Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:48 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

n7axw wrote:
All very fine and well... after the G-4 has been ousted and the military and political power of the COGA is broken.

Don


Well, the best possible way (for Merlin) is to have two equivalent powers - Empire of Charis and some continental alliance - in the state of cold war, and with the Inner Circle peoples on the top of both. So, he may be sure that the possible conflicts would not turn into full-scale world war, and he could have a cold war-style arm race and technological development. ;)
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by PeterZ   » Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:20 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

This thread begs for clarification. IIRC, the KHVIIs are built on a steel frame and they are NOT built using composite construction methods. That means they are NOT technically ironclads. As support for this recollection, consider those massive guns. No way composite construction could support their weight nor the amount of force from firing them.

Do I recall correctly? If I do, then these are not iron clads as we readers understand the term. They are early/pre WWI style battleships.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by PeterZ   » Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:27 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

The short answer is structural strength. No way in the Good Lord's fertile imagination would the Alma support the weight of a 10" gun through ocean going operations nor bear firing it for any appreciable amount of time.

Dilandu wrote:
PeterZ wrote:One of the main reasons to build the KH VII was its cruising range. That range allows Charis to project power as well shepherd merchantmen. More but smaller cruisers would be sufficient for escort duty. Building steam colliers to accompany the escort cruisers would have been cheaper than building the KH VIIs.


That the point! If Charis even need the ocean ironclads, why they don't build some "Alma"'s?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma-class_ironclad

3900 tonnes, perfect seaworthy, 150 mm belt armour, 11 knots and six 194-mm and four 120-mm guns. Take her, put the triple-expansion machine on her, arm her with your eight-inches or even ten-inches rifles and she destroy any galleon fleet.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by n7axw   » Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:30 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Dilandu wrote:
n7axw wrote:
All very fine and well... after the G-4 has been ousted and the military and political power of the COGA is broken.

Don


Well, the best possible way (for Merlin) is to have two equivalent powers - Empire of Charis and some continental alliance - in the state of cold war, and with the Inner Circle peoples on the top of both. So, he may be sure that the possible conflicts would not turn into full-scale world war, and he could have a cold war-style arm race and technological development. ;)


I'd rather have them in a race to land a man on the moon!

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Henry Brown   » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:34 pm

Henry Brown
Commodore

Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:57 pm
Location: Greenville NC

PeterZ wrote:This thread begs for clarification. IIRC, the KHVIIs are built on a steel frame and they are NOT built using composite construction methods. That means they are NOT technically ironclads. As support for this recollection, consider those massive guns. No way composite construction could support their weight nor the amount of force from firing them.

Do I recall correctly? If I do, then these are not iron clads as we readers understand the term. They are early/pre WWI style battleships.


Yes, you're correct. The River class gunboats are traditional ironclads. The KH VIIs are all steel pre-dreadnaughts. Historically speaking, I'd say the KH VIIs are as good as, if not better, than as any ship built before 1900.
*edited once
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by EdThomas   » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:22 pm

EdThomas
Captain of the List

Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:47 pm
Location: Rhode Island USA

Dilandu wrote:[
Time for some naval history study. The monitors COULD cross the seas. In 1866, the "Miantonomo" crossed the Atlantic Ocean twice, and "Monadnock" travel from Boston to San-Francisco.


P.S. And remember "Huascar". She were able to fight in not-so-calm sea.


Uhhh.. your history is sort of correct, but way incomplete. Both of the journeys were made in the best possible sea and weather conditions and the vessels were escorted and, in Miantonomoh's case, actually towed for almost half the voyage over. The early monitors had limited bunkerage so they couldn't travel very far. The Huascar ( please don't take offense if your Peruvian or Chilean ) ain't a monitor, not even close.

A brief summary of what I found....
Monadnock I actually saw service in the Civil War. On October 5, 1865 she started her trip around South America with USS Vanderbilt, USS Tuscarora, and USS Powhatan. No history on her performance but her engine room proved to be so daunting that replacement stokers received extra pay and spirits. The squadron made numerous stops along the coast, transitted the Straits of Magellan (the inside route) and finally arrived at San Francisco on June 21, 1866. Five days later she was moved across the Bay to Mare Island where five days later she was laid up. Please note the voyage was made during the summer in South America.

Miantonomoh I did in fact cross the Atlantic in June of 1866. She was accompanied by 2 steamships. One of the escorting steamships, the Augusta, towed her for much of the way. Starting from New York she stopped at Halifax, St. John's Newfoundland, Queenstown, Ireland, Portsmouth and finally Cherbourg. I should mention for you non-seafaring types the time and directon of the trip would find the North Atlantic at its most mild and the prevailing wind would be from behind.

