Firanji ships 1917-

[Ithekro]

Isn't that basically a giant Protected Cruiser with massive guns?

It could work and all but a nation with a larger economy would probably slap a more traditional belt on that thing.  Especially since she'd be more vulnerable to lighter weapons rather that Capital Ships since most large rounds would pass through her at clase ranges without a belt.  But Destroyer sized guns might actually explode inside the hull at range.


Oh yes, there was suppose to be another Lake Cruiser in that class.  I left the name to be up to whoever took the country since I had little knowledge on the language and naming convensions based on the old Caliphate of Cairo.  I am assuming it was finished if it wasn't that DKB designed vessel.

[Desertfox]

*puts 'Invade Firanj' on to do list...*

[Ithekro]

I thought that was already on the to do list, just as soon as you could be sure you could get past the border and be sure you didn't get opportunistic enemies coming in from every direction like you did in the Second Pacific War against the Dutch, Brandenburg, Austria, China, Japan, and France.  Orenge too wasn't it?

[P3D]

Ithekro,

Not exactly a giant protected cruiser. Protected cruisers IIRC had above-waterline armored decks, and relied on the slope for deflection. And the guns are heavily armored, unlike the protected cruisers. And there's no protection from the coal bunkers to rely on against shells.

This way the chance of vertical armor hit against the vitals is effectively eliminated - for the price of making the upper hull and flotation reserve vulnerable to almost anything, so in that way it is indeed a giant protected cruiser.

"*puts 'Invade Firanj' on to do list...*"

Was it ever removed from the list? Nothing new here...

[Jefgte]

Stability is low.
Recoil is high.
No belt armor.
The hull must be stressed with the boardsides.
IMO, not a well balanced BC.


Jef

[P3D]

"Stability is low."
Can be increased from marginal to acceptable, might require getting rid of the superfiring.

"Recoil is high.
...
The hull must be stressed with the boardsides."

Can be adjusted, although there is no real need to fire full broadsides.

"No belt armor."

That IS the idea. No need for it.

[Guinness]

I wonder just how many tons of pumps this ship would need to be equipped with to be able to pump out all those spaces above the armored deck in worst case scenarios.

I'll admit that I just don't get the armored deck below waterline idea. I see that if the hull is sufficiently deep, that the machinery would be effectively invulnerable because it would be using water itself for "armor", but the risk of flooding above the deck, stability loss, etc. just seems too high. Also, there'd still be, by necessity piercings of the armored deck, including uptakes, barbettes, necessary hatches, etc. which could ultimately allow water below and flood those spaces. Of course, if the deck above is already awash, that may not matter!

Wouldn't a thinish short armored belt with a an armored deck above the waterline and a splinter deck of some sort below make just as much sense?