Two designs that are considered to be laid down in the 2nd half of 1907.
The main difference is the main armament, design one carries six 35cm guns design two carry ten 30,5cm guns, but as she got wing turrets (Dreadnaught-style), it is a broadside of eight 30cm guns.
The question is really if the extra barrels are worth the decrease in armour, speed and survivability.
While neither design is as fast as could be whished for, that are still as fast as most AC in service.
BB16-1, Netherlands Battleship laid down 1907 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
16 000 t light; 17 082 t standard; 19 203 t normal; 20 900 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
571,73 ft / 557,74 ft x 80,38 ft x 27,89 ft (normal load)
174,26 m / 170,00 m x 24,50 m x 8,50 m
Armament:
6 - 13,78" / 350 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1 322,77lbs / 600,00kg shells, 1907 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority aft
14 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 99,21lbs / 45,00kg shells, 1907 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
10 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
4 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns in single mounts, 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 1907 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 9 405 lbs / 4 266 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 130
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11,8" / 300 mm 341,21 ft / 104,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ends: 3,94" / 100 mm 216,54 ft / 66,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 4,72" / 120 mm 354,33 ft / 108,00 m 7,87 ft / 2,40 m
Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,57" / 40 mm 354,33 ft / 108,00 m 25,03 ft / 7,63 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11,8" / 300 mm 5,12" / 130 mm 11,0" / 280 mm
2nd: 4,72" / 120 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,13" / 54 mm, Conning tower: 11,02" / 280 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 25 999 shp / 19 395 Kw = 20,96 kts
Range 8 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 818 tons (90% coal)
Complement:
815 - 1 060
Cost:
£1,724 million / $6,898 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 172 tons, 6,1 %
Armour: 6 584 tons, 34,3 %
- Belts: 3 197 tons, 16,6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 517 tons, 2,7 %
- Armament: 1 483 tons, 7,7 %
- Armour Deck: 1 216 tons, 6,3 %
- Conning Tower: 170 tons, 0,9 %
Machinery: 1 287 tons, 6,7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6 657 tons, 34,7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 203 tons, 16,7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1,6 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
25 205 lbs / 11 433 Kg = 19,3 x 13,8 " / 350 mm shells or 4,4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,24
Metacentric height 5,3 ft / 1,6 m
Roll period: 14,6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,30
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,538
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,94 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 38
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 21,00 ft / 6,40 m
- Mid (30 %): 21,00 ft / 6,40 m (13,12 ft / 4,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Stern: 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Average freeboard: 15,63 ft / 4,76 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 94,0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 105,0 %
Waterplane Area: 30 926 Square feet or 2 873 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 151 lbs/sq ft or 736 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,96
- Longitudinal: 1,42
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
BB16-2, Netherlands Battleship laid down 1907 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
16 000 t light; 17 193 t standard; 19 322 t normal; 21 025 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
571,73 ft / 557,74 ft x 80,38 ft x 27,89 ft (normal load)
174,26 m / 170,00 m x 24,50 m x 8,50 m
Armament:
6 - 12,01" / 305 mm guns (3x2 guns), 903,90lbs / 410,00kg shells, 1905 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority aft
4 - 12,01" / 305 mm guns (2x2 guns), 903,90lbs / 410,00kg shells, 1905 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships
14 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 99,21lbs / 45,00kg shells, 1905 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
10 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
8 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 1905 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 10 587 lbs / 4 802 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 130
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11,0" / 280 mm 354,33 ft / 108,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ends: 3,94" / 100 mm 203,41 ft / 62,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 4,72" / 120 mm 354,33 ft / 108,00 m 7,87 ft / 2,40 m
Main Belt covers 98 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,38" / 35 mm 354,33 ft / 108,00 m 24,93 ft / 7,60 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11,0" / 280 mm 5,12" / 130 mm 9,84" / 250 mm
2nd: 11,0" / 280 mm 4,72" / 120 mm 9,84" / 250 mm
- Armour deck: 2,13" / 54 mm, Conning tower: 11,02" / 280 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 23 000 shp / 17 158 Kw = 20,25 kts
Range 8 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 833 tons (90% coal)
Complement:
819 - 1 065
Cost:
£1,797 million / $7,189 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 283 tons, 6,6 %
Armour: 6 370 tons, 33,0 %
- Belts: 3 089 tons, 16,0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 450 tons, 2,3 %
- Armament: 1 439 tons, 7,4 %
- Armour Deck: 1 220 tons, 6,3 %
- Conning Tower: 171 tons, 0,9 %
Machinery: 1 139 tons, 5,9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6 908 tons, 35,8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 322 tons, 17,2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1,6 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
22 719 lbs / 10 305 Kg = 26,2 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 4,0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,17
Metacentric height 4,9 ft / 1,5 m
Roll period: 15,3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 49 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,48
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,09
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,541
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,94 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 40 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 17,72 ft / 5,40 m
- Mid (40 %): 17,72 ft / 5,40 m (9,84 ft / 3,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
- Stern: 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
- Average freeboard: 13,37 ft / 4,08 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96,2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 89,7 %
Waterplane Area: 31 023 Square feet or 2 882 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 160 lbs/sq ft or 782 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,97
- Longitudinal: 1,29
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
I prefer the -1 because:
-The weight of the broadside is heavier - though you might prefer the number of shells in the air.
-Ship's accommodation isn't cramped, which will be good if forced to steam for a colony
-The freeboard is higher, which is better for open seas steaming
I'm inclined to suggest bumping the block co-efficient to about 0.6, which is more appropriate for a battleship, and using the corresponding displacement/strength increase to add some more 88s and raise the freeboard still higher.
I also prefer BB-16-1, but I'd trim it for a bit more steadiness with the guns if possible. You're at 50% now, do you have enough stability to play with to get it up to 70%?
And Rock is right... more freeboard, maybe .5m or .75m? That'll also buy a lot more of a stability margin to help steady it out as a gun platform
Quote from: Carthaginian on April 12, 2007, 12:59:01 PM
I also prefer BB-16-1, but I'd trim it for a bit more steadiness with the guns if possible. You're at 50% now, do you have enough stability to play with to get it up to 70%?
And Rock is right... more freeboard, maybe .5m or .75m? That'll also buy a lot more of a stability margin to help steady it out as a gun platform
The ships is trimmed for maximum stability, rather then steadiness. I prefer to have my ships capable of take a beating.
Also, there seems to be a fixation with the spingsharp numbers, there is not like anyone i real life could tell the difference in the steadiness of a ship with 68% and one with 70% steadiness.
I personally like BB16-2. IMHO 6 main guns aren't enough - you need more shells in the air.
And hell frozeth over, and the lamb lay down by the lion, and the Austrian and the Ottoman agreed on something ...
:D
Borys
Quote from: Korpen on April 12, 2007, 01:05:12 PM
The ships is trimmed for maximum stability, rather then steadiness. I prefer to have my ships capable of take a beating.
Also, there seems to be a fixation with the spingsharp numbers, there is not like anyone i real life could tell the difference in the steadiness of a ship with 68% and one with 70% steadiness.
I can definitely respect trying to get them to take a beating better than their competition.
As an experienced shooter, I do see the importance of making the ship as steady a gunnery platform as possible, though. I know what a good stiff breeze can do to my aim with a hunting rifle at 300m. I'd hate to think what less than optimal steadiness could do to a naval artillery piece's accuracy over a range of 10 miles. If a breeze can knock me inches off at 300m, what can wave action do over the course of 10 miles?
That's my reasoning for wanting a very steady ship. :)
Quote from: Carthaginian on April 12, 2007, 02:14:36 PM
I can definitely respect trying to get them to take a beating better than their competition.
As an experienced shooter, I do see the importance of making the ship as steady a gunnery platform as possible, though. I know what a good stiff breeze can do to my aim with a hunting rifle at 300m. I'd hate to think what less than optimal steadiness could do to a naval artillery piece's accuracy over a range of 10 miles. If a breeze can knock me inches off at 300m, what can wave action do over the course of 10 miles?
That's my reasoning for wanting a very steady ship. :)
High stability can make a huge difference if the ship suffer flooding, as it has much higher margins to counterflood, and less need to counterflood.
And it is not like the ship is unsteady, she is simply avarge for her size and speed.
Quote from: Korpen on April 12, 2007, 03:50:03 PM
High stability can make a huge difference if the ship suffer flooding, as it has much higher margins to counterflood, and less need to counterflood.
And it is not like the ship is unsteady, she is simply avarge for her size and speed.
LOL... I'm what we in the U.S. jokingly call a 'gun nut.'
I've spent my life around firearms of every size and shape, from the .22 caliber air rifle I got as a 4 year old to the .50 caliber Browning Machine Gun that I manned in Iraq. I'm not much of a seaman, so I don't know those kinds of things (THANKS for teaching me, though :) ), and thus naturally, the thing that I do know the most about takes over... that being "it's better to shoot more accurately than to hope your enemy is going to be worse than you."
I'll remember the little lesson, though... really, THANKS. :)
Ahoj!
These are two features difficult to obtain in the same ship - stability (survivability) and steadiness (shootiness). For my shooty ships - cruisers and battleships I count on armour and size to get me through. In non-shoty ships - GTB and minesweepers I pay more attention to seaworthiness and stability.
Borys
As a rule, I try to keep stability no lower than 1.05. I checked some of my more recent ships and found:
Scharnhorst - 1.10, steadiness 70%
Blücher - 1.18, 71%
Nautilus - 1.15, 72%
Kaiser Wilhelm II - 1.09, 71%
KK1906 - 1.32, 73%
GTB1906 - 1.18, 73%
GK1909 - 1.24, 74%
I prefer steadiness, he who hits first stands a better chance of winning. Hit first, hit hard and keep on hitting. As for the ship build 2, she is more period apropriate and besides we dont have a Dreadnought.
