Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests

Considerations about naval designs

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by n7axw   » Wed Dec 24, 2014 10:50 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

phillies wrote:Some of this is silly. The other side has sail-masted wooden ships, perhaps with chains or iron plates tacked on them. The King Harald might as will be one of these

http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hg-wells/im ... to?ir=true

for all the likely effectiveness of the COGA against it, up to authorial cleverness, of course. The onboard saboteur is likely the most effective approach.

If you think you really need to smash fortresses, Houseman might see if he can produce a small number of, oh, 18" rifles, that get parked in two front turrets. The enemy is attacked across the bow at some absurd range like five thousand yards. This is a special purpose ship, a fortress smasher, though it is also good for bombarding way inland.

The thin, erected only for battle, 200' steel mast with stair case, does the sighting. in non coastal waters and bad weather, the mast is left down.The enemy really only has two coastlines, so two of these and some patience should suffice, especially after smokeless powder is available.


Really pretty what I am trying to say. Certainly they don't need more than the originally planned number of a dozen. After that, build something that they can afford in sufficient numbers.

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by doug941   » Wed Dec 24, 2014 11:02 pm

doug941
Commander

Posts: 228
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 6:21 pm

How do these sound? Something along of the Royal Navy Apollo class but with uniform caliber main guns and with an armored belt. Since fullup battleships are not needed very much, something like the RN Minotaur class or the US Tennessee class. Since the barbette of a twin 9.2" or 10" is approx the same size as a single 12", store guns and mountings at central fleet bases against need and sail as cruiser at all other times.
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by Darman   » Wed Dec 24, 2014 11:54 pm

Darman
Commander

Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island

doug941 wrote:How do these sound? Something along of the Royal Navy Apollo class but with uniform caliber main guns and with an armored belt. Since fullup battleships are not needed very much, something like the RN Minotaur class or the US Tennessee class. Since the barbette of a twin 9.2" or 10" is approx the same size as a single 12", store guns and mountings at central fleet bases against need and sail as cruiser at all other times.


How about HMS Powerful? 14,000t protected cruiser with a sharply sloped armored deck (2-6") so the upper hull is protected from longer-range fire. Two 9.2" guns in open barbette mounts, one fore and one aft, with a 12 6" gun secondary battery. Long range at 7,000nm (13,000km) at 14kts with a top speed of 22kts.
_______________________________________________________
My battleship sim of choice: Navalism

Image
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by doug941   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 9:41 am

doug941
Commander

Posts: 228
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 6:21 pm

Darman wrote:
doug941 wrote:How do these sound? Something along of the Royal Navy Apollo class but with uniform caliber main guns and with an armored belt. Since fullup battleships are not needed very much, something like the RN Minotaur class or the US Tennessee class. Since the barbette of a twin 9.2" or 10" is approx the same size as a single 12", store guns and mountings at central fleet bases against need and sail as cruiser at all other times.


How about HMS Powerful? 14,000t protected cruiser with a sharply sloped armored deck (2-6") so the upper hull is protected from longer-range fire. Two 9.2" guns in open barbette mounts, one fore and one aft, with a 12 6" gun secondary battery. Long range at 7,000nm (13,000km) at 14kts with a top speed of 22kts.


HMS Powerful might be a good starting point, but the difference between "Protected" and "Armored" cruisers is important. Powerful and the Cressy class were roughly equivalent in terms of size and weaponry. Powerful had the armored deck and barbettes, Cressy had that armor plus armored conning tower, belt and bulkheads. A protected cruiser had NO side armor at all and depended on their coal bunkers to protect against horizontal fire. At close range, a Civil War era muzzle loader firing round shot would be dangerous to them.
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 10:47 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Darman wrote:
How about HMS Powerful? 14,000t protected cruiser with a sharply sloped armored deck (2-6") so the upper hull is protected from longer-range fire. Two 9.2" guns in open barbette mounts, one fore and one aft, with a 12 6" gun secondary battery. Long range at 7,000nm (13,000km) at 14kts with a top speed of 22kts.


Pretty bad ship. Too big to be mass-produced, and even small armored cruiser as "Amiral Charner" would be a formidable foe for her. The big protected cruisers were the really bad idea.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by doug941   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 11:32 am

doug941
Commander

Posts: 228
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 6:21 pm

Dilandu wrote:
Darman wrote:
How about HMS Powerful? 14,000t protected cruiser with a sharply sloped armored deck (2-6") so the upper hull is protected from longer-range fire. Two 9.2" guns in open barbette mounts, one fore and one aft, with a 12 6" gun secondary battery. Long range at 7,000nm (13,000km) at 14kts with a top speed of 22kts.


Pretty bad ship. Too big to be mass-produced, and even small armored cruiser as "Amiral Charner" would be a formidable foe for her. The big protected cruisers were the really bad idea.



To be fair, these protected cruisers had a niche role in the Royal Navy somewhat in the same line as the battlecruisers 20 years later. They were designed to counter commerce raiders and needed large hulls to carry large bunkerage. They also tended to be faster than their prey.
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 11:42 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

doug941 wrote:
To be fair, these protected cruisers had a niche role in the Royal Navy somewhat in the same line as the battlecruisers 20 years later. They were designed to counter commerce raiders and needed large hulls to carry large bunkerage. They also tended to be faster than their prey.


The problem was, that the "Powerfull"-class was too big to be cost-effective. In this size, the armored cruisers was much more effective. "Powerfull" may be five knots faster than "Amiral Charner", but the latter have armored belt, and could damage "Powerfull" enough to quit the chase long before the same damage may be done to "Amiral Charner".
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by Draken   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 12:49 pm

Draken
Commander

Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:58 pm

So what about World War II heavy cruisers designs?
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by doug941   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 1:10 pm

doug941
Commander

Posts: 228
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 6:21 pm

Draken wrote:So what about World War II heavy cruisers designs?

The answer to that question would depend on if you are talking about Treaty cruisers or post-Treaty cruisers.
The Treaty cruisers tended to be barely better off than a up-dated protected cruiser while post-Treaty were the evolutionary children of the armored cruiser. Compare the USS Pensacola and the USS Wichita.
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by Draken   » Thu Dec 25, 2014 3:25 pm

Draken
Commander

Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:58 pm

I was thinking about post-Treaty.
Top

Return to Safehold