Basically something I've slowly been tinkering with.
This is for folks to argue over..or skip entirely, while I'm gone.
Post 1 : Index
Post 2 : endless blathering about design parameters
Post 3 : List of designs tried
Post 4 : Three candidate vessels.
-FDG I
-Wotan
-Dragoon
What's the point? Basically, I really can't decide quite where I want to go with this one. So I was wondering on people's views – lightest tonnage vs highest tonnage, 8,10 or 12 guns, 23, 26 to 28 knots, etc.
Personally I'm inclined towards slow and heavily armored, with more guns, something like Frederich der Gross I, one of the slowest but heaviest armed & armored, though Wotan is attractive and faster. But the difference between them, or between Maximillian I are hard to choose from. Max is smaller and more weakly armed, but takes the most damage at 15.5 torps. She also has the advantage of shallow draft allowing berthing other than Trieste.
Post 2
Need : Little
Desire : Moderate. When Rumania backstabed and declares war on an ally, Bavaria was vexed that it lacked a Naval force that can intercept and destroy that convoy if needed. There are powers like Greece, the Ottomans, Egypt, and Bahrat which can also field vessels the Bavarians would be hard put to defeat. Lastly, Bavaria found she had little to offer allies even in the Med. Bavaria would be foolish to try to compete with any of the established Naval powers, but can afford a centerpeice vessel or two.
Purpose : To field 1 or 2 vessels which will accomplish the following goals
1)Force opponents to commit more than an armored cruiser to deal with Bavarian forces
2)Supplement allied units if needed
3)Prove superior to pre-Arcadias and early Arcadias which are most likely to be fielded by other 2nd and 3rd string naval powers.
4) Shell coastal infrastructure.
Alternatives :
Torpedo Cruisers : The reports from the Rift War, sketchy as they are, would make this attractive in some ways. However, reliant on speed to close the range. Between fouling, 1916 machinery, and the need to rely on coal firing, this can only be achieved by larger, poorly armed and armored ships fielded in sufficient numbers to score sufficient hits. Given that speeds keep increasing, these could rapidly become obscelescent.
Lots O Destroyers : Very attractive, sufffering from the same limitations as torpedo cruisers, with the added negative of incapacity to engage shore fortifications and questionable seakeeping on the high seas.
Seaplanes : Too short range, not capable of operating effectively (within Moral limts) against merchants, or defending mercantile traffic. Hard to field enough in the right place.
Seaplane Carrier : Hard to field one which can effectively mount seaplane torpedo strikes.
Design parameters
Most Bavarian designers learned in Hapsburg schools, and were either retired in 1906, or very junior with local links. Recent design experience on large vessels has been gained from both the Netherlands and the Republic of China. This both provides an array of experience in design, construction and faults, but also some very different philosophical backgrounds.
FC
Current Fire Control is adequate to 16.5km, but it is understood that nations are developing FC for out to 22km. Given visibility from mast top is limited by height and curvature of the planet, it is expected that 24km may prove the maximum possible range to spot and engage a battleship sized target. During design, expected combat ranges are +/- 4km of FC range so 12.5-20.5km. Beyond that is considered functionally unlikely to occur.
Weaponry
Largest Bavarian gun is a 330mm that was designed with RR artillery and coastal fortification use in mind, featuring a lower MV for a heavy shell for terminal effects on fortifications or bombarding vessels. A twin turret was designed in conjunction to allow naval use.
The rumors from the Rift, combined with accurate French sharing of losses, suggest that torpedos may be a significant threat. Bavaria will almost certainly lack a heavy screening force. A torpedo defense system and a heavy secondary battery are mandatory.
With casement elevations limited to about 22 degrees, and most single mounts to 35 degrees, the current range of the 12cm and 15cm guns are 15km, while the 18cm weapon can attain 18km and 20km respectively. The 18cm weapon, while slightly slower in ROF, both reaches the outer limits of FC, and is also seen as far more certain of a devastating hit on a destroyer.
Note :
1) I use biggun and a poor shell form, improved shell forms will extend these ranges in practice.
2) While I know Biggun isn't the most accurate program, it is both easy, and I doubt the 1919 Bavarians have the data to accurately generate more accurate results.
Additionally, it is expected that in a ship to ship action, secondaries can be used to maintain range ladder bracketing or that volleys of the secondary firing HC/HE can be used in an effort to destroy FC, riddle bows/sterns without end armor, riddle funnels and start fires.
Anti-aircraft will be provided by a mix of the new 90mm QF gun in an AA mount, and the antiquated 37mm PomPom.
Armor :
The Bavarians lack both All-or Nothing and Sloped armor. Personally I buy the misgivings the Brits had about sloped armor and why they abandoned it in KGV after using it in Nelson.
With face hardening tech giving diminishing returns after ~350mm, that tends to be belt maximum.
Turret faceplates can be thicker, because they have giant holes and need the thickness for strength, while barbettes are curved and can be slightly thinner, further they can be thinner on the face towards the other barbette, and below the upper armor. Belts extend 1.5-2m underwater.
End armor is seen as useful for stopping cheap mobility kills by cruiser class weapons, and should be thick enough to stop major caliber splinters.
Armor decks are expected to be either the first deck above waterline, or the 2nd deck – figureing 2.44m decks and a starting offset for the double bottom below- and meet the top of the main belt. A second deck may be specified over the upper belt. Generally speaking the expecation is the areas of the vessel outside the citadel will have lesser armored decks- cruiser proof- and thicker patches applied to magazine crowns. A gain of 15% over the citadel is expected.
From Biggun, expected deck penetration for the 33cm gun at 20km is ~12cm, so an averaged deck thickness around 10.5cm is desired.
Torpedo bulkheads in several designs rise above the waterline to the main armor deck behind the main belt, serving as an additional barrier to catch splinters and chunks ejected from the belt. Not only does this expand the volume of the TDS, but a shell just barely penetrating may be so slow it explodes in the TDS.
I've seen some mentions that make me think the Gangut may have had similar arrangement. This wouldn't be as good as a decapping plate 1-2m out, but may be better than just making the belt thicker with diminishing returns...certainly more interesting :)
Narrow bulges are used in some cases to provide some additional stand off distance for the TDS.
Machinery
Propulsion is coal priimarily, supplemented by oil. This allows operations to principally be conducted just on the readily available coal. Ranges are based on the idea of coal-only trips, with a desired coal-range of 4000-6500nm.
Machinery is turbo-electric, allowing better damage control and better turning ability due to the ability to run some screws in full reverse. This should make dodging torpedoes easier, as well as docking.
Speed bands are 22-24 : 1 knot of old ESC, 25-27 1 knot of new ESC, or 29-31 for BC
Hull Form
Governing depths are 7.5m for and X m for Suez.
Desired BC range is 0.525- 675
Short & beamy, shallow draft, tubby hulls with slow steady rolls are desired. Faster turning, better gun platfroms with plenty of room to deal with torpedo damage.
Post 3
Ships :
The result of all this is that I've gone off and made 21 various designs and I'm at a loss as to which to actually pursue.
Name :
Tonnage Light
x330mm, x180mm, x90mm
Xmm MB, Xmm UB, Xmm Deck, X TDS (+)
X knts, y% coal, X range
The (+) means the TDS extends above the WL behind the Main belt.
