"King Haarahld VI"-class, paint art

Dilandu wrote:

Okay, part of the problem here is that the shields I have been describing are basically face shields with side protection, no protection to the rear, and no overhead protection. That's what folks in the US usually mean when they use the term "shield" rather than "turret," whatever the technical meaning might be, and I apologize for not being more specific.

Ok, here i actually misunderstood you. I'll try to fix it.

That's your opinion, and it's wrong

Please, since the steam power were applied, EVERY fleet were working with rams. It's simply logical; for Charis it's more than simply logical, because they have a galley fleet not so long enough. And after all, the ram would be usefull for breaking the underwater obtackles wothout damagind the hull.

They aren't thinking in terms of hits that take out the mast, and even if that happens, they aren't thinking in terms of long range gunnery. If they were going to be fighting peer warships, that would be a factor. They aren't, so it isn't.

Forgive me, but you started to contradict himself. They build a warship with many parameters oriented to battle with similar-class warships - high speed, armor-penetrating long guns with rotating reloading systems - and the others are simplified just "because they weren't going to be fighting warships". Well, in that case they didn't really need high speed, they really didn't need hevay guns, reloading in every train (and it would be the real weight economy!) and they didn't need two heavy gun calibre at all. They may be better against wooden ships and fortifications with uniformed 8" or 10" guns.

And i started to suspect that the main reason for KH in their current description is simply that they look cool for you. Am i not completely wrong?

Sigh.

Look, the only reason the ram was as popular as it was --- for the relatively brief time it was --- was the fact that armor was winning the gun-armor race. When people were thinking in terms of "wracking" the armor (basically pounding it until it broke up, rather than penetrating it), managing to ram an enemy ship offered an opportunity to get around the armor by inflicting fatal underwater damage. A ship like CSS Virginia offered an opportunity to ram effectively because (a) many of her opponents would be sail-powered, meaning she could move under conditions when they could not, and (b) her armor would permit her to bore in through the fire of their broadsides with relative impunity, which meant she could drive her ram home. The ram survived as a theoretical weapon primarily because it was "grandfathered into" tactical and design thinking and because of Tegetthoff's success at Lissa, which was certainly a one-off achievement accomplished in the midst of a highly transitional period in engineering and naval design.

The KH VIIs certainly have the speed and the armor protection to do the same thing (that is, they have an ability to run down and ram slower, sail-powered opponents which is far greater than Viorgnia's at Hampton Roads or Erzherzog Ferdinand Max's at Lissa), but why should they risk hull damage (which happened a lot in ramming attacks, as at --- oh, I dunno . . . Lissa and' Hampton Roads, perhaps?)) and put up with the chance of sinking friendly ships with accidental ramming attacks (which happened considerably more often than deliberate ramming attacks) when they can do the same thing with guns with equal impunity? Of course they could always adopt the ram as an attempt to lead opponents down technological and tactical dead ends, but that isn't really their objective.

The provision of a second fighting top is not remotely necessary to what I have told you --- repeatedly --- is their primary function of driving any potential enemy into pushing back against the Proscriptions in order to match their capabilities. The other features of her design --- speed, armor, gun power, operating radius --- are all easily observable and quantifiable advantages any opponent will need to match them; the extra observation post aloft is not, any more than the provision of underwater torpedo tubes (something almost as useful as a ram, in real life experience --- i.e., useful as teats on a boar hog). These ships are not designed for long range gunnery in the sense it was applied post Tsushima and they do not require the sort of observation and range finding/plotting of even our own 1890-1900. Nor, without a peer opponent capable of matching the performance of their guns, is there going to be any opportunity to demonstrate the possibility of such gunnery to any present or future adversary. Yes, that sort of potential will have to be demonstrated eventually to attain their true strategic (rather than your own invincibly tactical thinking bound) goals, but there is absolutely no need or reason to lay that particular card on the table at this point.


The "penetrating long guns" are part of the "push the envelope" parameters, but they also serve a highly useful function against shore targets. The Brits didn't mount surplus battleship guns on coastal monitors in 1914-1918 because they needed them to fight off the High Seas Fleet. The Charisians are building a very small number of very high capability platforms wiith the operational range they need to self-deploy across distances nothing else they have can match. Their purpose is to brazenly engage targets even their Eraystor class ironclads would hesitate to take on, to provide a core force of unmatchable range and flexibility, and to challenge any future opponent to follow them into "technological heresy" if those opponents are to have any chance at all of contending with them at sea.

And before you tell me again about how they would "inevitably" repeat the technical/tactical dead ends/Really Bad Ideas of real life designers and engineers feeling their way into unknown territory, remember that their chief designer is a member of the inner circle well before the final design is worked out. He would be provided with all the logical arguments he could ever need to kill Really Stupid Ideas in design conferences, and there would be no need for him to Get Everything Exactly Right in features which weren't of core importance to the "break the Proscriptions" emphasis of the design.

