Alternate Battleships

Redbeard

Banned
I once made a "design" of a battlecruiser (Jagtkreutzer) for an ATL (I'm still working on) with all main armament forward. By accepting that not all main guns can fire at zero elevation straight ahead and that some paint will be peeled off the armoured roof (17cm) on turret A and B, I got three turets superfiring and with C barbette only being 10,5 meters abover waterline. That is in line with a lot of B barbettes on OTL designs.

The muzzles of B and C turrets are just clear of the roof of A and B turret respectively at zero elevation. The blast pressure would indeed be extreme, but I'm positive that a 17cm armour plate capable of withstanding 16" shells can take the blast too (and the inside of A and B turrets are not intended for listening to Mozart anyway).

The hull is relatively wide to take the load of three turrets amidships, but by using a transom stern I get a reasonable length/width ratio, which is important for speed, but fuel consumption at medium speed will be relatively high. The relatively wide hull forward will make a dry ship, but might be unconfortable in heavy seas. It will crush the waves rather than cut through them.

Armour is distributed to optimise the ship to approach an enemy at a straight ahead course (chase). At this course the ship will present 40cm vertical and 17cm horizontal armour, which gives a comfortable immune zone even against 16" shells. If an enemy decide to try to escape you have a serious firepower advantage and a good chance to slow him down and perform a kill. If he stays and try to fight it out, you are at least on par firepower wise, but with an advantage in protection. All in all you will have good chance of having seriously hurt the enemy before reaching the point where you have to change course.

This makes the ship ideal for a nation that need to keep control of the seas - this ship is not to be found in a lengthy line of battle patrolling the shores of your nation, but seeking up enemies and destroying them. Would ideally work in pairs with an escort of a couple of CLs and a squadron of destroyers.

I have spreadsheets somewhere calculating the weight of armour, and it is comfortably inside the usual marginsv of WWII designs, the relatively thin belt and short citadel pay for the thich deck and forward protection (but I can't recall the figures). Speed is guesstimated from comparing various OTL hulls.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

jagtkreutzer8x41x3D.JPG
 
Redbeard,

That's an excellent design. Thank you for sharing it with us.

I've one tiny quibble. No English speaking navy will ever name a ship "Pussy". It is another word for cat but, aside from being common slang for an effeminate person or behavior, it's also a vulgarism used to refer to female genitalia.


Bill
 
Redbeard,

That's an excellent design. Thank you for sharing it with us.

I've one tiny quibble. No English speaking navy will ever name a ship "Pussy". It is another word for cat but, aside from being common slang for an effeminate person or behavior, it's also a vulgarism used to refer to female genitalia.


Bill

I think he knew that, all the names echo back to the 'Splendid Cats' - and what 'cat' is more splendid than that? Ocelot would have been a little strange. Tho cougar may work.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Redbeard, what would the practicality be of adding heavy torpedo tubes to the stern? Or anything else to encourage enemy ships not to try to engage your weaker rear armor? Obviously, if you get enough time your ship can probably outrun anything that can hurt it, but they still be thinking about trying for a shot or two first.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I think he knew that, all the names echo back to the 'Splendid Cats' - and what 'cat' is more splendid than that? Ocelot would have been a little strange. Tho cougar may work.

Spot on :D

I couldn't find a suitable 6th name. I did consider Cougar, but somehow I kept returning to Pussy when thinking about cats... :eek:

But anyway this is ATL, and sometimes things change it the strangest ways. Another class of Jagtkreutzers is named: Profit, Credit, Benefit and Shoveit. I have no idea why, it just happened that way.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

Bearcat

Banned
Torpedoes on BBs

Redbeard, what would the practicality be of adding heavy torpedo tubes to the stern? Or anything else to encourage enemy ships not to try to engage your weaker rear armor? Obviously, if you get enough time your ship can probably outrun anything that can hurt it, but they still be thinking about trying for a shot or two first.

Were pretty much out of favor by ww2 designs, but stern tubes might allow for some interesting tactics. Also as I recall some postwar DD-types had tubes in their sterns for early wire-guided torpedoes. Might make for a novel ASW defense for a BB.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Redbeard, what would the practicality be of adding heavy torpedo tubes to the stern? Or anything else to encourage enemy ships not to try to engage your weaker rear armor? Obviously, if you get enough time your ship can probably outrun anything that can hurt it, but they still be thinking about trying for a shot or two first.

IIRC the torpedotubes on Nelson and Rodney accounted for 1-200 tons of displacement. That I would prefer to use on a lot of different items.

Torpedoes would anyway not be a practical threat at typical BB gunnery range, but might be handy for the coup d'grace on an already disabled enemy. The escorts would carry torpedotubes however.

I'm not so worried about "dead angles". This design belong to a leading seapower, who's naval tradition, doctrine and mission means engaging and destroying any enemy. Its navy might not outnumber all the potential enemies combined, but with superior speed and agressive tactics count on creating local superiority where the battle is. IOW, if you meet an enemy you don't turn away to escape damage, but engage (head on) to destroy or be destroyed.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Top