SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

[Steve]

Plenty for fighting cruisers. She's actually a tad over-armored anyway, and her AA armament's rather overdone. This is 1925, not 1940+. My first CB was 13" belt but shorter and only 15 feet high, and that was on a ship with 10"/51 armament, 33.57 knot speed at 31,000T. A 12"/50 armament version has me reducing belt to 10" and TDS to 2" multi-bulkheads, and I'm at 34,000T on that one (the original version with 10"/51 again was slightly less heavy but over 34 knots).

Actually, I'll just post the proposed design.

Artemis, Cascadian Large Cruiser laid down 1926

Displacement:
32,347 t light; 34,110 t standard; 38,813 t normal; 42,574 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(807.62 ft / 800.00 ft) x 99.00 ft x (32.00 / 34.32 ft)
(246.16 m / 243.84 m) x 30.18 m x (9.75 / 10.46 m)

Armament:
9 - 12.00" / 305 mm 50.0 cal guns - 999.99lbs / 453.59kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1926 Model
3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm 43.0 cal guns - 61.05lbs / 27.69kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1926 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 1.87lbs / 0.85kg shells, 2,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
6 x 2 row quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
16 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm 50.0 cal guns - 0.53lbs / 0.24kg shells, 2,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
8 x 2 row twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 10,030 lbs / 4,550 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m torpedoes - 1.070 t each, 4.281 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes
2nd Torpedoes
12 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m torpedoes - 1.070 t each, 12.844 t total
In 1 sets of deck mounted reloads

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 480.00 ft / 146.30 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 10.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.00" / 51 mm 480.00 ft / 146.30 m 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 80.00 ft / 24.38 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 9.00" / 229 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm - 3.00" / 76 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.10" / 3 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 5.00" / 127 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 2.00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 4 shafts, 189,311 shp / 141,226 Kw = 33.61 kts
Range 10,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,464 tons

Complement:
1,382 - 1,797

Cost:
£10.110 million / $40.440 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,250 tons, 5.8 %
- Guns: 2,225 tons, 5.7 %
- Weapons: 25 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 11,013 tons, 28.4 %
- Belts: 3,294 tons, 8.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,066 tons, 2.7 %
- Armament: 1,909 tons, 4.9 %
- Armour Deck: 4,375 tons, 11.3 %
- Conning Towers: 370 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 6,060 tons, 15.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,932 tons, 33.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,465 tons, 16.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 92 tons, 0.2 %
- On freeboard deck: 92 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
53,632 lbs / 24,327 Kg = 62.1 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 9.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 17.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.53
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.536 / 0.548
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.08 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.70 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 67
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 25.00 ft / 7.62 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Aft deck: 30.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Quarter deck: 20.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 24.10 ft / 7.35 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 92.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 181.0 %
Waterplane Area: 56,777 Square feet or 5,275 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 120 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 173 lbs/sq ft or 846 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.29
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

3 scout aircraft included

[Steve]

I'll note that I have a variant that would only have 10"/51 guns, it has a slightly thicker belt and larger engine plant for about the same tonnage.

[Thanas]

Not disputing any of that. But for defending against destroyers a fast ship armed with numerous 6" quickfiring guns seems to me to be the better choice. Also, according to my doctrine their job is not to go up against other light cruisers, I have heavy or battlecruisers for that. Hence, quickfiring 6" guns.

I recognize the value of smaller quick-firing guns for destroyer-killing, hence why it's one of the roles of my so-called scout cruisers, along with scouting (naturally) and flotilla leading. My "Light Cruisers" are more intended for general cruiser work, including engaging other cruisers. Although I didn't have a huge number of SCs at the time, my 8" gunned light cruiser class was built with the knowledge that when they joined the fleet, there would already be a large number of older 5.5" gunned light cruisers already in service that are still quite effective against DDs, and by the time they retired, there would be enough new scout cruisers for anti-destroyer screening. My logic is that if you're going to build a cruiser for destroyer killing (that's not meant to take on other cruisers), it's better to have a smaller faster ship that can still decisively outgun your typical destroyer, than less-numerous big cruisers with a large number of QF guns each: Destroyers are plentiful, and one ship can only engage so many targets at once. It just so happened my scout cruisers did that job well enough that I figured it was better to simply build more of them then creating a specialized type.

