Spanish Navy

[Carthaginian]

Actually everyone will have between $1,000 -  $1,500 to start off with.

ONLY if you intend to have no infrastructure, no army, no economy and no chance of survival.

We ain't just building ships- we're building nations.

C'mon, man... surely you don't think that you ain't got to pay for other things as well?

[Desertfox]

Just saying... $300 should buy me enough ships to steamroll both Deseret and Texas combined...

[Tanthalas]

Just saying... $300 should buy me enough ships to steamroll both Deseret and Texas combined...

Sure if you dont buy an army, then you may win at sea but you'll be seriously lacking in someplace to go home to.  The point is none of us know what we have to buy for startup (I had hoped to have that information by this point but alas we dont) so we have no realistic idea what we can spend on our fleets outside what Guinness said about figure around $100.00.  Thus my theory on if I have more available than the $100.00 I get more toys, but ill atleast get everything my plan calls for.

[Carthaginian]

Just saying... $300 should buy me enough ships to steamroll both Deseret and Texas combined...

Alright... let's play out your fantasy:

You spend 3x  as much on your fleet as your opponents.
Your opponents spend 3x as much as you on building up shipyards.

You go to war- both sides taking losses- but one is able to replace those losses at an expanded rate.
Also, the other side has ground forces in addition to their navy, and consequently invades your homeland. You have won the war at sea, but you are now seriously screwed... as you have no way to keep them from conquering them completely.

Sorry DF- no way.

[Carthaginian]

From Jef's thread: http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,5565.msg73483.html#msg73483

I have found some characs about the French 340mm gun for Dévastation

340 mm mod. 1875 de 21 cal, citadel installation, hydrauliques Farcot mounts, pointage + 7°/-5°, Rof 8 minutes, hydraulic tackle.

ROF...8 minutes !!!

The 80 ton 16" RML guns on Inflexible took 'between 2.5 and 4 minutes' to fire a single round officially; in practice, they only fired at a rate of one round every 11 minutes while bombarding Alexandria (Beeler, Birth of the Battleship: British Capital Ship Design 1870–1881 p.77–8). The only mention I can find of the ROF of the 17.7" guns on Caio Duilio was a glacial one round every 15 minutes (Brown, D.K. The Era of Uncertainty, in Steam Steel and Shellfire, p. 85). Where are you obtaining your sources- this took me only about 10 minutes of dedicated searching to find.

I think you are being MOST unreasonable in your expectations of these ships... beyond unreasonable actually.

EDIT: sources obtained from http://www.answers.com/topic/ironclad

[Jefgte]

...Where are you obtaining your sources...

This French Forum with much & much detailled infos about WW1

http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/

I have also an "Historia"  (book) about the French Artillery 1914-1918

Jef  ;)

[Carthaginian]

...Where are you obtaining your sources...

This French Forum with much & much detailled infos about WW1

http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/

I have also an "Historia"  (book) about the French Artillery 1914-1918

Jef  ;)

Oh... not you Jef- I was talking about Logi claiming 2 minutes or so for the 17.72" guns!
YOUR sources seemed perfectly reasonable!

[Jefgte]

no problemo...

;)

[Logi]

I did not claim 2 minutes ROF for the 17.72", and I do not see the argument there. At the Malta coastal defense, the ROF for the 17.72" was 2.5-3 minutes per round. That is coastal defense fire rate, far from the likely fire rate on a ship.

However, according for NavWeaps, the RoF for the 16.25" was from 1 round per 3 minute to 1 round per 3.5 minutes.

In fact, in the source cited in that answer.com topic - "Birth of the Battleship: British Capital Ship Design 1870-1881" - John Beeler specifically mentions that t's because the guns had to be lowered to zero elevation and reloaded from outside the turret - a product of the fact that the 17.72" was muzzle-loading. I am highly doubtful of the other source they list for the info as there is no trace of the book ever existing (the closest name is a Conway's book).

Here, I used breech-loading - despite the less amount of penetration - to shelter the crew from damage since the whole ship is armored to protect them anyways, and to make it easier to reload.

[Logi]

As to the army-navy investment etc.

Spain is not so connected to other nations that it requires a huge naval, just a moderate one with ample static defense should be ok. However, even if I end up with less capacity than I had expected - which is that of a medium power - I am not new to the idea of compromise ship designing (I had all of N3 to practice after all) and I could easily shave 2000 tons of each ship design if I wanted to. I don't because it tends to leave less than ideal ships. No need to design to that standard until shown necessary.

[Carthaginian]

I did not claim 2 minutes ROF for the 17.72", and I do not see the argument there. At the Malta coastal defense, the ROF for the 17.72" was 2.5-3 minutes per round. That is coastal defense fire rate, far from the likely fire rate on a ship.