DeMaximus II
42,100t
12x33cm, 28x18cm, 8x9cm
35cm MB, 15cm UP, 11cm D, 7.5cm TDS (+)
26kts, 66%, 9974nm
DeMaximus I
38,500t
12x33cm, 28x18cm, 8x9cm
35cm MB, 15cm UP, 11cm D, 5cm TDS
26kts, 66%, 10023nm
Karl der Gross II
36,500t
12x33cm, 28x18cm, 8x9cm
35cm MB, 15cm UP, 11cm D, 5cm TDS
23kts, 66%, 10310nm
Hyuga
36,000t
12x33cm, 16x18cm, 12x9cm
35cm MB, 7.5cm UP, 11cm D, 5cm TDS
26kts, 66%, 10070nm
Mjollnir II
36,000
10x330mm, 20x120mm, 8x90mm
350mm MB, 75mm UB, 115mm Deck, 50mm TDS (+)
26 knts, 66% coal, 10014 nm range
Wotan
35,490t
12x33cm, 24x18cm, 12x9cm
35cm MB, 12cm UP, 100cm D, 4cm TDS (+)
26kts, 66%, 9990nm
Karl der Gross I
32,839t
10x33cm, 28x18cm, 14x9cm
35cm MB, 15cm UP, 11.5cm D, 7.5cm TDS (+)
22.25kts, 66%, 9600nm
Maximillian I
32,000t
8x330mm, 22x120mm, 12x90mm
350mm MB, 150mm UB, 105mm Deck, 50mmTDS (+)
23.25knts, 66% coal, 9910nm range
Frederich der Gross I
31,880t
10x33cm, 28x18cm, 14x9cm
35cm MB, 15cm UP, 11.5cm D, 7.5cm TDS (+)
22.25kts, 66%, 9600nm
Stalwart
34,690t
8x330mm, 16x180mm, 12x90mm
350mm MB, 75mm UB, 98mm Deck, 50mm TDS (+)
26.25 knts, 66% coal, 9900nm range
Stalwart II
34.500
10x330mm, 16x180mm, 12x90mm
350mm MB, 150mm UB, 105mm Deck, 50mm TDS (+)
24.25 knts, 66% coal, 9970nm range
Saxe
31,000t
8x330mm,16x120mm, 16x90mm
350mm MB, 120mm UB, 100mm Deck, 50mm TDS
26 knts, 75% coal, 7500 nm range
Ritter
30,500t
8x330mm, 16x120mm, 12x90mm
330mm MB, 75mm UB, 90mm Deck, 40mm TDS
28.25 knts, 25% coal, 10780nm range
Dragoon
28,982t
8x330mm, 16x150mm, 12x90mm
350mm MB, 75mm UB, 100mm Deck, 40mm TDS
27knts,66% coal, 9900nm range
De Minimus
28,870t
8x33cm, 16x15cm, 8x9cm
35cm MB, 7.5cm UP, 11cm D,4cm TDS
26kts, 66%, 9900nm
Helvetica
27,500t
10x330mm, 16x150mm, 16x90mm
350mm MB, 75mm UB, 100mm Deck, 50mm TDS
27.25 knts, 0% coal, 6500nm range
Lillehammer
26,600t
8x330mm, 20x120mm, 8x90mm
350mm MB, 75mm UB, 115mm Deck, 50mm TDS
26 knts, 66% coal, 9120 nm range
Mjollnir V
26,000
8x330mm, 20x180mm, 8x90mm
350mm MB, 75mm UB, 120mm Deck, 50mm TDS (+)
22 knts, 25% coal, 9890 nm range
note : 4.71 L:B
De Minimus II
24,640t
8x33cm, 16x15cm, 8x9cm
35cm MB, 7.5cm UP, 11cm D, 4cm TDS
22kts, 66%, 9900nm
Kurfurst III
22,300t
8x330mm, 16x150mm, 8x90mm
325mm MB, 125mm UB, 90mm Deck, 40mm TDS
22 knts, 90% coal, 8440 nm range
Post 4Quote
Wotan, Bavaria Battleship laid down 1916
Displacement:
35,490 t light; 37,871 t standard; 41,979 t normal; 45,266 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
698.82 ft / 695.54 ft x 98.43 ft (Bulges 108.27 ft) x 31.17 ft (normal load)
213.00 m / 212.00 m x 30.00 m (Bulges 33.00 m) x 9.50 m
Armament:
12 - 12.99" / 330 mm guns (6x2 guns), 1,322.77lbs / 600.00kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread, 3 raised mounts
12 - 7.09" / 180 mm guns in single mounts, 187.39lbs / 85.00kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
12 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
8 - 7.09" / 180 mm guns in single mounts, 187.39lbs / 85.00kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread
4 - 7.09" / 180 mm guns in single mounts, 187.39lbs / 85.00kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns in single mounts, 22.05lbs / 10.00kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 20,635 lbs / 9,360 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 130
5 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.8" / 350 mm 426.51 ft / 130.00 m 16.54 ft / 5.04 m
Ends: 2.95" / 75 mm 268.70 ft / 81.90 m 16.54 ft / 5.04 m
Upper: 4.72" / 120 mm 426.51 ft / 130.00 m 8.33 ft / 2.54 m
Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.57" / 40 mm 426.51 ft / 130.00 m 38.45 ft / 11.72 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14.8" / 375 mm 9.84" / 250 mm 13.0" / 330 mm
2nd: 4.72" / 120 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
4th: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
5th: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -
- Armour deck: 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 13.78" / 350 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 94,133 shp / 70,223 Kw = 26.00 kts
Range 9,990nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,395 tons (66% coal)
Complement:
1,466 - 1,906
Cost:
£5.928 million / $23.711 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,212 tons, 5.3 %
Armour: 14,597 tons, 34.8 %
- Belts: 5,487 tons, 13.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 956 tons, 2.3 %
- Armament: 4,059 tons, 9.7 %
- Armour Deck: 3,736 tons, 8.9 %
- Conning Tower: 359 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 3,731 tons, 8.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,340 tons, 34.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,490 tons, 15.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 610 tons, 1.5 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
49,514 lbs / 22,459 Kg = 45.2 x 13.0 " / 330 mm shells or 7.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.14
Metacentric height 6.3 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 18.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.51
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.01
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.626
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.42 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.37 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.59 ft / 6.58 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 21.59 ft / 6.58 m (18.31 ft / 5.58 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 18.31 ft / 5.58 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.31 ft / 5.58 m
- Stern: 19.95 ft / 6.08 m
- Average freeboard: 19.09 ft / 5.82 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 92.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 122.0 %
Waterplane Area: 51,296 Square feet or 4,766 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 198 lbs/sq ft or 969 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.12
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Belt Armor :
The main belt covers from the 5th deck, at +3.04m AWL to -2m BWL. The upper belt carries to the 6th, or weather deck.
The 5th deck serves as the main armor deck, at 75mm, while the 6th deck is 25mm, forming a cruiser-proof upper citadel. The 5th deck thins outside this citadel to 25mm fore and 50mm aft, capping the 75mm end belts. The weight savings is placed into proportionately thicker armor in the citadel.
