United States Navy: 1903-04

[snip]

Not sure on that front. Right now, I dont think there is anything out there that clobbers the Bandywine's. If I were to do a class between those and something more Battlecruiser-like, it would likely just be a Brandywine with improved armor and maybe a third 10" twin. Armored Cruisers are not going to help me smash the Royal Navy battleline however. *looks a Darman suspiciously*

[Logi]

I always thought the Asama would do quite well against the Brandywines but of course, they haven't been completed yet and Japan and America have little to no competing spheres of influences in our sim.

That said, given that the USA here has no interest outside of the Americas, I'm not sure you even need so much range on your ships. The Carribean is at most some 1,500nm across (and you hold Cuba so you can refuel there as well). Couldn't better characteristics be achieved by dropping some of the ship's range?

[snip]

As we talked about with Asama vs Brandywine, IMO it would come down to if/when Asama is able to land a critical hit. Brandywine has the staying power from being a larger ship.

5500@10knts is the standard range for the US battleline. I feel it gives good ability to hold a station for a period of time without being to hindered by fuel worries. I don't see going much beyond that for the foreseeable future, its enough to enforce US dominance of the Caribbean and the Northwestern Atlantic. Cruisers are given somewhere from 6000-7000@10knts to give them additional room to work at higher speeds.

[Logi]

We didn't discuss that in detail so I'd thought I'll expound on some details.

The Brandywines only have a max of 5" of armor as compared to the Asama's 9".... By virtue of being larger the Brandywines may take more hits, but it's armor can't keep hits out anyways. In addition, the Asama's have Krupp armor, the Brandywines were built before you finished integrating Krupp armor, so the disparity is even larger.

NAaB says the 5" armor can be penetrated by a 10" gun like that on the Asama out to roughly 16,000 yards. The 6" guns can penetrate the upper and end belts out to 5,000 yards, but the main belt requires being within ~2,300 yards.

On the flipside though the Brandywine's 10" requires being within 2,000 yards to penetrate the Asama's 9" armor. The Brandywine's 7" guns can't penetrate the Asama's main belt at any range but can penetrate the upper and end belt out to 5,000 yards. Of course the 5" on the Brandywine perform even worse (the same, ofc, is true of Asama's smaller guns).


Now the Battle of Tsushima took place at roughly 7,000-6,000 yards distance.
Assuming the battle doesn't close to less than 5,000 yards of distance, we can relegate the 7" and 5" guns on both ships (as well as the smaller ones) to damaging the upper-works. At this distance, the Asama can penetrate the whole of the Brandywine. The Brandywine can only penetrate the end and upper belts.

Presuming rather inaccurate guns, I'ld wager the Asama would be able to score many more penetrating hits simply because of a larger area it can penetrate as well as the additional pair of 10" guns. So I don't believe that the Asama would need a critical hit to defeat the Brandywine. In battle neither the 2,000nm more range nor the 0.63 additional speed of the Brandywine will likely induce any benefit.

Given this, I think the odds are 60-40 in favor of the Asama.

-----------------

As for the range, as I said - the range to cross the Carribean is ~1,500nm. 5,500nm would hold for several round trips. I feel that's excessive endurance. If you were feeling pressed for 21kn, perhaps saving the bunker weight there could allow you get much closer to it.

[snip]

Our discussion took place when the Asama was slated to be a 1900 design. Obviously she will be a bit more outclassed by the 1904 Asama.

I want my ships to be able to remain on station without having to worry about resupply of coal.

[Kaiser Kirk]

The Brandywines only have a max of 5" of armor as compared to the Asama's 9".... By virtue of being larger the Brandywines may take more hits, but it's armor can't keep hits out anyways. In addition, the Asama's have Krupp armor, the Brandywines were built before you finished integrating Krupp armor, so the disparity is even larger.

