Hypothetical match up KH vs Dreadnought

EdThomas wrote:Two thoughts...
1. The Dreadnoughts have much better fire control and should win handily if fall of shot can be observed at outer ranges.

2. The best tactic for the KH might be to present the smallest target profile by heading directly for the dreadnought. It is much easier to optically track a target moving across your field of fire than one heading directly towards you. Come to think of it, if the dreadnought tries to optimize the number of guns on target it will be moving across the KH's path and easier to track.

If they should both opt to head directly toward the other, the outcome might become a matter of who has the stronger bow in a ramming situation. Range will be changing very quickly making accurate elevation of the guns difficult, especially if there is any kind of sea.

About your point n°2: it would mean that the KH would let the dreadnought cross their T. Doing that with a ship that has a better fire control, a heavier salvo and a toughter protection does not seems to be the most survivable option...

In modern battles between navies, the closest I can come to is the battle of Surigao Straits. I admit that the presence of torpedoes and the huge numerical superiorities of the US navy played a major role, but the situation of the Japanese imperial navy made it so that when the survivors reach the US main battle line, they only thing they achieved was to sink quickly. The battle was really totally one-sided. Multiple factors explain that, but one of them is the T crossing achieved by US battleships...

For the rest, I agree, a Dreadnought would beat in a bloody paste any KH daring to engage it. However, there are no dreadnought style ship on the surface of Safehold...

isaac_newton wrote:
OK - sorry on that - it was a bit low

It's all right , i didn't ever know this... Skimper, yes?

EdThomas wrote:
2. The best tactic for the KH might be to present the smallest target profile by heading directly for the dreadnought. It is much easier to optically track a target moving across your field of fire than one heading directly towards you. Come to think of it, if the dreadnought tries to optimize the number of guns on target it will be moving across the KH's path and easier to track.

If they should both opt to head directly toward the other, the outcome might become a matter of who has the stronger bow in a ramming situation. Range will be changing very quickly making accurate elevation of the guns difficult, especially if there is any kind of sea.

It wouldn't probably work good. A smaller area of ​​the projection does not matter for long-range guns, whose projectile falls more steeply (it was the most important reason, why the monitors virtually extinct as a coastal-defense ships in late 1890).

And why should the "Dreadnought" heading on the numerically superior enemies, that have a lighter, but more rapid-firing artillery? It would most probably started to run AWAY, and mantain distance to pund them with his heavy guns, staying outside the effective range of their artillery.

P.S. It would be much more reasonable to compare "King Haarald" with the pre-dreadnought battleships and armoured cruisers of 1890-1900th.

Hi Dilandu,

Yup, that's what RFC posted long ago; the KH VII's are armored cruisers circa 1890-95, not 1907 dreadnoughts.

Anyone who ever played Avalon Hill's Jutland naval wargame knows what happens to the obsolete armored cruisers, often targeted for the easy kills and points if left exposed.

A 10-12 year gap in all the improved technologies ought to be all that's needed to indicate the obsolescence of the old design before getting into battle tactics etc, before getting into the technicalities of difficult personalities and or groups dominating ship designs.

Pre-WWI designs demonstrate that better than the various treaty limited class between the wars, while WWII didn't last long enough for new designs to evolve and be proven in battle.

Meanwhile the progression of development will drive new 12" guns at least twice as heavy as the 22 ton 10" current guns, as well as the others, while improved engines and steel will push other design parameters as Charis continues to improve scientifically and technologically.

L

Dilandu wrote:

EdThomas wrote:
2. The best tactic for the KH might be to present the smallest target profile by heading directly for the dreadnought. It is much easier to optically track a target moving across your field of fire than one heading directly towards you. Come to think of it, if the dreadnought tries to optimize the number of guns on target it will be moving across the KH's path and easier to track.

If they should both opt to head directly toward the other, the outcome might become a matter of who has the stronger bow in a ramming situation. Range will be changing very quickly making accurate elevation of the guns difficult, especially if there is any kind of sea.

It wouldn't probably work good. A smaller area of ​​the projection does not matter for long-range guns, whose projectile falls more steeply (it was the most important reason, why the monitors virtually extinct as a coastal-defense ships in late 1890).

And why should the "Dreadnought" heading on the numerically superior enemies, that have a lighter, but more rapid-firing artillery? It would most probably started to run AWAY, and mantain distance to pund them with his heavy guns, staying outside the effective range of their artillery.

