Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests

Snippet #13

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Snippet #13
Post by Dilandu   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:51 am

Dilandu
Admiral

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

runsforcelery wrote:

HMS Thunderbolt, Imperial Charisian Navy

Displacement:
13,572 t light; 14,488 t standard; 17,531 t normal; 19,965 t full load

Dimensions:
Length oa: 455'
Length wl: 437'4"
Beam: 76'2"
Normal draft: 26'
Draft (deep): 29'2"

Armament:
6 x 10" / 45 cal BL guns (AP shell wt=505 lbs) in turret on barbette mounts (3x2)
16 x 6" / 45 cal BL guns (AP shell wt=109 lbs) in casemate mounts (8x1 each broadside)


Armour:
Main Belt: 6"
Ends: 2"
Upper Belt: 6"
Deck: 1.5'-2"
Turret face: 6.5"
Turret side: 5"
Turret Roof: 3"
Casemates: 5"
Conning tower: 6"

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, direct drive, 3 shafts = 28.7 kts (25 kts Terran measure)
Range 8,498nm at 17.2 kts (15 kts Terran measure)

Complement:
865

Just sayin' . . . .


Er, it seems that now they are moving backward in technology. From 1900s semi-dreadnought armored cruiser to 1880s "Brandenburg"-class.

What exactly they won by replacing 8-inch guns with additional 10-inch turret? Six main guns is too few to make a good dreadnought anyway, even if they could have normal fire control (which they didn't have).
------------------------------

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: Snippet #13
Post by PeterZ   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:01 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

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

Dilandu wrote:
runsforcelery wrote:

HMS Thunderbolt, Imperial Charisian Navy

Displacement:
13,572 t light; 14,488 t standard; 17,531 t normal; 19,965 t full load

Dimensions:
Length oa: 455'
Length wl: 437'4"
Beam: 76'2"
Normal draft: 26'
Draft (deep): 29'2"

Armament:
6 x 10" / 45 cal BL guns (AP shell wt=505 lbs) in turret on barbette mounts (3x2)
16 x 6" / 45 cal BL guns (AP shell wt=109 lbs) in casemate mounts (8x1 each broadside)


Armour:
Main Belt: 6"
Ends: 2"
Upper Belt: 6"
Deck: 1.5'-2"
Turret face: 6.5"
Turret side: 5"
Turret Roof: 3"
Casemates: 5"
Conning tower: 6"

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, direct drive, 3 shafts = 28.7 kts (25 kts Terran measure)
Range 8,498nm at 17.2 kts (15 kts Terran measure)

Complement:
865

Just sayin' . . . .


Er, it seems that now they are moving backward in technology. From 1900s semi-dreadnought armored cruiser to 1880s "Brandenburg"-class.

What exactly they won by replacing 8-inch guns with additional 10-inch turret? Six main guns is too few to make a good dreadnought anyway, even if they could have normal fire control (which they didn't have).

I think this is a battle cruiser. The corresponding all big gun battleship has yet to be seen. I think we will see it in the story, though.
Top
Re: Snippet #13
Post by Dilandu   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:08 am

Dilandu
Admiral

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

Henry Brown wrote:What exactly is the difference between a barbette and a turret in naval terms? I did google the two. From what I pulled up, the barbettes have lighter armor and no overhead protection. The turret has heavier armor and includes overhead protection. Is this accurate or am I missing details?



Turret is the ecnlosed armored can, which rotates with the gun and gun crew inside.

Barbette is the immobile ring (or other shape) or armor, inside which only the gun platform is rotating. Barbettes either didnt have overhead protection at all, or have only light, anti-splinter protection cupolas, which rotated with the guns.

The modern turret-on-barbette mount basically combine both. The gun itself is placed in rotating armored enclosure, placed atop of the immobile barbette, inside of which the aiming & rotating mechanisms, elevators, secondary power sources, ect., are placed. Modern barbettes go through the ship into the underwater parts, where magazines are placed (early barbette mounts have only an armored elevator tube going to magazines)
------------------------------

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: Snippet #13
Post by Dilandu   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:10 am

Dilandu
Admiral

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

PeterZ wrote:I think this is a battle cruiser. The corresponding all big gun battleship has yet to be seen. I think we will see it in the story, though.