Heh, I find other folks evaluation of warships interesting. I see the Brandywines, and they are the size of the St. Bon's BBs, with similar weaponry and - due from being laid down in 1899 not 1896, 2 knots faster... but with half the belt armor.  Now my warship in a comparable role is the Garibaldi class, same speed, 2/3rds the size, 40% more belt armor, which has slightly smaller guns...but they can penetrate the Brandywine's belt at all combat ranges. The American vessel would probably win 1:1 by dint of size (much greater flotation) and the extra 7"- but close enough that luck and crew matter. But what if it's not 1:1, what if it's ~55,000 tons of production. Well that's 4 Brandywine vs. 6 Garibaldi...then I like my design :) 

On the range matter, originally my ships were modified versions of real pre-1900 Italian ships, so I was using the historic Italian ranges when I could find them.
I've recently started calculating range as a function of how many days at that cruising speed it grants, with a reserve.
So...if I've got a "cramped" little ship, probably not much point in fuel for a month at sea.  Two weeks - 14 days, 24hrs/day, 10kts/hr...3360*110% = 3696.   That's actually an increase for my DDs, which were designed around a run to Alexandria or the Straits of Hercules. Larger vessels will get 3-4 weeks. I've even looked at a raider cruiser with 6 weeks - and additional miscellaneous weight committed to stores.

[Logi]

I have to agree with Kirk that 1903 feels a little too early for a ship to have both superfiring and steam turbines.

[snip]

I have to agree with Kirk that 1903 feels a little too early for a ship to have both superfiring and steam turbines.

I would agree if a massive speed jump was introduced as well. Since it is the same speed of the rest of the USN battleline, and the same as most battleships in the world, I don't see it as a game-breaking problem.

[Kaiser Kirk]

It's not actually about the speed, if anything a speed jump would help justify turbines if that was the only way to do that.
It's more about installing a new and different technology, untested in long term maritime use, that's absolutely critical, in your most expensive vessels.
If the US was in a war, or frantically rearming, or building from scratch - such gambles happen. But you're not.  You're the dominant Navy in your hemisphere, recently having defeated Spain for Cuba and proven your existing ships work just fine.


Unlike Dreadnaught, where turbines had been in destroyer use for a bit, there is no such experience in your Navy. There's been no Turbina, no Viper. I'm not suggesting we all wait 5 years like the RN did between HMS Viper and HMS Dreadnaught.

Am I stamping my foot and petulantly insisting you must, I'm suggesting that logic indicates at least having a turbine warship in shakedown before committing to battleship-scale gamble would fit the approach of most Admiralties.

As to my early musing as to all-big gun gun prior to AP shells, I did some browsing.
Ironically, at  1898 Battle of Santiago de Cuba in the Original timeline (might be different here, up to you), the ranges were down to 950yards, and the critical damage to Vizcaya was thought to be by an 8" shell, - an intermediate caliber you're ditching :) Likewise Cristóbal Colón slowed Iowa with an underwater hit,  probably 6" or 8" as her main gun wasn't installed.
Further the fire at 7000 yards by 3 battleships against the AC Cristóbal Colón was ineffectual, and the various spanish cruisers were put out of action by fire, belt hits. All suggesting shorter ranges and higher rates of fire may be the reality. Ironically, the Spanish cruisers were faster than the American ships...except they were fouled, boilers needed work, and poor coal, so once again nominally superior speed was not a determinant.

[snip]

I would argue that the USN is not the dominate navy in the Western hemisphere, that honor goes to the RN. Of course the RN is not able to be as concentrated as the USN, but I have only 6 modern battleships (Maine and Rhode Island) and three more that can sort of play on that level with sacrifice to the battleline overall (Wisconson). Of my remaining six, the Oregon's are rather worthless in line-of-battle because they can hardly clear 15knts with clean bottoms and prefect engines. The Iowas are slightly better, but would still drag the other ships down far enough to warrant major concern.

While outwardly the victory against the Spanish is the Navy's coming out party as it were, internally their is different thought. The Spanish Navy was hardly up to the standards of a modern force at the time of the war, and a similar gap (perhaps smaller in size, but unless war comes now we cant really know) exists between the ships of the USN that fought in the Caribbean and the first-rate ships of Europe. At the dawn of the 20th century, the USN was more then capable of defending the coasts from almost all comers. What it lacked, and still lacks now but the gap is getting smaller every year, is the ability to project that power into the Atlantic.