I really wish you could find it remotely possible to accept that I have a very clear idea of why these various design features are present, why others are absent, and the reason the ships were ever designed or conceived in the first place. You continue to persist in trying to fit these into the real world progression of a world (ours) which had entirely different starting parameters, inputs, influences, and military experience/history and then informing me that anything I do which violates those constraints (rather than the ones I created when I created the planet, the culture, the planetary history, and the social/political/religious factors shaping that history and its future) is "illogical" or "impossible."

Do me the courtesy of assuming I know the internal constraints and logic of the actors in a fictional world of my own creation at least a tiny bit better than you do.

Ok. I'll try to fix the painting.

Hi Dilandu,

Please try to pay attention.

There is no other fleet applying steam power to ships on Safehold.

Got it?

RFC has told you repeatedly Safehold is unique, and the ICN isn't making all the same mistakes navies on earth did, in fact they're avoiding most of them.

Regarding rams, they weren't the primary weapon of the RCN's galleys, it was the marines who took enemy ships by boarding, please reread the textev in OAR if you have to, and accept you're simply wrong.

Rams haven't been the primary weapon of the Charisian navy for decades, so there is no school or old officers arguing to bring it back, so drop it now.

What underwater obstacles do you have in mind that a ram will plow through without damaging the hull of the ship?

Historically the rammer often had almost as many problems as the ramee, from the collision which had to done very carefully if the rammer wasn't going to sink himself, and even then getting stuck in the ramee and sinking with it still happened all too frequently.

You need to review what the textev regarding the KH VII's is in MTaT, LaMA, as well as RFC's posts here, before you start accusing RFC of making something inappropriate to his world creation, because he thinks its cool.

If you don't remember, it's been a gradual process the original KH VII's were going to be a steam and sail ship with a wooden composite hull, but after the great canal raid, the designers were so impressed with the river ironclads performance, particularly the engines reliability, they dropped the combo version and went to all steam power, though I hope a few of the steam and sail ships were completed unarmored etc, as transports for troops, cavalry, food and coal etc, to be commercial technology demonstrators, being far more economical that straight steam.

You're the only one infatuated with your picture, so change the bow, stern and tumble home as RFC told you; if you don't change it to fit what RFC has always described it as being, you're simply demonstrating again how ridiculously stubborn you are in the face of all the other facts.

L

Dilandu wrote:

Okay, part of the problem here is that the shields I have been describing are basically face shields with side protection, no protection to the rear, and no overhead protection. That's what folks in the US usually mean when they use the term "shield" rather than "turret," whatever the technical meaning might be, and I apologize for not being more specific.

Ok, here i actually misunderstood you. I'll try to fix it.

That's your opinion, and it's wrong

Please, since the steam power were applied, EVERY fleet were working with rams. It's simply logical; for Charis it's more than simply logical, because they have a galley fleet not so long enough. And after all, the ram would be usefull for breaking the underwater obtackles wothout damagind the hull.

They aren't thinking in terms of hits that take out the mast, and even if that happens, they aren't thinking in terms of long range gunnery. If they were going to be fighting peer warships, that would be a factor. They aren't, so it isn't.

Forgive me, but you started to contradict himself. They build a warship with many parameters oriented to battle with similar-class warships - high speed, armor-penetrating long guns with rotating reloading systems - and the others are simplified just "because they weren't going to be fighting warships". Well, in that case they didn't really need high speed, they really didn't need hevay guns, reloading in every train (and it would be the real weight economy!) and they didn't need two heavy gun calibre at all. They may be better against wooden ships and fortifications with uniformed 8" or 10" guns.

And i started to suspect that the main reason for KH in their current description is simply that they look cool for you. Am i not completely wrong?

Hi Dilandu,

from your original post you deleted.

Dilandu wrote:

lyonheart wrote:Are you seriously suggesting 25 pounder smooth-bores have the same range as rifled 8"or 10" guns?

Of course not. Where did you find it?

The main problem the KH VII's will have is ensuring their fuzes work before they penetrate through both sides of the galleon.

I think the main problem would be to found the enemy galleon in situation, when the KH VII would be able to attack it. Surely, the Dohlar commanders aren't stupid enough to do something like that.

Who suggested attempting to attack the KH VII's in narrow seas at night?[/quote]

There's no textev the KH VII's are experimental, you just want to have it your way despite RFC patiently explaining how wrong you are.

How could the iron-hulled battleships, build on industry, that simply didn't exist less a decade ago be NOT experimental? Where they could find the experienced construction crews for this project? You missed my point; they are experimental in the meaning of experience for constructors and engineers, that NEVER BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE.[/quote]

[/quote]
While they may be the first, they won't be the last, unlike the French navy practice, enough for several squadrons will be built to drive home just how powerful the ICN has become, and what the surviving mainland nations must do if they are to seriously compete with the empire.