Irrelevant of her classification, she seems to be underarmed quite a bit.
------------------------------

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: Snippet #13
Post by runsforcelery   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:37 am

runsforcelery
First Space Lord

Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:39 am
Location: South Carolina

Dilandu wrote:
PeterZ wrote:I think this is a battle cruiser. The corresponding all big gun battleship has yet to be seen. I think we will see it in the story, though.


Irrelevant of her classification, she seems to be underarmed quite a bit.


Indeed she is. Now why, I wonder, would the ICN have built a ship not quite as nasty as they could have?

Most of the improvements here are detail: better guns with better propellant and faster rate of fire, better arrangement of the armament, hydraulically powered hoists, improved machinery, better distribution of armor. etc. She's also carrying a lot of freeboard because of the weather conditions and sea states in which she's expected to operate, and the casemates are actually in the superstructure and stepped back from the side to reduce blast and spray interference and prevent them from being washed out at anything like normal speeds or "Atlantic" conditions.

Now, there are more reasons than one to go to a dreadnought-style armament. None of those reasons are really in play at this point, although the Inner Circle has already drawn up plans for how to approach the design when the time does come. This is essentially a transition design --- a tech demonstrator to get other navies thinking about proper turret mounts, powered turret machinery, and the other features of a workable design (including how much industrial capacity it will take to build the things).


"Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as Piglet came back from the dead.
Top
Re: Snippet #13
Post by Dilandu   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:37 am

Dilandu
Admiral

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

runsforcelery wrote:Indeed she is. Now why, I wonder, would the ICN have built a ship not quite as nasty as they could have?



Because they have only purely theoretical knowledge about VTE & smokeless powder era of naval warfare and not always could correctly implement it? ;)

I couldnt recall Nimue being stated as naval warfare history fan, and Owl was repeatedly stated as not extremely creative (albeit improving).


Now, there are more reasons than one to go to a dreadnought-style armament. None of those reasons are really in play at this point, although the Inner Circle has already drawn up plans for how to approach the design when the time does come. This is essentially a transition design --- a tech demonstrator to get other navies thinking about proper turret mounts, powered turret machinery, and the other features of a workable design (including how much industrial capacity it will take to build the things).


Sorry, I don't buy it. This is not a dreadnought. The dreadnought are defined as being all-big-gun (or more correctly - "of uniform main arnament") battleship, designed specifically for long-range artillery combat. While this ship have a uniform main battery, the number of guns are hardly sufficient to achieve a good statistical hit probability on long ranges. Lack of electrical fire control & plotting equipment would also greatly hamper ship's functionality as long-range gunnery platform). For Safehold conditions, the semi-dreadnoughts are more viable, since they have much better rate of fire & total volume per minute.

P.S. And must point out, that showing bigger & bigger battleships to the developing industrial powers is hardly the best way to encourage them to do the same. At some point they just thought "ah, what the hell, it's impossible to catch up, so why bother trying?". Impossibly high goals tend to discourage, rather than encourage.
------------------------------

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: Snippet #13
Post by JBNL1972   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:47 am

JBNL1972
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:01 pm

Dilandu wrote:
P.S. And must point out, that showing bigger & bigger battleships to the developing industrial powers is hardly the best way to encourage them to do the same. At some point they just thought "ah, what the hell, it's impossible to catch up, so why bother trying?". Impossibly high goals tend to discourage, rather than encourage.


I surmise that's exactly the reasoning behind Thunderbolt's modest improvement over the KH7, and why she's being used to travel around, to be inspected and analyzed by other navies; to encourage them to make that extra step that looks like it's possible!
Top
Re: Snippet #13
Post by Dilandu   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:04 am

Dilandu
Admiral

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

JBNL1972 wrote:
Dilandu wrote:
P.S. And must point out, that showing bigger & bigger battleships to the developing industrial powers is hardly the best way to encourage them to do the same. At some point they just thought "ah, what the hell, it's impossible to catch up, so why bother trying?". Impossibly high goals tend to discourage, rather than encourage.


