Vilnius Union Ships, 1930+: The Good, The Bad, and the Unseaworthy

[TacCovert4]

I would go with 10-4-10.  Some of those old BBs are very old.   My own Implacables, post-refit, are barely serviceable and I'm a 'potent 2nd rate power' or 'weak 1st rate power'.  And I'd consider my 1931 refit Implacables to be able to comfortably deal with the Nieugiety Class except under the worst conditions for the Implacables.  I think your Wrogi class is going to be your lowest common denominator.  The 12 guns appear to at least be able to bring all of them to bear on limited arcs, which helps when considering they're relatively slow and relatively lightly protected against the larger vessels running amok these days. 

I'm also not a fan of the 10k ton cruiser.  My light cruiser types, aka Frigates and Corvettes and Sloops, are all over the map....but my 'heavy' cruisers, aka Razees, are relatively consistently between 15,000t and 23,000t depending on the type.  I think a good 9-10in cruiser is a suitable standard, and while I've toyed with 11in cruisers and have 3 of them I simply can't find a niche worth the cost as the 11in gun means a cruiser approaching battlecruiser size to hold them, and the 11in gun is inadequate at this point to take on proper battleships unless you have to (IE Scharnhorst vs Duke of York). 

[The Rock Doctor]

I consciously borrowed a lot of Kaiserliche Marine ideas when I did the start-up for the Union Navy and the Niuegietys suffer from that.

The Wrogis suffer from having big turrets out on the beams where torpedoes can do bad things.  However, the intent was that they would indeed have twelve-gun broadsides to some degree as you note.

Thanks for the input.

[TacCovert4]

Realistically, neither of our smaller classes of BB should be pitted against anything remotely modern.  But I think if you've got the sadistic choice, 12 guns is going to give you more utility than 8, and at least that means you might be able to damage enough breakables to let a modern BB know it was in a real fight.

[Jefgte]

Usually, the older, weaker BBs are at the end of the line and fight against their counterparts.
They constitute an important support that can create numerical superiority or replace a large BB, seriously damaging it and fighting its opponent, who is also damaged.

I don't build Washington 8" cruisers.
I keep the 191 on my cruisers for ease of supply.
The 6" is useful for its ROF and its performances vs destroyers.

[TacCovert4]

That's what I trended my updates to my old BBs for.  Either 2nd line duties such as convoy escort or 'back of line' duties.  I was mostly looking at the relatively weak armor to go with the slow speed and inefficient gun arrangement on his hex-BBs to say that those are probably ok to be scrapped in favor of a generally better mix.

I run the 7in instead of a 6in gun mostly because I think the slight RoF reduction is worth it to get the hitting power.  But then my 'heavy' cruisers are running 9in guns to give them the real striking power.  The WNT style of cruiser just isn't a starter in our world, as a 10,000t 6in cruiser is way too heavy for what it does, and a 10,000t 8in cruiser too light to go up against its counterparts which will be from 13,000t to 17,000t.

[The Rock Doctor]

A possible battleship, with two units replacing both the Nieugiety and Wrogi classes in around 1936.  Assuming I don't just scrap the Nieugietys before that anyway.

Armament is a new 400/50 cal gun with a heavy shell.  DP secondaries and a relatively heavy AA battery.  I have the option of swapping out the 15mm for 25mm but think the Navy might not perceive it as necessary just yet - let's see what Jef's naval air forces do to those poor Laksmanavati ships first.

Vertical protection is the same thickness as the previous class but not as tall; Gadolin's 7+ metre belt probably dipped into the torpedo defence system and I read that this is a bad thing in general cuz it's rigid rather than ductile.  So it's back to the two-deck height of the Encke class and the same angle.  320mm main belt at 16 degrees backed by 30mm.

Horizontal protection is beefed up to add a 30mm weather deck above the 140mm main deck (30 over 110 in the case of the forecastle).

The torpedo defence system assumes the bulge plus three separate 25mm layers behind it, with a full five metre width to it.

Top speed is a knot faster than preceding types.  I could probably shave 500-1000 tonnes off the cost if I settled for the 27 knots of preceding classes.  She does have 1.20 seakeeping at 27 knots, which would be beneficial in the Atlantic.

The class comes too soon to contemplate decapping as part of the protective scheme - that would be researched while the ships were on the ways.

Battleship I/J, laid down 1931

Displacement:
   44,827 t light; 47,238 t standard; 50,156 t normal; 52,490 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (772.16 ft / 754.59 ft) x 108.27 ft (Bulges 114.83 ft) x (31.17 / 32.47 ft)
   (235.36 m / 230.00 m) x 33.00 m (Bulges 35.00 m)  x (9.50 / 9.90 m)