That much certainly is true, however most of the scout cruisers presented here have less armamament than my large destroyer.

I am also using the terminology because the German Navy did differentiate between light (kleine) and heavy (Große) Kreuzer even back then. Of course, you might argue that small and big does not equal light and heavy cruisers, but this is close enough for my taste.

I thought that "Große Kreuzer" was the Kaiserliche Marine's designation for what everyone else called a battlecruiser? In a similar vein, I also seem recall them designating their battleships as "Linienschiff". However as an aside, I'll note the later Kriegsmarine apparently switched to to more conventional "Schlachtschiff" and "Schlachtkreuzer".

No, Große Kreuzer was everything above 5000 tons, officially. Schlachtschiff and Schlachtkreuzer were non-conventional designations for the German Navy and were not used in the Naval laws. The reason for that was that the Reichstag was always trying to cut back the funding for new battleships and naming ships Große Kreuzer was better than calling them Battlecruisers in that regard. This of course leads to the Scharnhorst (which was also a Panzerkreuzer) to be labelled in the same category than the Derfflinger etc. Coincidentally, these budgetary restraints is also the reason why the Naval scares are today considered as nothing more than inventions of the British Admiralty. If Tirpitz had to beg the shipyards for discounts (because otherwise there would have been no german battlecruiser besides von der Tann), that hardly looks like a great power arming up to take on the British.

[Thanas]

As for large cruisers, you all are aware that you are well within battlecruiser territory now, right?

Very badly designed battlecruisers, that is. My Derfflinger class has a tonnage of 2/3 your ships and could probably sink any of them.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

As for large cruisers, you all are aware that you are well within battlecruiser territory now, right?

Very badly designed battlecruisers, that is. My Derfflinger class has a tonnage of 2/3 your ships and could probably sink any of them.

The price you pay for 33knots.... and 15-18knots cruise and >10,000nm range.

Actually, the designs are close to the real life Alaska battlecruisers. Maybe a few thousand tonnes off because of the Alaskas, but definitely a thicker belt, comparable to the Iowa. Essentially, they can take and survive 16"/45 rounds on the belt. The deck well, there's a limit to how much armoring that can take, and I'm wondering about sacriificing some speed for an extra inch or two on the decks.

[Thanas]

There is IMO the limit of cost. Germany herself will only built a 20.000 tons replacement for the Blücher class sold. The aim of a heavy cruiser in Germany's eyes is not to get up to speed of destroyers, it is to outfight every other ship in its weight class and to be able to run away from battlecruisers.

More important is a high cruise speed for commerce raiding.

I'd rather built four 20kt ships than 2 of those 35kt monster cruisers, and those four 20kt ships will be far more useful for the job at hand (and cheaper to boot due to the construction times).

[Steve]

Hence the "10,000nm at 18 knots" endurance profile of my Large Cruisers. Their entire purpose is hunting down surface commerce raiders and cruisers while not being so powerful as to tempt admirals to put them in LoB. The appropriate response to a Battlecruiser for them is to run, and have the speed and protection to escape.

Part of the problem really is that, again, SpringSharp not only uses a uniform hull shape and don't permit an optimized one (which would permit better speed for lighter engines), but it enforces max-weight engines.

They can't be Alaskas, of course, because Alaska was WWII and these are ten years early. So they'll be heavier for similar performance.

[Thanas]

Okay. Let's say one of those commerce raiders roughly meet my Ersatz Blücher in battle. Those ships will have comparable armament. Let us also say that both ships are heavily damaged or destroyed. Which means you just sacrificed a 35kt ship for destroying a 20kt ship - of which there are far more left. That is why I do not think having such large cruisers for the purpose of commerce raiding/defence is economically worthwhile.

[Steve]

What are the stats on this vessel? Because for it to be 15,000 tons lighter but with 12" armament I figure it is a combination of slower, less well armored, and/or does not have as many guns.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Okay. Let's say one of those commerce raiders roughly meet my Ersatz Blücher in battle. Those ships will have comparable armament. Let us also say that both ships are heavily damaged or destroyed. Which means you just sacrificed a 35kt ship for destroying a 20kt ship - of which there are far more left. That is why I do not think having such large cruisers for the purpose of commerce raiding/defence is economically worthwhile.

