Comparing weapons

Hi all, for starters I'd like to talk about the King Haarahlds. I was brushing up on some naval history and found some interesting ship classifications and the distinctions between the ironclad, pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, and battleship categories.
What I found interesting was that Safehold's idea of a ironclad pretty well matched up, but the King Haarahlds are classed as battleships.

According to the way it is described in the books, these ships have 1-2 masts for emergency usages, but they are built with steel frames, wooden interiors/decks, and reinforced steel on the flanks, plus a couple gun batteries. My understanding from real-life history is that a battleship has to be made entirely from steel with reinforced steel on the exterior with no galleon-like masts, an omni-direction main battery, plus 1-2 lighter batteries (and, o yea, electricity).

So, what Charis is describing as a battleship is really a dreadnought of some fashion (the only distinctions I can find between the two dreadnought types is the number of masts it uses and a difference in amount of armor it has). Also, what are the projected crew compliments of the King Haarahlds? I'm thinking not more than 750-850, but I can't find that detail in the books.

ChronicRder wrote:Hi all, for starters I'd like to talk about the King Haarahlds. I was brushing up on some naval history and found some interesting ship classifications and the distinctions between the ironclad, pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, and battleship categories.
What I found interesting was that Safehold's idea of a ironclad pretty well matched up, but the King Haarahlds are classed as battleships.

According to the way it is described in the books, these ships have 1-2 masts for emergency usages, but they are built with steel frames, wooden interiors/decks, and reinforced steel on the flanks, plus a couple gun batteries. My understanding from real-life history is that a battleship has to be made entirely from steel with reinforced steel on the exterior with no galleon-like masts, an omni-direction main battery, plus 1-2 lighter batteries (and, o yea, electricity).

So, what Charis is describing as a battleship is really a dreadnought of some fashion (the only distinctions I can find between the two dreadnought types is the number of masts it uses and a difference in amount of armor it has). Also, what are the projected crew compliments of the King Haarahlds? I'm thinking not more than 750-850, but I can't find that detail in the books.

To be a dreadnought in the historical sense it needs as a minimum an all big gun armament (4 x twin turrets minimum with at least 12" guns) and will ideally be turbine driven. The stats I saw back when the ship was mooted were clearly in the predreadnought category with 4 big guns (10") and a whole battery of intermediate callibers in the sides. This is classic pre-dreadnought. If the description has changed I recommend the use of the spoiler tags.

I don't think the specs have changed so much from LAMA as he just restated some of them as a refresher.

I like to imagine the King Haarahlds as being akin to the HMS Devastation (1871).
It being the earliest real life ship to look like a battle ship Ive found.
Though the French ship Redoubtable (1876) may be a better match.

That may perhaps be because you have a rather distorted idea of what a 'battleship' should look like. HMS Victory looked exactly like what a battleship should look like to the person who coined the term - sometime in the 1780s or early 1790s

The meaning is, and always has been, simply "A line-of-battle ship; a warship of the largest and most heavily armoured class"; the earliest citation for it is 1794. There were battleships long before HMS Dreadnought, she was a battleship, and the ships that replaced her were battleships.

The irony is that Safehold is skipping the whole line-of-battle era [take a look: naval battles have all taken place between fleets arranged in multiple columns, a common galley formation, when they weren't outright melees], so to them the term will always mean 'the biggest, meanest ship out there'

Peppero wrote:I like to imagine the King Haarahlds as being akin to the HMS Devastation (1871).
It being the earliest real life ship to look like a battle ship Ive found.
Though the French ship Redoubtable (1876) may be a better match.

Peppero wrote:I like to imagine the King Haarahlds as being akin to the HMS Devastation (1871).
It being the earliest real life ship to look like a battle ship Ive found.
Though the French ship Redoubtable (1876) may be a better match.

I believe that DW once mentioned that they were comparable to a 1890's Italian design - the Ammiraglio di Saint Bon class battleship - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammiraglio_di_Saint_Bon-class_battleship.

Can someone confirm this?

Well actually they are casemated armoured cruisers according to RFC

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6276&hilit=King+Haarald#p161829

and originally here:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4116&hilit=King+Haarald

For a historical comparison you could look at the Blake class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake-class_cruiser from the RN or the Jeanne d'Arc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_cr ... %281899%29 for the basic armourment layout.

However the KH VIIs are massivly overgunned by the standards of any historical ship from the period. A more realistic loadout for a ship of that weight would be 2 x 10 inch and 12-14 6 inch guns. The closest I can find in armourment were the Pisa class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pisa-class_cruiser

ChronicRder wrote:Hi all, for starters I'd like to talk about the King Haarahlds. I was brushing up on some naval history and found some interesting ship classifications and the distinctions between the ironclad, pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, and battleship categories.
What I found interesting was that Safehold's idea of a ironclad pretty well matched up, but the King Haarahlds are classed as battleships.

According to the way it is described in the books, these ships have 1-2 masts for emergency usages, but they are built with steel frames, wooden interiors/decks, and reinforced steel on the flanks, plus a couple gun batteries. My understanding from real-life history is that a battleship has to be made entirely from steel with reinforced steel on the exterior with no galleon-like masts, an omni-direction main battery, plus 1-2 lighter batteries (and, o yea, electricity).

So, what Charis is describing as a battleship is really a dreadnought of some fashion (the only distinctions I can find between the two dreadnought types is the number of masts it uses and a difference in amount of armor it has). Also, what are the projected crew compliments of the King Haarahlds? I'm thinking not more than 750-850, but I can't find that detail in the books.

As I recall the Haarald's were redesigned after the Great Canal Raid. I don't think they have masts anymore.

Louis R wrote:The irony is that Safehold is skipping the whole line-of-battle era [take a look: naval battles have all taken place between fleets arranged in multiple columns, a common galley formation, when they weren't outright melees], so to them the term will always mean 'the biggest, meanest ship out there'

Thank you for exactly the right attitude about the terminology.

A question though - I don't have it available for easy reference, but the galleon on galleon combat for the first round of the ICN vs. RDN in the Gulf of Dohlar under Manthyr: didn't they manage honest line on line combat then?

The Dohlarans were in multiple columns - in fact, IIRC most of their fleet was never engaged, and some of the ships weren't even hull-up before it was over. It was only their 'fast wing' that got in on the action. The Charisians essentially engaged individually as it became clear that they were going to be overhauled, which is why I said it was more of a melee. One of Manthyr's problems was that he couldn't form a proper line, because his ships were too scattered, although he did get 2 or 3 of them together. The whole thing looks more like the way the Dutch would have fought in the early-mid 17th century.

JeffEngel wrote:

Louis R wrote:The irony is that Safehold is skipping the whole line-of-battle era [take a look: naval battles have all taken place between fleets arranged in multiple columns, a common galley formation, when they weren't outright melees], so to them the term will always mean 'the biggest, meanest ship out there'

Thank you for exactly the right attitude about the terminology.

A question though - I don't have it available for easy reference, but the galleon on galleon combat for the first round of the ICN vs. RDN in the Gulf of Dohlar under Manthyr: didn't they manage honest line on line combat then?