After coastal-hopping and showing the flag in numerous ports for the fall and winter she departed sunny Gibralter for home on May 17, 1867. Again she was accompanied by Augusta but no information is given of how much of the voyage she made under her own power. She took the southern route this time stopping at the Canary and Cape Verde Islands, various Caribbean ports, the Bahamas ending at Philadelphia on July 22,1867. She was laid up 5 days later. I will point out again the time of year is not known for unsettled weather and the prevailing winds would be from the stern.

Monadnock2(BM3) was launched at Mare Island, CA in 1883 and was commissioned (finally) in February 1896. She crossed th Pacific and served in the Phillipines and China. She was decommissioned in 1919. The monitors in the Amphitrite Class were a little bit bigger than their predecessors. They had real superstructures with the turrets on the ends so they looked like real ships, not decks with turrets and a stack stuck on.

Miantonomoh 2 was launched in 1875 but was in and out of service until being re-commissioned in 1998 to serve in the Cuba Blockading Squadron. Her contributions as a blockader apparently were limited because she was the slowest ship iin the Squadron. She was decommissioned in 1907. Brought back to serve as a gunnery target in 1915 she was finally sold for scrap in January 1922.

Huascar was a brigantine-rigged, single screw steamship with raised structures aft and forward precluding fire ahead or astern. She had a Coles turreet in the midships well containing two 10” Armstrong guns. She won,and lost a number of battles and was once driven off by a British ship, HMS Shaw, that was firing a mast mounted Gatling gun. She's still around serving as a memorial/museum in Talcahuano, Chile. The only thing she has in common with monitors is her circular turret.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by PeterZ   » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:30 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Henry Brown wrote:
PeterZ wrote:This thread begs for clarification. IIRC, the KHVIIs are built on a steel frame and they are NOT built using composite construction methods. That means they are NOT technically ironclads. As support for this recollection, consider those massive guns. No way composite construction could support their weight nor the amount of force from firing them.

Do I recall correctly? If I do, then these are not iron clads as we readers understand the term. They are early/pre WWI style battleships.


Yes, you're correct. The River class gunboats are traditional ironclads. The KH VIIs are all steel pre-dreadnaughts. Historically speaking, I'd say the KH VIIs are as good as, if not better, than as any ship built before 1900.
*edited once


Thank you, Henry. We have established that the KHVIIs are all steel pre-Dreadnought battleships. Furthermore, their guns and supporting frames/supports are in excess of 100 tons. Such monsters won't be moved from muscle power alone. They can't be aimed effectively against any sort of moving target without power assist and hydraulics.

It is not enough for the CoGA to cast the gun. They need to develop the steel, hydraulics, reliable steam power and a means of transmitting the steam power to move the massive gun quickly enough to hit a moving ship. These are not insignificant elements to develop.

By the time they develop those necessary things, the ICN will be building a few all big gun dreadnoughts to slug it out with forts deploying them. The new ICN monsters will be firing 12"-14" rifles. Rifles with even larger amounts of HE for their 1,500-2,000 pound shells. For AP shells made to penetrate 10"++ of armor that charge would be 30 lbs - 40 lbs. That amount of black powder won't do squat. A sufficient amount of BP can't be used in a strong enough shell to penetrate armor that thick.

Bottom line is that the KHVIIs are effectively impervious to current generation big fortress guns. By the time the CoGA develops the necessary features to make a gun capable of harming them, the next generation battlewagon will be effectively impervious to those guns.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by n7axw   » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:58 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

EdThomas wrote:
Dilandu wrote:[
Time for some naval history study. The monitors COULD cross the seas. In 1866, the "Miantonomo" crossed the Atlantic Ocean twice, and "Monadnock" travel from Boston to San-Francisco.


P.S. And remember "Huascar". She were able to fight in not-so-calm sea.


Uhhh.. your history is sort of correct, but way incomplete. Both of the journeys were made in the best possible sea and weather conditions and the vessels were escorted and, in Miantonomoh's case, actually towed for almost half the voyage over. The early monitors had limited bunkerage so they couldn't travel very far. The Huascar ( please don't take offense if your Peruvian or Chilean ) ain't a monitor, not even close.

A brief summary of what I found....
Monadnock I actually saw service in the Civil War. On October 5, 1865 she started her trip around South America with USS Vanderbilt, USS Tuscarora, and USS Powhatan. No history on her performance but her engine room proved to be so daunting that replacement stokers received extra pay and spirits. The squadron made numerous stops along the coast, transitted the Straits of Magellan (the inside route) and finally arrived at San Francisco on June 21, 1866. Five days later she was moved across the Bay to Mare Island where five days later she was laid up. Please note the voyage was made during the summer in South America.