The 35kt ship is more likely to outmaneuver your ship at range, and speed off before you even launch a shell to hit, unless you get dead lucky on the first hit, but that is highly unlikely.

[Thanas]

And then the 35kt ship has failed in its mission because the commerce raider can continue on. As the 20kt ship still has 31 knots max speed, nobody will get a hit except at close ranges anyway.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

And then the 35kt ship has failed in its mission because the commerce raider can continue on. As the 20kt ship still has 31 knots max speed, nobody will get a hit except at close ranges anyway.

How is that realistically possible, unless your bulges are fucking huge? Or your armor is dead thin?

[Thanas]

The design will be revealed once the ship is launched, as is German policy with all ships. If Steve or anybody allied with Germany asks, they can always PM me and I will reveal the design specs to them to prove that I am not just pulling stuff out of my behind.

However, I just wanted to let you know that IMO you are wasting a large deal of money that you could spend elsewhere.

[Steve]

Thanas, I am very... skeptical of these claims of effectiveness against a design 10,000+ tons heavier. And also faster, so it could, even with equal armament, likely get into immunity zone against a thinner-armored vessel and blast it to pieces.

If you want to PM me the specs that's fine. Though I think you're carrying the secrecy a bit far given all the players willingly posting their designs here on the wiki.

[Thanas]

Other players are not already spending money on this and as I am not allowed to retroactively change my build queue, I'd rather not change my strategy now.

Anyway, you got a PM.

[CmdrWilkens]

Other players are not already spending money on this and as I am not allowed to retroactively change my build queue, I'd rather not change my strategy now.

Anyway, you got a PM.

You can't change your build Queue but, as with my 1925--BC I changed minor design tweaks right up until the end of Q3 1925 (which was my arbitrary stop change date Steve agreed with). It never shifted my tonnage more than .1 kt at any time so my point differential was non-existent.

In other words there is a time at which the design needs to be fixed but it doesn't have to be when it is first thrown in the build queue. The edit history on the Majestuoso is proof on that. I won't even go in to how I've been tweaking my proposed 1928-plan BB with input from the design thread, mostly Sea Skimmer's very useful info dumps, and a lot of time spent over at Nav Weaps.

[Ma Deuce]

but her guns were intentionally kept small enough that not only could they have her lighter with a nice armament but that it would remove any temptation of admirals to put her into a line of battle.

Which is a totally unnecessary consideration because battlecruisers were never historically employed in the battleline against battleships, unless you count Hood, which was arguably a fast battleship, being as well protected as any BB in Royal Navy Service at the time she was built (although in dire need of updating when she was sunk), and the German BCs' "death ride" toward the end of Jutland, all the participants of which survived (and it's worth noting that German BCs were designed from the start to withstand combat in the battleline, to counter their numerical inferiority with the Royal Navy)

That much certainly is true, however most of the scout cruisers presented here have less armamament than my large destroyer.

Unless those large destroyers have 6 x 6" guns or more then no they do not. But then factor in my scout cruiser has director fire control, a spotting plane, armor and more importantly weighs in at over 6,000 tons, so will be able to shoot more accurately and absorb far more hits by virtue of it's sheer bulk. I cannot see destroyers less then 2,000 tons taking more that a half dozen solid 5.5" hits without being disabled. Now add to the fact that if you do have 6" guns on destroyers in this era, they'll almost certainly be of the lightweight, low pressure variety like the kind used on V116 (which weren't even issued with AP shells; bummer), which means my 6 x 5.5" cruisers have much better range and would deliver almost 40% more muzzle energy per gun. Then there's the fact that I'm moving to 6.3" shortly...

