Dood de Nieuwe Zwitsers, Holland torpedohruizer

[damocles]

I'd rather have the MGs in a simple pivot mount, and aim by tracers. With heavy water-cooled HMGs of the 1920s only single mounts would be light enough.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_50cal-M2_MG_pics.htm

A pedestal quad MG mount is much heavier and IMHO does not worth the bother.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_5-62_mk3.htm

You know I may actually agree with you about that in "principle", but until I get the 50 mm AAA auto-cannon or buy something else and begin fleet refits the 1916 machine gun is ALL I that really have that is a true AA capable gun? The quad example has a better train and elevate than the 1916 75 mm balloon barrage gun.  

D.

[Sachmle]

The quad example has a better train and elevate than the 1916 75 mm balloob barrage gun.   

But lacks oomph and range. How many .50cal hits does it take to take out an aircraft, let alone a balloon, compared to a 75mm round?

[Kaiser Kirk]

The Germans used a 37 mm gatling gun, something much like the old Hotchkiss naval 2 pounder as a balloon burster in 1917. They also shot at planes with it

They also used the Maxim 37mm aka Maxim Flak M14, basically the same as the Brit's 1pdr Pom-pom, just an old Maxim 37mm on an AA mounting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_1_pounder_pom-pom

[damocles]

Yes to both, but I don't have the 37mm or the 40mm: I have 15 mm machine guns, then I jump straight to a 50mm QF. It has to become an auto-cannon in 1925 as well as the 75, and 125?

[P3D]

50mm won't have the ROF of 25-40mm guns, neither the explosive filling necessary to be useful save a direct hit - then they are overkill. Fuses are just too large for the time period. Why there were no such (50-65mm automatic) weapons developed before 1940.

[damocles]

I can see that. I also see that I don't have a 40 mm or 20 mm bore in my tech family, P3D, not right now. That is why I use all those 15 mm machine guns.  

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=880.msg5772#msg5772

[Sachmle]

There used to be a rule about machine gun (up to 1.099"/27.93mm) being exempt from the research rules, however it has disappeared. I'm not sure as to the current status of said rule. If it is still in effect, you could develop an AA Machine gun w/o cost (up to 1.099"/27.93mm).

[damocles]

To be fair, I'd have to actually buy such an auto-cannon tech from someone and then use the refit rules.   

[Guinness]

I believe your allies, the ESC have a 40mm auto cannon on an AA mount now.

[damocles]

That introduces some problems in refits. I think that at this point, if the rules permit, I'll introduce a 25mm Model 1920 in a twin or quad pending the development of 1925 AAA.

I'll base it off the Type 96 Japanese auto-cannon.  

 

[Kaiser Kirk]

Actually I've been using the Maxim 37mm all along since it was basically a common 1890s design and so baseline. I'm pretty sure I asked about it at some point and it was ok.  Still, it is antiquated and next up for replacement in Bavaria's line up.

[damocles]

The Browning action 15 mm in a quad stack is actually far more effective than the Hotchkiss (or the Vickers) and in that quad version (a la the Vickers mount as Sachmle so graciously cited) would tear any 1920 to 1929 era plane to bits inside 1,000 meters. It would be a revenge weapon, but it would be a fairly murderous flat trajectory high velocity one, which is what I think has caused us all to take a very hard look at it as regards play balance and historicity.

D.    

[damocles]

Panzer schippe, HOLLAND TILLMAN laid down 1920

Displacement:
   46,418 t light; 49,608 t standard; 52,080 t normal; 54,058 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   775.00 ft / 775.00 ft x 120.00 ft x 35.00 ft (normal load)
   236.22 m / 236.22 m x 36.58 m  x 10.67 m

Armament:
      12 - 15.94" / 405 mm guns (3x4 guns), 2,026.91lbs / 919.39kg shells, 1920 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, majority aft, 1 raised mount aft - superfiring
      16 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns (8x2 guns), 59.59lbs / 27.03kg shells, 1920 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
      16 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1920 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
      32 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1920 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 25,498 lbs / 11,566 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   8 - 24.0" / 610 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   17.9" / 455 mm   475.72 ft / 145.00 m   13.15 ft / 4.01 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      2.17" / 55 mm   468.00 ft / 142.65 m   33.87 ft / 10.32 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   17.9" / 455 mm   12.0" / 305 mm      15.9" / 405 mm
   2nd:   0.98" / 25 mm   0.98" / 25 mm      0.98" / 25 mm
   3rd:   0.39" / 10 mm   0.39" / 10 mm            -

   - Armour deck: 6.10" / 155 mm, Conning tower: 17.91" / 455 mm

Machinery:
   Diesel Internal combustion generators,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 116,715 shp / 87,069 Kw = 27.00 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 4,450 tons

Complement:
   1,723 - 2,240

Cost:
   £11.518 million / $46.074 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 3,187 tons, 6.1 %
   Armour: 18,036 tons, 34.6 %
      - Belts: 4,950 tons, 9.5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,270 tons, 2.4 %
      - Armament: 3,881 tons, 7.5 %
      - Armour Deck: 7,396 tons, 14.2 %
      - Conning Tower: 538 tons, 1.0 %
   Machinery: 4,081 tons, 7.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 20,114 tons, 38.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,662 tons, 10.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 1,000 tons, 1.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     60,843 lbs / 27,598 Kg = 30.0 x 15.9 " / 405 mm shells or 9.8 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 7.9 ft / 2.4 m
   Roll period: 17.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.50
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.09

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.560
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.46 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 27.84 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
   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:      29.52 ft / 9.00 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   18.78 ft / 5.72 m
      - Mid (50 %):      18.78 ft / 5.72 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   18.78 ft / 5.72 m
      - Stern:      18.78 ft / 5.72 m
      - Average freeboard:   19.64 ft / 5.99 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): 125.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 65,515 Square feet or 6,087 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 232 lbs/sq ft or 1,133 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.98
      - Longitudinal: 1.26
      - Overall: 1.01
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

1000 tons misc.
  250 tons fire control
    25 tons radio
    25 tons radar
    25 tons acoustics
  150 tons torpedoes
  525 tons for additions.   

My version of a treaty breaker

[Logi]

I'm  rather curious to layout and the armor.

The layout, having two quads to the stern and only one forward, means more of a retreating ship than an attacking ship. Given it's speed (27) and armor, I question why such a ship would need to retreat-attack any battle-line.

Then again, your AA is also overkill for this time-period and is completely unjustified. Smells like hindsightis to me.

Also, I do not know of any nation capable of rolling 18" inches of homogeneous steel. Even the maori, renown for their thick armor plates here, can only roll up to 15". There was a reason, I stopped my belt armor at 15" on my design.

Your ship's B/C is quite low for a quad bearing battleship and you also have 0.01 hull strength unused and wasted.

[P3D]

I read somewhere (iirc someone reposted some old discussions at Warship Projects) that the British (who did made the second best cemented armor) found that while contemporary (1930s) heat treatments increased the quality of plates up to 14" compared to WWI KC, but then the difference dropped. At 18" thickness there was no difference in stopping power between new armor and old KC.
So the Japanese approach of thick non-cemented face hardened armor plates for Yamato is somewhat vindicated.