www.navalism.org

Main Archive => Navalism 3 Armed Forces => Armed Forces => New Ship Designs => Topic started by: Desertfox on November 18, 2009, 11:58:43 PM

Title: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Desertfox on November 18, 2009, 11:58:43 PM
Fisher follies... If anything, I think I overarmored these.


Revenge class, New Switzerland Cruiser laid down 1918

Displacement:
   17,009 t light; 17,790 t standard; 20,641 t normal; 22,921 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   710.00 ft / 710.00 ft x 74.00 ft x 27.50 ft (normal load)
   216.41 m / 216.41 m x 22.56 m  x 8.38 m

Armament:
      4 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1918 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      4 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns (2x2 guns), 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1918 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      24 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns (12x2 guns), 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1918 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
      8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1918 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 6,400 lbs / 2,903 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   7.00" / 178 mm   470.00 ft / 143.26 m   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
   Ends:   3.00" / 76 mm   240.00 ft / 73.15 m   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
     Main Belt covers 102 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   7.00" / 178 mm   3.00" / 76 mm      7.00" / 178 mm
   2nd:   3.00" / 76 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 1.50" / 38 mm, Conning tower: 7.00" / 178 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 123,462 shp / 92,103 Kw = 32.00 kts
   Range 12,200nm at 15.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 5,131 tons

Complement:
   860 - 1,119

Cost:
   £3.782 million / $15.126 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 800 tons, 3.9 %
   Armour: 3,522 tons, 17.1 %
      - Belts: 1,800 tons, 8.7 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 637 tons, 3.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 971 tons, 4.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 113 tons, 0.5 %
   Machinery: 4,454 tons, 21.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,883 tons, 38.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,632 tons, 17.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 1.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     20,976 lbs / 9,515 Kg = 15.3 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
   Metacentric height 3.9 ft / 1.2 m
   Roll period: 15.7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.72
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.10

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.500
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9.59 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26.65 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 64
   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:      25.00 ft / 7.62 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Mid (40 %):      20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Stern:      20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Average freeboard:   20.40 ft / 6.22 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 101.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 155.1 %
   Waterplane Area: 35,006 Square feet or 3,252 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 143 lbs/sq ft or 698 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.98
      - Longitudinal: 1.26
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Desertfox on November 19, 2009, 12:02:53 AM
Fooling around with the design. I can get up to 33 knots easily, by dropping to a 3in belt. These will be started but not finished as planned. They will end up as aircraft carriers.


Revenge class, New Switzerland Cruiser laid down 1918

Displacement:
   15,796 t light; 16,540 t standard; 18,768 t normal; 20,551 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   710.00 ft / 710.00 ft x 72.00 ft x 25.70 ft (normal load)
   216.41 m / 216.41 m x 21.95 m  x 7.83 m

Armament:
      4 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1918 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      4 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns (2x2 guns), 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1918 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      24 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns (12x2 guns), 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1918 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
      8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1918 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 6,400 lbs / 2,903 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   5.00" / 127 mm   550.00 ft / 167.64 m   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 119 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   7.00" / 178 mm   3.00" / 76 mm      7.00" / 178 mm

   - Armour deck: 1.50" / 38 mm, Conning tower: 7.00" / 178 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 116,085 shp / 86,600 Kw = 32.00 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 4,011 tons

Complement:
   801 - 1,042

Cost:
   £3.622 million / $14.489 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 800 tons, 4.3 %
   Armour: 2,894 tons, 15.4 %
      - Belts: 1,228 tons, 6.5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 615 tons, 3.3 %
      - Armour Deck: 945 tons, 5.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 107 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 4,188 tons, 22.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,615 tons, 40.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,972 tons, 15.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     17,970 lbs / 8,151 Kg = 13.1 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 1.8 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
   Metacentric height 3.8 ft / 1.2 m
   Roll period: 15.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.81
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.15

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.500
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9.86 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26.65 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
   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:      25.00 ft / 7.62 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Mid (40 %):      20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Stern:      20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Average freeboard:   20.40 ft / 6.22 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 106.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 162.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 34,060 Square feet or 3,164 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 143 lbs/sq ft or 696 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.98
      - Longitudinal: 1.27
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Valles on November 19, 2009, 12:36:27 AM
Classic New Swiss design.

