Capital ships design studies from the Netherlands

[Valles]

Well, I did already have this planned...

Reinforce II, Maori Battleship laid down 1931 (Engine 1930)

Displacement:
   51,479 t light; 53,957 t standard; 60,515 t normal; 65,762 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   789.47 ft / 780.84 ft x 118.11 ft x 32.81 ft (normal load)
   240.63 m / 238.00 m x 36.00 m  x 10.00 m

Armament:
      12 - 14.96" / 380 mm guns (4x3 guns), 1,674.25lbs / 759.43kg shells, 1931 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      18 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (6x3 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1931 Model
     Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships
      32 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1931 Model
     Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 22,356 lbs / 10,141 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   16.5" / 420 mm   468.50 ft / 142.80 m   13.12 ft / 4.00 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      2.36" / 60 mm   468.50 ft / 142.80 m   31.36 ft / 9.56 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   16.5" / 420 mm   13.4" / 340 mm      16.5" / 420 mm
   2nd:   7.87" / 200 mm   3.94" / 100 mm      3.94" / 100 mm
   3rd:   2.95" / 75 mm   1.97" / 50 mm      1.97" / 50 mm

   - Armour deck: 8.66" / 220 mm, Conning tower: 16.54" / 420 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 61,779 shp / 46,087 Kw = 22.00 kts
   Range 20,000nm at 14.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 11,806 tons

Complement:
   1,928 - 2,507

Cost:
   £19.249 million / $76.997 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2,795 tons, 4.6 %
   Armour: 24,345 tons, 40.2 %
      - Belts: 4,540 tons, 7.5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,284 tons, 2.1 %
      - Armament: 6,127 tons, 10.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 11,845 tons, 19.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 549 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 1,872 tons, 3.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 21,968 tons, 36.3 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 9,036 tons, 14.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 0.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     128,664 lbs / 58,361 Kg = 76.8 x 15.0 " / 380 mm shells or 25.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
   Metacentric height 7.9 ft / 2.4 m
   Roll period: 17.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 73 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.66
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.59

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.700
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.61 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 27.94 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 40 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 4.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      29.53 ft / 9.00 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   26.25 ft / 8.00 m
      - Mid (50 %):      24.61 ft / 7.50 m
      - Quarterdeck (20 %):   24.61 ft / 7.50 m
      - Stern:      24.61 ft / 7.50 m
      - Average freeboard:   25.44 ft / 7.76 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 56.0 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 182.7 %
   Waterplane Area: 73,920 Square feet or 6,867 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 222 lbs/sq ft or 1,083 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.00
      - Longitudinal: 1.42
      - Overall: 1.04
   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
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

[Carthaginian]

While that ship being able to do 27 knots might seem cool,. it's going to meet the same fate as the real HMS Hood if she ever comes up against a ship with 15" guns... or makes the mistake of getting too close to any other ship with a decent 12" gun.

The reverse is also likely, she got enough firepower to penetrated the armour of all battleships at a range were 12" inch guns are likely to penetrate her armour. So at worst both ships got a equal chance to destroy each other. And if two ships both got that capacity to destroy each other, i would bet on the faster ships that can manoeuvre into tactically advantageous positions.   :D[/quote]

Speed armor was disproved by Admiral Lord Fisher's Follies.
Should your ship desire to penetrate the 13" belt on my Oklahoma class battleships, then it has to close to within my guns' effective range to penetrate your armor. Remember, those are 15"/40 caliber guns (if they are consistent with you can develop)... they don't have the greatest penetration.

Some of the longer-ranged 12" guns could even do damage to your softer parts.

Remember that 'Murphy's Laws for Grunts' states:
"If the enemy is in range... so are you."

Considering that we all have a practical range limit of 12k yards ATM, I'd say these ships are a BAD IDEA, as at 12k yards (max range for your fire control) any battleship afloat has a good chance of punching a hole in her.