[Sea Skimmer]

Which is a totally unnecessary consideration because battlecruisers were never historically employed in the battleline against battleships, unless you count Hood, which was arguably a fast battleship, being as well protected as any BB in Royal Navy Service at the time she was built (although in dire need of updating when she was sunk), and the German BCs' "death ride" toward the end of Jutland, all the participants of which survived (and it's worth noting that German BCs were designed from the start to withstand combat in the battleline, to counter their numerical inferiority with the Royal Navy)

You need to go take a look at Jutland again; most of the run to the south saw German battlecruiser pitted against both British battlecruisers and the Queen Elizabeth class fast battleships. The Germans were saved mainly by the ineffectiveness of British APC shellfire combined with the ease with which British ships blew up. Furthermore the battlecruiser Lutzow did not survive the damage taken on the death ride, and Seydlitz would have certainly sunk had she not been a mere 150 miles from a friendly base, allowing high capacity pumping steamers sail out to meet her and aid her voyage home. Even then Seydlitz actually ran aground a couple times, and was left around in one case for several hours while more repairs were carried out. A torpedo caused her worst damage, but all the holes and broken up compartments from shell hits made it much worse.

You can also find quite a few examples of battlecruisers going up against battleships in WW2, with differing results. Renown was actually single-handedly beating Scharnhorst and Gneisenau for a while until they ran away; though those are the worst battleships of WW2 (I like them anyway). On the other hand Kirishima was completely shot to pieces Washington. And while that was very short ranged action, Washington also had armor only intended to resist 14in shells anyway. Still it was enough to give a wide margin of superiority as the only confirmed 14in hit on her was solidly rejected by the barbette.

[Ma Deuce]

You need to go take a look at Jutland again; most of the run to the south saw German battlecruiser pitted against both British battlecruisers and the Queen Elizabeth class fast battleships.

I must admit the 5th BS slipped my mind, however weren't they too far back to provide more than limited support, and only scored a handful of hits on the German BCs?

Furthermore the battlecruiser Lutzow did not survive the damage taken on the death ride, and Seydlitz would have certainly sunk had she not been a mere 150 miles from a friendly base, allowing high capacity pumping steamers sail out to meet her and aid her voyage home

I thought Lutzow bugged out before the Death Ride, by virtue of already haven taken too much damage from earlier engagements (mainly from the 3rd BCS, which as I recall is what actually doomed her) to keep up with the other battlecruisers?

You can also find quite a few examples of battlecruisers going up against battleships in WW2, with differing results. Renown was actually single-handedly beating Scharnhorst and Gneisenau for a while until they ran away; though those are the worst battleships of WW2 (I like them anyway). On the other hand Kirishima was completely shot to pieces Washington. And while that was very short ranged action, Washington also had armor only intended to resist 14in shells anyway. Still it was enough to give a wide margin of superiority as the only confirmed 14in hit on her was solidly rejected by the barbette.

I was actually referring of instances where battlecruisers were intentionally sent out to be pitted against battleships: I'm pretty sure poor Kiri was not expecting to face anything bigger than a heavy cruiser on her last night. As an aside, that skirmish at Narvik does remind me how British apparently regarded the Twins as battlecruisers even if the Germans officially designated them battleships. As I recall, a similar difference in opinion existed with the Dunkerques as well.

[Sea Skimmer]

http://books.google.com/books?id=dRg9AA ... q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=AvEsAA ... q=&f=false

I found a pair of documents which may be very helpful to this game. The full minutes of the House subcommittee hearings on the Fortifications Appropriation Bill for FY1920 and FY1921. These hearings cover not just fortifications, but also general artillery for the army, and funding for the air corps. At the end of the FY1921 one (only one I’ve looked through in detail so far and likely the more valuable one) Billy Mitchell himself showed up and advises congress that the US might be threatened by 2,000 enemy planes flying via Iceland-Greenland and resupplied by dirigibles. He also warns that enemy dirigibles could land 200 infantrymen apiece anywhere in the US. It gets easy to see why he was eventually forced to resign for being too outspoken…..

But anyway, reading these can vary between very interesting and mind numbing (congress was dumb as fuck back then too) but it gives real cost data for all sorts of stuff, and since the army is constantly explaining (to said ignorant congress) why it wants money for this or that they also go into considerable, but simple discussions of what various weapons are wanted for. This means you can get an idea how who people talked about military stuff back then when trying not to be highly technical.

Since I know most of you don’t want to read 300+ pages (though you can skim it and make out the more interesting topics somewhat easily) I am complaining a list of tidbits of cost data and planning.

