Wow, 16"-ers after all. And they didn't need an all-forward turret layout! Surely a few tonnes to be saved there?
Not bad. Just a few nitpicks:[snip]Well don't say I did not give it a gaming try.
I used the specs in STS200's post, which specified a low magazine capacity. The poor seakeeping was to be expected with the guns being carried, otherwise you need a finer longer hull and greater freeboard... both cost displacement, besides the dimensions were given to us . As for the range you had the options of having a 3in belt and normal range or 9in and no range.Not bad. Just a few nitpicks:
Don't like the armored box but you were forced into it
Range short, ditto
Main Battery rpg is low, ditto
Secondary Battery guns not mount and hoist
But given the parameters I think you did the best you could...
Also, the new Australia is going to be a beast with the extra tonnage...
I'm guessing that some of the extra tonnage available for Australia will be used to beef up her TDS, make the twin 16" turret a triple and add another quartet of 4" and 1lb guns among many other important improvements
HMAS Australia will be a relatively mildly modified version. Bulged out by 2', lengthened by 6' to allow larger magazines.Quite possibly a proper battleship if the 3-2-3 main gun layout is retained and the weights are used for armour and TDS
I would think the next logical step is an 'armoured battlecruiser', taking what they've learned with these and applying it to a full scale ship. Using the 3,000-ton wheeze, they could go up to ~38,500 tons without worrying too much. D-steel, light machinery and intelligent use of armour, and you probably have something not a million miles off a G-3 (or the story's D-33).....
EDIT: Interestingly the RN number of 16" guns in RN service is catching up fast with 15" as these are finished building.
The 15" armed ships are 5xQE's (8 guns), 4x Royal's (8 guns), 2x Repulse (6 guns), 2x Hood (8 guns) for 100 guns.
The 16" armed ships are Rodney (8 guns), 3x Nelson (9 guns), 6x Fisher (8 guns) for 83 guns.
Assuming the 1927 & 1928 programs are for a full fat battleship, either an improved Trafalgar (herself an improved Nelson) or a clean sheet design with 9 guns, the 16" gunned ships will overtake.
I think you've already got there....
On a different topic what is the shape of the RN post the Fisher's. When Anson is commissioned into service the RN will have built 178,000 treaty tons of capital ship since the signing of the treaty (3x 36k ton Nelson's plus 5x14k tons Fisher's). As the RN was already at it's 750k ton cap what has it gotten rid of. Starting with the oldest and slowest first presumably the Orion's (56k tons) and KGV's (42k tons) have gone along with Courageous (14k tons) but that still leaves 66k tons what else has been disposed of, the Lion's seem the obvious next target which nets you 53k tons but you are still 13k tons short.
EDIT: I've just realised that Panther was turned into a training ship here and the Lion's have also gone so the RN is actually 14,500 tons under the treaty limit.
I'm not sure you could add all that and only get another 1,100 tons of SD and I'm really not sure you could do all that and only loose 1/3 knot. Also you implied here that they had an all foward layout:HMAS Australia will be a relatively mildly modified version. Bulged out by 2', lengthened by 6' to allow larger magazines.
An extra 0.5" on the armour decks (4.5" magazine, 4" machinery, 3.5" aft on lower deck), and the protective side plating goes up to 3".
Most obvious improvement is the secondary armament, now eight 6" in single mounts on the foc'sle, with directors amidships. 4-4" retained on the shelter deck for HA work. Better for dealing with heavy-hitting Japanese destroyers.
Various minor improvements to splinter protection associated with secondary guns.
Same machinery, so about a 1/3 knot slower. Main armament is the same.
Standard Displacement goes up to about 27,100 tons, Deep load to 32,200.
foc'sle or forecastleThree huge holes seemed to dominate the foc’sle deck, deep cavities into the hull where the turrets would eventually sit.
Extras:I'm not sure you could add all that and only get another 1,100 tons of SD and I'm really not sure you could do all that and only loose 1/3 knot. Also you implied here that they had an all foward layout:
foc'sle or forecastle
def: the section of the upper deck of a ship located at the bow forward of the foremast.
Why did they abandon the all forward layout if they were looking to minimise the length of the armour belt?
If that’s what it takes to continue the quality of this story, I think everyone will wait patiently. I have really enjoyed this, sts-200, and I hope the eventual second part is as awesome as the first.Sorry to say this story will now be on hold for a while.
I’ve long since run through my stock of material, and need to think about mapping out a more entertaining narrative than just a list of battleships (along with a few other projects I have in mind).
Seconded, and I also appreciate that you are telling us now, shortly after releasing the latest update as opposed to several weeks from now and dashing our hopes then. In the meantime, I expect a lot of speculation as to how the various countries will respond to the Fishers.If that’s what it takes to continue the quality of this story, I think everyone will wait patiently. I have really enjoyed this, sts-200, and I hope the eventual second part is as awesome as the first.
No, thank YOU. We only keep coming back because of the story and the writing. Since I'm a learning-junkie, I particularly like that my knowledge of battleship/-cruiser/etc design/concepts/etc has increased by about 1000% since I found this thread - I'm up to 'know just enough to know that I don't know very much' now!Thank you for reading so far.