Capital ships design studies from the Netherlands

[P3D]

A shorter and slower Revenge class. That 1-2"
Draught will be a problem around the Netherlands. Also, I don't like bulges (I consider it a bit cheating on new ships) but that's personal preference.

Borys,
this ship slower, and has less armor, and oil-firing. The last is the most important difference.

[Korpen]

A shorter and slower Revenge class. That 1-2"
Draught will be a problem around the Netherlands. Also, I don't like bulges (I consider it a bit cheating on new ships) but that's personal preference.

Draft is a problem along the cost, but they are not intended as cost defence ships so it is considered acceptable.
As for the bulges, they fit well into the overall armour scheme of the ship. HMS Hood and the R-class have been good sources for inspiration (together with Richelieu). :)
Can post a sketch of the layout later.

[P3D]

Just a question. Are the guns foreign (e.g. French), were the gun and the mount developed in secret previously, or the ship won't be laid down until ...1913?

[Korpen]

Just a question. Are the guns foreign (e.g. French), were the gun and the mount developed in secret previously, or the ship won't be laid down until ...1913?

The guns are Dutch, with vertically sliding wedge breach-blocks. (750m/s with 820Kg shell, BC of ~11,5)

[P3D]

My question is when were they developed, as they won't show up in the reports.

[Korpen]

Type 1048

Wilhelmina der Nederlanden, Netherlands Armoured frigate laid down 1912

Displacement:
   25 150 t light; 26 944 t standard; 28 890 t normal; 30 447 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   721,78 ft / 721,78 ft x 85,30 ft (Bulges 91,86 ft) x 29,53 ft (normal load)
   220,00 m / 220,00 m x 26,00 m (Bulges 28,00 m)  x 9,00 m

Armament:
      8 - 14,96" / 380 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1 807,79lbs / 820,00kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      14 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52,91lbs / 24,00kg shells, 1912 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all amidships
      6 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns in single mounts, 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 1912 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
      2 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52,91lbs / 24,00kg shells, 1912 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 15 428 lbs / 6 998 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 140
   4 - 17,7" / 450 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   9,84" / 250 mm   524,93 ft / 160,00 m   13,12 ft / 4,00 m
   Ends:   1,97" / 50 mm   196,85 ft / 60,00 m   9,84 ft / 3,00 m
   Upper:   9,84" / 250 mm   524,93 ft / 160,00 m   3,28 ft / 1,00 m
     Main Belt covers 112 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
      1,38" / 35 mm   524,93 ft / 160,00 m   27,89 ft / 8,50 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   9,84" / 250 mm   5,00" / 127 mm      8,66" / 220 mm
   2nd:   1,38" / 35 mm         -               -
   3rd:   0,39" / 10 mm         -               -
   4th:   0,98" / 25 mm         -         0,98" / 25 mm

   - Armour deck: 2,95" / 75 mm, Conning tower: 9,84" / 250 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 80 011 shp / 59 689 Kw = 27,00 kts
   Range 8 430nm at 12,00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3 503 tons

Complement:
   1 107 - 1 440

Cost:
   £2,835 million / $11,340 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1 795 tons, 6,2 %
   Armour: 8 582 tons, 29,7 %
      - Belts: 3 656 tons, 12,7 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 746 tons, 2,6 %
      - Armament: 1 705 tons, 5,9 %
      - Armour Deck: 2 275 tons, 7,9 %
      - Conning Tower: 200 tons, 0,7 %
   Machinery: 3 190 tons, 11,0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 11 232 tons, 38,9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 740 tons, 12,9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 1,2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     30 703 lbs / 13 927 Kg = 18,3 x 15,0 " / 380 mm shells or 4,6 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,19
   Metacentric height 5,4 ft / 1,6 m
   Roll period: 16,6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,59
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,09

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has raised forecastle
   Block coefficient: 0,516
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7,86 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26,87 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0,00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      21,33 ft / 6,50 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   17,39 ft / 5,30 m (16,40 ft / 5,00 m aft of break)
      - Mid (50 %):      16,40 ft / 5,00 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   16,40 ft / 5,00 m
      - Stern:      16,40 ft / 5,00 m
      - Average freeboard:   16,92 ft / 5,16 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 111,6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 113,8 %
   Waterplane Area: 41 646 Square feet or 3 869 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 184 lbs/sq ft or 900 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,99
      - Longitudinal: 1,04
      - Overall: 1,00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate

Armour inclined 10 degrees, following the hull lines.
Migth raise one of the aft casemettes one deck (and the aft conning tower), there is enogh spare weight to allow for that.

Any thoughts or comments?

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Well, you just made a dozen or more ships obsolete overnight :)
Ain't the inclined bet a bit futuristic, at battle ranges of of 12K yards?
Borys

[Korpen]

Ahoj!
Well, you just made a dozen or more ships obsolete overnight :)

My, thank you :)

Ain't the inclined bet a bit futuristic, at battle ranges of of 12K yards?
Borys

As indicated in the post-war report, the Netherlands frigate froce is aiming for a bit longer ranges, 15-16 000 yards (140-160hm), with 140hm as "standard".
The inclanation came from Hms Hood that was my great insperation. But I kind of like this kind of layout, and have used it before (but not here in navalism).
If she had more armour i would have gone for a more conventional layout however, but the limits was firepower and speed.

