New Build to suplement the curent 10" cruisers

[Ithekro]

Some would view the scouting force as Scout Cruisers...those 27+ knot light cruisers that are relatively cheap.  They are functional and can be deployed in greater numbers than any BCs.  The advantage of the BC is that it can sink about anything and generally survive long enough to escape what it can't sink (Battleships).  It's other advantage tends to be range, but several of my belted cruisers have good range and make fair scout ships, and cost half as much as the Battlecruisers.  Of course they can also be sunk by anything larger than an light cruiser due to their thin armor.

Battlecruisers make effective Battle Scouts, but they are too expensive to be built in vast numbers needed to scout large regions of Ocean.  Even the British Empire only had ten of them in service at any one time, less after they started exploding rapidly at Jutland.  (compared to something like 35 Dreadnoughts and Super Dreadnoughts and a similar (but declining) number of Predreadnoughts).

[Tanthalas]

Vitellius, Italia Battle Cruiser laid down 1910 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   13,720 t light; 14,313 t standard; 15,423 t normal; 16,311 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   600.00 ft / 593.00 ft x 70.00 ft x 23.00 ft (normal load)
   182.88 m / 180.75 m x 21.34 m  x 7.01 m

Armament:
      6 - 11.00" / 279 mm guns (2x3 guns), 665.50lbs / 301.87kg shells, 1910 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      14 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1910 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all amidships
      4 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (2x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1910 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      20 - 0.75" / 19.1 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0.21lbs / 0.10kg shells, 1910 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 4,926 lbs / 2,234 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   9.00" / 229 mm   300.06 ft / 91.46 m   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   292.92 ft / 89.28 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Upper:   4.00" / 102 mm   300.06 ft / 91.46 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 78 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   5.00" / 127 mm      10.0" / 254 mm
   2nd:   8.00" / 203 mm   4.00" / 102 mm            -
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm   1.00" / 25 mm            -

   - Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 9.00" / 229 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 48,000 shp / 35,808 Kw = 25.64 kts
   Range 9,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,998 tons

Complement:
   691 - 899

Cost:
   £1.303 million / $5.212 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 616 tons, 4.0 %
   Armour: 4,988 tons, 32.3 %
      - Belts: 2,628 tons, 17.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,153 tons, 7.5 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,087 tons, 7.1 %
      - Conning Tower: 120 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 2,182 tons, 14.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,734 tons, 37.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,703 tons, 11.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 1.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     21,520 lbs / 9,761 Kg = 32.3 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 2.5 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
   Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
   Roll period: 15.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.65
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.32

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.565
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.47 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 24.35 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 53
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 16.25 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Forecastle (25 %):   24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Mid (50 %):      24.00 ft / 7.32 m (15.00 ft / 4.57 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (25 %):   15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Stern:      15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Average freeboard:   19.50 ft / 5.94 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 77.8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 158.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 29,391 Square feet or 2,731 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 130 lbs/sq ft or 632 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.97
      - Longitudinal: 1.31
      - Overall: 1.00
   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
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily


The Italian Idea of a BC (note pic isnt finished yet =P) added finished pic

[Carthaginian]

P3D

A 'scout' should be something that you CAN AFFORD TO LOOSE!
A scout is BOUND to run into trouble. I don't mean trouble like 'this guy wanted to fight me because I was sneaking around spying on him' kind of trouble... I mean 'this guy and about 10 of his friends and about 20 other people at the party that really came a long just to watch but eventually started throwing stuff chased me till I had to cross a creek and hide in a hole' kind of trouble. After all, that's the kind of trouble you are intentionally sending him out to find.

Building something more expensive than a BB to 'scout' is a foolish move; especially when it can fight against a BB (no matter how ineffectively), because if it CAN fight, it's inevitable some damn fool WILL try. Then you, as at Jutland, have incredible disappearing ships rather than a solid battleline that can contest the issue.

The US Army hired Indians to scout Indians in the mid-late 1800's for a reason... they came cheap, and no one gave a crap if they were lost or not. That is a scout's biggest advantage- it can go out looking, but it's no big loss if it doesn't come back again. At least then you know where the enemy is and it didn't cost you a fortune.

