SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

[Norade]

I was more speaking of early 1930's Germany where they were strictly limited and rapidly progressed back to the top in a matter of years from nothing. They had limitations on them so they could plan things but not test them and they did just fine.

Very true. Krupp was banned from building guns over 17cm until Hitler renounced the treaties in 1933, and yet just seven years later Krupp has completed the first 80cm Dora gun which was just preposterously absurdly larger then any other gun ever. Detail design work on Dora didn't actually begin until around 1936 either.

Well it seems like we have players who care about having the best navy we can under the caps we had to start agree that we should be free to do whatever might realistically be possible. On the other side are people who don't have time for the game and who don't have a high enough naval focus to be effected anyway.

Um, I believe my proposal was that a 4-rated NF should have 18" guns available only for new ships under construction. To reflect they're quite new. As pointed, Japan had the world's #3 Navy in the 20s so their experiments with 18"ers aren't contradictory to this.

Now if that seems too harsh I'm more than willing to discuss shunting the restrictions further down the points scale. But the idea of anyone being able to build an 18" naval gun no matter how much they've actually invested in their Naval Focus score?

Well I have some ships designed with 18" guns laid down in 1918, though that would still mean my first 18" guns wouldn't enter service until 1921. As long as that is cool, I'm okay.

[K. A. Pital]

Industrialization means certain steel processing abilities. The USSR for example experienced serious steel quality issues due to it only being a nation that is industrializing. On the other hand, Germany had quite a lot of experience w/steel.

Not really. People built relatively modern 16in guns all the way back in the 1890s and the British cranked out the 18/40 in the span of just three years during the middle of the First World War.

Yeah, but why didn't the US do a leap to 18 inch say with making the Iowa class? They did consider 18 in, though only as a consideration, for BB 192X projects, but in the end of the 1930s WNT was dead. Iowa was made with no WNT considerations, and yet mounted the same 16 in. Japan was the only nation that utilized 18 in, and only on a single class of ships even after withdrawing from WNT.

I'm not saying creating the guns poses an insurmountable problem, but reasons other than WNT also limited their use I'd believe. Britain designed an 18 in gun, and had experience using it. Why didn't it consider this gun for post-WNT designs (e.g. Lion class)?

[Norade]

Industrialization means certain steel processing abilities. The USSR for example experienced serious steel quality issues due to it only being a nation that is industrializing. On the other hand, Germany had quite a lot of experience w/steel.

Not really. People built relatively modern 16in guns all the way back in the 1890s and the British cranked out the 18/40 in the span of just three years during the middle of the First World War.

Yeah, but why didn't the US do a leap to 18 inch say with making the Iowa class? They did consider 18 in, though only as a consideration, for BB 192X projects, but in the end of the 1930s WNT was dead. Iowa was made with no WNT considerations, and yet mounted the same 16 in. Japan was the only nation that utilized 18 in, and only on a single class of ships even after withdrawing from WNT.

I'm not saying creating the guns poses an insurmountable problem, but reasons other than WNT also limited their use I'd believe. Britain designed an 18 in gun, and had experience using it. Why didn't it consider this gun for post-WNT designs (e.g. Lion class)?

I might guess that unlike in our game they weren't proliferating as fast as they are in our games and in our game we had less of a world war so tensions would be higher and arms races left totally unchecked.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yeah, but why didn't the US do a leap to 18 inch say with making the Iowa class?

The Iowa class was still fundamentally designed under the Second London Naval Treaty 45,000 ton escalator clause and 16in limit. When the system completely fell apart the design work was already too well advanced to make radical changes.

Montana is the only US battleship design completely freed from treaty restrictions, and while it did not have 18in guns it was more then big enough to mount nine of them. As it was a dozen 16in barrels firing super heavy shells provided a much heavier broadside and higher hit probability at long range when the super heavy shell would be most effective.

They did consider 18 in, though only as a consideration, for BB 192X projects, but in the end of the 1930s WNT was dead.

The treaty system was still being partly followed by the US and Britain, which made certain agreements after Japans withdrawal, right up until the outbreak of WW2. The total tonnage limits were abandon, but both sides pledged to obey the escalator clause. No one had any firm idea Japan was building such large battleships until 1944, indeed the US did not have even one single picture of Yamato until a B-24 over flew Truk early that year.

