Mutant Monitor-Thing

[Valles]

2nd Rate, Japan Warship laid down 1870
Barbette ship

Displacement:
   9,089 t light; 9,532 t standard; 10,577 t normal; 11,414 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   393.70 ft / 393.70 ft x 65.62 ft x 19.69 ft (normal load)
   120.00 m / 120.00 m x 20.00 m  x 6.00 m

Armament:
      6 - 9.84" / 250 mm guns (3x2 guns), 385.81lbs / 175.00kg shells, 1870 Model
     Breech loading guns in open barbettes
     on centreline, evenly spread
     Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
   Weight of broadside 2,315 lbs / 1,050 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 180

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   15.7" / 400 mm   275.59 ft / 84.00 m   9.71 ft / 2.96 m
   Ends:   1.97" / 50 mm   118.08 ft / 35.99 m   9.71 ft / 2.96 m
     Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:         -            -         15.7" / 400 mm

   - Armour deck: 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 15.75" / 400 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 3,400 ihp / 2,537 Kw = 12.11 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,882 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   520 - 677

Cost:
   £0.645 million / $2.580 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 250 tons, 2.4 %
   Armour: 4,153 tons, 39.3 %
      - Belts: 1,925 tons, 18.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 519 tons, 4.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,546 tons, 14.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 163 tons, 1.5 %
   Machinery: 833 tons, 7.9 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,672 tons, 34.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,488 tons, 14.1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 180 tons, 1.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     12,732 lbs / 5,775 Kg = 38.2 x 9.8 " / 250 mm shells or 2.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
   Metacentric height 3.9 ft / 1.2 m
   Roll period: 13.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.13
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.728
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.84 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 29 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 71
   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:      8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Forecastle (15 %):   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Mid (50 %):      8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Stern:      8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Average freeboard:   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 47.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 63.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 21,225 Square feet or 1,972 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 132 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 138 lbs/sq ft or 673 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.10
      - Longitudinal: 0.97
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

90 tons misc weight and fittings
90 tons junk rig

[snip]

Few questions/comments:

I think that 1870 is to early for barrettes.

I think that this is a little early for a ship with more then 4 heavy guns. I wonder if 4 is even to much for an 1870 laydown.

Why is 180 RPG necessary?

Why is this considered a 2nd rate (going by the name) when it is much larger then anything I can find until 1875 and beyond?

[Guinness]

Open barbettes might be ok. I need to do some research. I can find quickly ships completed as early as 1876 that had them.

[TexanCowboy]

If we protest about Tan's ship, there is no way on earth this one is gunna pass the gauntlet. Some of us want ships and don't want to be forced into building mutant Brandenburgers in response to everyone elses.

BTW, your designs are continually more massive then anyone elses. I must ask, why? I'm not even sure if anyone had the capacity to build a moniter of that size in 1870.

[Valles]

I think that 1870 is to early for barrettes.

My vague memory is that the French adopted barbettes from the get-go, rather than full turrets; a quick glance at Wiki shows them having such in 1876, as Guinness notes, and before that there seems to've been a nearly fifteen year gap.

Mind, I sincerely doubt that there was such a gap in actual construction, but at this early 'muse over concepts' stage, I haven't yet expended the effort to track down the data on what was there. It seems excessive for what is, essentially, me sketching in pencil on the back of a used envelope.

I think that this is a little early for a ship with more then 4 heavy guns. I wonder if 4 is even to much for an 1870 laydown.

The hull is shared between this and two other designs; one of the others has three 350mm guns, and the other is a casement gunship designed to deal with smaller craft.

Why is 180 RPG necessary?

My own experience with sweating the ammunition totals for Maori ships used for bombardment duty.

Why is this considered a 2nd rate (going by the name) when it is much larger then anything I can find until 1875 and beyond?

Because there's another design earning the title of 1st Rate, and since it has much smaller guns it obviously can't be counted in the same class. Eventually, when proper predreadnoughts start showing up, some shining light will get the idea of combining the three supposedly complimentary lineages and wham, continuity.

BTW, your designs are continually more massive then anyone elses. I must ask, why? I'm not even sure if anyone had the capacity to build a moniter of that size in 1870.

Probably I don't have my instincts recalibrated properly, yet.

[Tanthalas]

I have done some rather extensive research on all topics about guns and mounts on ships lately.  Personaly I view Barbs as more of an 1880 thing, pre 1880 (1875 at the earliest).  As for number of Heavy guns, well 1860 is the earliest use of 6 guns on on 3 turrets for a ship, and it was 3X2X10" (basicly the same layout shown here) and did 12 knots top end (so I find the 12.1 totaly acceptable).  My issue is it did it on about 1/3 your current tonage, used Muzzle Loading guns (which for main guns I feal we all should till around 1880), and I cant find an 1870 ship with anywhere near that heavy of armor (its heavier then the british 1880 ships honestly).  for 1870 the range is ok IMHO (My Developer concept is based on a OTL british ship and has 2200@10 in 1865), however I have given up on using tripple turret ships pre 1880 (ok so I have a 1875 CDBB on 3kish tons with 6X10" AQY but thats it pre startup)

OH and as to the ammo loads, uhm barrel life is about 100 rounds on the 11" guns im marginaly basing mine off.