So anyway initial tidbits list follows, I will add more tidbits as I find them

You can compare all the costs below to 30 million dollars, which was reckoned as the cost of a new battleship in the text at one point.

Cost of 1 solider per 1 year in upkeep of all kinds, 1000 dollars

16in coastal gun cost 300,000 dollars, this is just literally just the gun

16in shell 1,000 dollars
14in shell 700 dollars
12in shell 500 dollars

400,000 to emplace one 16in gun or howitzer, heavily fortified auxiliaries like magazines, power plants but gun in the open
500-600,000 for 16in gun emplacement built on an inaccessible location like an island
800,000 for 16in disappearing gun emplacement– complete with auxiliaries, obsolete except for special roles, but still being finished
630-750,000 for 4 x 12in gun emplacements with auxiliaries (cost varies with locations)
156,000 for 16in howitzer emplaced in the open with only lightly fortified, dispersed auxiliaries

693,000 for submarine mine defense project for mouth of Chesapeake Bay, including mine casemate (the protected control station), mine wharfs, mine storage buildings and all required paraphernalia to emplace, maintain and use remote controlled mines.

Total estimate to emplace but not purchase the barrels of 13 x 16in guns, 12 x 16in howitzers with all auxiliaries, 10 million dollar program

Estimated of relative effectiveness of 14in gun vs. 16in in coastal defense, 75:125 ratio

90,000 for a fixed turntable mount to turn a 14in railroad gun into a coastal gun, 1-2 hours to install or remove the railroad piece from said turntable.
Probable range error of 14in railroad gun estimated by actual firing trial as 160 yards at 22,000 yards

10,000 for a steel searchlight tower (30 feet tall)
25,000 for a disappearing searchlight bunker and power cables
65,000 for retracting searchlight tower on a tractor (36in light)
5,000 for 25kw generator set and cables

4.50 to transport and dump 1 ton of stone to build a breakwater

US Army tested coastal guns against armor equal to own caliber in thickness

Board of Review for Fortifications sought 24 x 16in guns, 48 x 16in howitzers for new batteries for a comprehensive upgrade to all important US coastal forts, but asked for funding for only about half these, got less.

So as a quick summary of the above, about 1 million bucks will get you a 16in coastal gun emplaced, with ammo and some margin extras like a steel gun shield, so you can have 30 of them for the price of a battleship.

[Sea Skimmer]

I must admit the 5th BS slipped my mind, however weren't they too far back to provide more than limited support, and only scored a handful of hits on the German BCs?

The ships took a wrong turn at the start of the battle and missed out at the very opening 15 minutes, but once they got within range they shot throughout the action and shot well. They fired 1099 out of 1239 15in shells fired (two R class fired the remainder). 38 of these 15in shells hit German capital ships, and almost all of them came from the 5th battle squadron. 27 of them struck German battlecruisers. Total British heavy shell hits on German capital ships number 104. This includes 10 x 15in hits on Derfflinger and 8 x 15in hits on Seydlitz though Lutzow only took four 15in out of 24 total heavy hits on her. The worst hit on Lutzow seems to have come from a 12in CPC round, which burst on the medium thickness bow belt armor and blasted a huge chunk of out the waterline doing it. Thus the danger of such incremental armor are shown. The Germans solution was to go to a 10in! thick bow belt on the last Imperial German battleship studies. Deck armor remained two 30mm layers.....

But anyway, total accuracy of 15in gunfire is somewhat higher then the overall British accuracy of from all heavy caliber guns, like 3.4% vs. 2.75%. All figures from Jutland An Analysis of the Fighting by John Campbell.

I thought Lutzow bugged out before the Death Ride, by virtue of already haven taken too much damage from earlier engagements (mainly from the 3rd BCS, which as I recall is what actually doomed her) to keep up with the other battlecruisers?

Lutzow remained in the lead of the German battlecruisers until the very end of the death ride, when they broke off after the final turn away to begin her long lingering death. She actually would have been exposed to British fire longer then any other capital ship. She was abandon as a note, when the flooding in the bow became so sever that the propellers had begun to come out of the water. Estimated flooding at that point was over 8,000 tons.

