Parthian Empire

[Jefgte]

For barbette diameter,

Have a look with French class Normandie & class Lyon

[snip]

I think 356mm is a much better comparison point than 340mm.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Interesting permutations.

You are however omitting several important considerations.
A) Machinery spaces - Bahamut is slower than Texas/New York, with 38,250shp requiring 1425 tons of engines and 357 of turbogenerators (1782t)- but as electric can have more compact and better spaced engineering spaces without steamlines running through "Q" magazines.   IF she was laid down in 1911 at 21knots, she would need 46,075shp, taking 1870 tons...if turbines. But New York was Compounds, which would take 2,783 tons.

That would mean - at least in Springsharp, Bahamut's 1916 20knot turbo-electric plant takes up 65% of the space of a 1911 triple compound.
That's without addressing that the New York used Coal, with lower thermal efficiency and thus needing more plant- at least in SS.

The machinery spaces on Bahamut is therefore up to at least can be more compact, and better arranged, than that of the New York class.

A good comparison is the North Carolina class vs. the South Dakota class.
The South Dakotas generated more SHP on a shorter hull, from the better machinery...which drove her slightly slower, but allowed more comprehensive armor and the same weapons fit.

B) Lengthwise, the 11ft turret diameter difference would translate- over 5 turrets, to ~16m.   At 10m longer, I'd need to "make up " 6m - and with far more compact machinery, and a beamier hull to fit it in, I don't think it's a problem.

C) While I did not consider Barbette diameter, the +5m beam over New York translates to 16.4 feet.   29+16.4 = 45.4 feet.  This is +6m if compared to  Kongo at 28m also had twin 14".

D) Block coefficient - Bahamut is extremely "chunky", which means she will be relatively wider abreast the turrets than Texas would, in addition to the larger beam.

Is it a tight design? Why yes.
Ship length was often driven by SPEED.
I've deliberately kept my ship speeds down, favoring guns and armor.
The vessel presented is longer, wider, chunkier and more advanced than the New York Class.

E) Deck guns...there's a reason I used a twin instead of two singles, so they could use less deck 'foot print' and they are fully armored/enclosed, and that's to shelter them from blast effects. They are listed at the "end" positions, by which I envision between "B" and "Q", and then between "Q" and "Y".   

I've got the forecastle extended past 50% of the hull (55) to try to make "Q" elevated, which should help with seakeeping in that turret. While it looks like Texas put it back around 60%, behind the forecastle step.

[eltf177]

Imhullu, Parthian Battleship laid down 1916

      8 - 6.50" / 165 mm 43.0 cal guns - 143.30lbs / 65.00kg shells, 1,250 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1916 Model
     8 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts - superfiring
      12 - 6.50" / 165 mm 43.0 cal guns - 143.30lbs / 65.00kg shells, 200 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1916 Model
     12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      12 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas

I can see 200 rpg for the casemates but 1,250 rpg for the deck mounts? I'm thinking you meant 250, fixing that should save you some weight...

[Kaiser Kirk]

Whoops, yes indeed I meant 250.
I expect the deck mounts to have better elevation/trainability, so they may get used more, or I can put some starshell (soon) in that mix.

[Kaiser Kirk]

So, correcting the 1,250 shells "bought" 0.05 comp hull.
I used that to boost the Armor deck to 85mm and I think more fuel to bring the LD back under 34k.
Probably would have made a different choice had I been building from scratch.

In regards to Rocky's Q on fitting in the deck secondaries - you see three approaches.
On Bahamut, I used a nice consolidated twin mount.
On Sealoard, I didn't have  a "Q" turret, and so had widely spread deckmounts, saving on superimposition.
On this one, conceptually, the superimposed mount is right behind the other, minimizing the fore/aft foot print, and again, fully shielded.
(1)
3
I think that should work. Or close.
I wish there was some information on how Dante Alegheri's secondary turrets worked out, but there isn't. The fact they were not replicated could be bad..or could just be rapid changes in ship design. 

I could do the 130mm twin here instead.  Conceptually both this and Bahamut would be with the battleline, and so other ships would be dealing with longer-range torpedo attackers. They would have to break through to the battleline, probably passing cruisers at 15km, while these could start ranging at 14km, splash spotting at 13km, and swatting things after that.
Sealord, at 26knots, would be backing the ACs/PC in the screen, and so more likely to not to have multiple screens to engage destroyers/cruisers, so the longer range hitting power of the 165mm is more needed there.

