A Question of Strategy

[The Rock Doctor]

I typed out a big post and it got eaten, so I'll make this second attempt brief.

American Seaboard; Uruguay; Nigeria.  Three valuable colonies that should each have a reasonably sturdy station flagship (ignore the Caribbean, I have plans sorted out there).  What to do, though?

1)  A big monitor with 1x3 350mm, 15-20 knots

2)  A panzerschiffe with 2x3 280mm or 300mm, 26-27 knots

3)  Two pre-dreads with modern fire control, so 4x2 280mm and ~18-19 knots

Overseas drydock requirements are the same-ish.  Costs for new monitor or panzerschiffe hulls are about the same-ish.  Resources saved by using pre-dreads will pay for ~1.5 new battleships or armored cruisers.

What would you build?

[Desertfox]

In order of preference 2), 3), 1). Pocket battleships can be useful in a wide variety of roles while monitors are more single-purpose and I would take 3 pocket battleships over 1.5 armored cruisers.

[snip]

To me, the main difference between 2 and 3 is do you expect to fight anyone that has sufficient large armored cruisers to make the 26-27knts insufficient to run away from likely opposition? If you dont have the speed advantage, the slower predreads would be preferable to me as you get two instead of one plus a large armored cruiser of your own.

(ignore the Caribbean, I have plans sorted out there)

O no.

[TacCovert4]

To me, the main difference between 2 and 3 is do you expect to fight anyone that has sufficient large armored cruisers to make the 26-27knts insufficient to run away from likely opposition? If you dont have the speed advantage, the slower predreads would be preferable to me as you get two instead of one plus a large armored cruiser of your own.

(ignore the Caribbean, I have plans sorted out there)

O no.

I'd nope the Monitor right out.  1 x 3 is too few guns for decent fire control, not to mention all eggs in one basket.  If anyone has an AC with 10in guns or something, they could reasonably beat the monitor in a gunnery duel despite the effectiveness of the 35cm guns.  Monitors have their use, but fighting on the high seas at this point isn't one of them, even in coast defense you need a minimum 4 main guns for FC purposes.

The Panzerschiffe would make for more flexible ships than the pre-dreads, and possibly the ability to upgrade their powerplants for more speed in 10 years or so.  Keep in mind what their speed is and what you anticipate the speed of any AC of 8in or larger to have for the near future, say 5 years or so.  In the coast defense role they can reasonably outrun a lot of BBs, and 6 x 28cm guns should be sufficient for fire control to engage cruisers at medium and long range. 

The Pre-Dreads functioning as coast defense ships would be the toughest, and probably able to see off any cruiser, even if they can't run them down.  But keep in mind that any stray BB can walk them down and smash them in a gunnery duel.  Pre-dreads as coast defense ships historically had a longer run than as line of battle ships, the Scandinavians were using them into WW2 with some usefulness.

[The Rock Doctor]

To me, the main difference between 2 and 3 is do you expect to fight anyone that has sufficient large armored cruisers to make the 26-27knts insufficient to run away from likely opposition? If you dont have the speed advantage, the slower predreads would be preferable to me as you get two instead of one plus a large armored cruiser of your own.

(ignore the Caribbean, I have plans sorted out there)

O no.

I think my challenge at this point is that I don't have a clear and specific rival to fixate on.  I've had the spat with Iberia, so there's that.  I share colonial borders with Rome, Parthia, Iberia, the Incans, the Confed of 5 Nations, and the Mayans, so theoretically could experience friction with any of them.  There are a lot of competing design philosophies there to take into account.

Caribbean-wise, I reckon I'll be moving a squadron of modern capital ships there so they can help cover off America, Uruguay, and otherwise take care of my Caribbean interests, like that big ditch I've started digging.

[The Rock Doctor]

To me, the main difference between 2 and 3 is do you expect to fight anyone that has sufficient large armored cruisers to make the 26-27knts insufficient to run away from likely opposition? If you dont have the speed advantage, the slower predreads would be preferable to me as you get two instead of one plus a large armored cruiser of your own.

(ignore the Caribbean, I have plans sorted out there)

O no.

I'd nope the Monitor right out.  1 x 3 is too few guns for decent fire control, not to mention all eggs in one basket.  If anyone has an AC with 10in guns or something, they could reasonably beat the monitor in a gunnery duel despite the effectiveness of the 35cm guns.  Monitors have their use, but fighting on the high seas at this point isn't one of them, even in coast defense you need a minimum 4 main guns for FC purposes.

The Panzerschiffe would make for more flexible ships than the pre-dreads, and possibly the ability to upgrade their powerplants for more speed in 10 years or so.  Keep in mind what their speed is and what you anticipate the speed of any AC of 8in or larger to have for the near future, say 5 years or so.  In the coast defense role they can reasonably outrun a lot of BBs, and 6 x 28cm guns should be sufficient for fire control to engage cruisers at medium and long range. 

The Pre-Dreads functioning as coast defense ships would be the toughest, and probably able to see off any cruiser, even if they can't run them down.  But keep in mind that any stray BB can walk them down and smash them in a gunnery duel.  Pre-dreads as coast defense ships historically had a longer run than as line of battle ships, the Scandinavians were using them into WW2 with some usefulness.

I had started out on the panzerschiffe road by looking at analogues to the Swedish Sverige - but concluded that, cost-wise, it wasn't terribly hard to scale up to six guns, and then speed came up...

I do usually look at possible mid-life speed increases as I go, but my current panzerschiffes don't have a lot of seakeeping to spare thus far.

[Jefgte]

Byzantium prefers combat groups
2 PD rebuilt - 22kts + 2 or 3 AC -24kts - 27kts.

If you can rebuild a PD (12-15 years old max), that's fine. If not,
Panzerschiff 24kts and better armor with AC.
How about a 22-24Kts PD built in 1914?

[The Rock Doctor]

Byzantium prefers combat groups
2 PD rebuilt - 22kts + 2 or 3 AC -24kts - 27kts.

If you can rebuild a PD (12-15 years old max), that's fine. If not,
Panzerschiff 24kts and better armor with AC.
How about a 22-24Kts PD built in 1914?

I've not yet been sold on rebuilding PDs.  Modernizing their FC and maybe their light battery is fine, but a replacement of machinery, change of bunkerage, and updating of the main battery presents a cost that approaches replacement value (particularly once scrap value is added in). 

I'm also skeptical of building new PDs, which is why my Sverige clone evolved into a six-shooter with heavier protection and longer legs.  The monitors are potential exceptions only because they're mounting the biggest gun I have in service. 

[TacCovert4]

If I was going to do a monitor for coast defense purposes and not supporting ground troops, I'd have 4 guns. 

What would it cost you to do 2 twins or 2 triples with the 35cm guns on more of a monitor setup?  That would fend off anything other than a full up battleship, and would likely cause a battlecruiser to decide to go elsewhere to play as the chances of getting a serious hit would be too high to justify the risk of pounding the monitor into scrap.

Otherwise, I'd say go with the panzerschiffe out of the options presented.  More flexible, just don't try to use it as a primary cruiser, but rather a colonial cruiser with a particularly heavy battery.

[Desertfox]

You can always do a mix, say PDs for Africa and South America, and a couple Pocket Battleships for the American colonies. Then down the road you replace the PBs with proper capital ships and send them down to replace the old PDs.

[The Rock Doctor]

I hadn't looked at a 2x2 35 cm ship, but that's worth checking into.  I'd have to develop the twin turret so that puts me off to a 1915 date, no biggy.

Two triples is more capable but then I'd probably just scale up to my ongoing 3x3 BB program anyway.

Certainly a mix of stuff is an option.  The Szczyt is operational, so I can park it somewhere even nobody likes big monitors.

[TacCovert4]

Ultimately I'm using the Sultan Ali class BCs for this in the Pacific. 280mm x 8 BCs. But then I need ships that can steam for 10,000nm and you don't.

[Jefgte]

Certainly a mix of stuff is an option

A mix is arguably the best choice, It depends on the tonnage you have set.
4 or 6 x 280 or 300
Belt 230 minimum
24kts to escape the 21kts BB.
A vessel able to "Repulse" a 12000t AC or a PD.

[Jefgte]

Testing Kurnaz class LD 1890 & then...LD 1914

1890 => 1914
7850t => 9030t
18kts VTE => 24kts Turbines
4500nm => 7500nm
8x152 => 8x191
B 210 => B 230

CBB1, Byzantine Empire Ex Kurnaz class LD 1890 => laid down 1914

Displacement:
   9 030 t light; 9 600 t standard; 10 200 t normal; 10 681 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (491,00 ft / 490,00 ft) x 65,61 ft x (20,95 / 21,72 ft)
   (149,66 m / 149,35 m) x 20,00 m  x (6,39 / 6,62 m)

Armament:
      4 - 12,00" / 305 mm 45,0 cal guns - 871,37lbs / 395,24kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1914 Model
     2 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      8 - 7,50" / 191 mm 45,0 cal guns - 212,74lbs / 96,50kg shells, 150 per gun
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1914 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      8 - 4,00" / 102 mm 50,0 cal guns - 33,88lbs / 15,37kg shells, 200 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1914 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 - 0,30" / 7,7 mm 50,0 cal guns - 0,01lbs / 0,01kg shells, 2 000 per gun
     Machine guns in deck mounts, 1914 Model
     4 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 5 458 lbs / 2 476 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   9,05" / 230 mm   320,00 ft / 97,54 m   9,00 ft / 2,74 m
   Ends:   3,55" / 90 mm   170,00 ft / 51,82 m   6,00 ft / 1,83 m
   Upper:   3,55" / 90 mm   320,00 ft / 97,54 m   8,00 ft / 2,44 m
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   9,05" / 230 mm   2,77" / 70 mm      7,87" / 200 mm
   3rd:   1,57" / 40 mm         -               -
   4th:   0,39" / 10 mm         -               -
   5th:   0,39" / 10 mm         -               -

   - Protected deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 2,37" / 60 mm
   Forecastle: 1,37" / 35 mm  Quarter deck: 1,37" / 35 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 7,87" / 200 mm, Aft 2,37" / 60 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 30 664 shp / 22 875 Kw = 24,00 kts
   Range 7 500nm at 10,00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1 081 tons (20% coal)

Complement:
   506 - 659

Cost:
   £1,151 million / $4,604 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 922 tons, 9,0 %
      - Guns: 922 tons, 9,0 %
   Armour: 3 080 tons, 30,2 %
      - Belts: 1 626 tons, 15,9 %
      - Armament: 459 tons, 4,5 %
      - Armour Deck: 892 tons, 8,7 %
      - Conning Towers: 104 tons, 1,0 %
   Machinery: 1 203 tons, 11,8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 3 644 tons, 35,7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1 170 tons, 11,5 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 181 tons, 1,8 %
      - Hull below water: 8 tons
      - Hull above water: 76 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 20 tons
      - Above deck: 77 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     13 805 lbs / 6 262 Kg = 16,0 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 2,1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,15
   Metacentric height 3,5 ft / 1,1 m
   Roll period: 14,8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,78
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,27

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a ram bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,530 / 0,535
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7,47 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22,14 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0,00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 1,00 ft / 0,30 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   18,00 %,  21,00 ft / 6,40 m,  18,00 ft / 5,49 m
      - Forward deck:   32,00 %,  18,00 ft / 5,49 m,  15,00 ft / 4,57 m
      - Aft deck:   32,00 %,  15,00 ft / 4,57 m,  15,00 ft / 4,57 m
      - Quarter deck:   18,00 %,  15,00 ft / 4,57 m,  15,00 ft / 4,57 m
      - Average freeboard:      16,24 ft / 4,95 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 77,8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 130,6 %
   Waterplane Area: 22 021 Square feet or 2 046 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 126 lbs/sq ft or 614 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,94
      - Longitudinal: 1,70
      - Overall: 1,00
   Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Excellent accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[The Rock Doctor]

We can swap VTE for turbines?  I didn't think that was the case.

What is the cost of this work, Jef?