Design Request: German pre-World War One Armored Cruiser

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
NewGolconda		#11	[-]
Posts: 3236 ( 1-Apr-2008 23:02:00) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"The German 21cm/45 and twin turret were a superb cruiser weapons system during this time period. I would not change it. Just use the same twin turrets as SMS Blucher." Actually it and its predessor are terrible cruiser weapons. Absolutely pitifull. It is outranged, outhit, outfought by even the enemies last class of cruiser gun, and all the ships fitted with were destroyed in one sided contests. Terrible. The best cruiser gun is the one 20% bigger than the other guys.
NewGolconda		#12	[-]
Posts: 3237 ( 1-Apr-2008 23:08:12) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Problem with the stockpile idea is that nobody is planning a long war. You are planning a short sharp war where the army delivers victory in months. The only role of the navy is to intimidate the British to stay out of Europe. If you decide a long war is likely, why not spend the money on the army to make a short war likely again?
Dave Bender	Destroyed in one sided contests	#13	[-]
Posts: 6373 ( 2-Apr-2008 01:37:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That is not the fault of SMS Blucher. Leave a Yamato class dreadnought behind to fight 5 RN BCs and you are likely to get the same end result. There is no substitute for military competence.
NewGolconda		#14	[-]
Posts: 3238 ( 2-Apr-2008 02:11:13) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It is the fault of beeing completely outclassed. In 1910, the large cruiser threat calibre is 12in or 13.5in. Even the Japanese are building 14in ships.
E F Draaijers		#15	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 165 ( 2-Apr-2008 12:45:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In theory, the German 8.2 inch guns could penetrate existing British battlecruiserarmor almost anywhere, since they were only protected with thin belts and even thinner decks. At short to medium ranges the german 8.2 shell could penetrate the 9 inch belt of a Lion Class and certainly the 1.5 inch deck, if angled enough to hit with a plunging manner. The 12 inch BC's were even lesser in protection, so there was a reasonable change of getting serious damage to any battlecruiser with this type of gun. High rate of fire will be better than increasing the calliber, just to obtain more steel in the air in a shorter time. Problem with this is the German ship itself has to be on the scale of a large Derflinger type scale to get enough protection to get resistant to heavy shot in excess of 12 inch. So the designed ship may look ondergunned, but has a serious punch against anything afloat, except the biggest Dreadnoughts (like Queen Elisabeth class) and certainly outpasses anything else. But why opting for such a vessel, which is mostly effective as a raider, rather than a ship of the batlefleet/scout? A more traditional battlecruiser can do the same job, but with bigger, although slower guns.
Dave Bender	Why opting for such a vessel	#16	[-]
Posts: 6375 ( 2-Apr-2008 14:12:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://www.german-navy.de/hochseeflotte/ships/armoredcruiser/blucher/index.html SMS Blucher cost 28.5 million marks. SMS Derfflinger cost 56 million marks. If money is no object then Derfflinger wins hands down. That does not apply to the Kaiserliche Marine so we will dismiss this from consideration. In the real world you can purchase 2 German ACs for the same price as 1 BC. As scouts they can cover twice a much ocean, providing the HSF commander with better information. Once enemy dreadnoughts are encountered the ACs are supposed to shadow and report, not fight. Once the German main body arrives the ACs will continue to support by shooting up enemy screen units. Those fast firing 21cm/45 guns are perfect for killing ships smaller then dreadnought size. As with all military battles, proper tactics are the key to victory. If you let your cruisers go trophy hunting rather then concentrating on the scouting mission then you are already half defeated.