The TDS rises above water as well, reaching the 5th deck. This both extends the height of the compartment and the 40mm bulkhead will serve to minimize damage from shells penetrating the belt. Fragments, chunks and splinters will easily be contained, and if the shell detonates, the tough and flexible steel of the bulkhead may contain the explosion.
Weaponry :
Main battery is arranged in superimposed pairs A/B, P/Q, X/Y.
Secondary battery is comprised of deck mounts in pyramids between the main batteries, and a casement battery.
Tertiary battery is arranged in the superstructure, above the plane of the main guns.
Only one Torpedoes is actually submerged. One is in the forefoot, to allow ahead fire..
The remaining 4 are mounted between the 4th and 5th decks just aft of the citadel in the stern area, protected by the end belts and deck armor, but only ~1.8m above water.
Quote
Frederich Der Grosse, Bavaria Battleship laid down 1920 (Engine 1916)
Displacement:
31,880 t light; 34,034 t standard; 37,818 t normal; 40,845 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
557.67 ft / 547.90 ft x 114.83 ft x 31.17 ft (normal load)
169.98 m / 167.00 m x 35.00 m x 9.50 m
Armament:
10 - 12.99" / 330 mm guns (5x2 guns), 1,322.77lbs / 600.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
4 - 7.09" / 180 mm guns in single mounts, 187.39lbs / 85.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 7.09" / 180 mm guns in single mounts, 187.39lbs / 85.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side ends, evenly spread
16 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
4 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns in single mounts, 22.05lbs / 10.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 18,575 lbs / 8,426 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 130
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.8" / 350 mm 328.74 ft / 100.20 m 14.80 ft / 4.51 m
Ends: 2.95" / 75 mm 219.13 ft / 66.79 m 14.80 ft / 4.51 m
Upper: 5.91" / 150 mm 328.74 ft / 100.20 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.95" / 75 mm 328.74 ft / 100.20 m 38.58 ft / 11.76 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.7" / 400 mm 7.87" / 200 mm 13.8" / 350 mm
2nd: 1.97" / 50 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
3rd: 5.91" / 150 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
4th: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
- Armour deck: 4.53" / 115 mm, Conning tower: 13.78" / 350 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 55,188 shp / 41,170 Kw = 22.25 kts
Range 9,600nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,812 tons (66% coal)
Complement:
1,355 - 1,762
Cost:
£7.344 million / $29.377 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,006 tons, 5.3 %
Armour: 14,176 tons, 37.5 %
- Belts: 4,212 tons, 11.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,386 tons, 3.7 %
- Armament: 4,113 tons, 10.9 %
- Armour Deck: 4,130 tons, 10.9 %
- Conning Tower: 334 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,187 tons, 5.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,571 tons, 33.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,938 tons, 15.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 940 tons, 2.5 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
57,568 lbs / 26,113 Kg = 52.5 x 13.0 " / 330 mm shells or 11.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 7.6 ft / 2.3 m
Roll period: 17.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.52
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.675
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.77 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.41 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4.27 ft / 1.30 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 25.89 ft / 7.89 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.25 ft / 7.39 m
- Mid (65 %): 24.25 ft / 7.39 m (16.24 ft / 4.95 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 16.24 ft / 4.95 m
- Stern: 16.24 ft / 4.95 m
- Average freeboard: 21.57 ft / 6.58 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 76.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 154.2 %
Waterplane Area: 49,307 Square feet or 4,581 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 195 lbs/sq ft or 952 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.06
- 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
Quote
Dragoon, Bavaria Battlecruiser laid down 1920 (Engine 1916)
Displacement:
28,982 t light; 30,590 t standard; 34,190 t normal; 37,069 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
717.75 ft / 705.38 ft x 93.50 ft x 28.71 ft (normal load)
218.77 m / 215.00 m x 28.50 m x 8.75 m
Armament:
8 - 12.99" / 330 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,322.77lbs / 600.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
16 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 99.21lbs / 45.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
16 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
12 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns in single mounts, 22.05lbs / 10.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 12,447 lbs / 5,646 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 130
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.8" / 350 mm 419.13 ft / 127.75 m 12.96 ft / 3.95 m
Ends: 2.95" / 75 mm 286.22 ft / 87.24 m 12.96 ft / 3.95 m
Upper: 2.95" / 75 mm 419.13 ft / 127.75 m 12.01 ft / 3.66 m
Main Belt covers 91 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.57" / 40 mm 419.13 ft / 127.75 m 27.40 ft / 8.35 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14.8" / 375 mm 7.87" / 200 mm 13.0" / 330 mm
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
- Armour deck: 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 13.78" / 350 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 93,989 shp / 70,115 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 9,900nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,479 tons (66% coal)
Complement:
1,256 - 1,634
Cost:
£6.286 million / $25.143 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,337 tons, 3.9 %
Armour: 11,369 tons, 33.3 %
- Belts: 4,337 tons, 12.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 669 tons, 2.0 %
- Armament: 2,430 tons, 7.1 %
- Armour Deck: 3,620 tons, 10.6 %
- Conning Tower: 313 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 3,725 tons, 10.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,350 tons, 33.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,208 tons, 15.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,200 tons, 3.5 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
44,698 lbs / 20,274 Kg = 40.8 x 13.0 " / 330 mm shells or 6.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 5.9 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 16.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.47
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.632
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.54 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.56 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 27.33 ft / 8.33 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.05 ft / 7.33 m (20.77 ft / 6.33 m aft of break)
- Mid (55 %): 20.77 ft / 6.33 m (12.76 ft / 3.89 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 12.76 ft / 3.89 m
- Stern: 12.76 ft / 3.89 m
- Average freeboard: 18.08 ft / 5.51 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 128.7 %
Waterplane Area: 49,696 Square feet or 4,617 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 168 lbs/sq ft or 820 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.00
- Longitudinal: 1.00
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Armor
Main Belt : Main belt raises to main deck level, at 1.45m above WL, and covers to 2.5m below WL.
Upper Belt :Above the main belt the upperbelt is 2.44 aft of the break, raising to 3.89m, and 4.88m fore of the break, rising to freeboard in both locations. This means the foreward portion of the vessel is armored from the waterline to the freeboard deck.
End Belts : Intended to stop shell splinters from turning the ends of the ship into a collander, the end belts are sufficiently thick to stop smaller caliber common rounds as well.
Armor Deck : The armor deck is in several thicknesses
A 30mm deck caps the Upper Belt at the citadel
A 70mm deck covers the entire hull above the main and end belts
Beyond the citadel, where there is no upper belt, there is no additional 30mm of armor deck, rather this material is used as patches over the magazines and boilers.
Machinery
Primary propulsion is by coal, with the vessel reaching 24.25kts on coal power.
The rarer oil is used for sprints.
Cruising speed requires 9.5% power, allowing clinker to be cleaned as boilers are rotated in service.
Range on just coal is 6600nm.
Electric machinery makes the machinery rooms smaller and better divided, and allows running screws full speed in reverse, allowing rapid decelleration and turns. These features are expected to be of use against torpedoes.
Weaponry
Main armanent is traditional A, B, X, Y
Secondary armanent is arranged 8 per side, dispersed from B to X turrets, with the forward 4 guns below the forecastle deck to minimize spray. Interior armor screens are intended to minimize the chances of a single shell wiping out the battery.