It is the effective limit, not the maximum limit. Hits can be scored at much longer ranges. To score hits at 50% more range under good conditions should not be outside the realm of possibility, at least not if one use history as a guideline.
[/quote]

EFFECTIVE hits have little chance of being scored that far off right now.
Remember, the fire control that we are looking at in this period excels at 8000 yards, and is only 'reasonably effective' at 12,000 (can hit the broad side of a barn sometimes). Getting hits reliably enough to plan strategy around it at 18,000 yards would stretch believability to the breaking point. I could be wrong, of course, but the gunnery described in Castles of Steel is not consistent with what you are saying.

[The Rock Doctor]

Let's keep this topic focused on Dutch capital ships, and not other folks' fantasies.

Korpen:  What is the scale of your drawing - specifically (if it matters) the part actually illustrating the armor scheme?

[Borys]

Ahoj!
OK - I will keep my wet (slurp) fantasies to myself.
:)
I moved it my post Designs, as to unclutter the thread.
Borys

[Korpen]

Let's keep this topic focused on Dutch capital ships, and not other folks' fantasies.

Korpen:  What is the scale of your drawing - specifically (if it matters) the part actually illustrating the armor scheme?

1 pixel = ~25cm That goes for the entire drawing.

[Korpen]

Speed armor was disproved by Admiral Lord Fisher's Follies.
Should your ship desire to penetrate the 13" belt on my Oklahoma class battleships, then it has to close to within my guns' effective range to penetrate your armor. Remember, those are 15"/40 caliber guns (if they are consistent with you can develop)... they don't have the greatest penetration.

Neither does the 13,5.
But basically i am willing to take the risk that the enemy might be able to hurt my own ship, at least as long as I think there is a greater possibility for me to hurt him. Taking this match up as example, Speed is not armour, speed is firepower. With a seven knots advantage in speed the Frigate can decide the fighting range as she sees fit, but more importantly, got the capacity to manoeuvre  so that she can fight from an advantageous position, either in relation to the armours, or in relations to visibility conditions.

EFFECTIVE hits have little chance of being scored that far off right now.
Remember, the fire control that we are looking at in this period excels at 8000 yards, and is only 'reasonably effective' at 12,000 (can hit the broad side of a barn sometimes). Getting hits reliably enough to plan strategy around it at 18,000 yards would stretch believability to the breaking point. I could be wrong, of course, but the gunnery described in Castles of Steel is not consistent with what you are saying.

Well, the russians managed some really decent shooting at 12k yards with out any FC equipment at all in the Jap-Russian war: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/rjwargun.htm
Also, there were quite a few cases in the black sea were their pre-dreads did quite allot of really fine shooting in early ww1. Remember that the FC tech we got is about equal to the early ww1 systems, and most battles back then were started at ranges of around 20km (Falklands, Dogger bank).
As one can read in the post I made about my some of my gunnery doctrines (back in January), gunnery training is conducted up to 160hm (~17 500 yards), but that "standard" range is 140hm (15 000 yards), well aware that that is pushing things (but not anywere close to the breaking point), but that is what doctrine and training is counting on. And you might notice that most of my new frigates got allot of shells, this for the very simple reason that to get results at long range one have to throw an awful lot of shells down range.

[Korpen]

Started as a reply in the inclined armour thread, but felt it fitted better here.

This design really is the epitome of my frigate, combat and gunnery doctrines, as outlined elsewhere. The rules we have actively discourage battlecruiser type ships, and encourage floating armoured boxes, but I do find it interesting to try and nevertheless make competitive battlecruisers designs. When I made this design (and I been poking around with it the last few months, as some people here might know) I basically started with the fact that speed could not really go below 27kts (28kts or 29 would have been better), or the ship would not fit into the operational requirement for my frigates. If she mounted less then eight guns, or if they were smaller, the ship would be utterly useless and only fodder for battleships in a fight. As our sHp rules ruled out making the ship any larger armour hade to be limited.