With respect to 8" guns. The USN here has never used 8" guns as a secondary armament on a battleship. Only 7" guns have been used as an intermediary battery, and only after 1900. [Sidenote on this: All the 7" guns have been turret mounted, so lots of the issues these guns experienced due to lack of power loading should not apply.] The reason 8" guns were not used is despite the positives of using such (all as noted in OTL, Freedman has good information if you have access to the USN Battleships volume), the Oregon class was unable to take 8" guns due to tonnage constraints (SS has a very difficult time simming the historical Indiana). By the time of the Iowa's laydown, in addition to the tonnage constraints the 8" had shown itself to be a troublesome piece of equipment (as historically noted) so any thought of it was dropped at that point. What the 7" guns lack that an updated 8" would provide is the power to get though some non-citadel armor armor on a battleship at more then point-blank range. At most any non-point blank range, the guns are going to be effectively identical to the point where the 2 year lead time on a 8" gun is not practical. All Santiago showed was that in close, RoF is king. Big guns are still going to hurt more if they hit, and at longer ranges the gap in ability of guns to hit drops.

This, coupled with the choice of most navies here (mainly the RN) to go AQY, leads to the desire for a larger number of 12" guns. Since most of the battleships that could be opposite the USN battleline throw 6x12" as opposed to 4x12" the likelyhood that they score a 12" hit is greater. For the full potential of the 7" intermediary battery to come into play, the range needs to be close enough to enable more accurate application of firepower. For a window of time, how large or small depends on the engagement, a hostile battleline would have all of its main battery engaged while the USN ships would have a fraction of theirs. This is because, as you note, the smaller guns are more effective at close range. Going to 8x12" is ment to ensure that the USN battleline is able to catch up to number of heavy guns faster then going to 6x12". As fire control improves, and thereby effective engagement range, the disparity in number of 12" guns will play more and more into the outcome of the battle.

As to why super firing and why turbines, I point to the 16,000t normal displacement limit. Now this is mostly a point of roll-play, and I could likely justify having TR strike it down prior to the B16 class being laid, but I feel the historical reasons for the limit being removed are better then what I have at the moment. So that limits me to something approximately the size of the Rhode Islands. In order to keep building up the strenght of the Battleline, the armor and speed must remain the same, so nothing can change from the Rhode Island hull there. Fitting 8x12" deck level on that is never going to happen with any sort of tie to logical ship design. The Rhode Island's have Superfiring 7" turrets to fit more firepower into the length they have, so the concept of Superfiring to economize on length is not new to the USN. The turbines then become necessary to fit 8X12" with 4 guns elevated under 16,000t. As you can see, some creative In-Character-only accounting would be required to get that pass Congress anyway. VTEs require a unfugable displacement increase, or a reduction in armor. Both are unacceptable.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Interesting perspective Snip.
Gave me a lot to chew on, which I find nice :) Sometimes these Point of View discussions are very interesting.

The idea that instead of 15 battleships, you have 6 viable ones is a new point of view to me. I hadn't keyed in on the Oregon 15knt limitation, even so, fleet's going to spend most of it's time at cruise, just means your sprints are 13kts or so, a little slow. Armor's decent, weapons decent. From my perspective the Oregons, Iowas and Wisconsins are still viable, just lack the intermediate battery.   The same time frame RN vessels have barbettes, so their main armanent is more vulnerable - though they do have a tremendous amount of belt armor. The more recent Canopus combine more turreted guns with tremendous armor you're not getting through, while Formidable is more normally armored.

Um, looking at the Maine and Rhode Island, I note a problem I just encountered while designing and resulted in my kicking my next BBs back a tad- you can't have the 7" superimposed yet. Technically they are intermediaries, not secondaries.
1891: Mixed-caliber main battery (Main+intermediary calibers), Superfiring secondaries (Restricted Axial Firing Arcs) and Stacked Main Battery turrets OR Main caliber battery in AQY. [Pick One Only]
1902: All-big-gun ship with wing turrets OR Superfiring turrets (restricted axial firing arcs) [Pick one or both]
Main guns are defined as the largest caliber carried on the ship, intermediary guns are anything between the main caliber and 155mm guns, secondaries are 80-155mm, tertiary are <79mm.

So the 1891 tech doesn't allow the 7" superimposed, you need the 1902 tech, which I doubt you had when those 6 BBs were laid down.