I was actually referring of instances where battlecruisers were intentionally sent out to be pitted against battleships: I'm pretty sure poor Kiri was not expecting to face anything bigger than a heavy cruiser on her last night.

You said employed, not deliberately employed. Shit happens in warfare. No one ever wanted to use heavy and light cruisers against battleships either but it occurred an awful lot. Of course the more ships you have the more options you have to avoid this, and the existence of an actual major threat from pocket battleship-super heavy cruiser style raiders would certainly provide more chances for proper use of cruiser killer/battlecruisers and less odds of them being concentrated into the van of a fleet to face real battleships.

As an aside, that skirmish at Narvik does remind me how British apparently regarded the Twins as battlecruisers even if the Germans officially designated them battleships. As I recall, a similar difference in opinion existed with the Dunkerques as well.

Well some people call them battlecruisers, but if they are then Bismarck is also a battlecruiser because in some respects the twins had better armor. I’d call the twins and Dunkerques second class battleships if I got to choose, because they are. In both cases the designers were held back by politics and forced to go with less costly, less intimidating designs.

As for my personal opinion, I don’t think huge cruiser killers are a very good idea as a use of resources, and that cruisers should stop at about 20,000 tons, with somewhere around 15-18,000 tons allowing for a well balanced ship with 8-10in guns and still letting you build significantly more hulls then the same total tonnage spent on battleships. Dunkerques is a pretty damn good compromise though, between real battleship size and a really big heavy cruiser.

Anyway in the 1920s you certainly can still make a very strong case for the cruiser killer as air power has little ability to sink anything not at anchor, and if the enemy is going to go ahead and build big cruisers for them to kill, then well, why not? Still if you reach 35,000 tons it seems kind of silly not to mount a 16in gun. Alaska is a freak even by cruiser killer standards… which is saying a great deal! But hey, reality can be weird and in real life Russia kept building the Project 66 cruiser killers (which they called heavy cruisers!) after WW2 and with displacement past 40,000 tons. Also the fact that everyone can already build really big battleships in the game can justify skewing displacements of cruisers upward. So I would not call them a completely unsound idea. Certainly people are likely to find many uses for them, particularly people who do not wish to pursue a battle fleet with a 30 knot speed.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

16"/50 on a 35,000 ship might just work, but it'd mean a significant loss in speed i would imagine, down to 25knots probably. Probably something in the region of a S. Dakota (1939). I'd have to up my deck armor to 7.5", and up the belt length to account for reduced distance between bulkheads, along with more barbette/turret armor. And given how Spring Sharp does things, I would likely still hit 40,000tonnes just to get decent seakeeping etc.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well it’s a matter of what you want to do, if you want to hunt cruisers, you don’t need nearly such heavy protection. If you want to fight battleships at all, you need the 16in gun or better to do real damage to them. Most cruiser killers had neither battleship class weapons nor protection so running away it is. Even the largest like the Japanese B-65 and Russian Project 66 didn’t have both features. If all you want heavy armor and protection, then I’d just spend tonnage on large battleships. Restricting yourself to more like 25-30,000 tons though means you are getting a close to two to one numerical advantage over spending the tons/points on the BB. That’s a pretty significant gain. That’s why I advise consideration of smaller solutions to the very large cruiser question. But it depends on what you want to do and what others are doing.

[Steve]

When designing Lightning I was primarily interested in guns to kill cruisers and commerce raiders - the 10"/51 guns - but protection to improve chances of getting away if an enemy BC showed up. And, of course, high speed - 33.57 knots - to chase down the commerce raiders and get away from anything it can't kill.

But I do admit some... discontent with how damned heavy the ships are. It seems it's primarily the engine plant for the high speeds, and the resulting need for a longer armor belt, that explodes the tonnage requirement. Or I just suck at this. Quite possible I just suck at this.

[Sea Skimmer]

Na, its not you, this kind of ship is just a pain to design. You have to trade off something like deck armor over 4in, or else build something like and the size of Iowa. Iowa was pretty well the ultimate battlecruiser. She was designed as basically the worlds only cruiser killer-killer but this also meant being one of the largest capital ships ever. She was justified only by the Montana, and Yamato being yet bigger in standards for battleship tonnage. Course that’s kind of true here too.