The belt height was dictated by the need to protect the waterline at full load (increas draft by about ,5m) and after taking some flooding (seen as a major weakness in Swiss designs during the war). So the requirement was to give the waterline protection while being 1-1,5m deeper then normal. As the waterflow along the hull can lead to changes of around plus or minus 1m from the nominal waterline, the belt had to be at lest 2,5m above, and 2m below. Given that this is not the first design study I have made that used inclined belts, I do feel it was quite a natural thing to do to try and squeeze out as much protection as possible out of a relatively thin main belt. Especially given that the ship is designed for combat against battleships at 14-16hm, the reason for the very large consignment of shells (also so that she can carry a usefull mix of APC, SAP, shrapnel and HE shells, for engaging a variety of targets). The inclination in itself is also drive the need for a deep belt, as shells rejected might be deflected down in the bulges, and cause flooding there (in light if the expected engagement ranges seen as an acceptable risk).

Much of the general layout of the ship was inherited from the Janzon class frigates, except for the armour layout and underwater protection. The bulges were chosen for two reasons; the first one is that it allows for a nice looking cross section while still maintaining the very fine hull lines. Secondly for the fact that they allow maximum beam at the depth most likely to be hit by a torpedo. It is unlikely that a torpedo would be set for a running depth of 7-9m  before a battle as that limit the number of targets that could be engaged, and that that a torpedo that hit the steep curvature of the hull is more likely to bounce of then explode. This makes around 5-6m the mot likely depth at which a torpedo set for attacking capital ships is running. The bulges/hull shape allows of maximum standoff distance at that depth.

In short, these three ships are optimised for fighting and defeating opposing battleships and battlecruisers armed with 12" and older 13,5" guns at ranges of 14-16hm, something I feel the package, with big guns, speed, bulges and inclined belt is very well suited to do while still being capable of traditional frigate missions such as anti-raiding and trade protection.

If someone feels the aspects of this ship is too modern I think they are free to do so, but if calling for rule changes to prevent them I would like to add rules to prevent cruisers from having a speed higher then battlecruiser, or battleships to have armour likely to stop 38cm as both those features as more futuristic then anything in this ship.

[P3D]

Just wondering...
As Nverse is full of armor-heavy ships, would it make sense to build a ship with 15-16x12" armored against 15-16" throwing SAP at twice the rate, going for soft kill rather than penetration?

[The Rock Doctor]

There could be some merit in that approach, especially in conjunction with heavy torpedo attacks taking advantage of the destruction of the enemy's light guns.

I had, in the early going, simmed a version of Furioso with 5x3 12", and I think I'd also tackled a 6x3 12" ship at one point.

[Ithekro]

I will take some bit of combat testing to prove the effectiveness of "soft-kill" battleships.  I do know in some systems that even if one cannot penetrate the armor, a large enough amount of HE will still burn a super battleship to the waterline.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Conidering the effort and cost of throwing little pieces of metal with c.1% chance of hitting the enemy ship, making the piece of metal useless against half of what it can hit (turret/barbete/belt) seems counterproductive. Whereas the APC will do SOME damage wherever it hits.
The Torrent of Fire approach is good up to a certain distance - and even then the small-quick-gun ship runs the danger of being hit by something fired by local control.

Borys

[P3D]

Ahoj!
Conidering the effort and cost of throwing little pieces of metal with c.1% chance of hitting the enemy ship, making the piece of metal useless against half of what it can hit (turret/barbete/belt) seems counterproductive. Whereas the APC will do SOME damage wherever it hits.
The Torrent of Fire approach is good up to a certain distance - and even then the small-quick-gun ship runs the danger of being hit by something fired by local control.

Borys

According to my recent calculations, that cca. 1% looks like to be more - even if the ship is not stationary.

[Borys]

1,5%?
2%?
Borys

[P3D]

4. 10. 20. At least against stationary target. Below 8000yards, even higher.

[Korpen]

Just wondering...
As Nverse is full of armor-heavy ships, would it make sense to build a ship with 15-16x12" armored against 15-16" throwing SAP at twice the rate, going for soft kill rather than penetration?

An interesting concept for sure.
But I think with one or two exceptions, ships here are not yet so heavily armoured that it is a way I would like to make the main one yet.
Ships still seem to carry quite substantial upper belts as well, and I doubt 30cm SAP will penetrate them reliably, and then I think pure HE is better at causing fires and causing leaks.

Related, do people think it is better to develop a new 40cm gun for the next class, or just a more powerfull 38cm gun (design starting in 1913)?