Anyhow, from Italy's perspective you seem pretty well off. Your older ships are simular to my Ruggerio de Lauria- but I dislike their armor intensely, the Re Umbertos are par for the middle of pack, and the St. Bons are a bit subpar. Meanwhile the RN has 2 ports on your side of the ocean you'd have to close, and then you've got a very big moat.

I do like exploring these topics, as the considerations in this era are somewhat different, so kinda neat...so I will ramble on :)

On the entire 7" vs. 8" - I thought I was clear I referencing the original time line battle, I'm not aware of a write up here, I would presume the equivalent weapon caused the equivalent damage - i.e. intermediates and secondaries were critical to success.
Anyhow, you may note the Italians have rolled out a 180mm (7.09")/45 gun - for pretty much the same reasons you're using it. I will use it for mount & hoist, it's a tad smaller than the French 194mm or RN 190.5mm which were the upper limits of hand loading. I'm willing to accept a slow erosion of ROF in larger battles for the better punch vs. a 6" gun, and what that means for opposition attempting to armor their cruisers against it at current ranges.

Which brings me to the ranges, you cite them as a concern for the 7".
Ok, let's say we have perfect in-game foresight, and know that about 1906 it's will be worthwhile to start investing 1.9/HY for a 1908 tech. It's a double time tech, so about 10 HY, or ...1911.
Or, if we ditch early research for the first rung*- which I'm thinking we should, 1913 or so...Then accurate ranges will soar to 12,000 yards... So, about a decade off. That's a long long time.
Toss in this - WITH the AP cap (a tech not yet out), Dreadnaught couldn't punch through 12" armor until 7,600yards, and 10,000yards she could only do 10.6" ...and that was square on, they tended to break up at angles. It's not until AP Capped- also a 1908 tech-  that getting penetrating belt hits at 12,000yards is even conceivable :)

Until then, the experience of the Battle of San Domingo, or whatever our equivalent of the Russo-Japanese war is...like 2-7000 yards, where ROF does matter - that's king.
Your 7" are good against the Formidible at probably 5000 yards, more when AP shells come out. They make fires, they punch holes, they dismount secondaries, they have a better ROF than 12". Dropping them entirely and going with the 5" battery.
It's wierd, that's what the tech allows - all big gun ship. I'm just not sold it makes sense for nearly a decade. :)

1902: All-big-gun ship with wing turrets OR Superfiring turrets (restricted axial firing arcs) [Pick one or both]
Query - is that "Pick one or Both" intentional? I had been reading that as you had to research one OR then the other, but you could research it twice.  I bet though- no one is going to research wing turrets.

As for the 16000 ton limit, I confess, I would have taken the tact of "Congress, our esteemed Mahan says we need all big guns, and some Italian says so too, and we can't do that in a decently armored warship and keep fleet speed unless you let us exceed 16000 tons"
But- you're the US player, so you kinda just win that debate :)

*consider that a suggestion. Once you're in the tree, can research early, but first run, got to wait. Keeps anyone from doing something terribly weird.

[snip]

Please note that I have been at a swim meet, swim practice, or in a car most of the day. Bit wiped out, so if anything here comes off sarky or such it is not intended. First this.

Um, looking at the Maine and Rhode Island, I note a problem I just encountered while designing and resulted in my kicking my next BBs back a tad- you can't have the 7" superimposed yet. Technically they are intermediaries, not secondaries.
1891: Mixed-caliber main battery (Main+intermediary calibers), Superfiring secondaries (Restricted Axial Firing Arcs) and Stacked Main Battery turrets OR Main caliber battery in AQY. [Pick One Only]
1902: All-big-gun ship with wing turrets OR Superfiring turrets (restricted axial firing arcs) [Pick one or both]
Main guns are defined as the largest caliber carried on the ship, intermediary guns are anything between the main caliber and 155mm guns, secondaries are 80-155mm, tertiary are <79mm.

So the 1891 tech doesn't allow the 7" superimposed, you need the 1902 tech, which I doubt you had when those 6 BBs were laid down.

That only effects the Rhode Islands. If I recall what lead to the addition of the Superfiring secondaries part, it was a French ship that did have intermediaries in a Superfiring position. We then clarified the limits on Intermediary and secondary later without thinking about the wording on the rule. The intent of the rule, once again if I recall correctly, was to allow for superfiring on guns not of the main caliber. Logi and I can powow on it.