REMATOG	Don't look behind the curtin	#17	[-]
Posts: 96 ( 2-Apr-2008 20:18:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There are political reasons, which I don't wish to give away before I write the story, why an Armored cruiser is being laid down instead of a BC. These ships are not being designed to scout for a fleet, but to overpower CL's in foreign stations. They could also stand up to other AC, but would be able, with their speed, to chose whether to fight or run. They would never chose to fight a BC, and this is why the 30 kt requirement. I asked for 15 cm secondaries to follow the design tradition of the German BB, BC and AC classes just prior to this point (1910) in time. The KM had used casement mounted 15 cm secondarys on all recent capital ships. If it necessary to switch to deck mounted guns with gun shields, this would be an acceptable trade off. But I perfer less 15 cm to more 10.5 cm. History provides proof of the correctness of this view. I don't feel it is realistic for anyone in 1910 to be thinking about AA guns. Light guns (8.8 cm) to take care of small TB's certainly, AA, no. The armor I'm asking for is very nearly identical to that used in Blucher and Scharnhorst class AC's. And I feel these ships need to be robust, both for the practical reason of being unlikely to take critical damage from a CL (i.e. 6" gun), and to follow the KM design tradition. A somewhat bigger ship in order to get the 30 knot speed, is acceptable. As I've said before, other changes to OTL will result in funds, building slips and other resources needed to allow these ships to be built. Thanks Robin
Dave Bender	Overpower CL's in foreign stations	#18	[-]
Posts: 6377 ( 2-Apr-2008 21:27:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Then why spend 28 million marks for a ship with such low endurance? This CL works better and costs less money. SMS Dar es Salaam, Deutsches Reich Kleiner Kreuzer laid down 1910 Displacement: 7,673 t light; 7,992 t standard; 10,279 t normal; 12,067 t full load Loading submergence 559 tons/feet Dimensions: 170.00 m x 17.00 m x 7.05 m Armament: 8 - 6.69" / 170 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 2 guns, 2 superfiring turrets) 8 - 3.46" / 88 mm guns 8 - 0.31" / 8 mm guns Weight of broadside 1,366 lbs / 619 kg 8 - 19.7" / 500 mm above water torpedoes Armour: Belt 2.95" / 75 mm, ends unarmoured Belts cover 101 % of normal area Main turrets 3.94" / 100 mm Armour deck 0.98" / 25 mm, Conning tower 3.94" / 100 mm Machinery: Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Direct drive, 4 shafts, 59,297 shp / 44,236 Kw = 29.00 kts Range 9,000nm at 14.00 kts Complement: 510 - 663 Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 171 tons, 1.7 % Armour: 1,168 tons, 11.4 % Belts: 397 tons, 3.9 %, Armament: 375 tons, 3.7 %, Armour Deck: 356 tons, 3.5 % Conning Tower: 40 tons, 0.4 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 % Machinery: 2,669 tons, 26.0 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,415 tons, 33.2 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,606 tons, 25.4 % Miscellaneous weights: 250 tons, 2.4 % Metacentric height 2.9 Remarks: Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate Room for accommodation & workspaces is adequate Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Relative margin of stability: 1.20 Shellfire needed to sink: 11,198 lbs / 5,079 Kg = 74.7 x 6.7 " / 170 mm shells Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.4 Relative steadiness as gun platform: 60 % Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.37 Relative quality as seaboat: 1.21 Hull form characteristics: Block coefficient: 0.500 Sharpness coefficient: 0.33 Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.84 'Natural speed' for length: 23.62 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 % Trim: 50 (Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100) Estimated hull characteristics & strength: Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 100.1 % Relative accommodation and working space: 112.3 % Displacement factor: 127 % Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.97 Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.36 Relative composite hull strength: 1.00 Wartime Mission. Overpower enemy CLs on foreign stations. Estimated cost. 16 million marks (twice the cost of a Magdeburg class CL). The 17cm/45 main guns are an upgrade to the existing 17cm/40 naval rifle. These will be mounted in a smaller version of the existing 21cm/45 twin turret. They can easily defeat the 3" armor typically found on WWI era CLs. You also have 8 modern 50cm torpedoes. The armor provides good protection against 6" gunfire. Propulsion plant is coal with oil spray (10% oil). You've got the speed to evade BCs and enough endurance that you will not be worried about running out of fuel (as historically happened to SMS Dresden). Sea keeping is good enough that you can leave coastal waters with confidence. Generous misc. tonnage can be used for mines, at sea coaling equipment etc.