Imhullu, Parthian Battleship laid down 1916

Displacement:
   33,991 t light; 36,689 t standard; 39,350 t normal; 41,478 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (620.33 ft / 606.96 ft) x 108.27 ft (Bulges 114.83 ft) x (31.17 / 32.67 ft)
   (189.08 m / 185.00 m) x 33.00 m (Bulges 35.00 m)  x (9.50 / 9.96 m)

Armament:
      13 - 14.37" / 365 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,496.34lbs / 678.73kg shells, 140 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1916 Model
     3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
     2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts
      8 - 6.50" / 165 mm 43.0 cal guns - 143.30lbs / 65.00kg shells, 250 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1916 Model
     8 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts - superfiring
      12 - 6.50" / 165 mm 43.0 cal guns - 143.30lbs / 65.00kg shells, 200 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1916 Model
     12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      12 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
      10 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm 50.0 cal guns - 24.25lbs / 11.00kg shells, 350 per gun
     Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1916 Model
     10 x Single mounts on side ends, majority forward
      10 double raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 22,561 lbs / 10,233 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13.8" / 350 mm   370.24 ft / 112.85 m   15.52 ft / 4.73 m
   Ends:   0.98" / 25 mm   236.68 ft / 72.14 m   13.12 ft / 4.00 m
   Upper:   2.56" / 65 mm   314.96 ft / 96.00 m   12.96 ft / 3.95 m
     Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
      1.81" / 46 mm   370.24 ft / 112.85 m   34.81 ft / 10.61 m
   Beam between torpedo bulkheads 72.18 ft / 22.00 m

   - Hull Bulges:
      0.47" / 12 mm   370.24 ft / 112.85 m   22.97 ft / 7.00 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   15.7" / 400 mm   7.87" / 200 mm      13.6" / 345 mm
   2nd:   2.95" / 75 mm   1.57" / 40 mm      2.95" / 75 mm
   3rd:   3.94" / 100 mm   1.38" / 35 mm      1.38" / 35 mm
   4th:   0.98" / 25 mm   0.39" / 10 mm      0.98" / 25 mm

   - Protected deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 4.53" / 115 mm
   Forecastle: 1.18" / 30 mm  Quarter deck: 3.35" / 85 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 13.78" / 350 mm, Aft 3.94" / 100 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 35,189 shp / 26,251 Kw = 20.00 kts
   Range 8,050nm at 14.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 4,790 tons

Complement:
   1,396 - 1,816

Cost:
   £5.533 million / $22.134 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 4,611 tons, 11.7 %
      - Guns: 4,611 tons, 11.7 %
   Armour: 14,148 tons, 36.0 %
      - Belts: 4,211 tons, 10.7 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 864 tons, 2.2 %
      - Bulges: 149 tons, 0.4 %
      - Armament: 4,760 tons, 12.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 3,724 tons, 9.5 %
      - Conning Towers: 442 tons, 1.1 %
   Machinery: 1,311 tons, 3.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,576 tons, 32.0 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,358 tons, 13.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 1,345 tons, 3.4 %
      - Hull below water: 558 tons
      - Bulge void weights: 150 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 150 tons
      - Above deck: 487 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     63,553 lbs / 28,827 Kg = 42.8 x 14.4 " / 365 mm shells or 11.5 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.23
   Metacentric height 8.2 ft / 2.5 m
   Roll period: 16.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.62
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.50

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has low quarterdeck ,
     a ram bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.634 / 0.638
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.29 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 24.64 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 43 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   24.00 %,  25.43 ft / 7.75 m,  22.31 ft / 6.80 m
      - Forward deck:   31.00 %,  22.31 ft / 6.80 m,  21.33 ft / 6.50 m
      - Aft deck:   30.00 %,  21.33 ft / 6.50 m,  21.33 ft / 6.50 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m,  13.94 ft / 4.25 m
      - Average freeboard:      20.84 ft / 6.35 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 91.2 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 146.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 49,605 Square feet or 4,608 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 219 lbs/sq ft or 1,070 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.94
      - Longitudinal: 1.67
      - 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


Tapered belt from +2.7 to -2.5
2.7 to 1.5     200 -> 350     : 240,000+90,000
1.5 to -1.5      350                 : 1,050,000
-1.5 to -2.5   350-> 200     : 200,000+ 75,000
total : 1,655,000mm3
350mm ave = 4.73

TDS : Bulge, hull, liquid (18) void (18), liquid armored (30), Dam control, flooding (8)

462 FC
25  LR Radio

25 Kite balloon
75 Additional Fire Suppression
25 Hulesmeyer device
25 Searchlight tower

50   Extra pumps
323 turbo electric
185 torpedo nets


Decks

+6.5 Weather deck 30mm, top upper belt.
+4.0   Battery deck
          +2.7 top main belt
+1.5  Crown protective deck    85mm, top of TDS.
-1.0   Bottom edge protective deck
          -2.5 bottom main belt 
-3.5  2nd Deck
-6.0 1st Deck
-8.5 Engineering
-9.55 Double Bottom

[Kaiser Kirk]

Anyhow,

Pretty set on Bahamut, I had worked to make it a tight but well thought out design, and so I had good answers for the questions.
(I'll note - South Dakota class was +10,000shp, more armor, same armament as the North Carolinas, on a 20m shorter hull. Much better machinery. )

But I welcome opinions on which design the other 2 ships should be.