Tertiary armanent is 90mm guns in trios at the superstructure corners. The middle gun of the trio is elevated above the flanking pair.
The antiquated 37mm guns are dotted around the superstructure.
Miscellaneous weight
You forgot 1 source of Tech, all those lovely French ships you did, and are, building
Dragoon and De Minimus seem like the best choices to me...I'd recommend not going above 35,000 tons without first signing Richmond...
De Minimus I or Lillehammer for me... while I would vote for Ritter on the grounds of high speed, the low coal/oil ratio seems odd.
Honestly they're all nice in their own way. However, I'd go with a set up based off you 'minimum accepted values' and see where you end up. Looks like 22kts is the minimum speed, so start there. Seems 66% is the average coal % so I'd go with that. Even in support of your Leipzig partners range isn't a big concern, 6500-7500@~12kts should do. For armor I'd go 35cm belt, 15cm UB, 10cm deck, and 5cm TDS (+). Then fit in 10x33cm and 8x9cm and as many 15cm secondaries as there is room for. I'm guessing it should come in between 28,000 and 30,000 tons.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on October 31, 2010, 09:21:34 PM
Dragoon and De Minimus seem like the best choices to me...I'd recommend not going above 35,000 tons without first signing Richmond...
Why would a non-signatory of Richmond worry about building a ship over it's limit? Or in other words, I don't understand this post. :)
Maybe that the Richmond Signatories could object... or take messures.
I suppose, but given that any nation that is not a signatory of Richmond isn't bound by it, I fail to see what (legal) recourse there would be. The idea that those who signed Richmond are all of a sudden going to go around and enforce it on non-signatories seems fantastic to me.
Of course, this also brings to the fore a key flaw in Richmond: not everyone has signed it. Effectively, Bavaria and/or the Dutch could simply build ships in excess of the limits which can then operate alongside their allies in the ESC. I can imagine a fair number of interesting schemes by which the ESC might compensate their allies for the services of such ships.
Quote from: Guinness on November 01, 2010, 09:47:05 AM
Quote from: TexanCowboy on October 31, 2010, 09:21:34 PM
Dragoon and De Minimus seem like the best choices to me...I'd recommend not going above 35,000 tons without first signing Richmond...
Why would a non-signatory of Richmond worry about building a ship over it's limit? Or in other words, I don't understand this post. :)
Cause that could cause the collapse of Richmond, with other nations saying "If they can do it, why can't we?" Richmond's one of the few things holding back the French Fleet from building a fleet of Hood's...
Only a few nations (I suspect) would actually care if the French built a bunch of Hoods vs. a bunch of 35,000t almost Hoods. At any rate, nowhere in the Treaty does it say that a signatory can leave it or escalate light tonnage of ships just because a non-signatory has chosen to build over 35k tons.
So as a thought experiment:
Lets say the Ottomans decided to build a pair of 40k ton 16" armed monsters. What happens next?
France might say "well, we can't be outbuilt, can we", and lay down their own, breaking the Treaty. The Treaty itself is silent on what happens next, unfortunately. Without any mechanism for this situation, the signatories could decide individually if they too would break the treaty. I suspect that for most of them, "well France did it" would be justification enough.
So in that scenario the treaty regime falls. I suppose for the Bavarians that might be bad, since their ally the ESC was a major proponent of qualitative limitation. Still, I'd call this a worse case scenario.*
A more likely scenario would see the non-signatory that had laid down the big-ass ships being intensively lobbied by the signatories to think twice about that idea. I imagine that such a lesser power might have some leverage in negotiations with those who want to prop up Richmond. This sounds like a good thing for the lesser power involved to me.
*Footnote: I suppose the French, should the power in question be Bavaria, could just invade the Bavarians, but that seems awfully apocalyptic.
Could I suggest, KK, the standard BB speed - 21-22kts -
Actually, fast BBs cost too much in BPs - engines techno is not tip-top.
Jef ;)
If the Ottomans lay down a pair of 40Kton superdreadnaughts, it takes a few years to finish them (at least 3 years, at huge cost), in that time others will have responded.
Unless a Yamato/Masque style situation is enacted, everything looking peachy from the outside, but in reality, it's entirely different.
But Richmond ain't up to such situations. Just because there is no way non signatories can be controled nor punished within that treaty.
On the other hand, if the signatorees can get their act together, it can be enforced, messely if needed.
I vote for Wotan - not too big/expensive, good capability - impressive firepower - if the Main armament isn't enough - at medium range the heavy Secs will do the job - smother the opponent with hits
- also the name - yesssss ;D
Ahoj!
One of the designs with 8-10 13" guns, and 4,7-5,9" guns. 26 knots is enough.
I don't like the 7,1" secondaries.
Borys
I think the 18cm secondaries would be one of those things that looks good on paper, works in trials/training, and would be found to be mostly useless in actual combat. But, since the Bavarians have no ACTUAL COMBAT experience, I can see Kirk's IC reasoning behind them. Longer range, heavier shell, minimal RoF loss.
A 40KT ship with 33cm mains and 18cm I think would discovered to be a white elephant.
One though is that Bavaria had access to the Builders Plans for the Iberian Portugal class BB's as Bavaria provided armor. Didn't Italy have a similar arrangement with Bavaria? If so I would think that as a starting point a design based on either one of those two designs might make the most sense for Brazil.
Another thought is that does Bavaria need a ship with more than 8,000 nm range?
Michael
Original Wotan
35,490t
12x33cm, 24x18cm, 12x9cm
35cm MB, 12cm UP, 100cm D, 4cm TDS (+)
26kts, 66%, 9990nm
modified Wotan
35,000t
4T3x33cm, 24x15cm, 12x9cm
35cm MB, 12cm UP, 100cm D, 4cm TDS
26kts, oil, 8000nm:@12kts
or ...built BB Tennessee class
Jef ;)
Quote from: Sachmle on November 02, 2010, 03:14:02 PM
I think the 18cm secondaries would be one of those things that looks good on paper, works in trials/training, and would be found to be mostly useless in actual combat. But, since the Bavarians have no ACTUAL COMBAT experience, I can see Kirk's IC reasoning behind them. Longer range, heavier shell, minimal RoF loss.
Pretty much the USN's reasoning on the 7"L45. In theory it had nearly the same RoF as a 6" gun, but fired a shell twice as heavy, and so having much more killing power.
In the latest
Warship International there is a table, comparing the Weight of shell delivered per minute for the 6, 7 and 8 inch shell. I'll reproduce it here:
| Caliber | Rounds/Minute | Weight of Shell/Minute | Energy/Minute |
| 8" | 1.2 | 300lbs | 16,322 ft-tons |
| 7" | 2.5 | 412.5lbs | 23,062 ft-tons |
| 6" | 3.5 | 350lbs | 20,433 ft-tons |
So in theory, just on these metrics, the 7" gun would be superior, at least if you want to deliver HE rounds on a single target. If we look at each gun's weight: the US 6"L50 of the period weighed 8.3 tons, the 7"L45 12.8 tons, and the 8"L45 18.8 tons. So we get 15.95 lbs/ton for the 8", 32.22 lbs/ton for the 7", and 42.16 lbs/ton for the 6". So the 6" looks like a good deal.
