Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Advice on a treaty Battleship
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2855		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Talleyrand [ March 24th, 2012, 4:23 am ]
Post subject:  Advice on a treaty Battleship
Hello im new in the forum and in the shipbucket forum. My first contribution is an idea that was roaming my mind.
During the last part of the XIX century and the first part of the XX century the naval politics of Argentina was: to be at least equal to the combined power of Brasil and Chile. This goal was in consideration of the alliance between those two. There was a little naval race when Brasil bought his first dreagnouth, Argentina bought 2 (Rivadavia class), and Chile also bought one (they were going to be 2). This one was build in England and when WWI begun it was used in the Royal Navy. To make the story short, the Argentinian supremacy was lost. The Chilean battleship was far superior to the Rivadavia Class. The 2 combined battleships could handle the Latorre (may be), but if you add the brazilians is the end of the Rivadavias.
So in my "Alternate History" Argentina begun to seek for a modern design for a battleship that could beat the chilenian and also give Argentina the posibility to match any modern battleship in the world and so turn into a regional power to take in account for the big boys.
But the battleship must be a "Treaty's Battleship" (or at least so close to make a believable lie) in order not to shake too much the big guns club. It will also would help to mantain the costs low.

My idea was to build a small, 220 meters long, battleship. A cheap, compact battleship. may be using some of the hulls never ended by the japanese. A compact desing will allow me to use a very short armored belt, thus saving weight and money. A pagoda tower come in handy, so there will be build by the japanese. In order to make adaptation faster weapons already used in other argentines cruiser will be used for secondary and AA weapons. (How and why Italy and, specially ,England will sell those guns is not explained; maybe some rail contracts and a lot of bribery )

For the moment I have:
3 turrets with 2 410mm guns each. (MAIN)
6 turrets with 3 155mm guns each. (SECONDARIE)
9 turrets with 2 102mm guns each. (heavy AA)
6 mounts whit 2 40mm guns each.
12 x 20 mm guns.
6 x 12,7 mm guns

Laid down mid 30's

My question are:
Is it underganned in main batteries?
Do i need more AA?
Any other advice?
Author:  KHT [ March 24th, 2012, 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on a treaty Battleship
Start by changing your secondaries. If it's mid-30s, a divided secondary is rather superflous. Use 8 turrets with 120/127mm instead, or something similar. It will save a lot of weight, and be much more effective.
Six guns in the main artillery will require very good FC. I would rather use a smaller gun, say eight 356 mm with super heavy shells, compromising for the smaller caliber with increased shell weight.
After that, you should focus on speed. In the mid thirties a new-built battleship should have at least 26 knots in speed.
Author:  Blackbuck [ March 24th, 2012, 11:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on a treaty Battleship
I'll come in with a wildcard. 2 main turrets forward with 3x 381mm/50 per turret. Secondaries amidships and aft amounting to 12x 152mm or 155mm in 4x triple mounts. AA in the form of 8-10 twins 100-120mm and then whatever smaller mounts you want. In a later refit I'd probably land the two secondary batteries and replace them a good number of 120-130mm singles and twins.
Author:  Talleyrand [ March 24th, 2012, 6:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on a treaty Battleship
KHT wrote:
Start by changing your secondaries. If it's mid-30s, a divided secondary is rather superflous. Use 8 turrets with 120/127mm instead, or something similar. It will save a lot of weight, and be much more effective.
That is a good advice. I was thinking the ship with that configuration in mind, but the charasteristics of the dual purpose Japanese Gun was a bit poor. My idea is to work with japanese guns (it's going to be build there) or guns already owned by the Argentina.
But "what a hell", there are not Corsairs in the Southamerica, in the 30's. Regarding the weight, is now in 37.000 tons. With this little change i guess it will be a true "treaty battleship".
KHT wrote:
Six guns in the main artillery will require very good FC. I would rather use a smaller gun, say eight 356 mm with super heavy shells, compromising for the smaller caliber with increased shell weight.
The Latorre is already using 356 mm. The plan was to engage it at high distance. Using superior range of weapons and the fact that his armor is WWI style. May be the japanese can make me 2 triple tower? whit the dual purpose secondary I already save a lot of weight.
KHT wrote:
After that, you should focus on speed. In the mid thirties a new-built battleship should have at least 26 knots in speed.
Springsharp said its natural speed is 26,8 knots.

------------------------------------------
Blackbuck wrote:
I'll come in with a wildcard. 2 main turrets forward with 3x 381mm/50 per turret. Secondaries amidships and aft amounting to 12x 152mm or 155mm in 4x triple mounts. AA in the form of 8-10 twins 100-120mm and then whatever smaller mounts you want. In a later refit I'd probably land the two secondary batteries and replace them a good number of 120-130mm singles and twins.
Another good idea, But most of the ship is already designed, including internal arrangement, it will be too hard to begun almost a new ship.
Author:  Talleyrand [ March 24th, 2012, 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on a treaty Battleship
Another question.

I installed a torpedo launcher a mid ship. Is it superflous?
Author:  Biancini1995 [ March 24th, 2012, 6:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on a treaty Battleship
I a 30' BB? i don't know but for me is not necessary.
Author:  KHT [ March 24th, 2012, 6:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on a treaty Battleship
Yes. Torpedos are of no real use on a BB, not to mention the ship can be blown apart by one (un)lucky machine gun round from attacking enemy planes.
I forgot to mention: the 356mm should probably be 50 calibers, thus superior providing range and power. Don't forget that the american 16"/50 Mk.7 was almost as powerful as the japanese 18.1"/45 type 94 in long ranges, and if you follow a basic hit-and-run tactic against enemy BBs, nothing less will be required(asuming said BBs are those of other mini-powers).
You can make a pretty good battleship within those parameters on only 33 000 tonnes.
Looking forward to see your drawing tough. :)
Author:  Talleyrand [ March 24th, 2012, 7:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on a treaty Battleship
KHT wrote:
Yes. Torpedos are of no real use on a BB, not to mention the ship can be blown apart by one (un)lucky machine gun round from attacking enemy planes.
I forgot to mention: the 356mm should probably be 50 calibers, thus superior providing range and power. Don't forget that the american 16"/50 Mk.7 was almost as powerful as the japanese 18.1"/45 type 94 in long ranges, and if you follow a basic hit-and-run tactic against enemy BBs, nothing less will be required(asuming said BBs are those of other mini-powers).
You can make a pretty good battleship within those parameters on only 33 000 tonnes.
Looking forward to see your drawing tough. :)
Thank you very much. You have a good point whit the lucky hit. 5 or 6 long lance torpedo exploting a mid ship is a sure loss.
Author:  KHT [ March 24th, 2012, 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on a treaty Battleship
Well, I doubt the Japanese would really be eager to sell anything, especially the long lance torpedo, which was supposed to be their trumph in cruiser combat. Considering how most of the smaller nations with battleships had warship-technological ties to either the US or Great Britain, the Japs would hardly want to sell the secret behind the then best torpedo in the world.
And yes, since the long lance was extremly volitaile compared to other torpedos, having them on a BB is basicaly slapping a "hit here!"-sign in the groin. :)
Author:  Clonecommander6454 [ March 25th, 2012, 7:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice on a treaty Battleship
Several battleship actually have torpedos. For example, Baden Class and South Carolina Class. Those Japanese 6" gun on the Mogami are actually gun house with a max of 25mm armor... I'd recommend using those turrets from the Demilitarized Hiei, 12.7 cm/50 Type 3 gun in Type B/D DP Mount for Main and Secondaries if you are stick to Japanese Weapons.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/