I surmise that's exactly the reasoning behind Thunderbolt's modest improvement over the KH7, and why she's being used to travel around, to be inspected and analyzed by other navies; to encourage them to make that extra step that looks like it's possible!


Frankly, on Dohlarian side I would orobably went for Jeune Ecole & torpedo boats. Considering that they already have a good experience in "assymetrical" naval warfare, the next step would be logical - especially considering that Charis demonstrated a tendency to underestimate light units & escorts.
------------------------------

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: Snippet #13
Post by lyonheart   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:34 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hello and thank you so very much for the data dump, RFC!

Thunderbolt is surprisingly slow for some reason (17.2 vs 28 knots etc), and I'm very surprised how thin the deck armor (1.5-2") still is given how vulnerable it was to the large anti-ship rockets as pointed out in AToT; a new ship class with new more powerful longer ranged guns might now out range those 15" rockets (that were remarkably accurate for early 19th century tech), but from the inner circle discussion during the battle, increasing the KH VII's deck armor was going to be a lesson learned priority in the following ships, let alone even newer classes.

So I'm very curious why that fix didn't happen.
I'm sure RFC has a reason, so I'll be looking for the reason, rational or required by the story, come January.

While its 5+ years after the war, we saw now sign of even stationary industrial steam engines, let alone naval ones mentioned in in use by the CoGA etc, and while the might have the principles spelled out, advancing to late 19th century triple compression engines is a huge leap.

Torpedo boats weren't really practical until after Turbinia demonstrated the advantages of steam turbines in 1897 at the naval review, so until we see some sign somebody has invented them, I don't expect the Johnny come latelies to come up with something far more advanced.

Given Charis 'invented' the Schooner for commerce raiding, scouting, NTM screening, etc; I don't think Charis really underestimated light units.

Rather, its more accurate to say that having the world's largest merchant marine meant she didn't have near enough when a major power made producing commerce raider type schooners it primary tool in the jihad.

So the ICN had to send out some of the well built ex-NoG galleons, now equipped with explosive shells etc, to help shepherd its numerous convoys, which apparently worked very well as there were no further mention of successful attacks on Charisian convoys.

Between them and the message the City class ironclads delivered, they combined to kick Desnair out of the war.

Thus, until replaced by a longer legged City type cruiser, the schooners will still have a role to play in the ICN.

All the very best wishes to all,

L


runsforcelery wrote:
Dilandu wrote:quote="PeterZ"
I think this is a battle cruiser. The corresponding all big gun battleship has yet to be seen. I think we will see it in the story, though./quote

Irrelevant of her classification, she seems to be underarmed quite a bit.


Indeed she is. Now why, I wonder, would the ICN have built a ship not quite as nasty as they could have?

Most of the improvements here are detail: better guns with better propellant and faster rate of fire, better arrangement of the armament, hydraulically powered hoists, improved machinery, better distribution of armor. etc. She's also carrying a lot of freeboard because of the weather conditions and sea states in which she's expected to operate, and the casemates are actually in the superstructure and stepped back from the side to reduce blast and spray interference and prevent them from being washed out at anything like normal speeds or "Atlantic" conditions.

Now, there are more reasons than one to go to a dreadnought-style armament. None of those reasons are really in play at this point, although the Inner Circle has already drawn up plans for how to approach the design when the time does come. This is essentially a transition design --- a tech demonstrator to get other navies thinking about proper turret mounts, powered turret machinery, and the other features of a workable design (including how much industrial capacity it will take to build the things).
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Snippet #13
Post by isaac_newton   » Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:51 am

isaac_newton
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1182
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:37 am
Location: Brighton, UK

PeterZ wrote:
isaac_newton wrote: SNIP

thanks for that :-)
- so a fully turreted upgrade then, same big guns size, though more of them, about same top speed and longer range at a higher speed.

Not the same guns. KH VIIs have 10" 40's and Thunderer has 10" 45's. That argues for slower burning propellant and longer ranges for the 10"ers. Perhaps long enough to take full advantage of what the baloons make possible.


ah - could you explain the difference for those of us wot are not clued up on these details?
Top

Return to Safehold