Vilnius Union Ships, 1911 - 1919

[The Rock Doctor]

Right, the 100mm guns.  Forgot to explain that - they're basically there to fire off starshell in night actions.  Not an anti-TB weapon, although having starshell fired at you could be distracting.

I imagine in a few years they'll get yanked and replaced by AA guns.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Not a fan of the 3T2 arrangement, especially as those are Twins on a single slide, not 2-gun.
I realize Renown won some shooting trophy, but in general 6 large guns are not going to manage the ROF to get the full spotting bonus. It's hard to maintain a 4 shell ladder when a half-volley is 3 shells. Worse if the guns don't elevate separately, which in this period means they both have to be lowered to reload.

I continue to find other's obsession with high speed battlewagons curious. We'll see how that pans out :)

I am of the opinion that the 80mm TD is a little thick.  There's a 0.5m bulge and 2.5m expansion space, which is a little thin, so maybe the thicker TDS is useful.

I see the hull is bulged, but I don't see any metal thickness applied or idea of the size.
I suppose that's debatable, as there is no set 'how to sim a bulge'. I tend to put some metal in it to sim the weight, but that's me.

[The Rock Doctor]

Oh, thought I had a two-gun mounting.  I should be able to accommodate that from the weight reserve.

Edit:  129 t, more expensive than I'd thought.

Curious to see what others do with the bulge.  First time I've used one in this iteration of the sim, I believe.

[TacCovert4]

Not a fan of the 3T2 arrangement, especially as those are Twins on a single slide, not 2-gun.
I realize Renown won some shooting trophy, but in general 6 large guns are not going to manage the ROF to get the full spotting bonus. It's hard to maintain a 4 shell ladder when a half-volley is 3 shells. Worse if the guns don't elevate separately, which in this period means they both have to be lowered to reload.

I continue to find other's obsession with high speed battlewagons curious. We'll see how that pans out :)

I am of the opinion that the 80mm TD is a little thick.  There's a 0.5m bulge and 2.5m expansion space, which is a little thin, so maybe the thicker TDS is useful.

I see the hull is bulged, but I don't see any metal thickness applied or idea of the size.
I suppose that's debatable, as there is no set 'how to sim a bulge'. I tend to put some metal in it to sim the weight, but that's me.

The 3t2 arrangement is sort of a marriage of convenience in a lot of these fast units.  A matter of the 4th twin costing stupid amounts of tonnage over what's already heavy for its type due to the need for speed. 

I think as later generations happen one of two things will occur.  One, more guns in the 9 to 10in range will be developed,  rendering triples and quads the norm.  Or two, the fast large cruisers will be overshadowed by fast battleships and carriers.  It's sort of this intervening Era of fast ships and no carriers that the large cruisers or razees as the Aztecs call them come into their own as cruiser killers and penultimate commerce raiders. 

[The Rock Doctor]

I could probably swap in triple 350mm without issue.  Might make for happier ROF boni, but the much heavier 400mm shells also provide me with happiness in their own way.

Yeah, this is probably the last "armored cruiser" out of me.  No guarantees, but my tentative thinking for the next battleship certainly pushes close to fast battleship territory.

[Desertfox]

That's a fast battleship, its got battleship armor. Y'all could just drop armor as well to get more guns, am I the only one with 9" belts on the battlecruisers?

[TacCovert4]

Id agree,  that's fast battleship.  And I have to ask, is 350mm doing something not well enough that 400 is worth the loss in gun tubes?

[The Rock Doctor]

Id agree,  that's fast battleship.  And I have to ask, is 350mm doing something not well enough that 400 is worth the loss in gun tubes?

400mm shells are bigger and have better penetration, so it seemed logical. 

[TacCovert4]

Id agree,  that's fast battleship.  And I have to ask, is 350mm doing something not well enough that 400 is worth the loss in gun tubes?

400mm shells are bigger and have better penetration, so it seemed logical.

True, but at the same time, if it's an Armored Cruiser (or a BC), then it does beg the question, why not add the tonnage for the 4th Twin, or for 3 triples, if you're going to go with 16in guns over 14in guns.  It would seem that for the role it's been designed to do, 9 x 14in would be more than adequate, overkill really. 

[The Rock Doctor]

If I add tonnage for a fourth twin or three triples, I'm adding several thousand tonnes overall unless I cut elsewhere.  That gets pretty expensive, and it's not an approach I use for the Vilnius Union in general. 

Not that the current design is cheap, of course.

Played with the sim last night, I'd have to shave 5mm off the torpedo bulkhead to free up a bit of hull strength, but can otherwise swap the 3x2 400mm for 3x3 350mm without much hassle.