The idea that instead of 15 battleships, you have 6 viable ones is a new point of view to me.

Its not just the speed, but that is the major part. Armor is not KC, so its not as strong as it seems. The 13" guns have much less muzzle velocity and less penetration then the 12". While not apparent now, its felt that the 13" will continue to get worse with no real potential for development. While any one of these factors by itself would be posible to work around (the Maine for instance has non-KC armor), the combination of all three makes upgrading to a more modern ship the preferred option. The three classes are still good for coastal defense work and the like, but getting them out of the battleline will help improve the effectiveness overall.

On the entire 7" vs. 8" - I thought I was clear I referencing the original time line battle, I'm not aware of a write up here, I would presume the equivalent weapon caused the equivalent damage - i.e. intermediates and secondaries were critical to success.

Prefectly clear, I just wanted to lay out my thoughts on the NTL developments of the ships in question.

Which brings me to the ranges, you cite them as a concern for the 7".

My point in that was less that the guns would not be able to cause damage at range, but to get the effective application to make them far an away the superior choice to 12" as seen at Santiago requires. With all the AQY running around, the tradeoff of needing to close range to take full advantage of a 7" battery while a hostile fleet has the full potential of its main battery from any range is no longer seen as an acceptable one.

Fire Control Stuffs

I think looking at this purely in terms of Fire Control is to tech centered. All-big-gun came out in OTL before adequate fire control for using such an armament at range came in being. As much as I hate to keep harping on the point, the amount of AQY running around clearly points to there being some advantage in the N-verse to a larger amount of big guns. As to whether that is a peceved or actual advantage, might I proposed Rhode Island (I think she is the strongest MMB ship) vs the strongest AQY (in service as of 1JAN1903) on a clear day in the North Atlantic? Maybe someone could sim it out?

Dropping them entirely and going with the 5" battery. It's wierd

Arguments could be made that going with a large number of 5" might provide more chances at starting fires and damage equipment due to higher ROF, but at the tradeoff of not being able to do all that behind heavy armor. Its an argument we could have back and fortieth, so we can just leave it at both of them are effective in different ways.

As for the 16000 ton limit

I think going for both the abolition of the limit and superfiring in one go is to much. I would rather follow the OTL path of Superfiring, then the limit.

1902: All-big-gun ship with wing turrets OR Superfiring turrets (restricted axial firing arcs) [Pick one or both]
Query - is that "Pick one or Both" intentional? I had been reading that as you had to research one OR then the other, but you could research it twice.  I bet though- no one is going to research wing turrets.

It was intentional.

[Kaiser Kirk]

As much as I hate to keep harping on the point, the amount of AQY running around clearly points to there being some advantage in the N-verse to a larger amount of big guns.

Well I believe Rocky said pregame he was doing it to be different and patterning off the German AQY, then everyone did it. Tan said something along the lines of making semi dreadnaughts because then they won't be so obselete when dreadnaughts come out.



Me, I plunged forward with the Regina Elena variant I wanted to make mainly because it was cool, and then would go to Dreadnaught style. But Ihad someone suggest it would be better as AQY. Since I didn't want to make the ship if it was clearly uncompetitive, I tried to reexamine my presumptions, did an analysis, and decided that for now the AQY doesn't make sense.
I stuck that up in my Italian Vessels thread for any interested.

But that did get me thinking on the subject further.

So we have the result of a bunch of AQY running around, when historically, the Germans made one...and then didn't make more. So isn't the more pertinent question is why there are AQY here, but historically it was technically feasible, but not followed up? I think it's because the main guns can't penetrate the armor except at short ranges, when they do they don't explode, hit rates are terrible at all but short ranges, and having your ships savaged by many smaller rounds is a viable concern, causing fires, holing the ends, tearing apart funnels, boiler intakes, and ventilation, and rendering the ship ready for the big gun's coup de grace. 

Personally, I guess a number of people "know" all big gun are better, and "know" that it's around the corner, and so are building as close to that as possible. I doubt the technical limitations that existed in 1900-1903 are given much credence.