Also the USN already had the 16in superheavy shell which made the 16in gun almost as good as an 18in gun with far less weight. An Iowa with 18in guns could have only mounted seven gun barrels. The US did however spend the effort to develop a 18in gun, and an 18in superheavy shell. Notice how the initial design work was ongoing when the WNT entered into force and threw a money wrench in the natural development of dreadnought battleships.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_18-48_mk1.htm

Iowa was made with no WNT considerations, and yet mounted the same 16 in. Japan was the only nation that utilized 18 in, and only on a single class of ships even after withdrawing from WNT.

Nope that’s just not correct on Iowa, and the British did in fact mount a 18in gun to on HMS Furious and several monitors.

Anyway, as we well know the British and Japan were fully intent in 18in guns in the 1920s and in Japans case prototyped even heavier weapons. Knowledge of nations intent to go to such heavy armaments, the logical impact this would have on costs and international tensions are the whole reason why the WNT was able to enter into force. It was an unprecedented and rather radical agreement all and all. Treaties had completely banned weapons before, like crossbows and exploding shells under 400 grams but never had someone sought to actually regulate a weapon system that would remain in service. Its worth noting that at the 1930 London Naval Treaty the British did propose abolishing battleships, alongside proposals for a limit as low as 20,000 ton and 10in guns (25,000 tons and 12in was a slightly more realistic proposal they made as well). No one went for that since the RN already had the three most powerful capital ships on earth. They also wanted submarines abolished, which of course no one else was in favor of either.

The Lion class did not have 18in guns because the British needed numbers more then they needed super ships, and they saw no threats on the horizon which had anything heavier. The Lion design also once more, fell under the 45,000 ton escalator clause, slightly below it in fact to save money. That’s just not big enough for a balanced 18in ship and the British inherently favored armor over firepower. Like the Iowa class such limitations could only work because the treaty system had existed. If it did not then everything would be different.

The Yamato class really was built in secret (in terms of details) though everyone did know Japan was building new battleships. Japan even referred to the guns as 'special type 40cm' to keep up the deception in documentation should any be stolen. The book Battleship Musashi details how when a blueprint of the ship went missing the police basically tortured the design staff until they got an explanation. It turned out someone had burned the document. Of course this could only work in a society as absurdly close as Imperial Japan was.

[Steve]

Out of curiosity, Norade, why would Portugal have put 18" guns on their second class of dreadnoughts?

[Norade]

Out of curiosity, Norade, why would Portugal have put 18" guns on their second class of dreadnoughts?

As a purely dick waving effort to make themselves feel better about their decline only a decade before hand.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Italians mounted 110 ton 17.7in guns on battleships in the 1870s for no real reason at at time when the standard for battleship armament was a 38 ton 12in gun. The suckers took 15 minutes to reload too yet Italy put them on several classes. Absurdly they bought the guns off Britain too, which was so afraid of them they built ships specifically in reply, and then bought the exact same guns for shore batteries at Malta and Gibraltar. No one thought of the idea of an arms embargo back then.

[Norade]

The Italians mounted 110 ton 17.7in guns on battleships in the 1870s for no real reason at at time when the standard for battleship armament was a 38 ton 12in gun. The suckers took 15 minutes to reload too yet Italy put them on several classes. Absurdly they bought the guns off Britain too, which was so afraid of them they built ships specifically in reply, and then bought the exact same guns for shore batteries at Malta and Gibraltar. No one thought of the idea of an arms embargo back then.

Wow, that is seriously awesome.

[Sea Skimmer]

The best thing is the second 17.7in class, the Italia’s, had no belt armor (they did have a turtle deck making them enormous protected cruisers) and accommodations for as many as 10,000 infantry on a short trip. Notice the absurd size guns are in open barbette positions too and the ships are almost entirely lacking any kind of secondary armament at all even to ward off spar torpedo boat attack. The bow mounted ram ensures you can sink the enemy while waiting for the main battery to reload. They may well be the most retardedly awesome warships ever.