Since, um, everything I value in a warship is kinda antonymic to that, there's really not much else I can say.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Borys on November 19, 2009, 01:09:08 AM
Quote from: Valles on November 19, 2009, 12:36:27 AM
Classic New Swiss design.

Since, um, everything I value in a warship is kinda antonymic to that, there's really not much else I can say.
Yup - armour -> guns -> speed ....
Borys
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Kaiser Kirk on November 19, 2009, 01:23:47 AM
are the twin centerline 4" supposed to be superimposed?
Given the fleet concepts, the only part that concerns me is the 4x14. Below the number expected to be useful for FC, too large for rapid fire at close ranges.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Tanthalas on November 19, 2009, 01:26:14 AM
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on November 19, 2009, 01:23:47 AM
are the twin centerline 4" supposed to be superimposed?
Given the fleet concepts, the only part that concerns me is the 4x14. Below the number expected to be useful for FC, too large for rapid fire at close ranges.

I tend to agree with KK, wouldnt 6X12" be more fiting for them?  enough for FC to work and they would fire a damn sight faster (actualy with 6X12" they would make decent raiders)
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: mentat on November 19, 2009, 05:02:32 AM

i'd make it 8 x 11" - more effective FC - and plenty big enough shell size vs. Cruisers - given the paper thin armour - it can't go up against anything with 9" or better anyway ...

- and the Secs are too small - deliberately bizarre ship

  btw - what are they for ...  would make a nice Royal Yacht for Fleet Review time  ;D

Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Desertfox on November 19, 2009, 08:12:42 AM
If there is anything that is fixed in this design, it's the main armament. I deliberately want a poor main armament so that there is a reason to not finish these ships as planned or rebuild them and have them end up as carriers. Also the main armament will be reused for another ship I have planned later on.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: ctwaterman on November 19, 2009, 08:19:13 AM
Ah Brilliant for planning so should I start laying down my Lexington Class Battle Cruisers now with 3" armored sides and start building them very very slowly  :o :-[
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Desertfox on November 19, 2009, 08:23:18 AM
Or I could just lay them down as carriers, save money and get a much more efficient design...

Somebody has to build flawed ships.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: ctwaterman on November 19, 2009, 08:30:28 AM
Yes,  but a flawed Battle Cruiser with 30 Knot speed and extremely light armor is well the perfect design for remove turrets and Deck Armor and Barbetts cut a few holes in the side armor.  Move the Bridge to the side and Presto you have Lexington and Hornet and if you think those were flawed ships :)

I would say the design of your new ships is nothing short of Brilliant.  Must steal some of the NS Psycics who are viewing the future.  :D

Charles
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Desertfox on November 19, 2009, 08:36:32 AM
Steal some British ones, they did it in 1915...  ;)
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Kaiser Kirk on November 19, 2009, 08:53:05 AM
Quote from: Desertfox on November 19, 2009, 08:23:18 AM
Or I could just lay them down as carriers, save money and get a much more efficient design...

Somebody has to build flawed ships.

I'm rolling out coal-fired cruisers with the majority of their guns in casements, and a secondary battery on top of that...doesn't that count? I mean it will work well enough, but it's hardly without flaws...
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Desertfox on November 19, 2009, 09:07:51 AM
But you are in the minority, everyone else is rolling out well balanced fast battleships, and max destroyers.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Valles on November 19, 2009, 11:26:25 AM
Cross Mirage is not, by any standard of her day, 'fast'. Nor will she ever be.

Though I'll admit she's planned to get new legs periodically as the standards change.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Tanthalas on November 19, 2009, 01:39:06 PM
Quote from: Desertfox on November 19, 2009, 09:07:51 AM
But you are in the minority, everyone else is rolling out well balanced fast battleships, and max destroyers.

as I understand it there are 3 classes of Fast BB under construction curently in the Nverse

Hood is well Hood
http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=2130

Asfaloth is Mackensen
http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=1954

Im not exactly who the french ship would analog to but Proly USS Lexington.