NewGolconda		#19	[-]
Posts: 3239 ( 2-Apr-2008 22:57:55) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"In theory, the German 8.2 inch guns could penetrate existing British battlecruiserarmor almost anywhere, since they were only protected with thin belts and even thinner decks. At short to medium ranges the german 8.2 shell could penetrate the 9 inch belt of a Lion Class and certainly the 1.5 inch deck, if angled enough to hit with a plunging manner." Meanwhile, in the real world the British 13.5in BC's were resisting 11in shells at medium (15,000 yrds) and long ranges. "The 12 inch BC's were even lesser in protection, so there was a reasonable change of getting serious damage to any battlecruiser with this type of gun." I suggest you read up on the Falklands battle, particularly the number of 8.2in hits scored and th damage caused. Sure the Blucher has a slightly better weapon, but the damaged the German 1903 and 1904 programme cruisers managed to cause the British 1905 programme ships was pathetic, to be generous. "High rate of fire will be better than increasing the calliber, just to obtain more steel in the air in a shorter time." Things to add to your reading list, danger space, ballistic advantage.
P3D		#20	[-]
Posts: 797 ( 2-Apr-2008 23:45:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	A 8x280mm BC with the required armor and 28kts speed is ~17000t light. You should get about two colonial ACs to justify it. That means, 9000t and slimming down the requirements. 28kts should be enough to get the 25kts light cruisers the RN is building in numbers. At overseas stations, you will most probably have antracite coal in the stockpile - but oil spray will help if such fuel is unavailable. 210mm guns are chosen against the 6-7.64" armed UK and French ACs that would be most probably relegated to the colonial services., but only 6 of them. Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1911 Displacement: 8,838 t light; 9,241 t standard; 10,643 t normal; 11,765 t full load Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (551.18 ft / 551.18 ft) x 59.06 ft x (22.97 / 24.78 ft) (168.00 m / 168.00 m) x 18.00 m x (7.00 / 7.55 m) Armament: 6 - 8.27" / 210 mm 45.0 cal guns - 284.98lbs / 129.26kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1911 Model 3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward 1 raised mount - superfiring 12 - 4.13" / 105 mm 45.0 cal guns - 35.62lbs / 16.16kg shells, 200 per gun Breech loading guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1911 Model 12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread Weight of broadside 2,137 lbs / 969 kg Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 328.08 ft / 100.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m Ends: 1.97" / 50 mm 223.10 ft / 68.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length - Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 7.09" / 180 mm 5.91" / 150 mm 5.91" / 150 mm 2nd: 1.97" / 50 mm - - - Armoured deck - multiple decks: 1.97" / 50 mm For and Aft decks Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 1.18" / 30 mm - Conning towers: Forward 7.09" / 180 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm Machinery: Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Direct drive, 4 shafts, 53,252 shp / 39,726 Kw = 28.00 kts Range 12,000nm at 10.00 kts Bunker at max displacement = 2,524 tons (90% coal) Complement: 523 - 681 Cost: £0.840 million / $3.362 million Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 500 tons, 4.7 % Armour: 2,263 tons, 21.3 % - Belts: 959 tons, 9.0 % - Armament: 537 tons, 5.0 % - Armour Deck: 693 tons, 6.5 % - Conning Tower: 74 tons, 0.7 % Machinery: 2,354 tons, 22.1 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,601 tons, 33.8 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,805 tons, 17.0 % Miscellaneous weights: 120 tons, 1.1 % - Hull above water: 120 tons Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 12,669 lbs / 5,747 Kg = 44.8 x 8.3 " / 210 mm shells or 1.7 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10 Metacentric height 2.7 ft / 0.8 m Roll period: 15.0 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 59 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.59 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20 Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and a cruiser stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.498 / 0.511 Length to Beam Ratio: 9.33 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 23.48 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 21.33 ft / 6.50 m, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m - Average freeboard: 18.61 ft / 5.67 m Ship tends to be wet forward Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 91.2 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 144.9 % Waterplane Area: 21,654 Square feet or 2,012 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 118 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 108 lbs/sq ft or 529 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.96 - Longitudinal: 1.45 - Overall: 1.00 Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Design Request: German pre-World War One Armored Cruiser

Quick Reply