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/rn_italia.html

So basically, you don’t need a logical reason for a ship or its guns, any reason will do.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It is possible, with some shell handling redesign, for a 16"/45 to fire the superheavy shell that came with the 16"/50?

[Sea Skimmer]

The North Carolina class and South Dakota class already did fire the exact same 2,700lb super heavy shell from 45cal guns as the Iowas did from a 50cal weapon. Altering the ammunition handling system if an existing ship not designed for such ammunition to accommodate it could approach impossibility however. Basically everything has to change, and all the changes demand more volume in a part of the ship which is already very tight. That’s despite the USN being low on mechanization in the magazines too, more mechanization would make the problem all the worse

[Raesene]

The best thing is the second 17.7in class, the Italia’s, had no belt armor (they did have a turtle deck making them enormous protected cruisers) and accommodations for as many as 10,000 infantry on a short trip. Notice the absurd size guns are in open barbette positions too and the ships are almost entirely lacking any kind of secondary armament at all even to ward off spar torpedo boat attack. The bow mounted ram ensures you can sink the enemy while waiting for the main battery to reload. They may well be the most retardedly awesome warships ever.

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/rn_italia.html

So basically, you don’t need a logical reason for a ship or its guns, any reason will do.

The Lepantos are among my favorite ships for their looks alone.
Thank you for the link - it's very informative; I've been hunting for predreadnought-pictures for ages.

[Steve]

Hrm.... secondary battery mounts, I know they eventually drifted from casemates to other types of mounts, but when did this happen and what were the mount types they eventually got?

[Thanas]

My 21inch monster was built as a counter to Skimmer's ship. Now that we have a max. 9x18" limit, I will of course not built it.

As for my Yamato clone - I do not think I have one atm. My Bismarck is pretty powerful, as is my Friedrich class, but they all do not have what the Yamato has.

[Mr Bean]

Speaking of alt History how about the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon and the M2 Browning .50cal MG? Still on the same invention timeline in our alt-history? I intend for the as yet unnamed King of the UK to much like a certain German leader of the 40's take a personal hand in procurement of Army and Naval equipment for his military. And I'm looking for a few bad ideas to balance the good. I need a few one off Boondoggles to balance the good ideas I want to steal from other countries. For example the M2 Browning in this day and age besides being all around better than what Vickers came up with is all around great as an AA or anti-ship weapon VS the planes of today. A dual mount will rip apart any Fokker D.VII or most any World War I era Fighter's considering the slow speed of such planes. Heck they did well enough against Zero's in the 1940(But by the end of the war even quad mounts were of questionable use against anything but bombers).

The Oerlikon by comparison(A year or two off full introduction in our timeline) is and still remains the premium Naval AA gun and is still used on most of the ships today even after eighty years it's simple, it's robust and it does it's job so well we've kept using it.

So in payment for adopting these good ideas(Introduction of the Browning or a British copy) as a Naval AA and light boat defense gun I need a bad idea to counter it. Currently I'm thinking of forcing my Army to also adopt it as the standard infantry machine gun which it's far to heavy for that roll and it's ammunition is to heavy per bullet as well. Nice while it lasts and every MG squad is also anti-tank in this day and age but outside of trench warfare my army is very immobile and will hurt me down the line in sidetracking things like the Development of the Bren.

So I want to introduce the MH2 in Naval mounts on my ships, but counter that with forcing my Army to accept it as well. What about the Oerlikon? In a years time when the first examples come off the assembly line in real life(Marketed and sold the following year in 1927) what great boondoggle should I also have the King insist on to balance this?

[Ma Deuce]

Hrm.... secondary battery mounts, I know they eventually drifted from casemates to other types of mounts, but when did this happen and what were the mount types they eventually got?

Around the end of WWI or so was when hull-mounted casemates began falling out of favor. HMS Hood was the Royal Navy's first dreadnought to mount it's secondaries entirely above the weatherdeck; the Colorado class was the US Navy's first. The guns were now usually affixed to open pedestal mounts that often did not include hoists, or in casemates moved up to the superstructure. Some countries stuck with hull casemates a bit longer though, like Japan in the Nagatos and most of the 8-8 battleships, though the battlecruiser designs moved to superstructure casemates. The abortive South Dakota class used superstructure casemates for it's 6" secondaries as well. Later on, the G3, N3, and of course Nelson mounted it's secondaries in fully enclosed rotating gunhouses with integral hoists. In our era, this type of mount would probably be more common for our new construction; the most recently completed generation of ships at game start would have some, but they wouldn't be terribly common.