[Korpen]

A 'scout' should be something that you CAN AFFORD TO LOOSE!
Building something more expensive than a BB to 'scout' is a foolish move; especially when it can fight against a BB (no matter how ineffectively), because if it CAN fight, it's inevitable some damn fool WILL try. Then you, as at Jutland, have incredible disappearing ships rather than a solid battleline that can contest the issue.

The fact is that no British battlecruisers were destroyed by enemy battleships, but by their opposite numbers. And running into enemy scouting forces is to be expected, and generally ships of the same class can destroy each other, no matter if they are battleships, cruisers or destroyers.
A part from the blowing up part, the battlecruisers did their job really good at Jutland, they pulled the enemy fleet into a position were the own battleships crossed the "T" on them.

The problem with a battle scout that cannot fight is that it has no way of fulfilling its mission apart from evading the enemy screen by luck. A scout cruisers that see a BC can only run (a factor here is that in the real world, battlecruisers maintained speed parity with light cruisers, something impossible here), and have no real hopes of finding out what is behind the BC unless the BC will allow it.

The US Army hired Indians to scout Indians in the mid-late 1800's for a reason... they came cheap, and no one gave a crap if they were lost or not. That is a scout's biggest advantage- it can go out looking, but it's no big loss if it doesn't come back again. At least then you know where the enemy is and it didn't cost you a fortune.

Unless noone comes back, and you still have no idea if there is the entire enemy fleet, or just a pair of BCs out there...

[Carthaginian]

The fact is that no British battlecruisers were destroyed by enemy battleships, but by their opposite numbers. And running into enemy scouting forces is to be expected, and generally ships of the same class can destroy each other, no matter if they are battleships, cruisers or destroyers.
A part from the blowing up part, the battlecruisers did their job really good at Jutland, they pulled the enemy fleet into a position were the own battleships crossed the "T" on them.

No, they did not. Their job was to report back, and then ESCAPE TO CONTINUE OPERATING.
They did a piss-poor job of THAT.

Also, the Germans built their battlecruisers more along the philosophy that I stated- build something that is fast and survivable enough to escape a battleship, but able to engage a cruiser and destroy it with no real difficulty. This focus on survivability showed in their performance- Lutzow survived 4x or 5x as many hits as her British counterparts. In fact, off the top of my head, I can't recall another German battle cruiser lost in that OR any other battle in the war. The British lost 3 at Jutland alone, and several more in WWII, all due to poor implementation of the whole 'battleline scout' goal of 'go fast, hit hard and run away.'

The problem with a battle scout that cannot fight is that it has no way of fulfilling its mission apart from evading the enemy screen by luck. A scout cruisers that see a BC can only run (a factor here is that in the real world, battlecruisers maintained speed parity with light cruisers, something impossible here), and have no real hopes of finding out what is behind the BC unless the BC will allow it.

Jutland shows that a battle cruiser suffers a similar fate, as do their subsequent uses in WWII.

Unless noone comes back, and you still have no idea if there is the entire enemy fleet, or just a pair of BCs out there...

You at least know where the enemy is, and you haven't lost the price of a battleship in the process.

[The Rock Doctor]

TBH im not impressed with BCs, why put that kind of cash into one ship when i can build 2 for less that will do the same job?

Okay, to back the discussion up:  what's the job of these prospective cruisers? 

[Tanthalas]

They realy are intended as independant action ships.  Operating in pairs just like the original 3 sets of twins, basicly they are to serve the role a second class BB would serve, Convoy Escort, Colonial Deployment, some Comerce Raiding, things of that nature.  I Originaly intended them to deploy in pairs to counter the BCs the BCs that Iberia was building and to be capable of stomping any cruiser France was deploying.

*Im actualy sort of leaning toward building a few of the BCs I posted last nite now (Sacralige I know)

[The Rock Doctor]

Thanks.