What ultimately disproved the 7" gun though, I believe, was the shift of secondary batteries from use against the "main" target to torpedo boat defense. When defending against mass torpedo attack, more guns firing faster matters, so long as the gun is big enough to hit and kill the attacker outside torpedo range. For this job, the 7" was probably overkill. It was also heavy enough to make laying it on smaller targets difficult.
For a coast defense gun though, I believe that 7" was a very good caliber, being "hand" loadable (by two men with a tray at least), and thus having relatively high RoF. 7" from a shore installation still delivers plenty of punch. Indeed the US 7"L45's found significant use in this role in WW2.
Interesting discussion on the heavy secondaries
I have to admit they are a pet liking on my part
I think they have real value firing HE against Major targets at Medium range - fires can be very incapacitating to any size of Ship - and no Ship can protect completely against HE
Against TBDs - something lighter (5-6") with higher Rate of fire is definitely preferable - giving higher probability of hits
But a 17/18cm has longer range and bigger punch - so there is some compensation
Although such guns are criticised vs TBDs on a BB - I have never seen a Cruiser with 17/18 cm Main armament - ship a separate Secry Battery vs TBDs - the Main guns are relied on
Also - re. laying guns on target - why the problem?? - any difference in training rate ? - I assume 17/18cm are power operated ...
The 7" used on the Connecticut class (for example) was not power trained or elevated. This would be typical for most single gun mountings in casemates.
Thanks - interesting - how about the 7.5"s on the Hawke's - power operated?
Navweaps says:
Quote
This mounting was essentially a hand-worked center pivot type with additional power training and elevation provided by a 10 HP electric motor and hydraulic pump. Run-out was spring-powered.
So sort of hydraulically boosted manual, I guess. The given RoF figures in Navweaps are probably fanciful I suspect. At least, that's what American naval ordnance officers believed, given their own experience with the 7" gun. Sustained RoF over 2 rounds/minute for this gun would likely have been exceptional.
Also interesting thanks - my interest in heavy secs is strictly on the basis they are power operated to be practical weapons - I think manual operation is only really effective up to 14/15cm - anyone else have views on that?
For the heavy Secs on Wotan - I guess 24 x 18cm will be very heavy if they are power operated - but 16 would still be plenty ...
My feeling has always been for sustained rate of fire anything over 25kg/55 lbs for shell and powder is heavy and maintaining ROF is extremely hard back breaking labor. So 12.7cm/5" guns in L50/54 are about the upper end. Anything 15cm is going to start with a good ROF and watch it wrappedly fall off as the crew quickly gets exhauseted.
My intention regarding Maori practice is that rates of fire are designed to be both as high and as sustainable as possible; I know that my design spec for the next heavy gun design they produce - 400mm/L50 - and associated turrets is going to include all-angle loading and a desired cycle time of fifteen seconds. Obviously, even trying for that (and no, I don't really expect the mods to let me get past twenty seconds) will involve power everything.
For smaller gun mounts... I'd honestly never considered it. Now that I am, I suspect that the 75mm mounts seen on destroyers and as BB tertiaries are the only non-powered, human-loaded guns the Maori field. The 100mm mounts are probably electrically trained and elevated but hand-loaded, and the 35mm AA mount should be belt-fed and motor-driven for tracking speed.
The Maori have a perfectly adequate supply of Large Scary Tattooed Men, but using them to tote shells would be felt a waste.
France uses the heavy 140 L45 and L50 with the 42 kg shell, and uses the scary big slabs of meat formerly part of the Black gangs.
With a large population, those few 1000 ammo carriers can be found, and are well payed (should reflect that somewere in my HY reports).
In any case , everything has pro and cons.
Actually, for 12"+ calibers, I have the strong suspicion that the main bottleneck for higher ROF would be the shell room arrangements. Serving two guns is OK, but when there are teams maneuvering 4 half-ton+ shells every 30s from the ship into a constantly revolving turret, you can't avoid interference. The obvious solution for quad turrets is this two-level shell loading facilities, propellant bags that can be moved by hand are not that problematic.
First- awww crud. I reposted #3 instead of including #4 for folks to look at. Bummer.
That's fixed now.
Interesting discussion, wandered off places I did not anticipate.
Oh, and sorry for the big bolded section in #2, typed [ /u] instead of [ /b] – fixed that as well.
I'll answer points raised in order of occurance.
1. Tech sources
French designs built in Bavarian yards have been small combatants and auxiliaries.
Beyond that, Iberian & Italian cruisers are well known.
In addition to the old Hapsburg base knowledge, Bavarian designers have up close knowledge of Dutch, ESC and RRC capital ship design.
Lastly specifications for frame and armor, as well as such things as attachment brackets, will have been received from the French, Iberians and Italians.
2. Richmond treaty.
Given very little consideration. Ship sizes were the result of design parameters for that version.
Frankly the Bavarians would be shocked if the treaty foundered because they laid down a ship or two slightly over. Would it really be worth a signatory busting the treaty because a 3rd rate power built a 42,100ton vessel or even just one of the 38,000? The Bavarians can gamble that it is not. Though so far Bavaria's "public" stats report their ships as bigger and slower than in reality, so even a sub-Richmond design could 'seem' over.
Now, a widespread program to circumvent it...would probably cause repercussions. Bavaria can reasonable fit 1-2 BBs in a 15 year Naval cycle, nothing more.
As for Guinness's footnote – a landwar over a keel laying seems unlikely. 1 vs 1, France would decisively win...but the price to cross the Rhine and battle though the Black Forest would be stiff .
3. Minimum accepted values
Ahh there's the rub. The Kurfurst III/De Minimus II/Mjollnir V are all near minimum standards. Mjollnir is probably the best representation of design goals on minimal tonnage.
Depending on the minimum speed, and if the secondary should be 12/15 or 18cm, vs. the question of 8 or 10 minimum main battery...or since the 33cm is smaller than most, perhaps 10-12 is the minimum ? Certainly compared to Hapsburg cacti.
4. Speed
Speed was a decided sticking point in the design parameters. I simply can't get a really fast and balanced ship with my propulsion limitations. Failing that 22-23 knots keeps me abreast of the elder ESC units, and 25-26kts the newer. 26kts has the attractions of being faster than most existing dreadnaughts as well.
5. 18cm Secondary
The reasons for the 18cm choice was discussed in the long rambling. I think they would work...but not as well as the Bavarians expect. So it's intended to be questionable flaw.
In this case, the intended foe ranges from volleys of HE vs. enemy Battleships, to independently smashing cruisers, to picking apart attacking DD flotillas at 18km. Further, some of the guns can be tasked with simply firing the range ladder so the opposing vessel can be constantly monitored.
ROF
The Russian 180mm/97.5kg is listed at 4 (practical) 6(max) rpm for the Mk-1-180 single, and 5 rpm for the M0-8/1-180 single open.
The RN's 7.5"/90.7kg is listed at 5-6rpm.
The German 17cm/62.8kg is listed at 5rpm
The USN Connecticut class 7"/74.8kg is listed at 4rpm
Point was made that these are likely high- agreed, most of the gunnery stats seem to be the "max" not and average or over duration.
I fully agree that after a short time- though I'd think 5 minutes +, ROF would slack by a round or two/min. I presume loaders would work in teams with a loading tray, but the impression from reading is that guns in the 7-7.5" range were about the top end for hand working.
