Norse Battlecruiser design thread

[Desertfox]

First – A question – Should the Norse be building BC type ships – or are the 4 Wiclows enough ?
This could be turned into a "Norse Battleship" thread.... But I am figuring 2 heavy ships.

Second : 1918 is when the guns are available, but waiting until 1919 allows sloped external belts.

Last - I need to clarify something – the point of my above discussion of the minimum belt thickness is the conclusion that 9" is the likely minimum.

The opposing force is not solely Respublica, it's whatever vessels follow after, AND Wilno's ships.
This includes the Lucznik (Archer) class with the 250L45 guns, but also whatever follows them.
In the North Sea, meeting a vessel at <12000m is quite possible, but meeting one with 250mm guns  could easily be fatal if you have a 6" belt.
If Rome builds follow on Respublicas, and Wilno builds more Lucznik...or their own response to Respublica (presumably with 350mm), then the Norse BC need to be able to engage them.

When I was updating the Norse my plan was to follow the two "Standard" BBs with a couple of Renown BCs, and then probably some Colorado/R/Queen E hybrid battleship. So Two more BCs makes sense.

As for the armor, I think ya'll are way too concerned with protection, and all that leads to is 42k ton beasts that take like 6 years to build. I mean they are nice and balanced but hideously expensive. Looking at OTL both the British with the Renowns and the US with the Lexingtons didn't feel the need for heavy armor, and the Renowns at least turned out to be the most useful WWI era capital ships in the British navy in WWII. Feel free to DQ the Ragnorak but I stand by that design, there is more to fighting than the North Sea.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Fox, as Japan you are welcome to build as many 6" armored battlewagons as you want.

However, when I'm asking for designs to meet certain parameters, the vessels need to fall within those.
The 9" standard was added late, so designs <9" before it will 'count' as participation.


As for what is a reasonable level of protection,
From history :
The 1916 Lexington BC is a good example of the US abandoning their tradition. The design even had the boilers sticking up above the armor deck, speed and big guns were the choice....and were redesigned for less speed and mroe guns/armor...and then delayed in favor of the South Dakota class....and then most were scrapped 6 years after authorization in under the treaty.  So, in the end, a much delayed, redesigned, never built.
Oh, and one they never thought, gee we should have built that, and so replicated later.

The Repulse and Furious classes were authorized with Fisher's return to service. While the latter 3 were converted to Carriers, the first two  and remained in service due to their high speed.
However, once Fisher was gone, the British did not choose to replicate that design.
Indeed right after Armistice 1918 they refitted her with 9" plates from Admiral Chochrane. They also had to reinforce the flimsy hull.  So, shortly after completion, they enhanced her armor. Hardly an argument in favor of the 6" armor.

Further, you don't see that 6" armor or 3T2 turrets reoccurring on capital ships in later designs in the US, French, Italians, Russians, the Germans in either war.
Ok, Graf Spee was 2T3, with ~5" belt, but she was designed to skirt a treaty.

It's possible that all the old fuddy duddy naval folks were wrong. Navy is tradition. Tradition doesn't update well.
But you would expect the post-treaty ships then to veer for Speed > Guns > Armor...in at least one navy trying to beat the treaty system. You see that in French / Italian destroyers.... not in capital ships.

Now think of the hit rates they were expecting by WWII at 25km+ target ranges - like 10%,
remember - Jutland was well beyond target range
So a KGV would expect to make a 14" hit every full broadside, and even at that range, there's a chunk of belt hits on top of the deck. By time you get down to 15km, it's 50% belt hits. So even at the horizon range  ~21km? you're going to have regular belt hits. And a 14" shell will swiss a 6" belt at that range.

Wargaming :
Now, in terms of the game, I'm using See Krieg V, modifying it a bit, and freeware ballistics for modeling the guns/pen.
Shells that penetrate the armor do multiple times the damage of one that does not.
Shells that penetrate the armor have a chance to do critical hits.
Shells that overpenetrate do have a chance of just going through both sides.
'Semi-Armor Piercing' can be used when the target has armor you expect you may overpenetrate.
SAP does more damage (filler) than AP, and still can crit.
HE does the most damage, but does not penetrate armor worth a darn. It's splinters outperform.

Both History and the wargame mechanics seem to support armor.