The first design would fit most of those functions okay.  It'd be fast enough to avoid most battleships, powerful enough to engage protected/light cruisers or early ACs.  I'd prefer the speed of the second design for avoiding BCs and newer ACs, though.

On the other hand, one could argue that these are large and expensive ships to spend on raiding operations.  My recollection is that Spee's set of Twins had a bit of difficulty keeping their bunkers topped up - this would especially be the case if the ships were operating in pairs, since less ocean would be covered than if apart.

[Tanthalas]

the second would honestly be on its own, as it is while not substantualy more expensive enough more that I couldnt build 2 at a time.  While it is a good ship its a monster lol 70' longer than my BBs (which I was trying to avoid doing)

[The Rock Doctor]

I think the second one would make a useful centrepiece to a fleet scouting force.  Serving as the leader of some protected/light cruisers, she could knock around enemy CLs and older ACs, slug it out with more modern ACs, and evade the current crop of battlecruisers as circumstances required.

[Tanthalas]

thats kind of what I was thinking Scouting group Flag, a realy heavy unit to go with my cruisers and DDs.  as such I would only need 3 or 4 of them (depending on how many scouting groups I decide to build).

[Ithekro]

Problems might result depending on where she operates.  However recorded history has BCs in a bad light, not because of what they are, but because of how they were used.  Most that were lost were lost because they were not being used for their job.  (Hood and Repulse are probably not good indicators at this point since they were decidedly old tech by the time of the war).  The Invincibles did their job well at the Falklands and the use of Kongo during that time period was the correct usage.  Goeben was very active despite being cut off from her home ports...and even survived to 1970.  So it is not the BCs that are bad, just how they were handled.  Rohan has experianced some misuse of warships in 1900 when a Belted Cruiser was used on the battleline with the Combat Cruisers.  She did well against the enemey, but her armor was no up to the task...she went up like Queen Mary or Hood.  (appropreately she was named after Mt. Doom)  Todays Belted Cruisers have more armor, but are also not meant to fight in the main battles.

One of these larger ships with a group of four or five lighter vessels should be a good recon in force type unit.  Otherwise, sending out the lighter scouts with this as an anchor so the lighter ships have someplace to run to if they enounter something larger and as fast as they are.

[Tanthalas]

well what im invisioning right now as a "scouting group" atached to each battle group would be.

One of the 6X11 25.64 knot ships
Two of my 6X8 28 knot cruisers
Six of my 28 knot long range 1K ton DDs

Thoughts?

[The Rock Doctor]

Something like that might work fine.  In Gran Colombian terms, I think about Luchador and 3-4 protected cruisers. 

[Korpen]

Also, the Germans built their battlecruisers more along the philosophy that I stated- build something that is fast and survivable enough to escape a battleship, but able to engage a cruiser and destroy it with no real difficulty. This focus on survivability showed in their performance- Lutzow survived 4x or 5x as many hits as her British counterparts. In fact, off the top of my head, I can't recall another German battle cruiser lost in that OR any other battle in the war. The British lost 3 at Jutland alone, and several more in WWII, all due to poor implementation of the whole 'battleline scout' goal of 'go fast, hit hard and run away.'

First it might be noted that according to wikipedia, Lützow got critically damaged by a total of 24 hits, HMS Tiger got hit by 15 heavy shells, and hardly lost any combat capability at all, luck have a major impact in naval war.
That said, I am of the opinion that the problem with the British battlecruisers at Jutland had more to do with how the crew handled them then the vices and virtues of the ships themselves.
First of all their shooting was really, really bad, and secondly the famous cordite problems.

Jutland shows that a battle cruiser suffers a similar fate, as do their subsequent uses in WWII.

Skagerack shows that ships who are in the line of fire for longer periods of time and take lots of hits gets damaged and sunk.

Unless noone comes back, and you still have no idea if there is the entire enemy fleet, or just a pair of BCs out there...

You at least know where the enemy is, and you haven't lost the price of a battleship in the process.

If noone comes back you have no idea of were the enemy are, apart from knowing were his recon are, which would be "close by"...