Here, I used breech-loading - despite the less amount of penetration - to shelter the crew from damage since the whole ship is armored to protect them anyways, and to make it easier to reload.

Logi,

You claimed 2.5 minutes... not '2.5 - 3 minutes.'

Rate on fire is actually 1 round per 2.5 minutes (as done on Malta). Still the guns will wear out the loaders quickly.

Now, that might have been an actual firing run... but I'll bet it was like how I can fire 5 rounds a minute from a muzzle loading infantry rifle- I start with one in the barrel and have preloaded paper cartridges available (which I have already carefully 'ringed' to make them easier to bite). Now, this is bending the dogshit out of the rules, but it makes it possible.
Likewise, I'm sure that this is a number that the base concocted to produce some favorable opinions at the Admiralty. They had the shot and powder ready, started with a loaded barrel and fired several rounds... then averaged things out. It's not only not unheard of, that sounds bang-on for someone trying to make a weapon system look good.

And if you want to argue that MY logic is flawed, I'll point out the simplest falicy in YOUR logic- my figures are from loading on a ship, yours are from loading on land... but you are using the figures for the gun on land as a base figure for your ship-board guns.

And no need to doubt the source... it is an article or chapter listed within a book -  the very book you named.
http://www.camberpete.co.uk/victorian_navy_pages_new/steam_steel_shellfire.html
Steam, Steel and Shellfire The Steam Warship 1815-1905
David K Brown, RCNC, a recently retired naval architect, has published widely on historical and professional topics. His books include Before the Ironclad, an important study of technical changes between 1815 and 1860.
So the source is as iron-clad as any... just probably not credited entirely correctly. :)

[Logi]

Logi,

You claimed 2.5 minutes... not '2.5 - 3 minutes.'

I also specifically said at Malta - unless Malta is a ship, I would think I meant the coastal defense guns. As you yourself stated - I would think it's also implied that RoF were be slightly slower than on land. In fact, as you quoted, I stated that it would wear out the loaders quickly - another indication that I did not mean that 2.5 minutes RoF was sustainable.

Now, that might have been an actual firing run... but I'll bet it was like how I can fire 5 rounds a minute from a muzzle loading infantry rifle- I start with one in the barrel and have preloaded paper cartridges available (which I have already carefully 'ringed' to make them easier to bite). Now, this is bending the dogshit out of the rules, but it makes it possible.
Likewise, I'm sure that this is a number that the base concocted to produce some favorable opinions at the Admiralty. They had the shot and powder ready, started with a loaded barrel and fired several rounds... then averaged things out. It's not only not unheard of, that sounds bang-on for someone trying to make a weapon system look good.

And if you want to argue that MY logic is flawed, I'll point out the simplest falicy in YOUR logic- my figures are from loading on a ship, yours are from loading on land... but you are using the figures for the gun on land as a base figure for your ship-board guns.

I don't have to argue it, it's a complete straw-man. You do noticed I proceeded afterwards to produce the RoF for naval guns on ships - for the 16.25" and so on. You also notice that I agreed with you that 17.72" were ridiculous and utterly uselessly when I posted the 15"/32 design. So what exactly are you arguing? That same crap that I agreed on?

What I don't agree was that all big guns were supposed to have crappy rates of fire. That was reserved only for muzzle-loading guns. Since you attacked the muzzle-loading RoF discussion, I assume you have no problems with that.

And no need to doubt the source... it is an article listed within a book -  the very book you named.
http://www.camberpete.co.uk/victorian_navy_pages_new/steam_steel_shellfire.html
Steam, Steel and Shellfire The Steam Warship 1815-1905
David K Brown, RCNC, a recently retired naval architect, has published widely on historical and professional topics. His books include Before the Ironclad, an important study of technical changes between 1815 and 1860.
So the source is as iron-clad as any... just probably not credited entirely correctly. :)

I do not doubt the author, D.K. Brown, quite credited. What I had doubted was that the book existed, since I could not find the book in any form. As you said, it was not credited entirely correctly - my guess that it was a Conway's Fight Ships book was correct.

[Carthaginian]

What I don't agree was that all big guns were supposed to have crappy rates of fire. That was reserved only for muzzle-loading guns. Since you attacked the muzzle-loading RoF discussion, I assume you have no problems with that.

All big guns DO have crappy rates of fire- that's just the cost of them being big.
If you're producing a 15" gun, it'll probably have a 3 minute/round load time just like the guns on the Victoria. Chances are also that it will have the same kind of blast damage issues and possibly even the heeling issues of the Indiana class. Additionally, you'll be looking at the same kind of barrel droop problems, low barrel life problems, and probably (give the massive turret armor) extremely long traverse times. Finally, you'll probably have to resort to fixed position/elevation loading (like most guns of the era)... meaning even longer firing times in battle.