That's why I've been interested in exploring your rationale with this vessel, I find the question of interest.

However, while you did not come across snarky, rather just fine, your concern you might be leads me to suspect you may be feeling a little annoyed and more pestered than involved in a discussion of this topic.

So, you have a nice ship, and I'll thank you for your time and leave you alone.

[snip]

A few more designs for thought. Some variation from the thought of identical armor to the Rhode Islands.

Design C. Design B with modified armor. Not a huge fan.

B16 Design C, United States Battleship laid down 1903 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   18,300 t light; 19,111 t standard; 20,188 t normal; 21,050 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (515.00 ft / 510.00 ft) x 85.00 ft x (27.00 / 27.95 ft)
   (156.97 m / 155.45 m) x 25.91 m  x (8.23 / 8.52 m)

Armament:
      8 - 12.00" / 305 mm 40.0 cal guns - 870.00lbs / 394.63kg shells, 80 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1900 Model
     4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts - superfiring
      14 - 5.00" / 127 mm 50.0 cal guns - 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 250 per gun
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1900 Model
     14 x Single mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 7,660 lbs / 3,475 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   11.0" / 279 mm   331.50 ft / 101.04 m   11.50 ft / 3.51 m
   Ends:   5.00" / 127 mm   178.48 ft / 54.40 m   9.00 ft / 2.74 m
   Upper:   5.00" / 127 mm   331.50 ft / 101.04 m   9.00 ft / 2.74 m
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   7.00" / 178 mm      12.0" / 305 mm
   2nd:   5.00" / 127 mm   4.00" / 102 mm      5.00" / 127 mm

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm
   Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm  Quarter deck: 2.00" / 51 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 30,000 ihp / 22,380 Kw = 21.23 kts
   Range 5,500nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,939 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   846 - 1,100

Cost:
   £1.842 million / $7.367 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,203 tons, 6.0 %
      - Guns: 1,203 tons, 6.0 %
   Armour: 6,502 tons, 32.2 %
      - Belts: 2,809 tons, 13.9 %
      - Armament: 1,864 tons, 9.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,669 tons, 8.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 160 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 4,305 tons, 21.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,130 tons, 30.4 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,888 tons, 9.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 160 tons, 0.8 %
      - Hull below water: 20 tons
      - Hull above water: 60 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 60 tons
      - Above deck: 20 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     18,613 lbs / 8,443 Kg = 21.5 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 2.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
   Metacentric height 5.1 ft / 1.6 m
   Roll period: 15.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.49
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a ram bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.604 / 0.608
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22.58 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: -5.00 ft / -1.52 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  23.50 ft / 7.16 m,  21.00 ft / 6.40 m
      - Forward deck:   20.00 %,  21.00 ft / 6.40 m,  21.00 ft / 6.40 m
      - Aft deck:   45.00 %,  12.00 ft / 3.66 m,  12.00 ft / 3.66 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  12.00 ft / 3.66 m,  12.00 ft / 3.66 m
      - Average freeboard:      15.80 ft / 4.82 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96.8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 105.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 31,815 Square feet or 2,956 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 152 lbs/sq ft or 743 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 1.44
      - Overall: 1.00
   Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Adequate accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Design D. A heavily tweaked Rhode Island hull for 21knts.

B16 Design D, United States Battleship laid down 1903 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   19,500 t light; 20,354 t standard; 21,488 t normal; 22,395 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (515.00 ft / 510.00 ft) x 85.00 ft x (25.50 / 26.43 ft)
   (156.97 m / 155.45 m) x 25.91 m  x (7.77 / 8.06 m)

Armament:
      8 - 12.00" / 305 mm 40.0 cal guns - 870.00lbs / 394.63kg shells, 80 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1900 Model
     4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts - superfiring
      14 - 5.00" / 127 mm 50.0 cal guns - 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 250 per gun
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1900 Model
     14 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      10 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 6.00lbs / 2.72kg shells, 550 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1898 Model
     10 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      10 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 7,720 lbs / 3,502 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   11.0" / 279 mm   321.30 ft / 97.93 m   11.50 ft / 3.51 m
   Ends:   5.00" / 127 mm   188.68 ft / 57.51 m   11.50 ft / 3.51 m
   Upper:   7.00" / 178 mm   321.30 ft / 97.93 m   9.00 ft / 2.74 m
     Main Belt covers 97 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   7.00" / 178 mm      12.0" / 305 mm
   3rd:   5.00" / 127 mm   4.00" / 102 mm      4.00" / 102 mm
   4th:   0.25" / 6 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm
   Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm  Quarter deck: 2.00" / 51 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 32,000 ihp / 23,872 Kw = 21.20 kts
   Range 5,500nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,041 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   886 - 1,153

