runsforcelery wrote:Okay, let's start with the fact that an elemental principle of Naval design is that you design your armor to resist the power of your own guns.
Wrong, i'm afraid. It may work only in assumption that the enemy have similar guns and the similar ideas how to use it.
For example, if the enemy placed a few ultra-heavy guns as a main weapons, there is simply no point to protect the all side. And the citadel scheme would work well. For example: "Royal Sovereign"-class battleships (XIX century, of course)
But if the enemy armed his ships with smaller, fast-firing guns, the citadel scheme may not be the best. And you may well trade the thickness of armour for the greater armoured area. For example: "Majestic"-class battleship.
In the situation, were the enemy guns are clearly inferior, and would be inferior for decades, it's simply make no sense.
The ships are armed with artillery which was designed for the specific purpose of smashing fortifications and being longer ranged then anything else afloat.
For what reason? The main purpose of fortification bombardment is to hit GUNS. They are small. The long-range bombardment of fortifications always was the awful waste of ammunition. Or you need really MANY guns to concentrate.
In that case, the 10-inch rifles on "King Haarald" is useless. Their rate of fire is too low, and the targets simply isn'tprotected enought. The uniform 8-inch armament would work better: the ammount of shells would be much greater.
(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.
For what reason? The "philosophy" of navy didn't make much sense: this navy changed his entire philisophy at least three times for no more than three decades (from galleys to galleons, from galleons to ironclads, from ironclads to battleships).
In that case they should already start to build anti-torpedo defense and anti-air guns.
Just in case.
What if Holy Langhorne blessed the Clyntahn with the ability of flying, or breathing underwater?
(3) How should we do that? We'll use the new armor which has been developed for the river ironclads, And we'll apply it in a belt to the side of the ship instead of armoring the entire freeboard of the vessel, the way we did in the ofriginal, crude ironclads.
Well, if we got unlimited supply of armour, workforce and money, we MAY do it. But it would be the useless waste of resources, that could be used on the other, more important diretions.
There really isn't anything in this ship's design that wouldn't have occurredto the Charisians without Merlin's input. What would have happened without him is simply that they wouldn't have been able to accomplish all of the logical steps involved as rapidly. But that's sort of the point, isn't it?
I'm afraid it isn't. All this design simply couldn't appear from Charisian. All this assumption here didn't really make much sence: "
let's build the super battleship only in case that the Mumbo-Jumbo tribe somehow build a 406-mm/50"
The realistic "King Haarald" - that COULD been build by Charisian without Merlin saying to them directly how to do this - would probably be:
- Сomposite-hulled (the simple matter of field repair)
- Fully armored at least on the waterline against ENEMY guns (we could repair the upper part of the hull pretty easly; the hit near the waterline would be much more ugly)
- Have a flat armored deck on the upper part of the belt
- Have two-or-four heavy rifled guns in 1870-1880 type
barbettes with the light protective domes. Not the 1890th type turrets.
- Have a large casemated battery of 6-or-8 inch rifled guns.
So we have something like HMS "Sultan" of french "Ocean". And it is completely within the logic of Charisian shipbuilding. It could be done without any "Wisdom-from-above".
If you want to insist that in order to be "legitimate" no new development can have his fingerprints on it anywhere, then the entire logical framework of the books is obviously unacceptable to you.
I only and humbly think, that the KH's pretty much ruined the previous pattern of steady, logical improvements.