So realy there are no more "Fast BBs" building than was historicly the case (fewer actualy as Hood is only intended to be a singleton, and the french are only building 2 of theirs)
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Desertfox on November 19, 2009, 02:35:40 PM
You forgot the Oceans, De Ruyters, and Colussus, oh and the new Akagi.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Walter on November 19, 2009, 02:43:08 PM
Akagi is not a Fast BB. As the designation indicates, it is classified as a Cruiser Class 1. :D

The fast BB version I have (the original design) is slightly different and a bit slower.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Blooded on November 19, 2009, 02:55:17 PM

QuoteIf there is anything that is fixed in this design, it's the main armament. I deliberately want a poor main armament so that there is a reason to not finish these ships as planned or rebuild them and have them end up as carriers. Also the main armament will be reused for another ship I have planned later on.

What a load....    >:( ::)
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: The Rock Doctor on November 19, 2009, 04:25:02 PM
The out-of-character rationale for building flawed ships is fine - but why are the Swiss seeking to build Fisher follies?
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: mentat on November 19, 2009, 09:59:51 PM

  Yes - Fisher's Real Folly was the Baltic 2nd front Amphibious Invasion Plan - to help the Russian's into Germany by the back door. in the context of the plan - 'Outrageous', 'Uproarious' and 'Spurious' - made perfect 'sense'  :D

- so what Grand Scheme does NS have for this design - long range Commerce raiding? - long range Coastal attack? ....
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Desertfox on November 20, 2009, 12:23:20 AM
Both... attacks on China (both) or operations in the Dutch East Indies require such ships, and they make excellent raiders. What do you do when a 33knots ship, packing 14" guns gets lose in your shipping lanes?
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Sachmle on November 20, 2009, 12:27:13 AM
Quote from: Desertfox on November 20, 2009, 12:23:20 AM
Both... attacks on China (both) or operations in the Dutch East Indies require such ships, and they make excellent raiders. What do you do when a 33knots ship, packing 14" guns gets lose in your shipping lanes?

When it's only got 4 main guns and 5" armor? Send the BCs out in force and a few CLs to scout. 14" guns or not, she runs into anything w/ real armor all she can do is run away. Even the 11" guns on Moltke would shred her. You can run, and 14" will hurt especially w/ only 8" armor on the M's, but if you're running away...who's sinking the shipping?
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Desertfox on November 20, 2009, 12:32:25 AM
And thereby she has done her job, drawing away the Moltke from more important jobs. Plus she could just sit out of Motlke's range and blast away untill something hits. You need at least a 30 knot ship with 8x12" guns, to keep her away. Can you afford to build such a ship?
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Borys on November 20, 2009, 12:37:06 AM
Ahoj!
A decent semi-dreadnaught with 1908/12 FC is enough to keep those ships away. Good luck with hitting anything at long range with those four guns.

Borys
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Sachmle on November 20, 2009, 12:49:16 AM
Quote from: Desertfox on November 20, 2009, 12:32:25 AM
And thereby she has done her job, drawing away the Moltke from more important jobs. Plus she could just sit out of Motlke's range and blast away untill something hits. You need at least a 30 knot ship with 8x12" guns, to keep her away. Can you afford to build such a ship?

Like this?

SMS Defflinger, Brandenburg Schlachtkreuzer laid down 1916

Displacement:
   25,350 t light; 26,339 t standard; 28,234 t normal; 29,750 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   662.71 ft / 656.17 ft x 92.68 ft x 29.53 ft (normal load)
   202.00 m / 200.00 m x 28.25 m  x 9.00 m

Armament:
      8 - 12.01" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 881.85lbs / 400.00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount aft - superfiring
      16 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns in single mounts, 68.34lbs / 31.00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
      2 - 3.46" / 88.0 mm guns in single mounts, 22.05lbs / 10.00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      2 - 3.46" / 88.0 mm guns in single mounts, 22.05lbs / 10.00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 8,236 lbs / 3,736 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 90
   5 - 19.7" / 500 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   9.06" / 230 mm   470.80 ft / 143.50 m   16.40 ft / 5.00 m
   Ends:   1.97" / 50 mm   185.37 ft / 56.50 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
   Upper:   3.94" / 100 mm   470.80 ft / 143.50 m   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
     Main Belt covers 110 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1.77" / 45 mm   470.80 ft / 143.50 m   29.53 ft / 9.00 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   11.8" / 300 mm   5.91" / 150 mm      11.0" / 280 mm
   3rd:   3.94" / 100 mm   1.97" / 50 mm      2.95" / 75 mm
   4th:   1.97" / 50 mm         -               -
   5th:   1.97" / 50 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.95" / 75 mm, Conning tower: 11.02" / 280 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 128,003 shp / 95,490 Kw = 30.05 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,412 tons