One interesting footnote in the evolution of German secondary mountings was the Derfflinger class battlecruiser, which used superstructure-mounted casemates and a flush weatherdeck. For reasons which I've never been unable to determine however, the succeeding Mackensen class (though in most regards a scaled-up Derfflinger) moved back to hull mounted casemates.

My 21inch monster was built as a counter to Skimmer's ship. Now that we have a max. 9x18" limit, I will of course not built it.

Read a bit further up: As I understand it, Steve is now moving to allowing more design flexibility within the tonnage limit rather than hard limits on type and number of guns, relying more on "judgement calls" on an individual basis. Individual tonnage limits on new construction would also be raised incrementally from the starting limit by 1,000 a year rather than jumping straight to 60k tons. However, we're also considering making certain gun calibers unavailable to players with lower industry or naval focus at game start; they'd instead have to expend industrial points to develop them.

[Agent Sorchus]

However, I'd like them to ask other players who are SS-users to help them develop designs if needed for the roles they need them to play.

I could volunteer to be available for that. Hey, if taking a bit of extra time to design ships for others who don't have the time or the technical knowledge to do it themselves allows me a bit more flexibility to design what I feel meets my country's strategic needs, then I can't complain. However, I think we need to make sure there are clear distinctions between ships our countries "export" in-game, and designs we make for people out of game to claim as their own. Furthermore, although I'm amenable to designing ships for other players, I'd feel better if I knew I weren't the only one doing it: Designing ships for one or two other players at the same time in addition to my own should be quite manageable, but if it grows to say, half a dozen then that could get a bit overwhelming.

I would also be willing to tool up some designs for other players. Of course I am very much so inexperienced with springsharp, but hey I am willing to put my hat in.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Lepantos are among my favorite ships for their looks alone.
Thank you for the link - it's very informative; I've been hunting for predreadnought-pictures for ages.

The things are so old they can't really considered to be in the predreadought category. Predreadnoughts are the product of smokeless powder and quick firing guns, which forced designs to actually abandon all or nothing armoring for two decades. They would be central citadel ships, if you could classify them as any specific type of battleship, something the freakish design makes difficult. Even at the time the argument was put forward that they should be considered cruisers.

[Ma Deuce]

Quick question now that I've become absorbed with designing my lineage of destroyers (which would be least affect by changes to the rules): How many depth charges did a typical DD from this era carry, or more generally, how many full DC patterns could a typical DD deploy. I'm getting the feeling that my 1,750 tonner is carrying way too many, and I would like cut the weight down to maybe 1,600 tons or less.

[Slacker]

Thanas, I'm presuming that, given Poland's a theoretical ally and buffer state against the Soviet juggernaut to your East, we'd be able to purchase ships from you. I don't think it's really realistic that Poland would have a domestic capital ship construction capability, so I'd like to get two of your newer battlecruisers for export. We are, after all, allies.

Considering I have no freaking idea how to use Springsharp, this saves me a bunch of trouble.

[Sea Skimmer]

Quick question now that I've become absorbed with designing my lineage of destroyers (which would be least affect by changes to the rules): How many depth charges did a typical DD from this era carry, or more generally, how many full DC patterns could a typical DD deploy. I'm getting the feeling that my 1,750 tonner is carrying way too many, and I would like cut the weight down to maybe 1,600 tons or less.

For the 1920s you could take two stern tracks with eight charges apiece, and four K-guns with four reloads apiece as a basic battery. So four patterns of six charges. A couple reloads for the stern tracks might be carried as well. Actual details varied, but not radically so. This is assuming 300lb charges. 600lb charges could not be fired by K-guns, and stern tracks would hold fewer of them as well. Both the USN and RN had both sizes of charges by the end of WW1, but kept the 300lber as the primary weapon into WW2 when types multiplied enormously, including the tube launched 2,000lb charge. These weights are the weights of the explosive charge, the complete depth charge weighed more. Navweapons has plenty of data on that topic.