I agree with Jefgte on the Sarmatian, at 28,000 she counters the Byzantine ships, but I think the Scythian at 34,000 brings far more value by being able to serve as a battleline element.
That said, the Sealords are full battlewagons and at 26 knots fast enough to catch most older cruisers, or serve as a "fall back" for mine.  Plus they would be very effective members of the
battleline.

Then there's the question of if that role is truly needed - none of the wars so far have highlighted such a need, it's more a concern looking at Jefgte's capabilities - I don't want his heavy ships to be able to sweep my medium forces away.

If that's not a concern, I'd likely go with the 2 Imuhulu class, as very resilient, good offensive punch and well armored.

I think if I could afford 6 big ships, I'd get 2 Bahamuts, 2 Sealords and 2 Scythians.
But looking at things, I think building 4 big ships is enough of a strain, so 2 Bahamuts, and either 2 Sealords OR 2 Scythians....
I keep changing my mind on Sealord or Scythian.

Opinions?

[Desertfox]

Thats a very heavy AA armament.

I would suggest going big and slow, but I am definitely biased.

[Jefgte]

I think if I could afford 6 big ships, I'd get 2 Bahamuts, 2 Sealords and 2 Scythians.
But looking at things, I think building 4 big ships is enough of a strain, so 2 Bahamuts, and either 2 Sealords OR 2 Scythians....
I keep changing my mind on Sealord or Scythian.

Opinions?

Building these Monsters will take a lot of time and $ & BP resources.
If it is easy to calculate the cost in $ and BP, did you estimate the construction time for these ships?

Byzantium does not build such monsters.
The BBx are too small.
New versions of Bekatra / BBX / Imperator (QE) appeal to me.

[Kaiser Kirk]

===============
Lot of AC guns : Yeah a little much for the beginning, result of a 'tinkering' ship. Probably reduce it to 4 (each corner) or 6 (corners + fore/aft) "laid down".
I just happened to finish the ship while watching the games, and so put it up with the others.
===============

I've actually tried sketching out the needed production several times.
The wars we've had, with their light forces,

Recent years I've produced a fair number of cruisers, destroyers, minesweepers, and MTBs - all programs which can be slowed/paused for evaluation.

I set up an excel spreadsheet with  4 (or was it 6?) big ships, 2 x 11,500t ACs and 2 of the 6000 ton Shamsirs building at a time.
To build them "on time", I'd have to scrap ships to get slightly more BP - doable as the AC Bucephalus class is likely heading for the breakers
but I'd also dedicate all of my production to 8 vessels, but at the end I'd have new battlewagons and a bunch of new cruisers.

Then I tried adding 6months to the timeline for the BBs and ACs - that brought the average rate/HY down enough
that the build program would only take 24BP + change.

That's far more doable, as I'd like at least 4 BP "spare" for Land/Air/Fort or Docks..or "rebuilds" of various ships.

But what I'm eyeing now is :
2x 39000t : Bahamuts - beyond the number of guns, they aren't scary in speed, or gun size - Rome and Byzantine have larger, they don't look to far ahead on deck armor...but they should be something others have to consider. It's possible they will just be too slow, but my gamble is eventually there's a chokepoint, or a landing, or some other critical location that fast battleline will have to choose a range to fight, and any range it chooses will favor the Bahamut.

Plus I am amused at going "ultimate quad".

2x 34500t : Sealord or Scythian : I like both designs, right now I'm leaning towards Sealord.  If it's a clash of scouting wings...I'd rather have her.   Though it's tempting to spend +5k and get 2 more Bahamuts. A nice set of four would be lovely.

.... which is why choosing between them is proving difficult.
Scythian : 32kt, 29.25knots, 7800nm range, 8x365mm,  B 330mm, D 75mm,    47k float/ 6Torp    Quite formidable I think,
Stormbringer (Sealord) : 34kt, 26knots, 9000nm range, 10x 365mm, B350, D90,  54kfloat / 9 Torp   - actually longer sustained range, and overall more robust for 2kt.
Imhulu : 34kt, 20 knots, 9260nm range (E), 13x 365mm, B350, D85, 63k float, 11 torp.     : The 'toughest', but doesn't offer the speed of the other two, while having 2/3rds the firepower
of Bahamut on 87% of the displacement.  I like the ship, just not a winner here.