Complement:
   1,088 - 1,415

Cost:
   £3.933 million / $15.732 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,010 tons, 3.6 %
   Armour: 9,251 tons, 32.8 %
      - Belts: 3,731 tons, 13.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 911 tons, 3.2 %
      - Armament: 2,069 tons, 7.3 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,319 tons, 8.2 %
      - Conning Tower: 220 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 4,769 tons, 16.9 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 9,870 tons, 35.0 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,884 tons, 10.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 450 tons, 1.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     33,202 lbs / 15,060 Kg = 38.4 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 4.8 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 5.4 ft / 1.6 m
   Roll period: 16.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.46
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.04

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has raised forecastle, rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.550
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.08 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 25.62 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.50 degrees
   Stern overhang: -4.10 ft / -1.25 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      29.53 ft / 9.00 m
      - Forecastle (25 %):   27.89 ft / 8.50 m (26.25 ft / 8.00 m aft of break)
      - Mid (61 %):      24.61 ft / 7.50 m (17.22 ft / 5.25 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   17.22 ft / 5.25 m
      - Stern:      17.22 ft / 5.25 m
      - Average freeboard:   22.97 ft / 7.00 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 110.3 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 164.1 %
   Waterplane Area: 42,455 Square feet or 3,944 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 103 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 159 lbs/sq ft or 777 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.95
      - Longitudinal: 1.51
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

250t Fire Control Installation
25t Long Range Markoni Installation
25t 5 500mm Torpedoes per tube
25t Sehendes Auge Installation
125t Reserve Weight
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: mentat on November 20, 2009, 06:29:32 AM

most effective and cost effective raider (what a great topic!) - would look like 8 k tons - high speed, very long range, good habitability -  6/8 x 6" guns and lots of Torps - esp 18" to despatch Merchant ships

  17k tons + 14" guns is massive overkill !!
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Guinness on November 20, 2009, 07:52:27 AM
If you are worried about carrying small torpedoes just to quickly dispatch a merchant ship, why not just carry limpet mine type devices with timed fuses on them. Take a boat over, attach mine at waterline, blow big hole in ship.

It would take a little more time (maybe, if the crew is well drilled and boat and mines are at the ready, probably not that much more time). But the little mines would be a lot lighter and cheaper and take up less space than even the 18" torpedoes.

For the few times you just have to fire a torpedo, say in heavy weather or when you are in a real hurry, one of your compliment of regular torpedoes should do the job.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Desertfox on November 20, 2009, 07:59:55 AM
Yup, that's what I'm talking about. Note that she costs 50% more...

Raiding is what the Olympias are for. But if there is the potential that these ships could be raiding, the enemy has to spend that much more on protecting its merchants. Ships that could be used elsewhere are now tied down, escorting merchants.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: The Rock Doctor on November 20, 2009, 08:04:37 AM
This all sounds very promising - so why will the Swiss change their minds and not complete them?
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Desertfox on November 20, 2009, 08:11:28 AM
I haven't decided yet. I might finished them as designed, then rebuild them. But even among the Swiss, these will be controversial ships, as their armament is not up to Swiss specs. Note that these ships could do their job without being completed, much like how the Alaskas ended up being built, designed to counter a phantom Japanese threat. I think it'll depend on when the ships are layed down, the earlier, the greater chance they will be completed as designed.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: The Rock Doctor on November 20, 2009, 08:52:44 AM
By and large, I think you're offering too many possibilities for most of us to bother "reacting" to any specific one.
Title: Re: Swiss Concepts...
Post by: Sachmle on November 20, 2009, 09:10:49 AM
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on November 20, 2009, 08:52:44 AM
By and large, I think you're offering too many possibilities for most of us to bother "reacting" to any specific one.

I agree. You would have been better off to just post the design without mentioning any of the carrier hogwash. Then just did whatever later.