Miantonomoh I did in fact cross the Atlantic in June of 1866. She was accompanied by 2 steamships. One of the escorting steamships, the Augusta, towed her for much of the way. Starting from New York she stopped at Halifax, St. John's Newfoundland, Queenstown, Ireland, Portsmouth and finally Cherbourg. I should mention for you non-seafaring types the time and directon of the trip would find the North Atlantic at its most mild and the prevailing wind would be from behind.

After coastal-hopping and showing the flag in numerous ports for the fall and winter she departed sunny Gibralter for home on May 17, 1867. Again she was accompanied by Augusta but no information is given of how much of the voyage she made under her own power. She took the southern route this time stopping at the Canary and Cape Verde Islands, various Caribbean ports, the Bahamas ending at Philadelphia on July 22,1867. She was laid up 5 days later. I will point out again the time of year is not known for unsettled weather and the prevailing winds would be from the stern.

Monadnock2(BM3) was launched at Mare Island, CA in 1883 and was commissioned (finally) in February 1896. She crossed th Pacific and served in the Phillipines and China. She was decommissioned in 1919. The monitors in the Amphitrite Class were a little bit bigger than their predecessors. They had real superstructures with the turrets on the ends so they looked like real ships, not decks with turrets and a stack stuck on.

Miantonomoh 2 was launched in 1875 but was in and out of service until being re-commissioned in 1998 to serve in the Cuba Blockading Squadron. Her contributions as a blockader apparently were limited because she was the slowest ship iin the Squadron. She was decommissioned in 1907. Brought back to serve as a gunnery target in 1915 she was finally sold for scrap in January 1922.

Huascar was a brigantine-rigged, single screw steamship with raised structures aft and forward precluding fire ahead or astern. She had a Coles turreet in the midships well containing two 10” Armstrong guns. She won,and lost a number of battles and was once driven off by a British ship, HMS Shaw, that was firing a mast mounted Gatling gun. She's still around serving as a memorial/museum in Talcahuano, Chile. The only thing she has in common with monitors is her circular turret.


Thanks, Ed, for a wonderful post. I really enjoyed that one.

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by jmseeley   » Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:43 pm

jmseeley
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:55 pm

PeterZ wrote:One of the main reasons to build the KH VII was its cruising range. That range allows Charis to project power as well shepherd merchantmen. More but smaller cruisers would be sufficient for escort duty. Building steam colliers to accompany the escort cruisers would have been cheaper than building the KH VIIs.

I can only conclude that power projection was an essential element in Charis' strategic vision. Power projection means being able to take out forts guarding port cities. Those 10 inchers are the biggest guns in existence. The Jihadists need some serious development to create comparable weapons. Until they do, the ICN pound the snott out of any fort. When the jihadists develop something that pierce 6 inches of hardened armour, Howsmyn builds the Seijin Khody class uber-dreadnought with 10 inches of face hardened steel armour firing 6 triple turreted 12" rifles with shells filled with true HE.

By that time some sort of gyroscopes will be developed and accuracy will be much better and ranges will be extended further. So ICN floating fortresses will continue to be developed so long as the proscriptions remain and the CoGA exists.


I've been wondering what Charis could do now to improve accuracy at longer ranges. Without electricity they can't really do centralized fire control but I think that there are things they can do. Mount an optical range finder above the bridge to generate accurate range and bearing information. Speaking tubes to all guns so they are all trained out identically. Fire on command. Call it Coordinated Fire. For extended ranges it could improve accuracy from 'wishful' to 'optimistic'. Not necessarily a big improvement, but the cost would be fairly small and it would let the ICN start to take advantage of potential range of its big guns. It would definitely be useful for land bombardment. If/when Charis develops simple mechanical calculators they could be used to integrate more variables - relative speeds, etc. to incrementally improve effective range.

jms
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by PeterZ   » Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:20 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Accuracy would be improved with gyroscopes. One resourceful soul in this forum found a link to a pneumatic gyro that did not need electricity. Range finders don't help much without the ability to control the elevation at which the gun fires. I know that there were mechanical fire control computers on ships much smaller than the KHVIIs. Between hydraulics and pneumatics, those big guns can be moved/aimed. The gyro can control the angle at which the gun is allowed to fire. Speaking tubes allow communication between range finders and the gun captain.

All that sounds like an effect five range for shorebound between 5-8 miles or 7,500-10,000 meters. The range against smaller moving ships would be lower.
Top

Return to Safehold