Slightly revised variant with 30,5cm guns.
Well protected against most enemy guns, and carrying a nice broadside of 8 guns, with at least four guns bearing in any direction.
BB16-3, Netherlands Battleship laid down 1907 (Engine 1909)
I really like them. So it is quite likely a pair of these will be laid down in 1907.
Displacement:
16 000 t light; 17 193 t standard; 19 310 t normal; 21 004 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
529,08 ft / 515,09 ft x 82,02 ft x 27,89 ft (normal load)
161,26 m / 157,00 m x 25,00 m x 8,50 m
Armament:
6 - 12,01" / 305 mm guns (3x2 guns), 903,90lbs / 410,00kg shells, 1905 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority aft
4 - 12,01" / 305 mm guns (2x2 guns), 903,90lbs / 410,00kg shells, 1905 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships
14 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 99,21lbs / 45,00kg shells, 1905 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
10 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
8 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 1905 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 10 587 lbs / 4 802 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 130
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11,8" / 300 mm 334,65 ft / 102,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ends: 3,94" / 100 mm 180,45 ft / 55,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 4,72" / 120 mm 334,65 ft / 102,00 m 7,87 ft / 2,40 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,38" / 35 mm 334,65 ft / 102,00 m 24,93 ft / 7,60 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11,0" / 280 mm 4,72" / 120 mm 9,84" / 250 mm
2nd: 11,0" / 280 mm 4,72" / 120 mm 9,84" / 250 mm
3rd: 4,72" / 120 mm - -
4th: 0,39" / 10 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,15" / 55 mm, Conning tower: 11,02" / 280 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 24 000 shp / 17 904 Kw = 20,28 kts
Range 8 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 811 tons (90% coal)
Complement:
818 - 1 064
Cost:
£1,804 million / $7,217 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 283 tons, 6,6 %
Armour: 6 553 tons, 33,9 %
- Belts: 3 074 tons, 15,9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 425 tons, 2,2 %
- Armament: 1 684 tons, 8,7 %
- Armour Deck: 1 199 tons, 6,2 %
- Conning Tower: 171 tons, 0,9 %
Machinery: 1 188 tons, 6,2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6 675 tons, 34,6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 310 tons, 17,1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1,6 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
23 507 lbs / 10 663 Kg = 27,2 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 4,1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,20
Metacentric height 5,2 ft / 1,6 m
Roll period: 15,1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 55 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,50
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,28
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,574
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,28 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22,70 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 17,72 ft / 5,40 m
- Mid (55 %): 17,72 ft / 5,40 m (9,84 ft / 3,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
- Stern: 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
- Average freeboard: 14,55 ft / 4,44 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96,7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 99,6 %
Waterplane Area: 30 146 Square feet or 2 801 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 159 lbs/sq ft or 778 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,55
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Larger then the earlier studies, but well armed (among the heaviest broadsides in the world), quite fast at 21kts and with more then adequate armour. In short a very well-balanced ship.
BB18-2, Netherlands Battleship laid down 1907 (Engine 1909)
(http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3043/studiewb4.png)
Displacement:
18 000 t light; 19 329 t standard; 21 615 t normal; 23 444 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
532,36 ft / 518,37 ft x 83,66 ft x 28,71 ft (normal load)
162,26 m / 158,00 m x 25,50 m x 8,75 m
Armament:
8 - 13,78" / 350 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1 322,77lbs / 600,00kg shells, 1907 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
14 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 99,21lbs / 45,00kg shells, 1907 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
10 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
8 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns in single mounts, 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 1907 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 12 130 lbs / 5 502 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 130
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12,6" / 320 mm 347,77 ft / 106,00 m 13,78 ft / 4,20 m
Ends: 3,94" / 100 mm 177,17 ft / 54,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 5,51" / 140 mm 347,77 ft / 106,00 m 7,87 ft / 2,40 m
Main Belt covers 103 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,38" / 35 mm 347,77 ft / 106,00 m 27,89 ft / 8,50 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12,2" / 310 mm 5,51" / 140 mm 11,0" / 280 mm
2nd: 5,51" / 140 mm - -
3rd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,36" / 60 mm, Conning tower: 11,02" / 280 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 30 000 shp / 22 380 Kw = 21,06 kts
Range 8 050nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4 115 tons (90% coal)
Complement:
890 - 1 158
Cost:
£2,106 million / $8,423 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 509 tons, 7,0 %
Armour: 7 566 tons, 35,0 %
- Belts: 3 546 tons, 16,4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 494 tons, 2,3 %
- Armament: 1 945 tons, 9,0 %
- Armour Deck: 1 396 tons, 6,5 %
- Conning Tower: 184 tons, 0,9 %
Machinery: 1 485 tons, 6,9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7 139 tons, 33,0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 615 tons, 16,7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1,4 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
24 236 lbs / 10 993 Kg = 18,5 x 13,8 " / 350 mm shells or 4,0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,13
Metacentric height 4,8 ft / 1,5 m
Roll period: 16,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 58 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,61
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,16
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,608
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,20 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22,77 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 17,72 ft / 5,40 m
- Mid (63 %): 17,72 ft / 5,40 m (9,84 ft / 3,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
- Stern: 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
- Average freeboard: 15,18 ft / 4,63 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 101,8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 103,5 %
Waterplane Area: 31 946 Square feet or 2 968 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 94 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 161 lbs/sq ft or 786 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,51
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
I'd like her better with another half metre or so of freeboard, but she's otherwise a sturdy customer. Appreciate the sketch, too.
Seems like a very fine, well-rounded design. :) The speed and armour will serve you well.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 27, 2007, 07:08:23 PM
I'd like her better with another half metre or so of freeboard, but she's otherwise a sturdy customer. Appreciate the sketch, too.
I kind of agree, it would have been nice with more freeboard, but something had to give. :(
Originally she hade a freeboard 1m higher over the entire ship, but a midbreak at 35% on length, i felt this arrangement offered a better ship.
Had reason to play around with cruisers designs, and ended up with a battlecruisers design that i would in fact consider building.
At almost 25kts she is almost as fast as my torpedoboots, and faster then all my cruisers. While the armour is far from great, it is on the same scale as most other armoured cruisers, and it does give pretty good protection from guns up to 25cm at combat ranges. At the same time the powerful 30cm guns she carry are more then capable to pound any cruisers into scrap. So in fact, a very true battlecruiser. :)
And that on a displacement that is unlikley to break the bank.
BCX-1, Netherlands Battlecruiser laid down 1908 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
14 350 t light; 15 359 t standard; 17 493 t normal; 19 200 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
555,89 ft / 538,06 ft x 78,74 ft x 26,25 ft (normal load)
169,43 m / 164,00 m x 24,00 m x 8,00 m
Armament:
8 - 12,01" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 903,90lbs / 410,00kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
12 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 99,21lbs / 45,00kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
4 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns in single mounts, 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 8 501 lbs / 3 856 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 136
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7,87" / 200 mm 351,05 ft / 107,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ends: 2,95" / 75 mm 187,01 ft / 57,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 3,78" / 96 mm 351,05 ft / 107,00 m 7,87 ft / 2,40 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7,87" / 200 mm 4,13" / 105 mm 5,91" / 150 mm
2nd: 2,95" / 75 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,36" / 60 mm, Conning tower: 9,84" / 250 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 48 010 shp / 35 815 Kw = 24,82 kts
Range 11 500nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 840 tons
Complement:
759 - 988
Cost:
£1,673 million / $6,694 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 031 tons, 5,9 %
Armour: 4 673 tons, 26,7 %
- Belts: 2 223 tons, 12,7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 1 015 tons, 5,8 %
- Armour Deck: 1 293 tons, 7,4 %
- Conning Tower: 143 tons, 0,8 %
Machinery: 2 182 tons, 12,5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6 164 tons, 35,2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 143 tons, 18,0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1,7 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
19 401 lbs / 8 800 Kg = 22,4 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 2,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,19
Metacentric height 4,9 ft / 1,5 m
Roll period: 15,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 55 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,56
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,12
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,551
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,83 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,20 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 25,20 ft / 7,68 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Mid (55 %): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Stern: 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Average freeboard: 17,11 ft / 5,21 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87,9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 121,8 %
Waterplane Area: 29 584 Square feet or 2 748 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 145 lbs/sq ft or 707 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,94
- Longitudinal: 1,59
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
It's not bad, armor aside. Are the secondaries at the main deck level as you note, or are they to be hull casemates?
Have you contemplated a similar hull with slightly smaller guns (you've got a 265 or something) and greater armor/speed?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 22, 2007, 08:26:58 AM
It's not bad, armor aside. Are the secondaries at the main deck level as you note, or are they to be hull casemates?
Have you contemplated a similar hull with slightly smaller guns (you've got a 265 or something) and greater armor/speed?
Hull secondaries in the hull, as i do not think they might fit on the main deck, but i think i will get the ship a midbreak, that would place the guns at almost the same level.
While i do have a 26cm gun, it is a 20 year old design, and as such it have no use aboard a modern ship.
Also, i think i will increase the main belt at the cost of some deck armour. But i have no intention to downgrade the firepower to get more armour, as 20cm belt can withstand the 20-25cm artillery of armoured cruisers at around 60hm, and as i can never armour the ship to withstand the firepower of the latest battleships, to design against cruiser feels logical. Also the 30,5cm guns will punch trough the armour of any armoured cruiser in existence so despite not really being larger then older cruisers, she would be superior in every way.
Fair enough. 50mm would probably be adequate in this era...
On the secondaries - you should probably adjust them to be "below main deck" or whatever that option is.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 22, 2007, 08:51:02 AM
Fair enough. 50mm would probably be adequate in this era...
