Considerations about naval designs

Draken wrote:Wooden ships are nice, but are much harder to mass produce, with steel hull you just need to create one form of each element for casting and it's much cheaper. Metal is much harder than wood and will survive more hits and there no issue with slowing down.

Very few elements of a steel hull are cast - most are forgings or made from rolled sheet, both of which are tougher and more resilient as the mechanical working closes defects in the cast stock. Steel hulls are predicated on heavy machinery which could machine wood easier than steel but the resulting structure would not be as strong as the same weight of steel structure, and may not be available in the large sizes required for really large ships. (Lack of wood was a driver in Terrestrial iron & steel ship construction).
In light weight structures wood is easier to work than sheet steel (which gets a little thin for requisite stiffness) so early aircraft used wood in preference (but some sheet steel aircraft were built, by Junkers for example.

Several points about using schooners/merchies.
1) If the ICN can deploy a 2.5 to 3" cannon with HE shells, they would be suitable as pivot guns on cargomen, making them armed merchant cruisers.
2) A VERY important consideration in a wood hull is the length of the hull. At approx 250' long, a wood frame has to be reinforced with metal or have a metal frame. Wood is not strong enough to resist sagging or hogging. This is why Joshua Humphreys included diagonal framing in his designs.

doug941 wrote:Several points about using schooners/merchies.
1) If the ICN can deploy a 2.5 to 3" cannon with HE shells, they would be suitable as pivot guns on cargomen, making them armed merchant cruisers.
2) A VERY important consideration in a wood hull is the length of the hull. At approx 250' long, a wood frame has to be reinforced with metal or have a metal frame. Wood is not strong enough to resist sagging or hogging. This is why Joshua Humphreys included diagonal framing in his designs.

Wouldn't it be simple to develope rifled muzzle-loaders for that situation?

Dilandu wrote:

doug941 wrote:Several points about using schooners/merchies.
1) If the ICN can deploy a 2.5 to 3" cannon with HE shells, they would be suitable as pivot guns on cargomen, making them armed merchant cruisers.
2) A VERY important consideration in a wood hull is the length of the hull. At approx 250' long, a wood frame has to be reinforced with metal or have a metal frame. Wood is not strong enough to resist sagging or hogging. This is why Joshua Humphreys included diagonal framing in his designs.

Wouldn't it be simple to develope rifled muzzle-loaders for that situation?

At the present time, the ICN probably already has RMLs. The reason for a 3" breechloader is they can be loaded from behind a shield. they also can have a rate of fire of 12-15 rounds per minute with fixed ammunition.

What about submarines, they would be more useful for our enemies, but still they would be quite useful during assaults on big harbors, when we don't want to be spotted. Submarines should do the job and remain undetected.

Draken wrote:What about submarines, they would be more useful for our enemies, but still they would be quite useful during assaults on big harbors, when we don't want to be spotted. Submarines should do the job and remain undetected.

Submarines are something you do not, under any circumstances, want the enemy to get their hands on. Which means that Charis should not and cannot be designing and building their own. The risks outweigh the benefits.

Draken wrote:What about submarines, they would be more useful for our enemies, but still they would be quite useful during assaults on big harbors, when we don't want to be spotted. Submarines should do the job and remain undetected.

There was a thread about subs several weeks ago. The only really useful powerplant for a sub with current or conceivable tech is diesel/electric, both of which have big problems with the Proscriptions. Power that can be used is: human, compressed air, flywheel and steam. The first three are strictly a very short range ie harbor defense option. Steam can be long range but has several bad side effects like high temps inside the hull, large hull openings that have to be sealed and long diving times.

What about some kind of support ship for army and Marines? I'm thinking about something similar to USS America. C&C function, large amount of small crafts and since we don't need big deck for helicopters or planes, decent gun support for landing?

Draken wrote:What about some kind of support ship for army and Marines? I'm thinking about something similar to USS America. C&C function, large amount of small crafts and since we don't need big deck for helicopters or planes, decent gun support for landing?

Probably need to see if it is needed. Right now there really isn't a major need for major (ala D-Day) landings on the main continents, except possibly in Dohlar, and that is probably going to be solved by the King Haaralds. Since it will take 6 months to a year (or more, given all of the other demands on Howsmyn's foundries) to design and build this beast, the war may well be over.

fallsfromtrees wrote:

Draken wrote:What about some kind of support ship for army and Marines? I'm thinking about something similar to USS America. C&C function, large amount of small crafts and since we don't need big deck for helicopters or planes, decent gun support for landing?

Probably need to see if it is needed. Right now there really isn't a major need for major (ala D-Day) landings on the main continents, except possibly in Dohlar, and that is probably going to be solved by the King Haaralds. Since it will take 6 months to a year (or more, given all of the other demands on Howsmyn's foundries) to design and build this beast, the war may well be over.

I would argue that simply looking to see if a large amphibious D-Day-style assault was going to be needed in the near future as the sole measure of the value of an amphibious assault ship is the wrong way to go about deciding if said vessel is valuable enough to invest time and resour4ces in designing and constructing it. The true benchmark for its value would be the predicted frequency of amphibious landings, large or small. If Charisian planners only foresee the need for one super-large amphibious assault, then why bother designing a vessel that would only be used once? However, if Charisian strategic planners are hoping to launch many small amphibious assaults/raids all along enemy-controlled coastlines.... then designing a vessel that carries landing craft, troops, and whatever gun-type is deemed most desirable for landing support would seem to me to be a no-brainer.