Around 1918 Studies were carried out by the USN at least for dedicated escort conversions of 1,000 ton destroyers (removing torpedoes and some guns) which would haul as many 80 charges but it didn’t actually happen at the time. Latter escort conversions of old destroyers became common, replacing a boiler room with more fuel tanks and a below decks magazine for depth charges to help keep stability in check. Purpose built escorts in WW2 carried as many as 150-200 depth charges (once ahead firing weapons appeared the number was reduced) but normal destroyers never reached these levels.

Since the destroyer was fast, and sonar in the 1920s was almost worthless its main ASW weapon is simply to exist. Submarines of the time had poor hydrophones, somewhat high diving times and very bad underwater performance. That meant it was relatively easy to suppress them and keep them underwater and thus completely ineffective until a convoy had passed. This is why very few ships were lost in WW1 convoys and in warship formations, unlike WW2, even though the ASW ships had no sonar at all and often not even hydrophones. Once a convoy or warship group did pass, few submarines yet had the surface speed to easily make an end run back ahead to attempt a second attack.

[Beowulf]

Hellsing, Manchuria Armored Cruiser laid down 1909

Displacement:
17,450 t light; 18,310 t standard; 20,359 t normal; 21,999 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(600.39 ft / 600.39 ft) x 79.72 ft x (24.61 / 26.24 ft)
(183.00 m / 183.00 m) x 24.30 m x (7.50 / 8.00 m)

Armament:
9 - 11.81" / 300 mm 45.0 cal guns - 830.83lbs / 376.86kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1909 Model
3 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 4.13" / 105 mm 50.0 cal guns - 37.39lbs / 16.96kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1909 Model
12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 7,926 lbs / 3,595 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.45" / 240 mm 390.26 ft / 118.95 m 10.73 ft / 3.27 m
Ends: 2.95" / 75 mm 210.11 ft / 64.04 m 10.73 ft / 3.27 m
Upper: 4.72" / 120 mm 390.26 ft / 118.95 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
0.47" / 12 mm 390.26 ft / 118.95 m 23.26 ft / 7.09 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 73.16 ft / 22.30 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 2.36" / 60 mm 9.45" / 240 mm
2nd: 4.72" / 120 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2.36" / 60 mm
Forecastle: 1.18" / 30 mm Quarter deck: 1.18" / 30 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 11.81" / 300 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 74,399 shp / 55,502 Kw = 27.25 kts
Range 7,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,689 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
851 - 1,107

Cost:
£1.854 million / $7.415 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,424 tons, 7.0 %
- Guns: 1,424 tons, 7.0 %
Armour: 5,492 tons, 27.0 %
- Belts: 2,567 tons, 12.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 159 tons, 0.8 %
- Armament: 1,172 tons, 5.8 %
- Armour Deck: 1,405 tons, 6.9 %
- Conning Tower: 190 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 3,720 tons, 18.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,814 tons, 33.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,909 tons, 14.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
21,853 lbs / 9,912 Kg = 26.5 x 11.8 " / 300 mm shells or 2.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 5.0 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 15.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.53
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.92

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a straight bulbous bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.605 / 0.613
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.53 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.50 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 26.97 ft / 8.22 m, 22.05 ft / 6.72 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 22.05 ft / 6.72 m, 22.05 ft / 6.72 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 11.02 ft / 3.36 m, 11.02 ft / 3.36 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 11.02 ft / 3.36 m, 11.02 ft / 3.36 m
- Average freeboard: 16.93 ft / 5.16 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 99.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 126.8 %
Waterplane Area: 35,172 Square feet or 3,268 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 103 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 151 lbs/sq ft or 736 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.16
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

Ship may, or may not end up undergoing reconstruction during the course of the game.

[Thanas]

Thanas, I'm presuming that, given Poland's a theoretical ally and buffer state against the Soviet juggernaut to your East, we'd be able to purchase ships from you. I don't think it's really realistic that Poland would have a domestic capital ship construction capability, so I'd like to get two of your newer battlecruisers for export.

