difficult because the armor is quite sufficient, and having the speed change provides little to no benefit for a fleet action.

[KWorld]

Standard incremental improvement at the time was to add more secondaries: 2 guns per side could easily be seen as inadequate, especially when compared to the American Indianas and Iowas that had 4 turreted 8" guns on either beam.

[Nobody]

Neither 12" end or wing turrets are a problem on their own, both makes it a Dreadnought though.
Anyway, discussing ships and checking for errors is why we post ships in the first place is it not? Could have been an accident after all, plus no damage done.

[Logi]

I'm going to ignore the harping and knee-jerk reactions above. Not only are you guys making a mountain out of a molehill for a design I posted for feedback - you even going far enough accuse me of "willful ignorance" as if I've broken a rule by placing a design up for review.

Thanks - great to know how friendly you are about feedback - worse than youtube comments.

Neither 12" end or wing turrets are a problem on their own, both makes it a Dreadnought though.
Anyway, discussing ships and checking for errors is why we post ships in the first place is it not? Could have been an accident after all, plus no damage done.

Well then I'll keep that in mind. And it was an accident as you think it might be.

Standard incremental improvement at the time was to add more secondaries: 2 guns per side could easily be seen as inadequate, especially when compared to the American Indianas and Iowas that had 4 turreted 8" guns on either beam.

The problem I had with this approach (and I had thought about it) was that I'm not sure how much space I have on the ship for more guns. That is why I resorted to simplification rather than proliferation.

[snip]

Ignore them all you want. The points made still stand.

[Tanthalas]

the bigest problem all your proposed ships thus far have had Logi is lack of space.  Mostly this is caused by the limited tonage your allowing them to have, I imagine this is mostly due to trying to cram as many "battleships" into your aloted starting tonnage as you can.  IMHO that isnt the answer (voice of experiance here) You would be better off trying to build truely capable units on reasonable Tonnage than trying to cram as much as you can into a hull that honestly shortly after startup will be more or less useless (puting you in the posistion of having to scrap that hull and build a replacement).

Granted this is just my opinion but it is based on my experiences in N2/N3

[KWorld]

Standard incremental improvement at the time was to add more secondaries: 2 guns per side could easily be seen as inadequate, especially when compared to the American Indianas and Iowas that had 4 turreted 8" guns on either beam.

The problem I had with this approach (and I had thought about it) was that I'm not sure how much space I have on the ship for more guns. That is why I resorted to simplification rather than proliferation.

Sizewise, it shouldn't be a problem: USS Iowa was 360'/110m long and 72'/22m across the beam.  The Indianas were a hair shorter than Iowa and not as wide as your design.

[Jefgte]

If you want 4T2 on a ship early in the game, I could LD in 1898 a Dupleix cruiser for Iberia.

Jef

[snip]

As noted in the French thread, that ship will need to be reviewed.

[Logi]

If you want 4T2 on a ship early in the game, I could LD in 1898 a Dupleix cruiser for Iberia.

Assuming that it goes through all the reviews without problem that would be wonderful Jef :)

the bigest problem all your proposed ships thus far have had Logi is lack of space.  Mostly this is caused by the limited tonage your allowing them to have, I imagine this is mostly due to trying to cram as many "battleships" into your aloted starting tonnage as you can.  IMHO that isnt the answer (voice of experiance here) You would be better off trying to build truely capable units on reasonable Tonnage than trying to cram as much as you can into a hull that honestly shortly after startup will be more or less useless (puting you in the posistion of having to scrap that hull and build a replacement).

The problem here then is my design style - I love to minimize ships to the bare minimums needs to adequately handle it's mission. In fact - even when given unlimited resources I will limit the tonnage because that's where I find the fun in designing things - min-max optimization. I haven't actually calculated the amount of tonnage Spain will have anyhow - since to do that I have to assume the complete losses of the Carribean squadron as OTL. I don't know specifically the tonnages of the ships involved and lost.

But on another note - you insist that the ship I put forth is not "truly capable" and I need to have "reasonable tonnage" but you haven't given me a clear reason as to why it's not a good ship. Tonnage for the sake of tonnage is not a reason - given that there were similar ships of the same tonnage, length, and beam in the period.

Look at the Indiana and Iowa classes.
The difference - the Iowa class is 17.5 kts vs H-005's 16 kt and carries 2x2 more 8" secondaries. The Iowa class also has a lot more tertiary guns and even torpedo tubes.