Rate of Train
USN 8" cruisers had issues with rate of train in close in nighttime battles in WWII.
The Hawkins 7.5" was slow to train
The Omaha's twin 6" – which weighed about what the Hawkins' 7.5" did- was I believe slow to train. Which is why I don't think all the twin 6" mounts are good ideas.
I don't think single 18cm guns would be prohibitively slow to train, they are lighter than those guns above. Further, the goal is to be shooting them at long ranges, not close in, where need is less.
Engagement Range
One of the strong points in favor- to me- is range.
At least with the older blunt nosed (0.7) shells I've modeled the Bavarians were using, range falls off quickly... though you get interesting deck penetrations as a result.
As outlined above, the 18cm can fire to the limits of Fire Control and torpedo ranges.
The 18cm will deliver a larger shell to a longer range with more energy and terminal effects faster than the 15cm. Any hits will be substantially more effective in stopping a DD.
Some of the ships listed have 15cm or 12cm secondaries, most the 18cm. Those vessels with huge #s of secondary guns mix casemented weapons and deck mount& hoists.
6. Range
It's not that the Bavarians need more than 8,000nm range.
It's that they want 6500nm on coal alone.
Usually they are 66% coal fired- which is a substantial weight cost.
9900nm x 66% = 6600nm
As for steaming speed- 14kts is my standard, rather not use 12.
As a practical matter, faster cruising speeds narrows the window a Sub must be in to gain position.
Quote from: ctwaterman on November 05, 2010, 05:23:32 AM
My feeling has always been for sustained rate of fire anything over 25kg/55 lbs for shell and powder is heavy and maintaining ROF is extremely hard back breaking labor. So 12.7cm/5" guns in L50/54 are about the upper end.
I adopted the 4,5" (114mm) fiftypounder for expressely this reason. The biggest thing used on destroyers. Combined case+shell
The 5,3" (135mm) gun - seventyfivepounder - is used as casematte secondary on larger ships for shooting at enemy destroyers. Separate case+shell
The 6" (152mm) gun - onehunderedponder - is used in single mounts or as casematte secondary.
Separate shell + case or bag (I'm not sure myself :)
All the above are manually trained and loaded.
The 7,5" (190mm) twohunderedpounder - twin turret&barbette on ACs. Some mechanical assist to loading.
Borys
I've developed 12cm guns for the DDs and 15cm for my small cruisers. Those are available, and appear on some of the designs. They don't quite have the range or punch I want.
I'll point out that the ROF listed for 7" range guns by 4 different navies is remarkably similar. Only the data Navweaps lists for the Russian 18cm single notes a different maximum and practical. If the practical 4rpm is valid for sustained, and the 6 is for burst, I'd take that.
I guess for comparisons sake what would be the "Total Steel in Air"(TSiA) for the batteries to compare. Seems 7-8 15cm guns can easily fit in the broadside of any BB, figure 5-6 18cm guns since they're larger. So the question becomes, at the practical sustained RoF, which set up puts more TSiA. Granted the 18cm will outrange the 15cm by quite a lot, but if you're only putting 1 shell in the air every 15sec per mount what are the % of hitting at those ranges outside the 15cm range?
Good question.
RN 6"/45 on the QEs was rated 5-7 rpm lobbing 45.36kg @30to an 17.1km range.
USN 6"/47 on the Eiries was rated 5-8 rpm lobbing 47.6kg @30 to an 18.1km range.
KM 15cm/45 on HSF were rated 5-7 rpm lobbing 45.3kg @27 to an 16.8km range.
Swede 15.2cm/50 were rated 3-4rpm and lobbed 46kg @ 30 to an 13.7km range.
IJN 15cm/50 were rated 10rpm theoretical, 5-6rpm practical, and lobbed 45.36kg @ 30 to a 19.5km range.
So most of these guns manage 5-7 rpm with an ave of 46kg.
Let's say 7 for first 5 minutes, 5 after that.
So say a 15 minute combat
8 guns x 7 x 5 = 280 x 46kg = 12880kg
8 guns x 5 x 10 = 400 x 46kg = 18400kg
Total = 31,280kg
Say 5 % hits = 14 rounds and 20 rounds for 644kg and 920kg.
So for the 18cm lets say 5 for the first 5, then 4 after that. Considering the Russian 6 max, 4 effective, acceptable.
8 guns x 5 x 5 = 200 x 85kg = 17000kg
8 guns x 4 x 10 = 320 x 85kg = 27200kg
Say 5% hits as well = 10 rounds and 16 rounds for 850kg and 1360kghat
Basically 50% more damage.
Plus, that damage is more impactive.
A GTB-1916 class DD has a survivability of 115kg. While a Z-10 takes 146kg and a Le Fantastique 237kg.
So a single 15cm round is 40% dam on the GTB-1916, 31.5% on a Z-10, and 19.4% on a Le Fantastique. I think more than one 15cm hit may be needed.
A single 18cm round is 74%, 58% and 36% respectively. I don't think more than one 18cm hit is needed, expect perhaps on the Le Fantastique.
Space per side : Generally, I was thinking a single 7" can fit where a single 6" can. Even length overall isn't that much greater, much less width. 7.5"/45 is 349" oa, 6"/45 is 279" oa, 50" or 4.2feet less- which can be explained by the additional barrel, not breech.
The physical dimensions are not that much greater. Most of these vessels figure 8 per side, Where totals are >16, single mount & hoists are generally used on deck. The ships are similar to HMS Erin, just much wider , and most missing "Q" mount for more deck space.
Quote3. Minimum accepted values
Ahh there's the rub. The Kurfurst III/De Minimus II/Mjollnir V are all near minimum standards. Mjollnir is probably the best representation of design goals on minimal tonnage.
Depending on the minimum speed, and if the secondary should be 12/15 or 18cm, vs. the question of 8 or 10 minimum main battery...or since the 33cm is smaller than most, perhaps 10-12 is the minimum ? Certainly compared to Hapsburg cacti.
Compared to recent Hapsburg designs, that is. The majority of the current ships are about the same level, 8x13.5'', but without the speed present on the faster ships......that being said, the Agincourt clone is an exception.
That being said, I am in favor of the Dragoon. It heavily mirrors the GC Avenger, which means I get copyright fees ;), and it seems to be the most logical when considering operating together with the Netherlands and Baltic fleets.
Dragoon was included in the 3 sample ships posted (I've gone back and edited them into the page 4 post) because it was probably the best balanced fast design.
Knocks on Dragoon would be the UB is thin- though adequate against 6" at longer ranges. The Mainbelt is short, from -2.5m and raising to the 1st deck above WL, but not the 2nd deck.
The Seakeeping is merely adequate- which may mean the speed is not always available, and longer range shooting may suffer should she be operating outside the Med. I might be able to tinker with it for better results. Heck I should see what taking it up to 30,000 does.
And of course "only" 15cm secondaries, but thats part of the ongoing 18cm/15cm discussion I'm finding interesting. I really am inclined to believe the ability to reliably one-shot larger DDs at the edge of Torpedo ranges is probably "worth" any fall down in ROF. Not to mention the extension of usable penetration bands against CLs.