Armament:
      8 - 15.75" / 400 mm 50.0 cal guns - 2,425.09lbs / 1,100.00kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1931 Model
     4 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts - superfiring
      16 - 5.12" / 130 mm 45.0 cal guns - 67.61lbs / 30.67kg shells, 400 per gun
     Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1931 Model
     8 x 2-gun mounts on side ends, evenly spread
      24 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 4.18lbs / 1.90kg shells, 1,500 per gun
     Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
     10 x Twin mounts on sides, forward deck aft
      10 raised mounts
     2 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts
      16 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm 90.0 cal guns - 0.12lbs / 0.05kg shells, 5,000 per gun
     Machine guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
     8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
      8 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 20,585 lbs / 9,337 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13.8" / 350 mm   490.49 ft / 149.50 m   16.37 ft / 4.99 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      2.95" / 75 mm   490.49 ft / 149.50 m   29.92 ft / 9.12 m

   - Hull Bulges:
      0.59" / 15 mm   456.36 ft / 139.10 m   29.20 ft / 8.90 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   17.7" / 450 mm   7.87" / 200 mm      15.7" / 400 mm
   2nd:   1.97" / 50 mm   1.18" / 30 mm      1.97" / 50 mm
   3rd:   0.79" / 20 mm   0.59" / 15 mm            -
   4th:   0.59" / 15 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks: 6.69" / 170 mm For and Aft decks
   Forecastle: 5.51" / 140 mm  Quarter deck: 6.69" / 170 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 15.75" / 400 mm,  Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 4 shafts, 138,069 shp / 103,000 Kw = 27.99 kts
   Range 20,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 5,252 tons

Complement:
   1,675 - 2,178

Cost:
   £17.328 million / $69.312 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 3,993 tons, 8.0 %
   Armour: 19,056 tons, 38.0 %
      - Belts: 4,801 tons, 9.6 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,603 tons, 3.2 %
      - Bulges: 291 tons, 0.6 %
      - Armament: 4,210 tons, 8.4 %
      - Armour Deck: 7,690 tons, 15.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 461 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 4,129 tons, 8.2 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,768 tons, 33.4 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,328 tons, 10.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 881 tons, 1.8 %
      - On freeboard deck: 231 tons
      - Above deck: 650 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     79,394 lbs / 36,013 Kg = 40.7 x 15.7 " / 400 mm shells or 14.5 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 6.7 ft / 2.0 m
   Roll period: 18.7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.70
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.15

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.650 / 0.653
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.57 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 27.47 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 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 %,  30.25 ft / 9.22 m,  23.95 ft / 7.30 m
      - Forward deck:   40.00 %,  23.95 ft / 7.30 m,  23.95 ft / 7.30 m
      - Aft deck:   25.00 %,  23.95 ft / 7.30 m,  23.95 ft / 7.30 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  23.95 ft / 7.30 m,  23.95 ft / 7.30 m
      - Average freeboard:      24.45 ft / 7.45 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 170.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 62,585 Square feet or 5,814 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 213 lbs/sq ft or 1,038 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 1.36
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

13,800 nm @ 12 kts
8,400 nm @ 15 kts
4,200 nm @ 20 kts
1,700 nm @ 27 kts

[Kaiser Kirk]

When the current slate of Union construction activity is completed (~H1/32), it'll have:

I'm not keen on traditional heavy cruisers as we know them - the 8", 10-12,000 t ships.  Never thought they made sense in a treaty-less ecosystem.  So that's not really an answer for me to make up numbers.

A) I think by 1932 we better have Iberian and Norse forces for you to look at.
That Laksmanavati 10" cruiser was a bit of an interesting one for me. My OPFOR is Byzantine / Japan, and that cruiser would have changed my mind had I settled on an updated Zemeka, but now it just makes the Dahae look like a better choice.
B) I agree on the 8" cruisers. I think the Iberian is decent, but considering you can handwork guns in the 7-7.5" range, at huge weight savings with the 1920 cruiser tech,
the motivation to move up to 8", requiring turrets, loosing the tech bonus, and pushing up to more weight for nearly the same punch...no good.
I think 9-10" become the logical "heavy cruiser", and for me ~17-19,000 tons to allow a TDS and sufficient armor to stop those handloaded QF round, while having good speed.
I do think 1 Zemaka can defeat 2 Royal Nissean, at 18.5BP vs. 2x8.   The Royal Nisseans still give me less expensive choices and numbers, so there's still a role for lighter cruisers.

[TacCovert4]

When the current slate of Union construction activity is completed (~H1/32), it'll have:

I'm not keen on traditional heavy cruisers as we know them - the 8", 10-12,000 t ships.  Never thought they made sense in a treaty-less ecosystem.  So that's not really an answer for me to make up numbers.

A) I think by 1932 we better have Iberian and Norse forces for you to look at.
That Laksmanavati 10" cruiser was a bit of an interesting one for me. My OPFOR is Byzantine / Japan, and that cruiser would have changed my mind had I settled on an updated Zemeka, but now it just makes the Dahae look like a better choice.
B) I agree on the 8" cruisers. I think the Iberian is decent, but considering you can handwork guns in the 7-7.5" range, at huge weight savings with the 1920 cruiser tech,
the motivation to move up to 8", requiring turrets, loosing the tech bonus, and pushing up to more weight for nearly the same punch...no good.
I think 9-10" become the logical "heavy cruiser", and for me ~17-19,000 tons to allow a TDS and sufficient armor to stop those handloaded QF round, while having good speed.
I do think 1 Zemaka can defeat 2 Royal Nissean, at 18.5BP vs. 2x8.   The Royal Nisseans still give me less expensive choices and numbers, so there's still a role for lighter cruisers.