Then just skip the 2x AC, and instead rebuild some older vessels for that role.
Each HY, for the same BP and more $$, I can reengine and upgrade an older vessel and  produce some interesting options.
Or I can divert to build more DDs/MTBs/SS/MSW as needed.

The Shamshirs can roll into production to succeed the 8 Maelstrom class, really bolstering my modern PC fleet.

[Jefgte]

...I set up an excel spreadsheet with  4 (or was it 6?) big ships, 2 x 11,500t ACs and 2 of the 6000 ton Shamsirs building at a time.
To build them "on time", I'd have to scrap ships to get slightly more BP - doable as the AC Bucephalus class is likely heading for the breakers
but I'd also dedicate all of my production to 8 vessels, but at the end I'd have new battlewagons and a bunch of new cruisers.

Then I tried adding 6months to the timeline for the BBs and ACs - that brought the average rate/HY down enough
that the build program would only take 24BP + change...

If I counted correctly, that's over 210 kt of ships. With an annual expenditure of 24BP:
210 /24 = 8.75 HY (9HY)

[Kaiser Kirk]

9HY...4.5 "game years", yes it worked out to a long build time, but only 1 HY past the minimum.  So the Bahamuts will sail in 1920, while the Stormbringers will be a year earlier.
That actually gives them a reasonable service life of 1920-1940.

For things like the ACs and PCs, while the initial ships won't take that long, I expect I would lay down other ships of those types ... or subs/destroyers.
It's also possible that once the AC/PC spending finishes, I'd put extra into the battlewagons to get them back onto the minimum build time.

Overall between build time and cost/ HY I don't see 60,000 ton Tillmans or Yamatos being practical.
I think ~40,000t ships are about the limit for our industrial base...and I admit that they may be too expensive.
These might be the only 2 I'll build.   Though I had planned 4 until I decided I needed at least a couple heavy fast units.
But if I built 4 Imulhu, I'd save 20,000 tons and still make a very respectable addition to the fleet.

[TacCovert4]

And here i am planning for sub 20kt ships as capital units so I can have more than a pair of big ships.  Plus the biggest thing I think id ever build would be 35kt.   If only for economy.

[Kaiser Kirk]

And here i am planning for sub 20kt ships as capital units so I can have more than a pair of big ships.  Plus the biggest thing I think id ever build would be 35kt.   If only for economy.

Three things going on there,
one is the need for a new fleet, which is a larger build (but more interesting) than supplementing an existing.

second, I think you underestimate how much BP you have.
While I'm planning to push a little to make 4 big ships... I only have 28BP vs. your 25BP.... that's 3BP difference. 

Third, you have ..um... less maintenance payments, so the higher cost  $ : BP of reconstructing older ships may be worth it, if you can cheaply get large old hulls.
The problem area would be that the new turret has to be researched and be lighter than the old (unarmored), and as many old guns are small and short, that's hard to do.
Other wise you have to spring for the more expensive rebuild category.

I don't think I'd build Parthian 20knot ships for the Aztecs...but I might.
The typical armor/speed/guns triangle for this game I've pushed towards armor and guns.
..which pushes the size up...
The catch - as others have pointed out - is the # of ships you want to field long term. 

As Jefgte observed, it's fairly reasonable to keep 12x33,000 in service over 20 years. -396MT
For you the same math is 353MT, or 10 x 33,000 over 20 years- if you want them.

Having 12 x 33000 might be more flexible than 10x 39000 (390MT), but it's the same tonnage....well the Bahamuts allow a bonus cruiser.
But as they are the same speed and same armor...and 12x13=156, while 10x 20= 200. So for the same tonnage 28% more firepower.

I actually think short term ships like the Scythian or Sealord might be 'good choices' for the Aztec. 
While the Parthians are fairly balanced with the Byzantine, and would want to be able to contest in fleet to fleet,
The Aztec will be behind and can't match the Roman hulls, so they would want some say in what they fought.
The Sealord would have the Graf Spee mismatch going on, while the Scythian is both faster, and well armed/armored.

for fun I'll put up the 16 gun Imulhu later

[TacCovert4]

Quite true. 

My current issue is that I have no desire to go 'kreigsmarine' in a horrible imbalance of ships that can't operate as a cohesive plan, and I'm starting from about the point of the Germans post-WW1 due to war losses.  So I've focused early on rebuilding my shattered light forces, 1916hy1 will see a number of very good light cruisers laid down along with more destroyers, torpedo boats, and my first domestic submarines.  I'm laying down two 'capital-ish ships' but they're going to be 21,000t light battlecruisers.....as you said I have to pick my battles.  However, with the speed in many nations picking up, by 1919 I'll probably be back in the 'big ship' game, if I'm not angling for the carrier game to make a phase shift away from gun platforms entirely.