Overall, probably closer related to the OTL Mackensen in concept, but Hapsburg/Prussian/ESC ships were the ones looked at. Not GC. FDG being closer to HMS Erin, and Wotan to IJN Hyunga.
But here's the thing - Wotan is 25% larger than Dragoon, with 50% more armanent, a taller belt, better UB, and 26kts. Tempting.
You could always try an odd mixed battery attempt. 8x33 cm, 8-12x18 cm in wing turrets, and 12-14x15 mm in casemates.
Actually, with the range bands, having the 15cm on deck and the 18cm in casements makes more sense. Considering fire control would be centralized, the mixing of shell sizes may not be as bad an issue as when seperate guns/batteries fired on shell splashes.
Still, just did some more work on the 18/15 issue.
Thinking a bit more, another look 18cm vs. 15cm.
Imagine a DD charging at 33 knots.
While the DD can launch from far out, Torpedo hit %s drop dramatically, so lets say it wants to get to 8,000 yards.
18cm with 0.7form shells can engage at 19,138yds for deck mounts, 16,404yrds for casement.
15cm with 0.7form shells can engage at 16,404yds for deck mounts, 13,670yds for casement.
Probably the first several volleys will be ranging shots 30 sec apart.
So say the first minute are simply 2 volleys for either.
Then Rapid fire for up to 5 min 5 vs 7, then practical rate of say 3 for 18cm and 5 for 15cm.
Which means the deck/casement mix can be useful if only to have the deck guns fire the initial ranging shots.
Table presumes 4 deck, 16 casement guns, 5% acc at range, 10% at <75% range
| Minute | range | 18cm hits | 15cm hits |
| 1 | 19,138 | 0.2 | n/a |
| 1.3 | 17,837 | 0.2 | n/a |
| 1.6 | 16,536 | 2 | n/a |
| 2 | 15,235 | 2 | 0.2 |
| 2.3 | 13,934 | 2 | 2 |
| 2.6 | 12,633 | 3 | 2 |
| 3 | 11,332 | 3 | 5 |
| 3.3 | 10,031 | 3 | 5 |
| 3.6 | 8,730 | 3 | 5 |
| -- | Totals | 18.8 | 18.8 |
Results ... Well the burst rate of the guns covered most of the engagement range, making the long term fall down of the 18cm not so much the issue. I expected the 18cm would have more hits than happened due to the longer range at higher %, but I do think the hits would be more conclusive. With 1-2x15cm hits needed depending on DD and luck, but generally 1x18cm should wreck the DD.
hmmm interesting comparisons... but at longer range you would be firing less shells if you wanted to adjust for firecontrol....
Its and interesting proposition because the 127mm and under guns need to wait a few minuets before opening fire and the 180mm guns could alreday be ranging at 1 to 2 rounds per min and then jump to 6 when a straddle was first achieved.
Its a valid point and without hindsight we dont know what outcome would be the best.
The results weren't quite as I expected.
That slower ROF at long range is represented by the 4-gun ranging volleys with the 0.2 hits line. Actually I see I only did 1 ranging volley for the 15cm, not two as intended, accidentally favoring it. For the 18cm I only allowed for 2 ranging volleys and more might be needed. However both the 15cm and 18cm sets of guns have to go through the same sequence so it should not matter greatly in the comparison.
Overall, I thought the DD would close slower, so the additional range would have a greater effect- which didn't happen. Also the short closing time meant that you never got beyond the first 5 minutes where ROF might start to slack, and so the 15cm lost some of it's advantage, being able to rapid fire for fewer volleys.
The flip side of that is that a longer combat at range might involve shell flight times such that neither the 15cm nor the 18cm would be firing at max, rather volleys every 20-30secs, and the additional ROF of the 15cm could be lost entirely.
Setting Accuracy at 5/10% against DDs gave me pause, but if I halve it, with 9 hits... it favors the larger shell as I'm more inclined towards 9 18cm hits capacity to stop onrushing DDs/CLs than 9 15cm hits.
Still, overall the lack of a definitive result either way makes me inclined to persist in utilizing the oversized secondary.
Well the home computer is back up and running, so I can use Springsharp again.
Votes / Comments on the various vessels ran as follows :
Quote
Dragoon and De Minimus
De Minimus I or Lillehammer for me... while I would vote for Ritter
Could I suggest, KK, the standard BB speed - 21-22kts -
I vote for Wotan
Looks like 22kts is the minimum speed, so start there. Seems 66% is the average coal % so I'd go with that. Even in support of your Leipzig partners range isn't a big concern, 6500-7500@~12kts should do. For armor I'd go 35cm belt, 15cm UB, 10cm deck, and 5cm TDS (+). Then fit in 10x33cm and 8x9cm and as many 15cm secondaries as there is room for. I'm guessing it should come in between 28,000 and 30,000 tons.
One of the designs with 8-10 13" guns, and 4,7-5,9" guns. 26 knots is enough.
I don't like the 7,1" secondaries.
Main guns are generally 8-10 in number
The 18cm secondaries I've looked into further, and they may indeed be a folly, but they pencil out well and lacking combat experience thats what I'll go with.
So speeds advocated range from 21, 22, 26, 27, 28.25, but generally the 26-28.25 bracket.
Sizes were generally for the <35,000 ton vessels, typically <30,000
So -
<35,000
26kts
8-10 x 33cm
16-28 x 18cm
8-12 x 9cm
35cm MB
15cm UB
10cm AD
5cm TD(+)
The desired weaponry, armor and speed tends to push the size up. Ships like Dragoon had light 120mm secondaries short belts and not (+) in an effort to keep displacement down. Overall the armanent and armor requirements on top of the speed result in larger vessels.
Overall, I can manage heavily gunned & armored, but 22-23 knt vessels <30,000, but I loose that when I start pushing the speed up. Between the engine tech and the need for coal, speed is very costly.
Of the vessels posted, the following come pretty close.
Wotan
35,490t
12x33cm, 24x18cm, 12x9cm
35cm MB, 12cm UP, 100cm D, 4cm TDS (+)
26kts, 66%, 9990nm
Wotan is posted on the first page of this threadStalwart
34,690t
8x330mm, 16x180mm, 12x90mm
350mm MB, 75mm UB, 98mm Deck, 50mm TDS (+)
26.25 knts, 66% coal, 9900nm range
These are at 26 knots, have the (+) TDS, and good weaponry. Wotan uses more tricks to allow the heavier armament.