[Desertfox]

Now that's just boring. If cost is an issue, just dump a ton of armor and make a true Renown!

[The Rock Doctor]

Now that's just boring. If cost is an issue, just dump a ton of armor and make a true Renown!

But I like not exploding!

[Desertfox]

I don't recall either of the Renowns exploding  ;)

[The Rock Doctor]

Don't you go bringing facts into this discussion.

[The Rock Doctor]

Apparently the three-gun 350mm is actually a little heavier than the two-gun 400mm.  I shaved 5mm off the torpedo bulkhead to make it work, reduced the distance between bulkheads by a metre (I think) because I could, and then was able to add a few dozen tonnes to the weight reserve.

Curiously, the seakeeping dropped from 1.20 to 1.19, but I can live with that.

Do folks think this would be superior to the 3x2 400mm design?  The broadside itself is very similar, it's a matter of numbers and weight.

Czarowski, laid down 1919

Displacement:
   34,595 t light; 36,183 t standard; 37,957 t normal; 39,376 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (785.91 ft / 771.00 ft) x 91.86 ft (Bulges 95.14 ft) x (30.18 / 31.14 ft)
   (239.55 m / 235.00 m) x 28.00 m (Bulges 29.00 m)  x (9.20 / 9.49 m)

Armament:
      9 - 13.78" / 350 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,319.35lbs / 598.45kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1919 Model
     3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
      1 raised mount - superfiring
      16 - 5.12" / 130 mm 45.0 cal guns - 67.62lbs / 30.67kg shells, 250 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1919 Model
     8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 - 3.94" / 100 mm 45.0 cal guns - 30.78lbs / 13.96kg shells, 250 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1919 Model
     4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      4 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 3.86lbs / 1.75kg shells, 150 per gun
     Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1919 Model
     4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      8 - 0.39" / 10.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.02lbs / 0.01kg shells, 4,000 per gun
     Machine guns in deck mounts, 1919 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      8 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 13,095 lbs / 5,940 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   501.15 ft / 152.75 m   16.11 ft / 4.91 m
   Ends:   1.97" / 50 mm   269.82 ft / 82.24 m   11.81 ft / 3.60 m
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
     Main Belt inclined -12.00 degrees (positive = in)

   - Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
      2.95" / 75 mm   501.15 ft / 152.75 m   28.48 ft / 8.68 m
   Beam between torpedo bulkheads 72.18 ft / 22.00 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   15.7" / 400 mm   7.87" / 200 mm      13.0" / 330 mm
   2nd:   1.97" / 50 mm   0.98" / 25 mm      3.94" / 100 mm
   3rd:   0.79" / 20 mm   0.20" / 5 mm            -
   4th:   0.39" / 10 mm   0.20" / 5 mm            -
   5th:   0.20" / 5 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 3.94" / 100 mm
   Forecastle: 2.95" / 75 mm  Quarter deck: 3.94" / 100 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 12.99" / 330 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 4 shafts, 144,772 shp / 108,000 Kw = 30.05 kts
   Range 12,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,194 tons

Complement:
   1,359 - 1,767

Cost:
   £6.868 million / $27.472 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2,742 tons, 7.2 %
      - Guns: 2,742 tons, 7.2 %
   Armour: 12,962 tons, 34.1 %
      - Belts: 4,640 tons, 12.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,559 tons, 4.1 %
      - Armament: 2,727 tons, 7.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 3,719 tons, 9.8 %
      - Conning Tower: 316 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 5,141 tons, 13.5 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,906 tons, 34.0 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,362 tons, 8.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 844 tons, 2.2 %
      - Hull below water: 173 tons
      - Hull above water: 173 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 153 tons
      - Above deck: 345 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     51,660 lbs / 23,433 Kg = 39.5 x 13.8 " / 350 mm shells or 7.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 5.3 ft / 1.6 m
   Roll period: 17.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.74
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.19

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.600 / 0.603
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.10 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 27.77 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   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:   20.00 %,  31.17 ft / 9.50 m,  24.28 ft / 7.40 m
      - Forward deck:   35.00 %,  24.28 ft / 7.40 m,  24.28 ft / 7.40 m
      - Aft deck:   30.00 %,  24.28 ft / 7.40 m,  24.28 ft / 7.40 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  24.28 ft / 7.40 m,  24.28 ft / 7.40 m
      - Average freeboard:      24.83 ft / 7.57 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.0 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 176.3 %
   Waterplane Area: 51,801 Square feet or 4,812 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 183 lbs/sq ft or 894 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.97
      - Longitudinal: 1.27
      - Overall: 1.00
   Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Excellent accommodation and workspace room