In effect they are giant moving propaganda billboards sending the message; "change or die".
[/quote]

L

Dilandu wrote:

lyonheart wrote:There's no textev the KH VII's are experimental, you just want to have it your way despite RFC patiently explaining how wrong you are.

How could the iron-hulled battleships, build on industry, that simply didn't exist less a decade ago be NOT experimental? Where they could find the experienced construction crews for this project? You missed my point; they are experimental in the meaning of experience for constructors and engineers, that NEVER BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE.

They are not "experimental" --- in the sense in which you appear to be using the word --- at all. They are incremental, building on the basis of the experience gained in building the initial ironclad conversions followed by the first class of purpose-designed river ironclads, followed by the first class of coastal ironclads. The initial design work is experimental, but with the proviso that the chief designer is a member of the inner circle and in a position to intervene in anything which threatens to go too far off the rails.

The construction personnel building these ships have acquired a very impressive resume in previous construction projects, and they will gain more in the course of building them. And, yes, there will be instances in the building process of problems which bite people on the butt because of inexperience in the yards, but they still aren't "experimental" and they still don't constitute being "experimental in the meaning of experience for constructors and engineers, that NEVER BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE," given the Delthak IIs and Eraystors (which I have repeatedly told you are coming) classes which preceded them, unless you want to argue that building the 1905 Dreadnought required the evolution of "experimental" technologies and construction techniques rather than a new and more powerful combination of existing technologies and construction techniques. And before you point at her turbine power plant, allow me to point out that (a) civilian turbine use was already a reality (you do remember Turbina and the Naval Review at Victoria's Diamond Jubilee?) and (b) that Dreadnought would have been equally revolutionary with triple-expansion engines and an 18-knot tope speed. The high (relatively speaking) speed was icing on the cake and, in fact, represented what was in many ways an unnecessary complication.

I would argue that aside from the Dreadnought's 2,000-ton displacement advantage (which bought her a higher freeboard and raised the axis of her main battery guns and nominal endurance advantage (6,600 nautical miles versus 5,100), USS South Carolina, with reciprocating engines, was actually the superior design. She gave the same broadside weight and equal or superior standards of armor on that same 2,000 less tons, at the cost of a somewhat greater tendency to roll in heavy weather because of the increased weight of the superimposed turrets high up in the ship (relatively speaking). I would count her inherent combat advantage in terms of broadside firepower per ton/unit and ability to carry matching armor on her lower displacement as more decisive than the Dreadnought's theoretical 2.5-knot speed advantage. It was primarily the difference in building times (and the very different levels of urgency their respective nations attached to naval construction) which permitted the British designers to build larger numbers of ships at each stage of the forward bounds in dreadnought design evolution and permitted the Royal Navy to stay in front of the USN. I personally would have backed the Pennsylvania over the Iron Duke and the Colorado over the Revenge and even the Queen Elizabeth in a stand up fight, despite the Brits' nominal speed advantages, and there were quite a few British officers who would have agreed with me. And, in fact, who did agree with me (in writing) at the time.

runsforcelery wrote:

Dilandu wrote:

How could the iron-hulled battleships, build on industry, that simply didn't exist less a decade ago be NOT experimental? Where they could find the experienced construction crews for this project? You missed my point; they are experimental in the meaning of experience for constructors and engineers, that NEVER BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE.

They are not "experimental" --- in the sense in which you appear to be using the word --- at all. They are incremental, building on the basis of the experience gained in building the initial ironclad conversions followed by the first class of purpose-designed river ironclads, followed by the first class of coastal ironclads. The initial design work is experimental, but with the proviso that the chief designer is a member of the inner circle and in a position to intervene in anything which threatens to go too far off the rails.

The construction personnel building these ships have acquired a very impressive resume in previous construction projects, and they will gain more in the course of building them. And, yes, there will be instances in the building process of problems which bite people on the butt because of inexperience in the yards, but they still aren't "experimental" and they still don't constitute being "experimental in the meaning of experience for constructors and engineers, that NEVER BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE," given the Delthak IIs and Eraystors (which I have repeatedly told you are coming) classes which preceded them, unless you want to argue that building the 1905 Dreadnought required the evolution of "experimental" technologies and construction techniques rather than a new and more powerful combination of existing technologies and construction techniques. And before you point at her turbine power plant, allow me to point out that (a) civilian turbine use was already a reality (you do remember Turbina and the Naval Review at Victoria's Diamond Jubilee?) and (b) that Dreadnought would have been equally revolutionary with triple-expansion engines and an 18-knot tope speed. The high (relatively speaking) speed was icing on the cake and, in fact, represented what was in many ways an unnecessary complication.