On the secondaries - you should probably adjust them to be "below main deck" or whatever that option is.
Oh, i will :)
Something like this, she would pretty much be a smaller, faster version of BB Jacob van Heemskerck.
Better vertical protection, worse horizontal armour.
BCX-2, Netherlands Battlecruiser laid down 1908 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
14 300 t light; 15 305 t standard; 17 425 t normal; 19 121 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
542,76 ft / 524,93 ft x 75,46 ft x 27,89 ft (normal load)
165,43 m / 160,00 m x 23,00 m x 8,50 m
Armament:
8 - 12,01" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 903,90lbs / 410,00kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
12 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 99,21lbs / 45,00kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
8 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
4 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns in single mounts, 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
4 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns in single mounts, 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side ends, evenly spread
4 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
Weight of broadside 8 580 lbs / 3 892 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 134
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8,27" / 210 mm 328,08 ft / 100,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ends: 2,95" / 75 mm 196,85 ft / 60,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 3,94" / 100 mm 328,08 ft / 100,00 m 7,87 ft / 2,40 m
Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8,66" / 220 mm 4,72" / 120 mm 7,28" / 185 mm
2nd: 3,54" / 90 mm - -
3rd: 0,98" / 25 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,13" / 54 mm, Conning tower: 9,84" / 250 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 48 000 shp / 35 808 Kw = 24,80 kts
Range 11 500nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 815 tons
Complement:
757 - 985
Cost:
£1,680 million / $6,721 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 041 tons, 6,0 %
Armour: 4 703 tons, 27,0 %
- Belts: 2 207 tons, 12,7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 1 264 tons, 7,3 %
- Armour Deck: 1 089 tons, 6,3 %
- Conning Tower: 143 tons, 0,8 %
Machinery: 2 182 tons, 12,5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6 074 tons, 34,9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 125 tons, 17,9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1,7 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
18 828 lbs / 8 540 Kg = 21,7 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 2,2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,13
Metacentric height 4,1 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 15,7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 55 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,73
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,13
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,552
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,96 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22,91 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 25,20 ft / 7,68 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20,34 ft / 6,20 m
- Mid (65 %): 20,34 ft / 6,20 m (12,47 ft / 3,80 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 12,47 ft / 3,80 m
- Stern: 12,47 ft / 3,80 m
- Average freeboard: 17,97 ft / 5,48 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 88,6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 124,9 %
Waterplane Area: 27 699 Square feet or 2 573 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 98 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 146 lbs/sq ft or 712 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,93
- Longitudinal: 1,81
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ahoj!
I like the B18-2 study.
Borys
Quote from: Borys on June 16, 2007, 06:29:25 AM
Ahoj!
I like the B18-2 study.
Borys
So did I ;D
So that study became the basis for the second Jacob van Heemskerck-class battleships (SS-report and picture under Battleships in the Netherlands section).
IMHO, one of the most powerful ships under construction or in service anywere in the world.
Quote from: Korpen on June 17, 2007, 06:45:33 AM
IMHO, one of the most powerful ships under construction or in service anywere in the world.
The KuKK agrees - and the next Schlachtschiff will be very similar ...
Borys
Quote from: Borys on June 17, 2007, 09:32:29 AM
The KuKK agrees - and the next Schlachtschiff will be very similar ...
Borys
Plagiarism, the highest form of praise ;)
I changed the picture of Leopold to one post-refit. (Mainly because it looks better in a strange sort of way).
One among many.
A potential candidate for the next stage in the upgrade of the battle line. The choice is to either build one of these ship (or something very much like it) or two 14kton battlecruisers, ships with a top speed of 25kts, 8x30cm guns and 21cm armour.
The argument for building a battleships is that it will likely be one of the most powerful vessels in the world, adding prestige to the Netherlands, but also that it together with the battleships under construction will for a new powerful core to the fleet.
There are some special details with the armour scheme, but details for those (and drawings) will wait until a ships is laid down.
(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9752/queenbeatrix2or0.png)
QuoteWilhelmina der Nederlanden, Netherlands BB laid down 1909
Displacement:
22 500 t light; 24 222 t standard; 26 175 t normal; 27 738 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
549,53 ft / 538,06 ft x 88,58 ft (Bulges 91,86 ft) x 28,41 ft (normal load)
167,50 m / 164,00 m x 27,00 m (Bulges 28,00 m) x 8,66 m
Armament:
10 - 13,78" / 350 mm guns (5x2 guns), 1 322,77lbs / 600,00kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
18 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52,91lbs / 24,00kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships, 6 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 14 180 lbs / 6 432 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13,0" / 330 mm 360,89 ft / 110,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ends: 3,35" / 85 mm 177,17 ft / 54,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 8,27" / 210 mm 360,89 ft / 110,00 m 8,20 ft / 2,50 m
Main Belt covers 103 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1,57" / 40 mm 360,89 ft / 110,00 m 29,36 ft / 8,95 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13,8" / 350 mm 7,09" / 180 mm 13,0" / 330 mm
2nd: 4,92" / 125 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,76" / 70 mm, Conning tower: 12,99" / 330 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 34 492 shp / 25 731 Kw = 21,10 kts
Range 8 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 516 tons
Complement:
1 028 - 1 337
Cost:
£2,480 million / $9,921 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 754 tons, 6,7 %
Armour: 9 760 tons, 37,3 %
- Belts: 3 988 tons, 15,2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 617 tons, 2,4 %
- Armament: 3 042 tons, 11,6 %
- Armour Deck: 1 866 tons, 7,1 %
- Conning Tower: 247 tons, 0,9 %
Machinery: 1 568 tons, 6,0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9 068 tons, 34,6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 675 tons, 14,0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 1,3 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
30 945 lbs / 14 036 Kg = 23,7 x 13,8 " / 350 mm shells or 5,2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
Metacentric height 5,0 ft / 1,5 m
Roll period: 17,3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 48 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,62
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,13
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,652
Length to Beam Ratio: 5,86 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,20 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 41
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24,61 ft / 7,50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Mid (65 %): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m (13,12 ft / 4,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Stern: 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Average freeboard: 17,04 ft / 5,20 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 94,5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 112,1 %
Waterplane Area: 36 591 Square feet or 3 399 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 179 lbs/sq ft or 876 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,47
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Any feedback, on design, layout or drawing is GREATLY appreciated!
The battlecruiser candidate (no drawing yet :(). They have excellent range, and unmatched sustained speed, making them excellent economy of force ships.
However, their guns lack the punch of the battleship, and their armour leaves quite allot to be desired. The upper belt is in fact more an extension of the main belt, and it does not protect the secondary's.
Both classes under consideration reverts to 12cm secondaries, as that allows more barrels to be carried, as well as offering a higher ROF, to despite the less destructive shells, the close in defence effect should be increased.
QuoteType XXXI, Netherlands BC laid down 1909
Displacement:
14 008 t light; 15 037 t standard; 17 050 t normal; 18 660 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
541,83 ft / 541,83 ft x 75,46 ft x 26,90 ft (normal load)
165,15 m / 165,15 m x 23,00 m x 8,20 m
Armament:
8 - 12,01" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 903,90lbs / 410,00kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
16 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52,91lbs / 24,00kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 8 078 lbs / 3 664 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
1 - 17,7" / 450 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8,27" / 210 mm 328,08 ft / 100,00 m 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
Ends: 2,95" / 75 mm 213,71 ft / 65,14 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 5,91" / 150 mm 328,08 ft / 100,00 m 6,04 ft / 1,84 m
Main Belt covers 93 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8,27" / 210 mm 4,72" / 120 mm 7,09" / 180 mm
- Armour deck: 2,13" / 54 mm, Conning tower: 5,91" / 150 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 48 000 shp / 35 808 Kw = 25,00 kts
Range 11 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 623 tons
Complement:
745 - 969
Cost:
£1,612 million / $6,446 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 971 tons, 5,7 %
Armour: 4 365 tons, 25,6 %
- Belts: 2 102 tons, 12,3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 1 064 tons, 6,2 %
- Armour Deck: 1 114 tons, 6,5 %
- Conning Tower: 84 tons, 0,5 %
Machinery: 2 182 tons, 12,8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6 165 tons, 36,2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 042 tons, 17,8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 325 tons, 1,9 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
17 701 lbs / 8 029 Kg = 20,4 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 2,2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
Metacentric height 3,9 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 16,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 54 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,72
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,07
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,543
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,18 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,28 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
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: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Mid (60 %): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m (13,12 ft / 4,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Stern: 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Average freeboard: 16,67 ft / 5,08 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 88,8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 117,0 %
Waterplane Area: 28 335 Square feet or 2 632 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 148 lbs/sq ft or 722 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,57
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Again, all kinds of feedback would be warmly welcomed.
The French point of view on the Wilhelmina der Nederlanden proposal.
The long range and high speed of these ships have advantages for a large widespread empire as the Netherlands. But it sacrifices the ability to take a punch and keep on going. Especialy because the oil firing. Coal fired ships have a larger damage soak capacity.
The stepped hull and the low positively angled bow are invitations for green water over the bow, and therefor over the forward main guns.
The wet forward is compounded by the "adequate" room for everything.
It's like living in an appartment for a family, but then with 4 adults. The wet forward and the fact everybody and thing has "just" enough space combined with the long range will wreak havoc on the crew moral.
It's unimaginable that a modern French Marine National vessel doesn't have things like individual heads for the officers rooms. Just to give an example.
The business end of this large ship, the main guns. All 10 of them. There is a distinct advantage by having a lot of large guns.
But isn't this offset by raising the B and Y turrets? It means a huge slab of armor rises trough the armor deck. To what benefit, having a 4 gun straight forward or astern line of fire. With a course change of 25° all deck level guns, from bow to stern can engage. Just a swing of the rudder, or 100's of tons of expensive, exposed magazine waiting to be hit.