[Carthaginian]

No way that it is too early for barbettes... a barbette is just a turntable with a stationary armor belt around it. Its the equivelent of a stationary mount on land.
A LOT of ships with more than 3 main gun mounts existed in this time. I have no idea why Brandenburg keeps coming up with so many other historic examples out there.

[Tanthalas]

LOL Carth because its the "most famous" and its a spring sharp basic ship (the ones that come pre simmed in SS2 even if they did a bad job at it) as you know I want to go AQY from the get, while I havnt given up on doing it from the get, I am making contingancy plans incase im not allowed to (and honestly I kind of like some of them)

[TexanCowboy]

Probably I don't have my instincts recalibrated properly, yet.

Eh wot?

[Valles]

My issue is it did it on about 1/3 your current tonage, used Muzzle Loading guns (which for main guns I feal we all should till around 1880), and I cant find an 1870 ship with anywhere near that heavy of armor (its heavier then the british 1880 ships honestly).  for 1870 the range is ok IMHO (My Developer concept is based on a OTL british ship and has 2200@10 in 1865), however I have given up on using tripple turret ships pre 1880 (ok so I have a 1875 CDBB on 3kish tons with 6X10" AQY but thats it pre startup)

The tonnage difference probably means that I have once again been led by inexperience to use tonnage inefficiently. I'll work on that.

I consider that the triumph of the muzzle-loader over the Armstrong system was political, rather than practically grounded, and am quite willing to endure mod-ruled disadvantage in-game on the subject if they choose to disagree.

Surely my armor fetish can't come as a surprise at this late date.

OH and as to the ammo loads, uhm barrel life is about 100 rounds on the 11" guns im marginaly basing mine off.

Huh. Hadn't known that. Hmmm. Will keep that in mind.

Eh wot?

A battleship that's two thirds the size of the (relatively small) Maori Kerykeions and one third the size of Cross Mirage (quite compact compared to a number of faster vessels with barely half her fighting power) doesn't feel 'big' to me.

[Valles]

After accounting for suggestions and feedback and going back to the drawing board...

First Rate (Revised), Japan Warship laid down 1870
Barbette ship

Displacement:
   8,000 t light; 8,344 t standard; 8,584 t normal; 8,776 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   363.26 ft / 357.94 ft x 59.65 ft x 19.88 ft (normal load)
   110.72 m / 109.10 m x 18.18 m  x 6.06 m

Armament:
      3 - 14.31" / 364 mm guns in single mounts, 1,033.42lbs / 468.75kg shells, 1870 Model
     Breech loading guns in open barbettes
     on centreline ends, majority aft
   Weight of broadside 3,100 lbs / 1,406 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   14.3" / 364 mm   250.56 ft / 76.37 m   5.96 ft / 1.82 m
   Ends:   11.9" / 303 mm   107.35 ft / 32.72 m   5.96 ft / 1.82 m
   Upper:   11.9" / 303 mm   250.56 ft / 76.37 m   5.96 ft / 1.82 m
     Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:         -            -         14.3" / 364 mm

   - Armour deck: 1.19" / 30 mm, Conning tower: 14.33" / 364 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 5,000 ihp / 3,730 Kw = 13.98 kts
   Range 1,500nm at 7.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 432 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   445 - 579

Cost:
   £0.775 million / $3.100 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 385 tons, 4.5 %
   Armour: 3,022 tons, 35.2 %
      - Belts: 1,989 tons, 23.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 523 tons, 6.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 380 tons, 4.4 %
      - Conning Tower: 129 tons, 1.5 %
   Machinery: 1,225 tons, 14.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,068 tons, 35.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 584 tons, 6.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 3.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     6,068 lbs / 2,753 Kg = 5.9 x 14.3 " / 364 mm shells or 1.1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
   Metacentric height 3.1 ft / 1.0 m
   Roll period: 14.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 67 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.30
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.19

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.708
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 18.92 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 38 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 2.66 ft / 0.81 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      9.94 ft / 3.03 m
      - Forecastle (15 %):   9.94 ft / 3.03 m
      - Mid (50 %):      9.94 ft / 3.03 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   9.94 ft / 3.03 m
      - Stern:      9.94 ft / 3.03 m
      - Average freeboard:   9.94 ft / 3.03 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 73.3 %
   Waterplane Area: 17,231 Square feet or 1,601 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 133 lbs/sq ft or 651 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.97
      - Longitudinal: 1.26
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped

Armor is wrought-iron, not compound or steel.

80 tons junk rigged sails
80 tons misc overruns

[Nobody]

No smaller guns?
Also "interesting" choice of gun caliber and armor thickness. Any specific reason for that?

[Korpen]

No smaller guns?
Also "interesting" choice of gun caliber and armor thickness. Any specific reason for that?

I suspect I can answer that, he is using Japanese measurements with 30,3mm to the inch, so the guns are 12 inches, the end and upper belt 10 inches.
I like it! :)

[Tanthalas]

No smaller guns?

Proly somthing to do with the rules, as most early turret ships had no smaller guns (note I say most not all as there were a few with them)

[Guinness]

This early is probably too early for QF guns as it is, so really no need for alternate calibers.