I would argue that aside from the Dreadnought's 2,000-ton displacement advantage (which bought her a higher freeboard and raised the axis of her main battery guns and nominal endurance advantage (6,600 nautical miles versus 5,100), USS South Carolina, with reciprocating engines, was actually the superior design. She gave the same broadside weight and equal or superior standards of armor on that same 2,000 less tons, at the cost of a somewhat greater tendency to roll in heavy weather because of the increased weight of the superimposed turrets high up in the ship (relatively speaking). I would count her inherent combat advantage in terms of broadside firepower per ton/unit and ability to carry matching armor on her lower displacement as more decisive than the Dreadnought's theoretical 2.5-knot speed advantage. It was primarily the difference in building times (and the very different levels of urgency their respective nations attached to naval construction) which permitted the British designers to build larger numbers of ships at each stage of the forward bounds in dreadnought design evolution and permitted the Royal Navy to stay in front of the USN. I personally would have backed the Pennsylvania over the Iron Duke and the Colorado over the Revenge and even the Queen Elizabeth in a stand up fight, despite the Brits' nominal speed advantages, and there were quite a few British officers who would have agreed with me. And, in fact, who did agree with me (in writing) at the time.

The other point is that the designers have access to the experimental work of at least 500 years of Terran steam engineering, they just lack the technological base to manufacture the final bleeding edge designs. The experimental side of these ships is not in the design, it is in the construction. The builders will never have performed the tasks they are being asked to do and will be learning on the job.
I would expect a significant fatality and injury rate during construction under these conditions based on real world events. (There is a reason construction sites have gotten safer over the last 50 years and I doubt that a) they have site safety officers or b) if they do they are members of the inner circle).
Even a basic industrial training organization needs to be built (a typical third world error, you build a university and not a trade school, so you have masses of engineers and no tradesmen or technicians (the soviet union also made this mistake in the cold war, so you get cutting edge design and a kludge in the execution and poor maintenance)).

lyonheart wrote:Hi Dilandu,

from your original post you deleted.

Excuse me - I deleted? What i deleted?

Dilandu wrote:Ok. I'll try to fix the painting.

Another thing to note is how long those guns are:

Armament:
4 10”/40 (2 x 2 centerline with shields)
10 8”/40 (10 x 1 in casemates)
8 4”/45 (8 x 1 with shields)

The second number after the '/' is the number calibers in the length of the gun tube IE (a 10”/40 gun tube is 40 x 10 inches x 1 foot / 12 inches =) 33.33 feet or 9.8 meters long the breach should add about another meter. A 8"/40 I'll do math in metric for you 8" x 40 x 24.5mm/" 1m/1000mm = 7.84 m again you have to add the breach. A 4"/45 is 4" x 45 x 24.5mm/1" x 1m/100mm = 4.41m.

As a Wild Assed Guess (WAG) the breach is 5 calibers long, so same type math above yea1s 10" = 1.225m, 8" = 0.98 m, and 4" = 0.49 M

Adding gives total gun length 10"/40 = 11.025m, 8"/40 = 8.82m, and 4"/45 = 4.9m

Hope this helps, to me your guns are too short, or RFC's are too long

Poker

pokermind wrote:

Dilandu wrote:Ok. I'll try to fix the painting.

Another thing to note is how long those guns are:

Armament:
4 10”/40 (2 x 2 centerline with shields)
10 8”/40 (10 x 1 in casemates)
8 4”/45 (8 x 1 with shields)

The second number after the '/' is the number calibers in the length of the gun tube IE (a 10”/40 gun tube is 40 x 10 inches x 1 foot / 12 inches =) 33.33 feet or 9.8 meters long the breach should add about another meter. A 8"/40 I'll do math in metric for you 8" x 40 x 24.5mm/" 1m/1000mm = 7.84 m again you have to add the breach. A 4"/45 is 4" x 45 x 24.5mm/1" x 1m/100mm = 4.41m.

As a Wild Assed Guess (WAG) the breach is 5 calibers long, so same type math above yea1s 10" = 1.225m, 8" = 0.98 m, and 4" = 0.49 M

Adding gives total gun length 10"/40 = 11.025m, 8"/40 = 8.82m, and 4"/45 = 4.9m

Hope this helps, to me your guns are too short, or RFC's are too long

Poker

Colleague, i know it perfectly. The problem is always - what part of the gun barrel is INSIDE the turret or casemate?

I've got nothing to say on the technical details, and their rightness or wrongness, but I would like to thank you for taking the time to do that illustration.

Seeing it gave me a real 'aaaaah' feeling - and a much clearer impression of how mind blowing the KGH's would be/will be to the NOG/AOG people, even to any that, by some v odd coincidence, happened to have actually seen the Great Canal raid boats.

Just out of interest, roughly how long would one of the galleons be by comparison - half the length?