But the very feeble secundary, and only other guns, the strange sized 120mm casemated peashooters are to small to engage cruisers, and to large to keep dedicated torpedo boat attacks at bay.
Well the Battleship can probably stand up to most vessels in the world or on the drawing board at present. The Battlecruiser is by default flawed just because of how it is intended to perform its primary function (scouting with enough firepower to be able to kill anything, or run if it can't) using battleship guns and better than most armored cruiser's speeds (actually better than most any cruiser's speed when the idea was put forth).
Current battlecruiser designs are not true battlecruisers but more like fast battleships. They just don't have the speed to run down Swiss Cruisers or even the Swiss Super Cruisers, and once the Constitutions get converted to Oil firing... Waste of money in my opinion. You either build a BC or you don't.
Quote from: Ithekro on August 12, 2007, 08:58:46 PM
Well the Battleship can probably stand up to most vessels in the world or on the drawing board at present. The Battlecruiser is by default flawed just because of how it is intended to perform its primary function (scouting with enough firepower to be able to kill anything, or run if it can't) using battleship guns and better than most armored cruiser's speeds (actually better than most any cruiser's speed when the idea was put forth).
Well I do not consider the concept flawed, the armour of the ships are enough to withstand the secondaries of enemy battleships and mains of enemy armoured cruisers leavening the fight to be one of main guns, and she packs more large guns then all but the most modern battleships. With her speed over extended distances, they would be more then capable to avoid those. Also the speed allows them to close with more heavily armoured ships, cutting the distance to a range were both ships guns have an equal chance of penetrating the other sides armour. They are not scouts, they are main line ships.
Quote from: Desertfox on August 12, 2007, 09:10:38 PM
Current battlecruiser designs are not true battlecruisers but more like fast battleships. They just don't have the speed to run down Swiss Cruisers or even the Swiss Super Cruisers, and once the Constitutions get converted to Oil firing... Waste of money in my opinion. You either build a BC or you don't.
Well the few remaining Swiss cruisers are outside rules so nothing can be done about them speed wise, and these BCs are capable to outfight every Swiss ships afloat, with the possible exception of one of the ex-orange ships.
And giving the constitutions oil firing will not really increase their speed by any significant amount, at most you could get about 1kts more out of them, if you change the turbines as well (and they are still afloat by then). And with only half the real firepower, they would not be much of a match for a ship with twice as many main guns.
I think that in both cases, a slight increase in size (~5-10%) would probably allow for improved characteristics such as steadiness and higher freeboard. Considering that you will probably have these ships in operation for twenty years or more, I'd recommend you make the most of them.
The deck break on your designs ought to be around 2.4 - 2.5 metres, not 2.0 metres, as it implies either complicated internal arrangements or a crew of vertically challenged Dutchmen.
I think the BC is, in fact, a true battlecruiser - although smaller than Invincible, her protection, armament, and speed are comparable. The secondaries are fine with me - they ought to be heavy enough and with sufficient rate of fire to take out torpedo-boats. If a cruiser is the problem, that's what the main battery or cruiser escorts are for.
On the whole, I'd be thinking of two battlecruisers for the NEI area before I went with a battleship, but ask me after the war is over.
QuoteThey just don't have the speed to run down Swiss Cruisers or even the Swiss Super Cruisers
This is only a problem if any of the Swiss cruisers or super cruisers survive the current war; two have already been sunk.
Quote from: Desertfox on August 12, 2007, 09:10:38 PM
Current battlecruiser designs are not true battlecruisers but more like fast battleships. They just don't have the speed to run down Swiss Cruisers or even the Swiss Super Cruisers, and once the Constitutions get converted to Oil firing... Waste of money in my opinion. You either build a BC or you don't.
There won't be any more 'Swiss Super Cruisers' very soon. I could easily have a design ready by Dec 1909 that will be the equal of any of them. In fact, MOST nations can do that now. And since the ability to have that kind of SHP isn't available to anyone anymore until they get the requisite engine tech... well, they are like as not a dead breed.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 13, 2007, 06:12:57 AM
I think that in both cases, a slight increase in size (~5-10%) would probably allow for improved characteristics such as steadiness and higher freeboard. Considering that you will probably have these ships in operation for twenty years or more, I'd recommend you make the most of them.
That is were the devil is, as when all the big stuff is put into the design, just a little bit tonnage will allow you to put on just the extra armour you want, or increase the freeboard just so much...
And then I am looking at a 18kton design...
So I did restrict myself to 14kton as that is the max I think I can afford, two such ships will eat up more then half my BPs under their construction.
Then again, just one or two hundred ton extra cannot hurt much...
QuoteThe deck break on your designs ought to be around 2.4 - 2.5 metres, not 2.0 metres, as it implies either complicated internal arrangements or a crew of vertically challenged Dutchmen.
Neither design got any hull break, they are both flushed deck, but with a raising hull line.
QuoteI think the BC is, in fact, a true battlecruiser - although smaller than Invincible, her protection, armament, and speed are comparable. The secondaries are fine with me - they ought to be heavy enough and with sufficient rate of fire to take out torpedo-boats. If a cruiser is the problem, that's what the main battery or cruiser escorts are for.
So far 12cm guns have been quite effective against enemy TBs, and the smaller calibre allows for more barrels, something considered more valuable then weight of shell.
Quote from: maddox on August 12, 2007, 08:38:57 PM
The French point of view on the Wilhelmina der Nederlanden proposal.
The long range and high speed of these ships have advantages for a large widespread empire as the Netherlands. But it sacrifices the ability to take a punch and keep on going. Especialy because the oil firing. Coal fired ships have a larger damage soak capacity.
Maybe, but the ships are intended mainly for Asian service, were there are plenty of oil and refineries, but very little good coal close by, so the oil firing is dictated mainly be the greater fuel security it offers.
QuoteThe stepped hull and the low positively angled bow are invitations for green water over the bow, and therefor over the forward main guns.
The wet forward is compounded by the "adequate" room for everything.
It's like living in an appartment for a family, but then with 4 adults. The wet forward and the fact everybody and thing has "just" enough space combined with the long range will wreak havoc on the crew moral.
It's unimaginable that a modern French Marine National vessel doesn't have things like individual heads for the officers rooms. Just to give an example.
The ships is not particularly wet, and the quite substantial flare (not visible on the drawing) will hopefully help prevent the flooding of the turrets. And compared to what hardy Dutch sailors are used to, she will be like a fist class liner when it comes to accommodations!
But a more angled bow should defiantly be taken under consideration.
QuoteThe business end of this large ship, the main guns. All 10 of them. There is a distinct advantage by having a lot of large guns.
But isn't this offset by raising the B and Y turrets? It means a huge slab of armor rises trough the armor deck. To what benefit, having a 4 gun straight forward or astern line of fire. With a course change of 25° all deck level guns, from bow to stern can engage. Just a swing of the rudder, or 100's of tons of expensive, exposed magazine waiting to be hit.
The main advantage of the raised turrets are not for/aft firing arcs, but the fact that is allows for a shorter, better protected citadel. Putting all five turrets flush with the deck would require a 20m longer citadel, and about 20% less armour on it, something the less weight in barbarette armour do not compensate. Also it would require a longer hull, and then the ships would no longer be able to use existing facilities in the Dutch NOI bases.
Quote
But the very feeble secundary, and only other guns, the strange sized 120mm casemated peashooters are to small to engage cruisers, and to large to keep dedicated torpedo boat attacks at bay.
Peashooters work well against tin ships. ;)
Thanks allot for the feedback, i love it ;)
QuoteThere won't be any more 'Swiss Super Cruisers' very soon. I could easily have a design ready by Dec 1909 that will be the equal of any of them. In fact, MOST nations can do that now. And since the ability to have that kind of SHP isn't available to anyone anymore until they get the requisite engine tech... well, they are like as not a dead breed.
True, but the jump from a Constitution to an Invincible is a lot less than the jump from S&G to Invincible. The current BCs being built just don't have the edge required. Replace S&G with Consti & Alliance at the Falkands, and it might just end with a German victory.
I don't know - DKB-Scharnhorst seems to have had the necessary edge on them.
The Dutch design trades armor for firepower compared to Alliance/Connie, and are probably around equalish. Question will be whether designing against Swiss supercruisers is the appropriate course for the Dutch in 1909.
Well there are still the Firanji Super Cruisers if the Swiss ones are nuetralized.
Given recent rhetoric, I reckon the Dutch should design their battlecruisers with one eye on the latest Iberian armored cruisers.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 13, 2007, 12:23:46 PM
Given recent rhetoric, I reckon the Dutch should design their battlecruisers with one eye on the latest Iberian armored cruisers.
Actually, that is what I have done.
The most likely opponents for the Netherlands (apart from the New Swiss) are after all the Swiss-aligned powers, Iberia and Oranje.
The BCs are equal the the Iberian ships in speed and armour, and superior in firepower.
How do they line up compared to Orange designs? I recall a fairly fast battleship being planned.
It's interesting that the trend at the moment is for battlecruisers in the 14,000 to 16,000 t (light range) - Scharnhorst, Shadowfax, this one...meanwhile, I'm only contemplating something in the 24,000 t (light) range.
Incidently - is that single torpedo tube on the battlecruiser intentional, or accidental?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 13, 2007, 12:46:53 PM
How do they line up compared to Orange designs? I recall a fairly fast battleship being planned.
It's interesting that the trend at the moment is for battlecruisers in the 14,000 to 16,000 t (light range) - Scharnhorst, Shadowfax, this one...meanwhile, I'm only contemplating something in the 24,000 t (light) range.
Incidently - is that single torpedo tube on the battlecruiser intentional, or accidental?
It is intentional, it is a pure coup-the-crace weapon, as a pair of BC might be called on to operate in a more independent role, so there might not be a TB available to put a torpedo or two into a enemy ship crippled by gunfire.
Far as I know Oranje have one 23kts BB under construction, and yes that ship could defeat a BC, but as it is 8000ton larger, anything else would be surprising.
Wilhelmina would be the response to that ship, as she got a massive advantage in firepower.
Yes, boring me, one more design.
But I have been having some real trouble deciding on how the armour should be distributed on this ship. After some thinking I have narrowed it down to three alternative distributions of the belts. All three alternative have identical weight.
Compared to earlier designs range have been cut, this is due to the fairly shallow belt. A large difference in draft as the ships is using up fuel is seen as a risk as it mean that the belt might risk being submerged while close to full load, or exposed if much of the bunkers are empty.
Armour scheme 1: The one I am favouring at the moment. The 26cm main belt does offer adequate protection against most guns carried by armoured cruisers, at can stop 30cm+ shells at long range. The 127mm upper belt offer good protection against light and medium calibre fire, as well as aiding enormously in the protection of the deck. Without an upper belt, the fairly thin deck is horribly exposed. In all the scheme is considered a good compromise, giving adequate protected volume cover against a multitude of threats.
Armour scheme 2: Thickening the fairly narrow main belt to 30cm, but only leaving 5cm splinter protection for the upper belt. Probably the beast layout for a knife edge fight against enemy battleships, but due to the narrow belt and quite small protected volume she is much more vulnerable to massed medium calibre fire, as well as longer range heavy guns due to the pretty no-existent cover of the deck afforded by the thin upper belt. It also gives less extra protection to the barbarettes.
Armour scheme 3: The other extreme, 225mm main belt and 192mm upper belt.
This scheme optimize performance against smaller ships by maximising her protection against the guns carried by armoured cruisers and smaller ship (<24cm), it also give a much needed extra protection to the barbarettes. However it is suffering from an inability to protect against heavier shells at anything but the most extreme of ranges, and it can be penetrated by smaller guns at short range.
Type XXXI, Netherlands BC laid down 1909
(http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/1549/typexxiimw3.png)
Displacement:
15 000 t light; 16 044 t standard; 17 755 t normal; 19 124 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
566,27 ft / 566,27 ft x 76,77 ft x 27,17 ft (normal load)
172,60 m / 172,60 m x 23,40 m x 8,28 m
Armament:
8 - 12,01" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 903,90lbs / 410,00kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
16 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52,91lbs / 24,00kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
2 - 0,59" / 15,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,10lbs / 0,05kg shells, 1909 Model
Machine guns in casemate mounts
on side, all aft
2 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
1 - 1,97" / 50,0 mm guns in single mounts, 3,81lbs / 1,73kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing gun in casemate mount
on centreline aft
1 gun in hull casemate - Limited use in all but light seas
Weight of broadside 8 082 lbs / 3 666 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour scheme 1
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10,2" / 260 mm 331,36 ft / 101,00 m 12,30 ft / 3,75 m
Ends: 2,95" / 75 mm 234,91 ft / 71,60 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 5,00" / 127 mm 331,36 ft / 101,00 m 6,63 ft / 2,02 m
Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length
Armour scheme 2
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11,8" / 300 mm 331,36 ft / 101,00 m 12,30 ft / 3,75 m
Ends: 2,95" / 75 mm 234,91 ft / 71,60 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 2,07" / 53 mm 331,36 ft / 101,00 m 6,63 ft / 2,02 m
Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length
Armour scheme 3
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8,86" / 225 mm 331,36 ft / 101,00 m 12,30 ft / 3,75 m
Ends: 2,95" / 75 mm 234,91 ft / 71,60 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 7,56" / 192 mm 331,36 ft / 101,00 m 6,63 ft / 2,02 m
Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8,66" / 220 mm 4,72" / 120 mm 7,48" / 190 mm
2nd: 0,98" / 25 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,01" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 5,91" / 150 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 48 003 shp / 35 810 Kw = 25,00 kts
Range 9 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 080 tons
Complement:
768 - 999
Cost:
£1,647 million / $6,587 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 972 tons, 5,5 %
Armour: 4 940 tons, 27,8 %
- Belts: 2 563 tons, 14,4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 1 188 tons, 6,7 %
- Armour Deck: 1 102 tons, 6,2 %
- Conning Tower: 87 tons, 0,5 %
Machinery: 2 182 tons, 12,3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6 587 tons, 37,1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 755 tons, 15,5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 320 tons, 1,8 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
19 893 lbs / 9 023 Kg = 23,0 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 2,4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
Metacentric height 4,0 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 16,1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 58 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,74
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,21
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,526
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,38 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,80 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
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: 26,25 ft / 8,00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 21,33 ft / 6,50 m (20,34 ft / 6,20 m aft of break)
- Mid (67 %): 16,73 ft / 5,10 m (13,45 ft / 4,10 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13,45 ft / 4,10 m
- Stern: 13,45 ft / 4,10 m
- Average freeboard: 17,82 ft / 5,43 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84,7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 126,1 %
Waterplane Area: 29 673 Square feet or 2 757 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 149 lbs/sq ft or 729 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,94
- Longitudinal: 1,58
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
EDIT: Borys got the idea, I am looking for suggestions on what scheme to use.
Dreadnaught Gunned Armoured Cruiser
Scheme III
F the ship is to face 9"-gunned ACs, sheme III.0
If battleships are not out of the question, I'd prefer Scheme II with at least 3" upper armor (against 6" shells). Save that, scheme I offers thicker main belt which can defeat 12" guns at range. 7.5" armor might not do much against large caliber shells.
And I'd shorten the ship by 2.66m to fit in the NOI drydocks, even if it costs 0.2 or 0.3 knots.
Why do you have the machine guns and other very light weapons in lowered casemate mounts?
Quote from: Ithekro on August 23, 2007, 06:21:03 PM
Why do you have the machine guns and other very light weapons in lowered casemate mounts?
Point-blank close in defence, and just maybe of some use as anti torpedo guns. All those guns are mounted in the stern, so it is hoped that they can be used against ships or torpedos closing from the rear.
Ahoj!
Regardless of armour scheme used, the conning tower sould be 10+ inches.
For period flavour.
Borys
Hmmm Lion style. Looks like I'll have to find another main gun arrangement for my planned Independance class BCs.
Ahoj!
A benefit of this ship is that it is cheap.
Borys
Willem Janszson-class BC
(http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/7219/15ktonbc2sn3.th.png) (http://img107.imageshack.us/my.php?image=15ktonbc2sn3.png)
The drawing need more work with details such as the ships boats...
Willem Janszson, Netherlands Armoured frigate laid down 1909
Displacement:
15 300 t light; 16 350 t standard; 18 085 t normal; 19 473 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
592,33 ft / 578,74 ft x 77,26 ft x 27,23 ft (normal load)
180,54 m / 176,40 m x 23,55 m x 8,30 m
Armament:
8 - 12,01" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 903,90lbs / 410,00kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
16 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52,91lbs / 24,00kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
2 - 0,59" / 15,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,10lbs / 0,05kg shells, 1909 Model
Machine guns in casemate mounts
on centreline, all aft
2 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
1 - 1,97" / 50,0 mm guns in single mounts, 3,81lbs / 1,73kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing gun in casemate mount
on centreline aft
1 gun in hull casemate - Limited use in all but light seas
Weight of broadside 8 082 lbs / 3 666 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9,92" / 252 mm 331,36 ft / 101,00 m 12,30 ft / 3,75 m
Ends: 2,95" / 75 mm 247,38 ft / 75,40 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 5,12" / 130 mm 331,36 ft / 101,00 m 6,56 ft / 2,00 m
Main Belt covers 88 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9,84" / 250 mm 4,92" / 125 mm 8,27" / 210 mm
2nd: 1,77" / 45 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,01" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 9,45" / 240 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 48 008 shp / 35 814 Kw = 25,00 kts
Range 9 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 123 tons
Complement:
779 - 1 013
Cost:
£1,657 million / $6,629 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 972 tons, 5,4 %
Armour: 5 106 tons, 28,2 %
- Belts: 2 532 tons, 14,0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 1 307 tons, 7,2 %
- Armour Deck: 1 127 tons, 6,2 %
- Conning Tower: 140 tons, 0,8 %
Machinery: 2 182 tons, 12,1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6 720 tons, 37,2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 785 tons, 15,4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 320 tons, 1,8 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
20 422 lbs / 9 263 Kg = 23,6 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 2,5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
Metacentric height 4,1 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 16,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 57 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,68
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,21
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,520
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,49 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24,06 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6,56 ft / 2,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26,25 ft / 8,00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 21,33 ft / 6,50 m (20,34 ft / 6,20 m aft of break)
- Mid (60 %): 16,73 ft / 5,10 m (13,45 ft / 4,10 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13,45 ft / 4,10 m
- Stern: 13,45 ft / 4,10 m
- Average freeboard: 17,45 ft / 5,32 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 83,2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 123,0 %
Waterplane Area: 30 341 Square feet or 2 819 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 103 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 150 lbs/sq ft or 731 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,49
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Feedback appreciated! :)
Well its a good solid cruiser to be sure. My opinion I suspect is the same as last time / if said anything before.
Armor is good for smaller guns or long range fire, secondaries are numberous but they are light. Range is her best selling point; excellent ship for cruising.
Michael
not a bad ship i rather like it. if i wasnt refusing to build BCs id proly build somthing similar
Why does it have two 15mm guns and one 50 mm gun, all in casemates?
Quote from: Ithekro on November 26, 2007, 05:13:22 PM
Why does it have two 15mm guns and one 50 mm gun, all in casemates?
AH, thanks, I knew I had forgotten something on the drawing.
All three weapons is mounted in the stern, intended for close in defence against enemy TBs, and possibly the torpedoes themself.
An enemy closing from behind have to get VERY close to be able to fire, so close in fact that the other weapons might be masked (as in less then 500m).
I see the ship is flush-decked with decks sloped aft. I'd say the belt armor should follow the deck lines, and not have that ugly gap between the upper edge and the freeboard. Upper belt should also be 2.8-3m deep, even if 4" thick (based on ~5m freeboard amidship)
Thin the main belt down to 9" to compensate for the weight increase.
I'd put an extra inch of armor on the turret face, as it should be always facing the enemy unlike the belt (not if you decrease MB thickness).
Quote from: P3D on November 26, 2007, 05:42:20 PM
I see the ship is flush-decked with decks sloped aft. I'd say the belt armor should follow the deck lines, and not have that ugly gap between the upper edge and the freeboard. Upper belt should also be 2.8-3m deep, even if 4" thick (based on ~5m freeboard amidship)
Thin the main belt down to 9" to compensate for the weight increase.
If it was a traditional upper belt, then yes, I agree with you. But on this ship the upper belt is more an extension of the main belt then anything else, in fact, i think i will split the upper belt in two, and place half of it under the main belt, and then raise the entire belt half a meter. That would give the belt a depth of 2,25m below the waterline and 3,5m above.
QuoteI'd put an extra inch of armor on the turret face, as it should be always facing the enemy unlike the belt (not if you decrease MB thickness).
Well the 25cm she got should be able to stop a soft-capped 30,5cm shell at around 9000m, so I think it is enough, and not worth scarifying main belt to improve.
No picture as it is mainly a study of how close to the Lion one can get.
Modell fem, Netherlands Frigatte laid down 1909
Displacement:
17 856 t light; 18 997 t standard; 20 312 t normal; 21 364 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
688,98 ft / 688,98 ft x 75,46 ft x 27,30 ft (normal load)
210,00 m / 210,00 m x 23,00 m x 8,32 m
Armament:
8 - 13,78" / 350 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1 308,20lbs / 593,39kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 3,94" / 100 mm guns in single mounts, 37,48lbs / 17,00kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships, 14 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 11 065 lbs / 5 019 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 118
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9,45" / 240 mm 394,03 ft / 120,10 m 15,58 ft / 4,75 m
Ends: 2,05" / 52 mm 294,95 ft / 89,90 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Main Belt covers 88 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9,84" / 250 mm 3,94" / 100 mm 8,66" / 220 mm
2nd: 1,97" / 50 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,01" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 7,87" / 200 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 48 000 shp / 35 808 Kw = 25,00 kts
Range 6 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2 367 tons
Complement:
849 - 1 105
Cost:
£2,081 million / $8,322 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 369 tons, 6,7 %
Armour: 5 574 tons, 27,4 %
- Belts: 2 708 tons, 13,3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 1 452 tons, 7,1 %
- Armour Deck: 1 288 tons, 6,3 %
- Conning Tower: 126 tons, 0,6 %
Machinery: 2 182 tons, 10,7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8 400 tons, 41,4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 456 tons, 12,1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 330 tons, 1,6 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
20 815 lbs / 9 442 Kg = 15,9 x 13,8 " / 350 mm shells or 2,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,05
Metacentric height 3,6 ft / 1,1 m
Roll period: 16,7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 54 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,97
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,09
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,501
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,13 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26,25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 41 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
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: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 15,75 ft / 4,80 m
- Mid (50 %): 15,75 ft / 4,80 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15,75 ft / 4,80 m
- Stern: 15,75 ft / 4,80 m
- Average freeboard: 16,06 ft / 4,90 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87,9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 122,5 %
Waterplane Area: 34 669 Square feet or 3 221 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 164 lbs/sq ft or 800 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,99
- Longitudinal: 1,07
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
She is as fast as it is possible to make a larger ship (and the thing i wanted to try).
Ahoj!
To sim the HSM Lion I think you should use 1250 lbs shells.
Borys
Quote from: Borys on December 14, 2007, 07:11:46 AM
Ahoj!
To sim the HSM Lion I think you should use 1250 lbs shells.
Borys
Sure, and 343mm guns.
Think of it more like an attempt to sim the spirit of Lion. :)
OK - the spirit was simmed :)
Borys
I've never seen a simmed spirt before, she looks purty.
A new sloop for independent trade protection duties at the high seas. Some range had to be sacrificed to keep the speed close to acceptable (alos the reason for the ridiculously low BC, but that is what HP limitations does), TBs have been dispensed with as the risk from mines and torpedoes are miniscule for a ship in her role.
Design 1047, Kingdom Trade protection sloop laid down 1912
Displacement:
17 850 t light; 19 019 t standard; 20 830 t normal; 22 280 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
721,78 ft / 721,78 ft x 75,46 ft x 27,89 ft (normal load)
220,00 m / 220,00 m x 23,00 m x 8,50 m
Armament:
6 - 13,78" / 350 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1 322,77lbs / 600,00kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52,91lbs / 24,00kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 8 783 lbs / 3 984 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 151
4 - 17,7" / 450 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7,09" / 180 mm 433,07 ft / 132,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ends: 3,15" / 80 mm 288,68 ft / 87,99 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9,84" / 250 mm 4,72" / 120 mm 7,87" / 200 mm
2nd: 1,77" / 45 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,36" / 60 mm, Conning tower: 9,84" / 250 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 80 000 shp / 59 680 Kw = 28,67 kts
Range 9 515nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 261 tons
Complement:
866 - 1 127
Cost:
£1,984 million / $7,936 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 087 tons, 5,2 %
Armour: 4 884 tons, 23,4 %
- Belts: 2 034 tons, 9,8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 1 132 tons, 5,4 %
- Armour Deck: 1 558 tons, 7,5 %
- Conning Tower: 161 tons, 0,8 %
Machinery: 3 190 tons, 15,3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8 370 tons, 40,2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 980 tons, 14,3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 320 tons, 1,5 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
21 449 lbs / 9 729 Kg = 16,4 x 13,8 " / 350 mm shells or 2,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,12
Metacentric height 4,0 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 15,8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 55 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,75
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,10
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,480
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26,87 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
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: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- 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: 16,67 ft / 5,08 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 92,0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 124,0 %
Waterplane Area: 35 643 Square feet or 3 311 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 103 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 156 lbs/sq ft or 762 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,99
- Longitudinal: 1,03
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
The BC is rather low, as you say.
What're the torpedoes for? Aren't they just a liability on a ship apparently tailored for long-range shooting?
And why is this a sloop, rather than an armored frigate?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on February 20, 2008, 06:32:50 AM
The BC is rather low, as you say.
range shooting?
Not at all, even if they would explode (unlikely, even in the event of a direct hit), just two torpedoes will not cause much damage.
They are there for the simple reason that is takes excessive amounts of shells to get an enemy ship from "crippled (by gunfire)" to "sunk", and as the ship is intended to operate independently, there will be no Destroyers about to fullfill the mission of torpedoing crippled enemy ships.
QuoteAnd why is this a sloop, rather than an armored frigate?
As she is intended for trade protection.
Battlecruiser, meh.
350mm battleship guns seem excessive to me for the described role. Heck, the 250mm ones I'm planning to put in my equivalent are kinda big for it, I think.
Was able to squeeze out a bit more speed, increased it to 29kts.
Had to sacrifice a bit of range, which is a serious drawback but as about 29kts is the minimum speed for the ship to be able to fulfil its basic function, it will have to be acceptable.
Design 1048, Kingdom Trade protection sloop laid down 1912
Displacement:
17 332 t light; 18 382 t standard; 19 930 t normal; 21 168 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
721,78 ft / 721,78 ft x 75,46 ft x 29,53 ft (normal load)
220,00 m / 220,00 m x 23,00 m x 9,00 m
Armament:
6 - 13,78" / 350 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1 322,77lbs / 600,00kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52,91lbs / 24,00kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 8 783 lbs / 3 984 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 131
4 - 17,7" / 450 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7,09" / 180 mm 449,48 ft / 137,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ends: 2,76" / 70 mm 272,31 ft / 83,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8,66" / 220 mm 3,94" / 100 mm 7,09" / 180 mm
2nd: 0,98" / 25 mm - -
- Armour deck: 1,97" / 50 mm, Conning tower: 5,91" / 150 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 80 041 shp / 59 711 Kw = 28,99 kts
Range 8 200nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2 786 tons
Complement:
838 - 1 090
Cost:
£1,966 million / $7,865 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 087 tons, 5,5 %
Armour: 4 342 tons, 21,8 %
- Belts: 2 025 tons, 10,2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 974 tons, 4,9 %
- Armour Deck: 1 249 tons, 6,3 %
- Conning Tower: 94 tons, 0,5 %
Machinery: 3 191 tons, 16,0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8 392 tons, 42,1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 598 tons, 13,0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 320 tons, 1,6 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
19 842 lbs / 9 000 Kg = 15,2 x 13,8 " / 350 mm shells or 2,1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,12
Metacentric height 4,0 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 15,8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 54 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,76
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,12
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,434
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26,87 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
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: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- 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: 16,67 ft / 5,08 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95,5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 123,3 %
Waterplane Area: 34 298 Square feet or 3 186 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 159 lbs/sq ft or 776 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,98
- Longitudinal: 1,16
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
QuoteBlock coefficient: 0,434
Wow!! I'm well aware of the sacrifices that must be made in the pursuit of the "almighty knot" but that's a reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaally low BC for a 17k ship, no?
The Swiss lost the war, but they gained a convert. Now THAT is a ship any Swiss would be proud of. Blazing fast, heavy guns, and umm ah armor?
Quote from: Desertfox on February 21, 2008, 09:37:24 PM
The Swiss lost the war, but they gained a convert. Now THAT is a ship any Swiss would be proud of. Blazing fast, heavy guns, and umm ah armor?
Well, it is nothing that have not been in the planning for years, and i think i come to such designs from a very different angle then the Swiss.
Basically i will build such ships because I cannot afford to build smaller cruisers (4-5kton).
I thought the previous version's BC was on the low side, but this version is definitely far too low for my liking.
And I was told by someone that a BC of 0.500 is too low for a battlecruiser :P
Quote from: P3D on February 22, 2008, 11:55:36 AM
And I was told by someone that a BC of 0.500 is too low for a battlecruiser :P
I am not pretending that the some aspects of the ships make sense, but considering the rules some insane details in necessary to get sane capacity.
:)
A study in how a ship design primarily to butcher light cruisers and torpedo boats. Capable of sending more then 40 24cm shells towards the enemy every minute, it should be enough to rapidly put smaller cruisers and destroyers on the way to a date with Neptune. Unlike most Dutch ships and studies it is ship putting priority on "rain of steel", rather then weight of shell.
Not convinced by the concept, but it should be devastating against lightly (>10cm) armoured ships, and shrapnel volleys should shred torpedo boats quite nicely.
QuoteLC Killer, Netherlands Armoured frigate laid down 1912
Displacement:
16 007 t light; 16 987 t standard; 18 525 t normal; 19 756 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
606,11 ft / 592,52 ft x 77,10 ft x 27,23 ft (normal load)
184,74 m / 180,60 m x 23,50 m x 8,30 m
Armament:
15 - 9,45" / 240 mm guns (5x3 guns), 418,88lbs / 190,00kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 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, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
2 - 0,59" / 15,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,10lbs / 0,05kg shells, 1912 Model
Machine guns in casemate mounts
on centreline, all aft
2 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
1 - 1,97" / 50,0 mm guns in single mounts, 3,81lbs / 1,73kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing gun in casemate mount
on centreline aft
1 gun in hull casemate - Limited use in heavy seas
Weight of broadside 7 134 lbs / 3 236 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 17,7" / 450 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8,46" / 215 mm 330,05 ft / 100,60 m 12,30 ft / 3,75 m
Ends: 2,76" / 70 mm 262,47 ft / 80,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 4,92" / 125 mm 328,08 ft / 100,00 m 6,56 ft / 2,00 m
Main Belt covers 86 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9,84" / 250 mm 4,92" / 125 mm 8,27" / 210 mm
2nd: 1,77" / 45 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,52" / 64 mm, Conning tower: 9,45" / 240 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 65 219 shp / 48 654 Kw = 27,00 kts
Range 9 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2 769 tons
Complement:
793 - 1 032
Cost:
£1,678 million / $6,711 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 897 tons, 4,8 %
Armour: 5 415 tons, 29,2 %
- Belts: 2 245 tons, 12,1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 1 580 tons, 8,5 %
- Armour Deck: 1 447 tons, 7,8 %
- Conning Tower: 143 tons, 0,8 %
Machinery: 2 600 tons, 14,0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6 775 tons, 36,6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 518 tons, 13,6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 320 tons, 1,7 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
20 323 lbs / 9 218 Kg = 48,2 x 9,4 " / 240 mm shells or 2,4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,07
Metacentric height 3,8 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 16,5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 49 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,63
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,01
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,521
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,69 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24,34 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6,56 ft / 2,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26,25 ft / 8,00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 17,06 ft / 5,20 m
- Mid (60 %): 17,06 ft / 5,20 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17,06 ft / 5,20 m
- Stern: 17,06 ft / 5,20 m
- Average freeboard: 17,80 ft / 5,42 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85,2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 121,7 %
Waterplane Area: 31 037 Square feet or 2 883 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 147 lbs/sq ft or 717 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,96
- Longitudinal: 1,37
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
That would be hell on wheels in a close-quarters night fight.
Niiiiice. I take it that the main gun layout is a sort of reverse Agincourt? That is, Low-High-Low-Superstructure-High-Low? I ask because my first impression was of a baby Cross Mirage layout - Low-High-Bridge-Low-BoatShed-High-Low
Not enough guns... :P
Heck New Switzerland is probably building this: http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/kamina_f.htm (http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/kamina_f.htm)
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 13, 2008, 05:56:01 PM
That would be hell on wheels in a close-quarters night fight.
I know this might come as a shock, but it is a ship, it does not have weels...
Quote from: Valles on April 13, 2008, 09:13:34 PM
Niiiiice. I take it that the main gun layout is a sort of reverse Agincourt? That is, Low-High-Low-Superstructure-High-Low? I ask because my first impression was of a baby Cross Mirage layout - Low-High-Bridge-Low-BoatShed-High-Low
Would be easier to say that the arrangment would be like a broolyn-class light cruiser.
Quote from: Desertfox on April 13, 2008, 09:20:42 PM
Not enough guns... :P
Heck New Switzerland is probably building this: http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/kamina_f.htm (http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/kamina_f.htm)
That design only adds one main gun, and suffers from weapon shrinkage. ;)
Twin 8" turrets have a considerably higher ROF than triple 9.45" turrets... ;) Still it would be most impressive to have these two ships and the Gin Palace in a shootout!
Design that the Netherlands consider building in 1912, or more, likley 1913.
A very conventional battleships, speed is the same as the preceading class, protection increased a bit, mainly the horizontal armour.
(http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9357/bb1912hz4.png)
BB1912, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1912
Displacement:
23 500 t light; 25 367 t standard; 27 428 t normal; 29 077 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
557,74 ft / 557,74 ft x 88,58 ft (Bulges 95,14 ft) x 28,50 ft (normal load)
170,00 m / 170,00 m x 27,00 m (Bulges 29,00 m) x 8,69 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, 2 raised mounts - 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 raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 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, all raised mounts
8 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns in single mounts, 19,84lbs / 9,00kg shells, 1912 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 15 573 lbs / 7 064 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13,0" / 330 mm 341,21 ft / 104,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Ends: 3,35" / 85 mm 216,54 ft / 66,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Upper: 7,09" / 180 mm 341,21 ft / 104,00 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1,57" / 40 mm 341,21 ft / 104,00 m 29,36 ft / 8,95 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13,8" / 350 mm 7,09" / 180 mm 13,0" / 330 mm
2nd: 5,51" / 140 mm - -
3rd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
4th: 0,39" / 10 mm - -
- Armour deck: 3,62" / 92 mm, Conning tower: 12,99" / 330 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 35 000 shp / 26 110 Kw = 21,11 kts
Range 9 500nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3 709 tons
Complement:
1 065 - 1 385
Cost:
£2,541 million / $10,165 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 814 tons, 6,6 %
Armour: 9 979 tons, 36,4 %
- Belts: 3 918 tons, 14,3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 584 tons, 2,1 %
- Armament: 2 721 tons, 9,9 %
- Armour Deck: 2 501 tons, 9,1 %
- Conning Tower: 255 tons, 0,9 %
Machinery: 1 396 tons, 5,1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9 952 tons, 36,3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3 928 tons, 14,3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 360 tons, 1,3 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
33 526 lbs / 15 207 Kg = 20,0 x 15,0 " / 380 mm shells or 5,8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
Metacentric height 5,0 ft / 1,5 m
Roll period: 17,9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 55 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,65
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,25
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0,635
Length to Beam Ratio: 5,86 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 44
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: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m (16,40 ft / 5,00 m aft of break)
- Mid (69 %): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Stern: 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Average freeboard: 17,32 ft / 5,28 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 90,3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 109,5 %
Waterplane Area: 37 319 Square feet or 3 467 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 190 lbs/sq ft or 928 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,49
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
So, is she worth the ammout of steel she will cost?
Ahoj!
Nice, for 500 tonnes more than my Schlachtshiffe 1912 class you have almost 50% more firepower (5000 lbs versus 7228 lbs).
But isn't the fireplatform rating a bit low?
Borys
Quote from: Borys on April 22, 2008, 10:14:01 AM
Ahoj!
Nice, for 500 tonnes more than my Schlachtshiffe 1912 class you have almost 50% more firepower (5000 lbs versus 7228 lbs).
But isn't the fireplatform rating a bit low?
Borys
That should be Kg, not Lb ;)
Do not feel her steadness is on the low side, it is mor then what is avarage, and a 27kton ship is a steady platform in itself.
Alos increasing that would reduce stabillity, and that is already lower then I like.
A powerful ship, to be sure. How does she fit into your operational concepts - centrepiece for either NEI or Home Fleet, or part of your "trouble-shooting" squadron?
Actually, my goof was mutliplying by 4, not 8 :)
So the correct figures are 10000 vs 14456 lbs.
Borys
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 22, 2008, 10:49:12 AM
A powerful ship, to be sure. How does she fit into your operational concepts - centrepiece for either NEI or Home Fleet, or part of your "trouble-shooting" squadron?
Leader of the BB divison, despite not liking single-ship classes, i will build one BB and on Frigate more, allowing me to form three captial ship divisions each of three ships with identical speeds. So her function will basically be identical to the existing two BBs.
She will be your Superbe, then...
So that's three BB and six frigates planned?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 22, 2008, 11:28:25 AM
She will be your Superbe, then...
Unfourtanely yes.
I really dislike building a fleet of one-offs, but building one of each makes more sense at as that creates a better balance at the fleet level.
QuoteSo that's three BB and six frigates planned?
Yes, three frigates and two BBs is already in service, so four more ships will be built in the next few years.
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.
Quote from: P3D on April 22, 2008, 12:15:15 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: P3D on April 22, 2008, 11:55:32 PM
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)
My question is when were they developed, as they won't show up in the reports.
Type 1048
(http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/4559/willheminabcarbiteyg4.png)
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?
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
Quote from: Borys on May 13, 2008, 01:43:20 PM
Ahoj!
Well, you just made a dozen or more ships obsolete overnight :)
My, thank you :)
QuoteAin'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.
Quote from: P3D on April 23, 2008, 11:48:25 AM
My question is when were they developed, as they won't show up in the reports.
Gun development was secret, and started in 1909.
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%
Quote from: P3D on May 13, 2008, 02:00:01 PM
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).
Quote from: Korpen on May 13, 2008, 02:14:45 PM
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.
Quote from: P3D on May 13, 2008, 02:26:38 PM
Quote from: Korpen on May 13, 2008, 02:14:45 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: blooded on May 13, 2008, 02:35:14 PM
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.
Quote from: blooded on May 13, 2008, 02:35:14 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
She's got nice firepower, but poor aft firing arcs. Also a glass jaw if she engages even the 13.4" gun armed battleships. The 12" gunned vessels maybe have difficulty in penetrating the belt armor or deck armor. The 14" gunned warships shouldn't have much problem at "normal" combat ranges.
However the leap towards 15" guns will of cause lead to even larger guns...and thicker armor. The speed and range issue will be dependent on the countries tactical and strategic mindset I think. (Means Rohan will need to look into those 15.5" guns more seriously than before).
Hello,
QuoteThat 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.
First I heard of the secret research being abandoned. When was this and why are people still doing it?
What do you mean by 'hidden'. Gun research is research and should be listed and accounted for in the Research Section and budget of the report. Unless you are suggesting that it does not come from Research funding, if that is the case I'll be pissed as I have been funding guns from it since 1908.
Maybe there should be less 'Fog of War' in the reports. I am somewhat guilty as well since I don't list where I am getting some techs from and such. In trying to decipher others Reports, I cannot often account for where monies and such are coming from. We really don't scrutinize reports much, but when I have tried it is very easy to get lost.
QuoteThey lasted two years, but BP expansion gave me more research money midway.
I could find nothing in 1910(except for a very long term project). 1909 secrets(two) cost $0.5 and lasted 2 halves. There was some integrating secrets(two) in 1911 costing $0.5 and lasting 2 halves. So I can't see where it was done. ???
Quote from: blooded on May 13, 2008, 04:55:50 PM
Hello,
I could find nothing in 1910(except for a very long term project). 1909 secrets(two) cost $0.5 and lasted 2 halves. There was some integrating secrets(two) in 1911 costing $0.5 and lasting 2 halves. So I can't see where it was done. ???
It is because it was done in secret, it is not listed at all.
The more people spend on their big shiny toys, the more they lose when their ship eats fish. ;D
Now just imagine a dark stormy night, 8 inch guns at 10 paces...
I'm just wondering, how long untill Yamato appears? 4-5 years?
Quote from: Korpen on May 13, 2008, 08:37:08 PM
Quote from: blooded on May 13, 2008, 04:55:50 PM
Hello,
I could find nothing in 1910(except for a very long term project). 1909 secrets(two) cost $0.5 and lasted 2 halves. There was some integrating secrets(two) in 1911 costing $0.5 and lasting 2 halves. So I can't see where it was done. ???
It is because it was done in secret, it is not listed at all.
Basically, if you go through Korpen's HY reports for the last few years he always comes up a few $$ short. Money that was there, doesn't show up in the report, but it doesn't carry over either, this is his "Blackbook" budget. Same way DF built his "Secret" bases.
Also in a way like the Shadowfax/Arcadia was paid for and rebuilt starting earlier than what the news might suggest. The costs (at that time all based in tonnage) were spread out into other projects that forced them all to take a lot longer than normal (a 1,000 tons here, 500 tons there). All the funds were paid, just not in the open for various reasons. The end result looks clear and official...the path to get there was not quite so clear.
Quote from: Ithekro on May 13, 2008, 03:16:32 PM
She's got nice firepower, but poor aft firing arcs. Also a glass jaw if she engages even the 13.4" gun armed battleships. The 12" gunned vessels maybe have difficulty in penetrating the belt armor or deck armor. The 14" gunned warships shouldn't have much problem at "normal" combat ranges.
Much depends on what one considers "normal". Her belt should be able to stop 13,5" shells at 140hm/15 000 yards, and 356mm shells at 150hm / 16 500 yards. This is one reason for the large ammo load out, to be able to fire at long ranges without fear of running out of ammo.
Also at that kind of ranges her own guns will be able to defeat the armour of most battleships, either belts or deck, and in some (well, most) cases both.
So while she might have a bit of a glass jaw, her firepower is enough to punch trough the armour of battleship at any range were they can hurt her. And with their speed they is less likely to be for forced to fight under unfavourable conditions. :)
QuoteHowever the leap towards 15" guns will of cause lead to even larger guns...and thicker armor. The speed and range issue will be dependent on the countries tactical and strategic mindset I think. (Means Rohan will need to look into those 15.5" guns more seriously than before).
Quite possibly, but that is still a few years in the future.
Quote from: P3D on May 13, 2008, 02:40:45 PM
That secret research rule was abandoned.
It was?
Borys
Quote from: Desertfox on May 13, 2008, 08:44:08 PM
The more people spend on their big shiny toys, the more they lose when their ship eats fish. ;D
Well if done well, it is the other ones shiny toys that sink. ;)
QuoteNow just imagine a dark stormy night, 8 inch guns at 10 paces...
That is what torpedoes are for, effectively a 10 pace groin kick. But I can agree that at night everyone fight even.
QuoteI'm just wondering, how long untill Yamato appears? 4-5 years?
Nah, at least untill 1924, as 1919, as that is the earliest 45cm gun can see service, and it will take five years to build such an gigant. 8)
Btw, does anyone have any views on the internal layout, does it seems sensible?
So... we have HMS Hood running around. Kinda makes building anything anyone else has planned for the next 5 years a moot point, don't it.
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.
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.
A prime case for 'Speed is Waste'.
OTOH, cramming eight 380s into 25,000 tons with decent handling at those speeds is an impressive piece of design work no matter what one thinks of its guiding principles.
Quote from: Carthaginian on May 14, 2008, 09:57:38 AM
So... we have HMS Hood running around. Kinda makes building anything anyone else has planned for the next 5 years a moot point, don't it.
Interesting saw no such reactions to the french 38cm gunned ships.
But there is a risk i might have misunderstood you here.
QuoteWhile 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
QuoteConsidering 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.
Ahoj!
Korpen, I beleive you are a bit too optimistic as to the 9,8" belt keeping out 13,5" shells at 15K yards. At Skagerrak didn't the German battlecruisers inflict damage on the British ships with smaller guns, and at greater range?
Yes, it is MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - my Seven Turret Wonder has double the chance of hitting your eggshell with sledghammer than vice versa - due to sheer number of shells put in the air.
Borys
Quote from: Borys on May 14, 2008, 01:46:09 PM
Ahoj!
Korpen, I beleive you are a bit too optimistic as to the 9,8" belt keeping out 13,5" shells at 15K yards. At Skagerrak didn't the German battlecruisers inflict damage on the British ships with smaller guns, and at greater range?
The inclination does give about 25mm more effective protection; but i checked again, was optimistic, 16 500 -17k yards is proof against 13,5 inch shells.
The range at Skagerack was about the same (14km) but the armour was thinner.
QuoteYes, it is MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - my Seven Turret Wonder has double the chance of hitting your eggshell with sledghammer than vice versa - due to sheer number of shells put in the air.
Borys
Well, all other thing equal, the larger gun is slightly more accurate. But i grant you rain of shell have its advantages, and the shorter the range the greater the advantage! Your turret park I death to everything below 9km.
My ship is a compromise to fulfil my operational requirement, and aiming for a heavy gun long range fighter seems to me to be the most cost-effective and flexible way of doing things. And it is in line with my previous designs.
QuoteSo... we have HMS Hood running around. Kinda makes building anything anyone else has planned for the next 5 years a moot point, don't it.
Well, I guess that it is a good thing for me that, unlike Wesworld where I have planned everything up to 1940 and roughly planned everything up to 1943, I have absolutely nothing planned for Japan here in the couple of years and I pretty much plan ship construction when I start creating the next report.
QuoteI'm just wondering, how long untill Yamato appears? 4-5 years?
You do not have to wait that long for it. Yamato is going to be laid down next quarter. :)
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg240/WvRooijen/Wesworld/IJN/Yamato.png)
Picture is a slightly modified version of CanisD's picture of his hypothetical fast Yamato. Used with his permission.Oh wait! This is
Navalism, not Wesworld. :D
But seriously, if you have looked at the Japanese ship list, you know that the Yamato and the Musashi already exists. And to properly give an answer to your question,
THE Yamato and
THE Musashi will appear when
I want to build it and no sooner. Any other vessel like Yamato will just be a cheap immitation of the Real Deal. :)
... and anyone who steals the name "Yamato" or "MUsashi" will be sued by the Empire of Japan. :D
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
Quote from: Korpen on May 14, 2008, 12:09:11 PM
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."
QuoteConsidering 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.
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?
Ahoj!
OK - I will keep my wet (slurp) fantasies to myself.
:)
I moved it my post Designs, as to unclutter the thread.
Borys
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 14, 2008, 07:56:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Carthaginian on May 14, 2008, 07:11:40 PM
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.
QuoteEFFECTIVE 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Quote from: Borys on May 21, 2008, 01:25:56 AM
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.
1,5%?
2%?
Borys
4. 10. 20. At least against stationary target. Below 8000yards, even higher.
Quote from: P3D on May 20, 2008, 03:39:35 PM
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)?
Quote from: Korpen on May 21, 2008, 07:01:13 AM
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)?
If you want better deck penetration, the 40cm one. 15"/40 has better deck penetration than 15"/45.