Shipbucket

She's not bad. I am however, horrible at WW2 battleships (even studying them doesn't seem to help).

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Light guns for a secondary armament.

The secondaries seem good, overall hull is a good start. the only thing I think is a major problem is the spacing between the primary turrets (deck to super firing). I must remember, wile from the side in a 2d view it seems like the deck turrets can turn clear of the super-firing barbet, the turret backs would be more or less a box shape. this means that the width and angle of the turrets backs would result in the limitation of the turing angle of those turrets before they hit the barbets. My advice is to increase the spacing between main turrets. Good first start though!

I know (self credited I know) a decent amount about late 19th, early 20th century design ships and I can give you the following advice;

- Your main gun turrets are far too close together to both each other and to the superstructure. The blast from those guns will destroy their neighbouring turrets if they could even revolve as it is currently

- Your main mast should be larger and not enclosed for ships dating back to the interwar period or earlier. Fully enclosed structures like that were not common beforehand

- Whats the space between the funnels for? Even on a battleship, space is very much limited. You want the design as compact as possible to reduce the cost and amount of armour required to protect your ships vitals

- I notice you have what look like directors atop of the masts. What happens if they fail? Have redundant directors for your main and secondary weapons. Also have a spotlight aft as well in case a shell takes out your current arrangement

- Your hull, whilst it looks nice, has a bit more freeboard than I would consider standard for battleships. They tended to have low hulls dating back in some way to the monitor and pre-dreadnought days

- Will the ship be fitted with radar? If so, think about where it needs to go and what equipment and support structures it needs to operate

When designing a ship, always keep in mind what your enemies or rivals have and what you need to overcome them to the best of your ability. I find this article here of excellent reading to understand the work you should do in your mind BEFORE you ever even start drawing a single pixel; http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-035.htm

Hope I don't come across as harsh. If you look at my AU thread you will see my first battleship also had many of these errors. Research and understanding the requirements for them will help you improve greatly.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Thanks for all the input guys. I did kind of a double take looking at the comments about the spacing of the main battery, and picturing it in my head, you guys are right. THe towers weren't intended to be masts, as much as towers for the main battery directors. In the update I've been working on, with a cropped down superstructure, both towers have come down at least a deck level if not two.

Radar will be fitted, although the exact type is as yet a work in progress. Probably American made.

In looking over the ship's intended opponents, the Japanese, I've only seen four ships that I know of with 16" guns or larger, so in terms of main battery she'd match up okay carrying 14" guns. As far as the comment that the 4.1"/105mm secondaries seem light, I made the decision to use lighter caliber guns for a couple of reasons. Tell me if this thought line makes any sense, or if I'm just over-tired from the switch to 3rd shifts: 1. 105mm, fixed ammunition would be easier for gun crews to achieve and maintain a high volume of fire in an AA situation, 2. Destroyers, the surface threat against which the 105s would be used, are at best lightly armored if armored at all. although the 105s are smaller and pack less explosive punch than 4.5", 5", or 5.25" guns, they would still do damage against a lightly armored or unarmored target. Also, the aforementioned high rate of fire could make up in quantity what each shell may lack in brute force. and if I remember correctly, British ships fitted with 4" guns were able to lob them quite effectively for use against the Germans in France, weren't they?

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist

I'd say your choice of second battery is fine. If I remember correctly, a 4in she'll was considered by the RN in the period to be the largest shell that could be manually lifted without the need for hoists whilst providing comparable firepower to a 5in she'll. the 4in gun itself (depending on model) also was more effective than the 5in as it could train to targets faster, crucial if its a dual purpose battery intended to target enemy aircraft.

For my AU I've done research into the Japanese warships of the area, their capabilities and their performance and if you've seen my C3 cruisers, you might be familiar with the conclusion that its armour would be sufficient to withstand up to 14in shells from the Kongos at a distance of 10,000 yards or greater. Look at gun performance and shell penetration statistics, find where your design could sit comfortably, and design it for that position.

Your naval doctrine will also help design your ship for you. Will she be operating as a lone wolf or part of a task force? Will she always have air cover or will she be expected to fend off aerial attacks herself? Is she operating in friendly or hostile skies? What is the average weather like for the region of her operation? Etc

It sounds like you're on the right path however. I look forward to seeing the finished ship.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

I just realized that I may have been unintentionally brilliant for a moment. I went with 14"/50 caliber guns (a longer version of the british BL 14 inch Mk VII), thinking 12 x 14" guns would give a relatively heavy broad (20%ish greater than the British KGV class, of which the lead ship, along with HMS Rodney, proved adept at mauling the Bismarck). WHat I didn't think to look at before drawing was armor penetration ratings. Having now done so and compared the numbers against Japanese WWII Battleship classes, I'm even more confident in my choice of the main battery. Out to approximately 13,000 yards, the 14" guns should penetrate the belt armor of all but Yamato and Musashi, and farther out as the rounds turn from flat to vertical trajectories, they would penetrate the decks of all but the named ships. a round falling short and hitting the side of the ships at range might bounce off, but if it goes short there is the chance the round either submarines and hits under the armor belt or falls just short of a deck shot and penetrates above the belt. It seems with these guns, Victoria stands a decent chance of standing in against Japanese vessels.

_________________
World's Best Okayest Author and Artist

12x14in guns may be a bit heavy of a load for your hull but certainly the 14in gun is perfectly suitable. It was not restricted by naval arms limitation treaties like the 16in guns and unless you know for certain you'll be against a Yamato (though keep in mind that info on the yamatos true gun and armour specifications were not available until post war).

9-10 14in guns may be more than enough in a variety of configurations though I'd recommend either 3x3 to reduce turret weight or 2x3 2x2 to give you four turrets with decent fields of fire. Also keep in mind that the more guns you have, the more complex your ammo and armour distribution will be and hence the more weight it will need and the greater displacement required to support it.

Japanese ships didn't have great armour but they did have heavy firepower which is to do with their doctrine again of always being on the offensive. If your ship is armoured decently to take the weight of shells, then you should have no trouble dealing with them.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

I think that the main battery is alright myself. The ship in question is larger than a North Carolina, which was designed to take 12 14" guns in three turrets. I think that the extra length accommodates the fourth turret rather well.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

True enough yeah. I forgot about the NC. I reckon it would have looked better with the 14s instead of the 16s but then again, I greatly preferred the look of it to the Sodak amongst American battleships.

I prefer the smaller, compact battleships and battle cruisers myself so I may be biased in that regard in keeping things constrained to real world examples.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"