My question is when were they developed, as they won't show up in the reports.

Gun development was secret, and started in 1909.

[P3D]

I'd argue that inclined armor should be part of the 'armor technology', included in the bonus the tech provides. I'd really not get into discussions on the specifics of any sophisticated armor schemes, what advantage it would offer, and  whether a ship with 2" decapping plate + 25* inclined belt is just too futuristic to be laid down in 1915. And I guess some people might not like to go into such details.

I sent my tech proposal to Borys and Maddox a while back, guess it's time to revisit it.


1880 Cast Iron -20%
1890 Compound -10%
1900 Krupp Cemented 0
1912 All Imp. KC types +10% (was 1915)
1917 Inclined belt +20%
1925 +30%
1932 +40%

[Korpen]

I'd argue that inclined armor should be part of the 'armor technology', included in the bonus the tech provides. I'd really not get into discussions on the specifics of any sophisticated armor schemes, what advantage it would offer, and  whether a ship with 2" decapping plate + 25* inclined belt is just too futuristic to be laid down in 1915. And I guess some people might not like to go into such details.

I sent my tech proposal to Borys and Maddox a while back, guess it's time to revisit it.


1880 Cast Iron -20%
1890 Compound -10%
1900 Krupp Cemented 0
1912 All Imp. KC types +10% (was 1915)
1917 Inclined belt +20%
1925 +30%
1932 +40%

Well, like i said, protection wise, i took my inspiration from the HMS Hood, laid down in 1916, who had inclined belts following the hull. Type 1048 have some strength in her protection (inclined belt) as well as some weaknesses (lack of an upper deck). Inclined balt does have some disadvantages, such as requiring more deck armour and reducing effective belt height (compensated for in the drawing). 

[P3D]

Well, like i said, protection wise, i took my inspiration from the HMS Hood, laid down in 1916, who had inclined belts following the hull. Type 1048 have some strength in her protection (inclined belt) as well as some weaknesses (lack of an upper deck). Inclined balt does have some disadvantages, such as requiring more deck armour and reducing effective belt height (compensated for in the drawing). 

The more deck area argument is not valid, as the sloped deck is counted in the deck armor - in your case it is even narrower.
10* inclination does not yet have significant effect at the 12-18hm battle ranges.

Regarding armored deck placement, I realized that one big deficiency of SS2/3 is that the AD is assumed to be at a relatively low level, so simming high AD (like the WWII KGV, or even Revenge) cannot be done.

[Korpen]

Well, like i said, protection wise, i took my inspiration from the HMS Hood, laid down in 1916, who had inclined belts following the hull. Type 1048 have some strength in her protection (inclined belt) as well as some weaknesses (lack of an upper deck). Inclined balt does have some disadvantages, such as requiring more deck armour and reducing effective belt height (compensated for in the drawing). 

The more deck area argument is not valid, as the sloped deck is counted in the deck armor - in your case it is even narrower.
10* inclination does not yet have significant effect at the 12-18hm battle ranges.

Regarding armored deck placement, I realized that one big deficiency of SS2/3 is that the AD is assumed to be at a relatively low level, so simming high AD (like the WWII KGV, or even Revenge) cannot be done.

Well 10 dergees inclanation often result in around 25mm more effective armour in the 12hm+ range, quite allot depends on the shell (i have spent far too much time on this design i think).
True that sloped decks are counted as part of the normal deck, one could probably make a claim that one should calculate them separately.
The point about more deck would apply if the deck was applied on top of the belt, in witch case I would not have included the bulges, but hade the full with as beam.

[Blooded]

Hello,

Secret research takes twice as long and guns take 2 years to develop. So a Secret gun would take 4 years. Similar process for the mount. Your two 1909 secret researches lasted 1 year.

I would have thought inclined belts would be introduced later(1911 or later BB Architechture-gives people a reason to invest in it).

My two cents.

[P3D]

Hello,

Secret research takes twice as long and guns take 2 years to develop. So a Secret gun would take 4 years. Similar process for the mount. Your two 1909 secret researches lasted 1 year.

I would have thought inclined belts would be introduced later(1911 or later BB Architechture-gives people a reason to invest in it).

My two cents.

That secret research rule was abandoned.
And yes, developing a gun take 2 years. Of course it could have been hidden in the 'general expenses' or whatever category.

[Korpen]

Hello,

Secret research takes twice as long and guns take 2 years to develop. So a Secret gun would take 4 years. Similar process for the mount. Your two 1909 secret researches lasted 1 year.

They lasted two years, but BP expansion gave me more research money midway. And it was cleared beforehand, no no problems there.

I would have thought inclined belts would be introduced later(1911 or later BB Architechture-gives people a reason to invest in it).

My two cents.

Well we all got our own opinions there, but i felt it fitted into my own "Hoods", and someone got to be first with everything.