Cost:
   £1.927 million / $7.708 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,215 tons, 5.7 %
      - Guns: 1,215 tons, 5.7 %
   Armour: 7,142 tons, 33.2 %
      - Belts: 3,136 tons, 14.6 %
      - Armament: 2,062 tons, 9.6 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,777 tons, 8.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 167 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 4,592 tons, 21.4 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,381 tons, 29.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,988 tons, 9.3 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 170 tons, 0.8 %
      - Hull below water: 50 tons
      - Hull above water: 50 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 50 tons
      - Above deck: 20 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     20,811 lbs / 9,440 Kg = 24.1 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 2.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
   Metacentric height 5.1 ft / 1.6 m
   Roll period: 15.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.52
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.15

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a ram bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.680 / 0.684
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22.58 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: -5.00 ft / -1.52 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   18.50 %,  18.50 ft / 5.64 m,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Aft deck:   33.00 %,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Quarter deck:   18.50 %,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Average freeboard:      16.19 ft / 4.93 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 117.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 34,131 Square feet or 3,171 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 151 lbs/sq ft or 736 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.97
      - Longitudinal: 1.33
      - Overall: 1.00
   Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Adequate accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[snip]

I have some spare resources in 1903, so its time for more patrol craft.

Paducah, United States Patrol Gunboat laid down 1903 (Engine 1905)

Displacement:
   850 t light; 924 t standard; 1,104 t normal; 1,248 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (192.27 ft / 175.00 ft) x 35.00 ft x (13.50 / 14.77 ft)
   (58.60 m / 53.34 m) x 10.67 m  x (4.11 / 4.50 m)

Armament:
      6 - 4.00" / 102 mm 50.0 cal guns - 33.00lbs / 14.97kg shells, 350 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1902 Model
     2 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
     4 x Single mounts layout not set
      4 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 6.00lbs / 2.72kg shells, 1,000 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1890 Model
     4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 222 lbs / 101 kg

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   1.00" / 25 mm   0.50" / 13 mm            -
   3rd:   0.25" / 6 mm         -               -

   - Protected deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 1.50" / 38 mm
   Forecastle: 0.50" / 13 mm  Quarter deck: 0.50" / 13 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 2,000 ihp / 1,492 Kw = 15.37 kts
   Range 5,500nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 324 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   95 - 124

Cost:
   £0.082 million / $0.328 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 44 tons, 4.0 %
      - Guns: 44 tons, 4.0 %
   Armour: 120 tons, 10.9 %
      - Armament: 23 tons, 2.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 97 tons, 8.8 %
   Machinery: 287 tons, 26.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 344 tons, 31.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 254 tons, 23.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 55 tons, 5.0 %
      - Hull above water: 40 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 10 tons
      - Above deck: 5 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     1,694 lbs / 768 Kg = 52.9 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.56
   Metacentric height 2.2 ft / 0.7 m
   Roll period: 9.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.19
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a round stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.467 / 0.483
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 13.23 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 10.54 ft / 3.21 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  18.50 ft / 5.64 m,  15.50 ft / 4.72 m
      - Forward deck:   20.00 %,  15.50 ft / 4.72 m,  15.50 ft / 4.72 m
      - Aft deck:   45.00 %,  15.50 ft / 4.72 m,  15.50 ft / 4.72 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  15.50 ft / 4.72 m,  15.50 ft / 4.72 m
      - Average freeboard:      15.74 ft / 4.80 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 102.7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 123.2 %
   Waterplane Area: 3,964 Square feet or 368 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 128 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 46 lbs/sq ft or 224 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.77
      - Longitudinal: 11.31
      - Overall: 1.00
   Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Excellent accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather