Imperial Roman Navy: 1915-1919 Designs

[Kaiser Kirk]

I find it interesting the design choices folks make.

For one thing...was adhering to Panamax on purpose with the 33mm beam, or an accident?

Pushing 40,000 tons.... I have a design on the ..16th or so iteration...which makes very different choices.

Night, Fog, bad weather, convoy defense, all occasions when you can't pick the range.
That belt is not bad against existing guns, but the next gen of guns it will not be enough, and fire control is at the mainly belt hit range. I believe the 50/50 mark is ~15000m

Also, you need to build a 245m drydock in the colonies.

[The Rock Doctor]

Speaking of Panamax, a gentle reminder to all that I'm building 250m locks there, rather than the historical 300m.

[snip]

The hull is dimensionally that of Richelieu, something I knew would be able to accommodate quads and be 30knts.

The 40k tons as opposed to the 39k of the original design does two nice things, with one drawback. It gives me a 320mm belt and allows me 431t of additional play per turn in construction costs. Given I have a lot of patrol craft to refit and various small things to build over the construction time of this ship, its a nice bit of play room. However, it means that I wont have it serviceable until sometime in mid-late 1920 as opposed to early 1920. Its a one-month, but one turn, difference in build time. Worthy tradeoff with what my build-plan looks like.

I'm not sure anything is going to have good protection against belt hits from 380mm and larger guns at reasonable ranges until we can start inclining, which I wont be able to do until this design's successor is under construction. At the time of construction, its the best I can do and it gives her a good IZ against what I would know to be up against.

Already got one completing (which the first job for is repairing Argo) in 1915H1at Galveston and at least one more budgeted for the facilities of Havana.

[Jefgte]

Speaking of Panama, a gentle reminder to all that I'm building 250m locks there, rather than the historical 300m.

Cool, I will be able to visit easily my Peruvian friends.

;)

[Kaiser Kirk]

I'm not sure anything is going to have good protection against belt hits from 380mm and larger guns at reasonable ranges until we can start inclining, which I wont be able to do until this design's successor is under construction. At the time of construction, its the best I can do and it gives her a good IZ against what I would know to be up against.

Ok, this is an interesting topic to me :)

There's an interesting race -as guns get bigger, and with the shell improvements penetration goes up...but at the same time fire control pushes the ranges out.
So belt thicknesses continued to suffice.

Belts are kinda capped at 350mm as that's the rough limit of 100% effective manufacture, but you can make them thicker with diminishing returns.
The Parthians address this with a thick belt, backed by a protective deck.  Protective decks have their short comings, but do have that redeeming feature.

This is a subset of my artillery table, with the current 1910 shells.
I don't have 380mm on it,
I don't even have have my new 365L45 firing a 675kg @ 861m/s.
I will point out that since a 380L45 would have the same ME, larger shell cross section, but more shell weight...so it may just have comparable performance.

But you can see the 1900 ME 345L40 vs. the 1905 ME 345L45... basically a column shift.
So I'd guess a 380L45 can manage ~330/340mm at 14000m.
But that's a guess.

Working off what's known...a broadside 320mm belt is "safe" at 14000m against current shells..
Also a head on, as our transverse bulkheads get modeled at the same thickness.
...but somewhere around 12000m might start getting holes if not at an angle.

For Rome, with potential fights in the North Sea, I would think the German/English design consideration of average visibility being 12000m would matter a great deal.
Of course, you could plan on just not risking a 40,000 ton ship in one of your 3 primary theaters.

The problem is that both historically and in our battles, ranges wind up much shorter than intended.
Granted the Caicos were unusual... but Battle practices may show that as well.
The Invincible vs. Scharnhorst fight, where the English had the speed advantage, and tried to stay at range, still wound up under 8000.

					Naval Artillery of Parthia
					1910 Capped Shells  (470/270)
					Armor piecing performance
						3000m		6000m		10000m		14000m
Tech level	Introduced	Gun	Shell	MV	Splinter Pen	Belt	Deck	Belt	Deck	Belt	Deck	Belt
1905	1909	365L40	645	824	61	539	1	445	5	346	13	305
1905	1909	345L45	573	831	58	545	1	449	4	348	13	308
1900	1904	345L40	545	805	58	481	1	393	5	301	14	264

[snip]

Against the Aztec 280L50, which is the largest the design is really meant against, the old 275mm was proof from ~10500m. If I remember the pen tables right, 320mm should shorten that to ~8500m. Given the primary use is for in the Atlantic against Aztec raiders and its anticipated that the 280 would be the largest gun it would regularly face. Against guns in the ~340-360mm class, its expected that the protection is less effective, but the number of ships which operate in the 30knt range and mount these weapons is low. So while the protection might not be as good, the range control is better against those ships that exist at the time. I'll play with it to see what it looks like with a 345mm belt like LBS-16A and the barbettes to match.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Ok, if the goal is to be able to defend against  Aztec raiders with 280mm guns, that's all reasonable.
Indeed, large ships fare better in bad seas, so it could catch the little 105mm armed raiders you've seen.
The Sultan Ali class is under construction....we don't have a good 'filter' on when we "know" the other nation's planned ships.

I would suggest that designing a ship solely against the one nation you've battled - and bludgeoned it's battlefleet,
while ignoring the major power in the Caribbean - Vilnus,  and the traditional foe - the Norse, may be flawed.

Consider the Wicklow class - 355mm guns, albeit 240mm armor, nearly as fast, and 7 years prior to this.
There is likely a new Norse BC, with 355mm guns, similar speed, but better armor (?).
Granted, you have a much larger main battery, but you're paying 33% more for the vessel.

[snip]

If the Norse 355 is considered then even LBS-16A with its 345mm belt (5mm below the soft cap you mention) is valuable to that gun inside of 10000m (guestestimating based on your chart). So it seems like no matter what fighting inside of 10km is going to result in armor protection just not mattering against the guns that are in play. Until inclined belts there is nothing that can change that, and the Norse have a 400L40 as well which I think is reasonable to have turn into a L45 and end up on a BC at some point. That the Norse have battlecruisers which can do this is indeed a problem, but the Norse have a larger battlefleet period (expecialy with the removal of my 340L35 pre-dreads as viable units, I'm likely going to scrap them all at this point due to damage). It would take neglecting the non-Naval forces for a while to really begin to solve that problem. Any war against the Norse is likely to be more about commerce interdiction and protection than a stand up battleline because of that. Given that the Wickows have the disadvantage of being poorly protected against the 340L45, its felt they are in the camp of being something Tullius Leofric can kill due to a more open window of vulnerability, abit at the expense of needing more signifigent yard time afterwards. Anything improved beyond that in the Norse inventory would be poorly understood at best, unknown most likely, at the time this design is being finalized.

The VU don't possess a ship that at the time of its design can run it down and hope to kill it. Its able to run from a Anders Angsrom, while it has very good armor protection against any of the 240mm armed ACs that currently exsist in the VU inventory (which unless I'ved missed something TL can run all of said ACs down).

Looking at the Aztec BCs as something that needs countering as raiders is really extrapolation of war experience. Issues due to raiding were the one issue that was not self-inflicted encounter during the war. What the Aztecs were able to do with some small cruisers was shocking to the Roman planners. So the fear is what if even one of the upcoming battlecruisers (I think its reasonable to know that there are two distinct classes building, one battleship and one battlecruiser) is turned loose in the next fight. While we haven't gotten there yet, the intent is for the peace to be a fragile one with nobody really being happy with, but being able to sell without much difficulty, the resulting agreement. So there is the threat of a Round 2 in the future and counter-raider will be a huge role that needs to be filled. The GPC-17 studies are aimed at the same concept, its something that the Jeanne and Tullius just happen to be good at as well by the nature of them being anti-AC oriented.

Getting speeds up above 30 knots is just to expensive at this point if I want to maintain 12x340, which I do because I like quads. Both in terms of tonnage it takes up and the more extensive citadel I need to protect. Right now with the TDS where its at I think I have a grand total of .6m of room in the citadel for More Stuff.

Ultimately this design is not meant as an addition to the battleline but as a heavy counter-raider. Much like Respublica and Jeanne d'Arc, its anti-AC. Im intending for this to be the last of the anti-AC line, given that Armored Cruisers that require something of this size to kill are few and far between. Roman thinking on the battleline in general and the concept of decisive battle are things I should probly articulate in a lessons learned post, but I will save that for a not-0015 time.

[The Rock Doctor]

No, you're right, the Union doesn't have something that can deal with this monster.

The thought of having to build a counter makes me grimace in pain.

[TacCovert4]

How about needing to do so on an Aztec budget....eep.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I want to maintain 12x340, which I do because I like quads.

I just had the sound snippet
"I like big quads, I can not lie" go through my head :)

This game I'm trying to not be quad-adverse.

[snip]

I mean, I already have a double-twin turret for the 140L55 and am about to start working on one for the 180L50. My only qualm about the 410L45 is that any ship to accommodate a quad of that would be monstrous.

[TacCovert4]

I mean, I already have a double-twin turret for the 140L55 and am about to start working on one for the 180L50. My only qualm about the 410L45 is that any ship to accommodate a quad of that would be monstrous.

The Roman

Y
A
M
A
T
O

[The Rock Doctor]

As the geographic successor to N3's France, I feel Rome is obliged to build monstrous.

[snip]

Adding 1000t light lets me get the belt up to 340mm and up the barbettes to 320mm.

Tullius Leofric, Imperial Roman Republic Large Armored Cruiser laid down 1916

Displacement:
   41,000 t light; 42,928 t standard; 45,875 t normal; 48,233 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (803.79 ft / 787.40 ft) x 108.27 ft x (29.53 / 30.81 ft)
   (245.00 m / 240.00 m) x 33.00 m  x (9.00 / 9.39 m)

Armament:
      12 - 13.39" / 340 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,212.54lbs / 550.00kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1909 Model
     3 x Quad mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
      1 raised mount - superfiring
      20 - 5.51" / 140 mm 55.0 cal guns - 85.98lbs / 39.00kg shells, 200 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1909 Model
     20 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      2 - 3.94" / 100 mm 45.0 cal guns - 30.86lbs / 14.00kg shells, 200 per gun
     Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1915 Model
     2 x Single mounts on sides amidships
      2 raised mounts
      4 - 1.77" / 45.0 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3.31lbs / 1.50kg shells, 350 per gun
     Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1911 Model
     4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      10 - 0.26" / 6.5 mm 110.0 cal guns - 0.01lbs / 0.00kg shells, 15,000 per gun
     Machine guns in deck mounts, 1911 Model
     10 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 16,345 lbs / 7,414 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13.4" / 340 mm   511.81 ft / 156.00 m   18.04 ft / 5.50 m
   Ends:   1.97" / 50 mm   275.59 ft / 84.00 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
      1.57" / 40 mm   511.81 ft / 156.00 m   31.17 ft / 9.50 m
   Beam between torpedo bulkheads 86.12 ft / 26.25 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   13.8" / 350 mm   7.09" / 180 mm      12.6" / 320 mm
   2nd:   3.94" / 100 mm   1.97" / 50 mm      3.94" / 100 mm
   3rd:   0.20" / 5 mm         -         0.98" / 25 mm
   4th:   0.20" / 5 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 2.76" / 70 mm
   Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm  Quarter deck: 1.38" / 35 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 12.60" / 320 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 168,000 shp / 125,328 Kw = 30.07 kts
   Range 8,000nm at 14.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 5,305 tons

Complement:
   1,566 - 2,037

Cost:
   £6.180 million / $24.721 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2,900 tons, 6.3 %
      - Guns: 2,900 tons, 6.3 %
   Armour: 12,796 tons, 27.9 %
      - Belts: 5,522 tons, 12.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 929 tons, 2.0 %
      - Armament: 3,135 tons, 6.8 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,861 tons, 6.2 %
      - Conning Tower: 348 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 6,259 tons, 13.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,555 tons, 36.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,875 tons, 10.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 2,490 tons, 5.4 %
      - Hull below water: 1,700 tons
      - Hull above water: 150 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 600 tons
      - Above deck: 40 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     68,332 lbs / 30,995 Kg = 57.0 x 13.4 " / 340 mm shells or 8.9 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
   Metacentric height 7.7 ft / 2.3 m
   Roll period: 16.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.66
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has low quarterdeck ,
     a normal bow and a round stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.638 / 0.643
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.27 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 28.06 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 5.64 ft / 1.72 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  29.53 ft / 9.00 m,  28.71 ft / 8.75 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  28.71 ft / 8.75 m,  28.71 ft / 8.75 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  28.71 ft / 8.75 m,  28.71 ft / 8.75 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  19.69 ft / 6.00 m,  19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Average freeboard:      27.42 ft / 8.36 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98.3 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 225.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 64,581 Square feet or 6,000 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 197 lbs/sq ft or 960 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 1.39
      - Overall: 1.00
   Adequate 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