I'll be bugging Knight shortly, he should be getting close to graduation.  So that's the Iberians taken care of.

[The Rock Doctor]

A coastal defence gunship that would slot in three of the six turrets from a Nieugiety class battleship (including face and side armor but not barbette armor) and two of three 1922-vintage turbines from the same.

Whether it's a useful ship to have, I'm not sure.  The turbines are new-ish and powerful, so I'm thinking I should find something to recycle them for.  The guns are old, even with refreshing, and I'm not as sure about them.

Still, that's 2,344 t of recycled components against a 12,600 t hull.



Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1930 (Engine 1922)

Displacement:
   12,600 t light; 13,343 t standard; 14,197 t normal; 14,880 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (473.67 ft / 459.32 ft) x 82.02 ft x (21.98 / 22.85 ft)
   (144.38 m / 140.00 m) x 25.00 m  x (6.70 / 6.96 m)

Armament:
      6 - 11.81" / 300 mm 45.0 cal guns - 830.84lbs / 376.86kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1930 Model
     3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority aft
      1 raised mount aft - superfiring
      10 - 5.12" / 130 mm 45.0 cal guns - 67.61lbs / 30.67kg shells, 400 per gun
     Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1930 Model
     4 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
     1 x 2-gun mount on centreline, forward deck centre
      1 raised mount
      12 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 4.18lbs / 1.89kg shells, 1,000 per gun
     Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1930 Model
     6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
      6 raised mounts
      12 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm 90.0 cal guns - 0.12lbs / 0.05kg shells, 5,000 per gun
     Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1930 Model
     6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
      6 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 5,713 lbs / 2,591 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   7.87" / 200 mm   298.56 ft / 91.00 m   12.27 ft / 3.74 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1.97" / 50 mm   298.56 ft / 91.00 m   20.41 ft / 6.22 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   13.8" / 350 mm   7.87" / 200 mm      11.8" / 300 mm
   2nd:   1.97" / 50 mm   1.18" / 30 mm      1.97" / 50 mm
   3rd:   0.59" / 15 mm         -               -
   4th:   0.59" / 15 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks: 3.94" / 100 mm For and Aft decks
   Forecastle: 3.94" / 100 mm  Quarter deck: 3.54" / 90 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 7.87" / 200 mm,  Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 2 shafts, 32,172 shp / 24,000 Kw = 22.52 kts
   Range 12,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,537 tons

Complement:
   649 - 845

Cost:
   £4.716 million / $18.865 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,097 tons, 7.7 %
   Armour: 5,065 tons, 35.7 %
      - Belts: 1,288 tons, 9.1 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 444 tons, 3.1 %
      - Armament: 1,230 tons, 8.7 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,003 tons, 14.1 %
      - Conning Tower: 99 tons, 0.7 %
   Machinery: 1,091 tons, 7.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,978 tons, 35.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,597 tons, 11.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 368 tons, 2.6 %
      - On freeboard deck: 108 tons
      - Above deck: 260 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     23,944 lbs / 10,861 Kg = 29.1 x 11.8 " / 300 mm shells or 5.1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
   Metacentric height 4.7 ft / 1.4 m
   Roll period: 15.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.53
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.12

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.600 / 0.605
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.60 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 21.43 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 62
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 4.92 ft / 1.50 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  25.92 ft / 7.90 m,  21.00 ft / 6.40 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  21.00 ft / 6.40 m,  21.00 ft / 6.40 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m,  13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Average freeboard:      17.45 ft / 5.32 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 80.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 135.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 27,554 Square feet or 2,560 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 146 lbs/sq ft or 714 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.93
      - Longitudinal: 1.89
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Jefgte]

Ship for the colonies. Big guns are always impressive.
A valuable addition to a battle line that can repel cruisers.
Cheap, just 10BP.

[The Rock Doctor]

Not a valuable part of the battleline, though, because my modern nattleships are three to four knots faster.

Conceptually it's more trade defence, shore bombardment and so forth.

[TacCovert4]

Considering the Trans Eryka Canal, these ships could have a solid role guarding that.  The major threat there is the Mayans, maybe a touch towards the Inca.  And neither is what we'd call a major sea power with a bunch of large fast capital ships and cruisers.  Mayans have a lot of ships, but a lot of them are older and smaller, something that could be roughly handled by a ship like this.

[The Rock Doctor]

True, but by that logic it's probably less expensive to just improve protection on the Nieugiety class and keep them in the Caribbean another few years.

There are useful components to salvage off the Nieugietys when I junk them, the question is how to make the most effective use of them.

[The Rock Doctor]

This crossed my mind while folding laundry.

Utterly impractical.  The flight deck would be no more than 250' long, and the hanger capacity likely very limited:  flight deck cruiser + conversion + existing hull constraints.

But it is an amusing thought.

[Jefgte]

Not a valuable part of the battleline,...

It depends on the composition of the battlelines.
Numerous or not.
It is always unpleasant to receive 380kg shells.