The difference is 2,840 in tonnage and 10 more ft of beam - Where does this difference come from?
- I already mentioned that an increase in 1 kt of speed was 0.3 composite strength and it also makes for a longer main belt.
  As proof - H-005 uses 6,091 hp whereas the Iowa used 11,000 hp - almost double.
- The Iowa has almost double the bunker size at max displacement (SS offers normal as well but the data I got only shows Iowa at standard and max)
- It has double the heavy secondary (weight and deck space)
- It has 4 above-deck torpedo tubes (deck space)
- It has a much thicker deck (3" on Iowa vs 2" on H-005)

Another example would be the Austria-Hungarian Habsburg class.
The Habsburg class was 8,200 tons with a length of 371' (waterline) and beam of 65' - quite similar to the H-005 design.
Lets look at the differences that makes up 21' of length, 3' of beam, and 700 tons.
- The Habsburg class runs at 19.6 kts with a total power of 15,063 hp. The H-005 design runs 2 kt slow and has less than two-fifth that power.
   Btw, larger machinery power = larger space consumed by machinery meaning given the relative same length - a wider or deeper ship is needed.
Wait - previous I mentioned the huge difference speed makes to tonnage so why is Habsburg class still so light?
It has much less armor (belt-wise) and a smaller main battery caliber (9.4" vs 11").
But if we look at the schematic we see it is pretty reasonable to fit 11" in the 9.4" slot and 8" on the side midship replacing the 5.9"s. (8" is only barely 3' larger in diameter than a 6")

In conclusion I think the H-005 is not an example of trying too much on too little (given similar ships of that time) but a different focus. H-005 is focused on firepower and staying power whereas the other ships were more slanted towards speed. I don't believe speed is a major point of interest in fleet doctrine (Spain has a long history of operation as a fleet rather than as a single unit) until the Russo-Japanese War (which hasn't happened yet).

[Tanthalas]

Logi, you can build whatever you want but my advice would be to consider future needs not just curent capabilities.  A 16 knot ship is little more than a target even in 1896, even the slower ships built by nations like the UK and USA could maintain their ideal range on you.  Ships like the REs would not only be able to maintain ideal range but easily outrun you if they so chose.  What you realy realy need is cruisers... ACs, PCs, & DDs, you need to be in more places than a few BBs can be.  As to your aloted BP that would be 135 (5 years / 10 turns) and thats for everything (including army, forts, ports, Docks, and Ships).  so spend carefuly especialy since we are about to go live.

[Logi]

Logi, you can build whatever you want but my advice would be to consider future needs not just curent capabilities.  A 16 knot ship is little more than a target even in 1896, even the slower ships built by nations like the UK and USA could maintain their ideal range on you.  Ships like the REs would not only be able to maintain ideal range but easily outrun you if they so chose.  What you realy realy need is cruisers... ACs, PCs, & DDs, you need to be in more places than a few BBs can be.  As to your aloted BP that would be 135 (5 years / 10 turns) and thats for everything (including army, forts, ports, Docks, and Ships).  so spend carefuly especialy since we are about to go live.

My counterpoint:
1. Speed is expensive and produces a significantly less useful but larger ship. What does it matter that your ship goes 22 kts if it has no A2/AD capabilities?
2. Slow ships - so long as they have staying power and firepower have their range of A2/AD. Why do we even assume ships can maintain their "ideal" range? This is the time before the advent of long range gunnery. And you also maintain that 16 kt is slow - whereas many fleets of the world were 16 kts at this time and even in fleet action the faster speed ships would have to slow down to the slowest ship (often 16kt or less).
3. The size of a cruiser (I am going to get them) would be about the size of the battleship if I wanted a great deal of speed on that hull. For example, look at the french Dupleix for 6 kts, the armor and firepower is for practical intent nonexistent.

Basically this - a slow ship can deny area provided it has staying power and firepower but fast ships can't do anything if the enemy sails the capital ships to blockade you. Speed means nothing if you can't dmg them - that's my opinion on the matter anyways.

Also I mentioned the problem wasn't the total BP I have to spend - but that I don't know the tonnage amount for the ships in the Spanish-American War that I have to subtract from my total BP.

[KWorld]

As far as losses during the S-A War go, looks like 22K tons will cover it without a problem.  In fact, you'd probably only need to "pay" for the loss of Cristobal Colon and the two destroyers, the other ships were laid down and completed before the 5 years we're starting at.  If we look at it that way, 7K tons will cover the losses (Cristobal Colon is about 6500 tons light, especially since she was missing her 10" guns), the two DDs were about 250 tons light).


Speed mostly depends on the date: for a 1895 ship, 16 knots is perfectly reasonable, plenty of them out there.  For a ship with an 1898 or 1899 date, 16 knots is a bit slow, most navies new capital ships were faster than that.  Speeds expensive, yes, and there's some limits on how well you can use them if you're operating in a battleline with 16 knot ships.  But how much longer will those 16 knot ships be around?  Will your battleline ALWAYS have a speed of 16 knots (a la the USN with the Standards, until they broke the pattern with USS South Dakota)?