Quote
Stalwart, Bavaria Battleship laid down 1920 (Engine 1916)
Displacement:
34,690 t light; 36,701 t standard; 40,701 t normal; 43,902 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
719.33 ft / 708.66 ft x 101.21 ft x 30.84 ft (normal load)
219.25 m / 216.00 m x 30.85 m x 9.40 m
Armament:
8 - 12.99" / 330 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,322.77lbs / 600.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 7.09" / 180 mm guns in single mounts, 187.39lbs / 85.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
16 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
12 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns in single mounts, 22.24lbs / 10.09kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 13,860 lbs / 6,287 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
5 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.8" / 350 mm 395.01 ft / 120.40 m 18.83 ft / 5.74 m
Ends: 2.95" / 75 mm 313.62 ft / 95.59 m 18.83 ft / 5.74 m
Upper: 2.95" / 75 mm 395.01 ft / 120.40 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 86 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 395.01 ft / 120.40 m 38.94 ft / 11.87 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.7" / 400 mm 9.84" / 250 mm 13.8" / 350 mm
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
- Armour deck: 3.86" / 98 mm, Conning tower: 13.78" / 350 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 94,746 shp / 70,680 Kw = 26.25 kts
Range 9,900nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,200 tons (66% coal)
Complement:
1,432 - 1,862
Cost:
£7.065 million / $28.262 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,487 tons, 3.7 %
Armour: 14,321 tons, 35.2 %
- Belts: 5,668 tons, 13.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,120 tons, 2.8 %
- Armament: 3,281 tons, 8.1 %
- Armour Deck: 3,900 tons, 9.6 %
- Conning Tower: 351 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 3,755 tons, 9.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,026 tons, 34.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,011 tons, 14.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,100 tons, 2.7 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
66,083 lbs / 29,975 Kg = 60.3 x 13.0 " / 330 mm shells or 10.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 6.3 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 16.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.68
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.40
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.644
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -6.56 ft / -2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.30 ft / 8.93 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 28.61 ft / 8.72 m
- Mid (65 %): 28.61 ft / 8.72 m (18.64 ft / 5.68 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.64 ft / 5.68 m
- Stern: 18.64 ft / 5.68 m
- Average freeboard: 25.17 ft / 7.67 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 80.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 185.6 %
Waterplane Area: 54,645 Square feet or 5,077 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 181 lbs/sq ft or 883 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.46
- 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
Stalwart III
35.000
10x330mm, 20x180mm, 8x90mm
350mm MB, 150mm UB, 110mm Deck, 50mm TDS (+)
24.25 knts, 66% coal, 9970nm range
Trading a bit of speed for 20% more firepower.
Quote
Stalwart III, Bavaria, Battleship, laid down 1920 (Engine 1916)
Displacement:
35,000 t light; 37,006 t standard; 41,142 t normal; 44,451 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
721.54 ft / 715.22 ft x 101.21 ft x 30.84 ft (normal load)
219.92 m / 218.00 m x 30.85 m x 9.40 m
Armament:
10 - 12.99" / 330 mm guns (5x2 guns), 1,322.77lbs / 600.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 7.09" / 180 mm guns in single mounts, 187.39lbs / 85.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
12 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
8 - 7.09" / 180 mm guns in single mounts, 187.39lbs / 85.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns in single mounts, 22.05lbs / 10.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 17,164 lbs / 7,786 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120
5 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.8" / 350 mm 395.01 ft / 120.40 m 18.83 ft / 5.74 m
Ends: 2.95" / 75 mm 320.18 ft / 97.59 m 18.83 ft / 5.74 m
Upper: 5.91" / 150 mm 395.01 ft / 120.40 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 85 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 395.01 ft / 120.40 m 38.94 ft / 11.87 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.7" / 400 mm 9.84" / 250 mm 13.8" / 350 mm
2nd: 5.91" / 150 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
- Armour deck: 4.33" / 110 mm, Conning tower: 13.78" / 350 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 69,920 shp / 52,160 Kw = 24.25 kts
Range 10,176nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,445 tons (66% coal)
Complement:
1,443 - 1,877
Cost:
£7.464 million / $29.857 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,839 tons, 4.5 %
Armour: 15,571 tons, 37.8 %
- Belts: 6,105 tons, 14.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,120 tons, 2.7 %
- Armament: 3,569 tons, 8.7 %
- Armour Deck: 4,423 tons, 10.7 %
- Conning Tower: 354 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,771 tons, 6.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,518 tons, 32.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,142 tons, 14.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,300 tons, 3.2 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
59,069 lbs / 26,793 Kg = 53.9 x 13.0 " / 330 mm shells or 10.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 6.1 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 17.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.62
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.30
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.645
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.07 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.74 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -6.56 ft / -2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 23.56 ft / 7.18 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 21.92 ft / 6.68 m (18.64 ft / 5.68 m aft of break)
- Mid (65 %): 18.64 ft / 5.68 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.64 ft / 5.68 m
- Stern: 21.92 ft / 6.68 m
- Average freeboard: 19.67 ft / 6.00 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 77.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 135.8 %
Waterplane Area: 55,201 Square feet or 5,128 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 181 lbs/sq ft or 882 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.10
- 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
Tiw
34.800
8x330mm, 28x180mm, 8x90mm
350mm MB, 150mm UB, 110mm Deck, 50mm TDS (+)
24.00 knts, 66% coal, 9966nm range
Then last, but not least, an attempt towards a heavily survivable battleship, rated for up to 13 torpedo hits.
Quote
Tiw, Bavaria Battleship laid down 1920 (Engine 1916)
Displacement:
34,791 t light; 36,825 t standard; 40,931 t normal; 44,215 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
716.51 ft / 702.10 ft x 114.83 ft x 26.25 ft (normal load)
218.39 m / 214.00 m x 35.00 m x 8.00 m
Armament:
8 - 12.99" / 330 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,322.77lbs / 600.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 7.09" / 180 mm guns in single mounts, 187.39lbs / 85.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
16 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
12 - 7.09" / 180 mm guns in single mounts, 187.39lbs / 85.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns in single mounts, 22.05lbs / 10.00kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 16,018 lbs / 7,266 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 130
5 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.8" / 350 mm 456.36 ft / 139.10 m 14.93 ft / 4.55 m
Ends: 2.95" / 75 mm 245.70 ft / 74.89 m 14.93 ft / 4.55 m
Upper: 5.91" / 150 mm 456.36 ft / 139.10 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 456.36 ft / 139.10 m 32.12 ft / 9.79 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.7" / 400 mm 10.2" / 260 mm 13.0" / 330 mm
2nd: 5.91" / 150 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 2.95" / 75 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
4th: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
- Armour deck: 4.33" / 110 mm, Conning tower: 13.78" / 350 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 70,740 shp / 52,772 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 9,966nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,391 tons (60% coal)
Complement:
1,438 - 1,870
Cost:
£7.262 million / $29.046 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,743 tons, 4.3 %
Armour: 15,082 tons, 36.8 %
- Belts: 5,506 tons, 13.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,068 tons, 2.6 %
- Armament: 3,084 tons, 7.5 %
- Armour Deck: 5,071 tons, 12.4 %
- Conning Tower: 353 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,788 tons, 6.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,179 tons, 34.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,139 tons, 15.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,000 tons, 2.4 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
68,762 lbs / 31,190 Kg = 62.7 x 13.0 " / 330 mm shells or 12.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
Metacentric height 9.1 ft / 2.8 m
Roll period: 16.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.34
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.677
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.11 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.30 ft / 8.93 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.38 ft / 7.43 m (22.74 ft / 6.93 m aft of break)
- Mid (52 %): 22.74 ft / 6.93 m (14.73 ft / 4.49 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 14.73 ft / 4.49 m
- Stern: 16.37 ft / 4.99 m
- Average freeboard: 19.74 ft / 6.02 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 72.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 156.6 %
Waterplane Area: 63,298 Square feet or 5,881 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 180 lbs/sq ft or 876 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.05
- 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
I still think Wotan - very strong firepower, good protection + survivability, good speed - a nice powerful BB ....