You can have them. The speed version or the more balanced 26knot version?

[Steve]

In light of the Hellsing, this will be Cascadia's first actual battlecruiser.

Yukon, Cascadian Battlecruiser, laid down 1910

Displacement:
20,710 t light; 21,935 t standard; 24,580 t normal; 26,697 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(674.89 ft / 654.00 ft) x 83.00 ft x (27.00 / 28.89 ft)
(205.71 m / 199.34 m) x 25.30 m x (8.23 / 8.81 m)

Armament:
9 - 12.00" / 305 mm 50.0 cal guns - 914.66lbs / 414.88kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1910 Model
3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm 50.0 cal guns - 66.16lbs / 30.01kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1910 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3.35lbs / 1.52kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1910 Model
6 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
6 x Single mounts on side ends, majority forward
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 8,802 lbs / 3,992 kg
Main Torpedoes
2 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m torpedoes - 1.381 t each, 2.762 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
2nd Torpedoes
8 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m torpedoes - 1.381 t each, 11.049 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted reloads

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 440.00 ft / 134.11 m 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 214.00 ft / 65.23 m 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 440.00 ft / 134.11 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Main Belt covers 104 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.00" / 25 mm 393.00 ft / 119.79 m 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 67.00 ft / 20.42 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 5.00" / 127 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 5.00" / 127 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 1.50" / 38 mm
Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 91,000 shp / 67,887 Kw = 28.18 kts
Range 10,000nm at 13.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,762 tons

Complement:
981 - 1,276

Cost:
£2.136 million / $8.543 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,128 tons, 8.7 %
- Guns: 2,110 tons, 8.6 %
- Weapons: 17 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 6,828 tons, 27.8 %
- Belts: 3,517 tons, 14.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 349 tons, 1.4 %
- Armament: 1,677 tons, 6.8 %
- Armour Deck: 1,029 tons, 4.2 %
- Conning Towers: 255 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 3,760 tons, 15.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,994 tons, 32.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,870 tons, 15.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
29,201 lbs / 13,245 Kg = 33.8 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 4.8 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 16.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.62
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.587 / 0.596
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.88 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.57 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 19.00 ft / 5.79 m, 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 19.00 ft / 5.79 m, 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 19.00 ft / 5.79 m, 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Average freeboard: 19.24 ft / 5.86 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 103.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 142.2 %
Waterplane Area: 39,221 Square feet or 3,644 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 161 lbs/sq ft or 784 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.19
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

Currently my plan is for two units of this, Yukon and Saskatchewan. I may have Alberta as a third laid in 1911 when completion of an Olympia-class dreadnought frees up the necessary slipway.

Hellsing's reported capabilities were foremost in the designers' minds with Yukon, but other concerns were the ability for long-range cruising and countering any similar designs. The result is the 9" protection over the vitals. Also, to maximize range on available fuel bunkerage, Yukon was slated to receive nothing but oil-fired boilers, actually preventing Cascadia and Pacifica from being all-oil designs as well due to a lack of available oil-fired boilers of proper size and power - the distinction of first all-oil dreadnought in the fleet would fall to CRS Constitution, laid in 1912.

Additionally, it is my intention that Yukon and Cascadia will both suffer problems due to the attempt to use three-gun turrets, delaying completion, but providing necessary experience for the later manufacture of the triples on the run of Constitutions.

A final note: I'm not sure how realistic it is, but I figure one of the things given to Yukon for some advantage was the longer gun barrels; she sports 12"/50 caliber guns, not 12"/45 caliber. I can change this if people consider it horrifically improbable, or alternatively I can have the design's guns suffer greater problems from the longer barrel.

[Slacker]

Thanas, I'm presuming that, given Poland's a theoretical ally and buffer state against the Soviet juggernaut to your East, we'd be able to purchase ships from you. I don't think it's really realistic that Poland would have a domestic capital ship construction capability, so I'd like to get two of your newer battlecruisers for export.

You can have them. The speed version or the more balanced 26knot version?

I'm honestly not sure. Speed would be ideal for the hit-n-run style of combat they'd have to fight in the Baltic, but at the same time they don't really need much in the way of range. Probably go with the 26 knotter, not sure.