There was a reason that the 16.25" BL guns was universally considered a second-rate weapon... the 13.5" gun wasn't just pushing the upper limit of gun design at the time- it slammed it up against the wall and gave it a stiff punch to the solar plexus for good measure.

[Logi]

All big guns DO have crappy rates of fire- that's just the cost of them being big.

Source? I gave my source, it said it was fine- just muzzle-loaders sucked horribly. A lot of battleships used muzzle-loadings, that still does not mean all large caliber guns were crap on reload speed- the 16.25" fired one round per 3-3.5 minute, but that's compared to a 10" firing one round per 2 minute and a 9.2" firing one every minute. Not the humongous difference in speed you make it out to be. (That is- as I've stated over and over, the unique domain of muzzle-loader guns which did take ten minutes or more to reload)

If you're producing a 15" gun, it'll probably have a 3 minute/round load time just like the guns on the Victoria.

Not a problem, you realize other guns of the time are quite slow as well. The only ones that can fire multiple rounds per minute are also so small they can't penetrate anything on the heavily armored designs I produced.

Chances are also that it will have the same kind of blast damage issues and possibly even the heeling issues of the Indiana class.

Um- there is no indication of blast damage in the Indiana- perhaps you meant the Kearsarge? The heeling problem was not the issue of the gun- it was the fact that the ship had been designed for stability given by bilge keels (which were not given to the classs until later on).

Additionally, you'll be looking at the same kind of barrel droop problems, low barrel life problems,

Right- low RoF; if we assume the RoF of the 15" to be that of the 16.25" -  at 3-3.5 minutes and the supposed barrel life of less than 75 (let's assume 60), it would mean continuous firing of the 15" gun for 3-3.5 hours. I highly doubt they are going for be in a battle for more than an hour. - If I remember right the Battle of Santiago de Cuba took roughly 1 hour.

As or barrel droop- The first 16.25"/30 suffered from barrel droop and then required subsequent versions to correct it. Barrel droop doesn't mean barrel bend, and it's more of careless mistake on the manufacturer's part than a persistent problem for all guns. Not to mention that a 15" gun firing a lighter shell would require less weight along the barrel - resulting in less possibility of barrel bend.

and probably (give the massive turret armor) extremely long traverse times.

Train rate is overstated- using simple trigonometry - if your ship was still and the enemy moves ahead of you at 15 kts at a distance of 1000 yds, you only need a train rate of 0.48 degrees per second to keep your aim on him. If the range was 2000 yds, you only need a train rate of 0.24 degrees. The only way train rate would be important is if you had to engage multiple targets - sinking them one after another and/or you had to do heavy maneuver - something that is not likely to happen at this period at all.

[Carthaginian]

Sorry- when I pasted from another place I must have inadvertently Victoria, she had the blast damage from large guns being fired both fore and too far abeam, notIndiana.

The heeling issue with the Indiana was caused by the weight of the 13" guns- they actually caused the ship to heel several degrees in the direction of firing. This screwed with their elevation and consequently their max range. It was never remedied completely; counter-weighting the turrets only partially solved the problem.

Barrel droop doesn't mean barrel bend, and it's more of careless mistake on the manufacturer's part than a persistent problem for all guns.

*knows what barrel droop is*
An accurate understatement- but still an understatement. Barrel droop results in accuracy problems, first and foremost. How much this can cost a naval gun is beyond my knowledge... but I know it can be a cast iron bitch on small arms. If a matter of <1/64" of an inch of drop can be bad for a .30 caliber rifle barrel at 300 yards, then I'd hate to know what a foot might do to a naval rifle at 5 miles! Also, as it is an inconsistent and inherent problem of manufacturing that tolerances will never work out as they should, each case being different makes it harder to adjust for each individual case. I would imagine that the scale might mitigate the severity, but it cannot eliminate or marginalize it.

Barrel life is not a problem in INDIVIDUAL engagements- it is a major problem in campaigns though.
Ships will not have a chance to re-gun after each battle. Battles might not even be over in a single day- they might turn into running engagements over a period of several days (though it isn't as likely at this time, as you point out). A ship- especially one involved in gunfire support- can also expect to fire MANY more rounds than a ship in a naval battle... a 3 hour bombardment would not be unheard of in preparation for a major operation. Finally, any navy that will have a relatively small fleet at sea (like all our nations) has to consider readiness. Re-gunning a capital ship isn't like swapping out the barrel on a SAW. You take that ship out of action for weeks... and if you only have 10 battleline units, then you are already at 90% strength for a couple of months- without considering other problems which might manifest.

We are at the very tail end of the 'sail in an orderly line and pound away' fighting. Ships are beginning to maneuver in battle, and I (and my navy) regard being able to confront ships no longer dependent on the wind- and thus forced to hold a steady course- for combat ability as a primary factor in design.


Essentially, I think we're placing importance on two opposing schools of thought here.