P.S. It would be much more reasonable to compare "King Haarald" with the pre-dreadnought battleships and armoured cruisers of 1890-1900th.

lyonheart wrote:Hi Dilandu,

Yup, that's what RFC posted long ago; the KH VII's are armored cruisers circa 1890-95, not 1907 dreadnoughts.

Well, actually there aren't direct analogue in real navy. And in 1890th their construction would be somewhat obsolete. Many armored cruisers of 1890 have a full waterline armoured belt, not citadel - simply to be able to mantain speed if they were hit. But for Earth armoured cruiser, their speed was a matter of survival, not some luxurity.

So, actually the "King Haarald"'s may be some sort of fast battleships (or "vanguard" battleships): their speed is less actual for them than the ability to windstand fire and stay oceanworthy.

That was, actually, the main difference between British and french conceptions of 1880-1890. The Royal Navy wanted for their battleship to stay afloat even with unarmoured ends are shattered, but any damage in the ends near waterline would greatly reduce speed. So, they make a citadel armour scheme. The french navy wanted for their battleship to be able to mantain full speed even it their unarmoured sides are shattered; so, they stay with full waterline belt. IMHO, for the Mediterranian Sea and Channel - were the french navy would be supposed to engage the enemy - the full armoured belt on the waterline would work better than the british citadel.

P.S. An important question: of what material KH's armored belt is made? Only iron, iron-steel compound, of some sort of Creusot steel?

lyonheart wrote:H
Pre-WWI designs demonstrate that better than the various treaty limited class between the wars, while WWII didn't last long enough for new designs to evolve and be proven in battle.

Well, actually the conception of armoured battleship became clearly obsolete at the end of World War II. They were still usefull, of course, but the deck aviation clearly state: the battleship couldn't survive without carrier, tyhe carrier could survive without battleship. And the rise of guided weapons - glide bombs like ASM-N-2 "Bat" (she was perfect! ) and later - nuclear weapons simply demonstrate, that there is almost no use for armoured ships at all...

Well, she has a Barr and Stroud FQ-2 rangefinders, Dumaresq calculator and typical range tables as build. And all her systems were electrically-connected; so, they would undoubtedly work faster, with less delays, and better than any mechanical or hydraulical system that may be mounted on "King Haarald"[/quote]

Look up "The Dreadnaught Project" online. It is a website dedicated to WWI era gunnery.

AncientMariner wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:(2) We need a consistent design philosophy for our Navy, which has always been to match the defensive and offensive capabilities as closely as possible. Therefore we need to armor our shit against her own guns.



Sorry, not only was I using voice-activated software, but it was the voice activated software on my iPhone, which I seldom use for email or online work, and the size of the screen makes it easier to miss little things like that. So, yes, it was a misheardo generated by the phone and not caught by me.

Sorry about that.

I don't know, the misheard version has a certain... panache!

Every time I hear that word, I can't help but remember the opening chapters of the Tom Clancy novel, "Clear and Present Danger".
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_Present_Danger

Every single bit featuring the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Panache was enjoyable. I should follow the example of my own user-name, and at least re-read those chapters.

{RIP Tom Clancy; I didn't like your politics, but your wrote a damm good story.}

ERR


.

OlorinNight wrote:About your point n°2: it would mean that the KH would let the dreadnought cross their T. Doing that with a ship that has a better fire control, a heavier salvo and a toughter protection does not seems to be the most survivable option...

In modern battles between navies, the closest I can come to is the battle of Surigao Straits. I admit that the presence of torpedoes and the huge numerical superiorities of the US navy played a major role, but the situation of the Japanese imperial navy made it so that when the survivors reach the US main battle line, they only thing they achieved was to sink quickly. The battle was really totally one-sided. Multiple factors explain that, but one of them is the T crossing achieved by US battleships...

For the rest, I agree, a Dreadnought would beat in a bloody paste any KH daring to engage it. However, there are no dreadnought style ship on the surface of Safehold...

I was thinking the optical range finding would be the weakest link in the fire control sytem and that it would not be as accurate if the range was decreasing rapidly. The KH could also vary speed. At 20 knots she's gonna be a boatlength closer every 10 0r 12 seconds. What the hell, she's gonna be toast on any other course so why not make 'em sweat.

Dilandu wrote:
P.S. An important question: of what material KH's armored belt is made? Only iron, iron-steel compound, of some sort of Creusot steel?

From the (sparse) description I can find, Creusot steel is equal to Harvey face hardened and Krupp cemented in development. So yes, That's what you should think of. RFC calls it Howsmyhnerized(Sp?) and says it's much like Krupp Cemented steel in performance.