Alternate warships of nations

My own thinking is about as follows. I am working as the Netherlands and assuming that all the ships I order take the place of historic Dutch ships, so no ships built by the Netherlands after 1930 are available for my use.

I am buying British because they have a decent all around mix of ships in each category. America will have a few BBs available in the early 30s they scrapped historically, but they arent great, better than what I may get off the French or Italians, and good luck getting the IJN to part with anything. The British are also building consistently good cruisers in the period, have a large surplus of destroyers I may be able to pick from, and build a large number of good submarine classes.

Battleships
Britain is scrapping the Iron Dukes in the early 1930s, so I can probably get two of them without issue. While not as powerful as the latest and greatest ships in the major navies they are about average compared to the majority of battleships. Two of them will make me probably the strongest navy in the world after the treaty signatories. The only other real options are the USS North Dakota and USS Florida in the US, but these are two separate classes, slow, and are only armed with 12in guns.

Cruisers
The County class is only recently out of production so I could probably order a pair of them, failing that go with a pair of Leanders, they are often lambasted today but were decent little ships that could do decent work. If I have to buy ships being scrapped then go for some Town or C class ships. Other nations are offering some capable cruisers in the new but based on existing category, and I do like the Italian and French ships, but I am sticking with British.

Destroyers
I can likely nab some V&W class off the RN, failing that go for some of the S class. Both will be probably too small for service as destroyers in WWII, but will allow me to have some decent second line units for escort work and ASW use, or as fast minelaters. Yeah the Clemson class is good, and large numbers are available, but I am sticking with British designs. Not sure what the French, Italians, or Japanese are offering in the used destroyer game but its not fantastic I am sure.

Submarines
The British are building the Rainbow class at the moment and they are decent for open ocean work, four of them would be very nice. Otherwise nab some US fleet boats like the S class.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now that gives me a decent little fleet of ships. As the Netherlands the only ships I would have historically would be the two Java class and eight Admiralen class destroyers that would still be of any use by WWII except a few submarines here and there. Now onto my 1935 purchasses.

Battleship rebuild
I am going to go all in for the rebuilds. Conversion to oil fired small tube boilers to bring their speed up, drop Q turret for more power to get them up to 27-28 knots (dont think 30 is doable but maybe it is) and add to their armor and torpedo defense. Swap their secondary batteries to some DP gun, I would honestly accept RN 4in guns for use as heavy flak. If possible buy either Iron Duke or Tiger as a third ship in my little squadron and give them a similar treatment.

Cruisers
By this point I know its boring to go the British route, but I really do like the Towns and they should compliment my Leander/County class ordered earlier nicely. The US cruisers are pretty good as well, the Italian and Japanese ships are a bit overloaded, and the French are...well French.

Destroyers
A part of me says TRIBALS!!! But they wont be laid down until next year, so instead I am going to go with the G and H class, which loads of navies operated in some numbers anyways and also HMS Glowworm. British destroyers were a bit on the small end by this point, but servicable enough, and not as top heavy as US, and Japanese ships. The French are again...French, and the Italian ships are just about as light but I have so far gone all British so why not continue.

Submarines
Probably the British S class is going to be ordered in numbers. The US has some very good subs available though, and really so does Italy. But again I am in a British rut and hopefully by this point have a good working relationship with UK yards, probably a frequent buyer discount too.
 

Driftless

Donor
Since I don´t think this is a big enough idea for its own thread: I´ve been wondering for some time now how things would play out if the Brandenburg-class had gotten the alternative layout considered with the central guns mounted in single-gun wing turrets. It was rejected due to the greater ship size required, but it actually fullfilled the intial requirement about end on fire better and prevents the two main issues of the class, the blast damage and different barrel length of the central turret. I mean the debate about main vs. secondary battery would still go on, but with a successful design, might the Germans continue with larger main batteries? Maybe as otl with the larges QF possible (the 24cm gun) as an all gun main armament? And would other nations follow or would internationally the standard pre-dreadnought still establish itself?
I'm no nautical engineer, but the Brandenburgs were an interesting development path. You do probably need a longer (and wider?) hull for the configuration you list.
 
I'm no nautical engineer, but the Brandenburgs were an interesting development path. You do probably need a longer (and wider?) hull for the configuration you list.
I assume the same. The third proposal with two twin turrets forward was too wide for the existing docks, but the otl design did not reach their full capacity, so there was some give. IIRC the deciding argument for the otl design was the greater broadside, not the size of the single gun proposal. So it should be possible to get a bit larger vessel with that configuration and it might drive home the need to expand the infrastructure. That otl did not happen until after the Kaiser Friedrich III.s (where btw single wing turrets again were considered, but this time in combination with single centreline turrets in favour of a larger secondary battery).
 
Your Tirpitz has no deck or CT armor...

Also you have 24 casemate guns (16 wet) plus 4 deck mounts...
Oh!
Thank you very much for your attention.
It was a test job for SSharp 3b4 & I have lost some charachteristics.
So chars'list will be corrected tomorrow perhaps with image too,
 

Driftless

Donor
I assume the same. The third proposal with two twin turrets forward was too wide for the existing docks, but the otl design did not reach their full capacity, so there was some give. IIRC the deciding argument for the otl design was the greater broadside, not the size of the single gun proposal. So it should be possible to get a bit larger vessel with that configuration and it might drive home the need to expand the infrastructure. That otl did not happen until after the Kaiser Friedrich III.s (where btw single wing turrets again were considered, but this time in combination with single centreline turrets in favour of a larger secondary battery).
Has anyone Springsharped an alt-Brandenburg along the lines you're suggesting? I have zero Springsharp skills.
 
Challenge.
The year is 1930 and you are the naval minister of a minor but still sizeable navy (Australia, Netherlands, Spain, Poland, SA powers etcetera) and your government has approved a major increase in finding for your navy with the aim of eventually bringing your fleet up several rings of the ladder of naval heirarchy. With money planned to go towards a class of proper battleships built domestically, as well as supporting cruisers and destroyers.

For the moment however tensions with your neighbors mean that you have been directed to purchase existing vessels off the major navies. A pair of battleships are desired, as well as a pair of cruisers, a flotilla of destroyers, and a quartet of submarines. To ensure ease of repair all ships are desired to be purchased from the same source nation, the cruisers and submarines can be newly built ships but must be based on an existing design with little modification. The battleships and destroyers must be classes already in service that your nation of choice is willing to scrap now or in the near future.

What ships do you buy?



So how do you go about rebuilding your battleships, and what new ships do you order?
For Australia the only realistic option is the beg mum (the UK) to let them have Tiger and one of the redundant 13.5" Battleships at as close to scrap price as you can get. When the time and money comes to build new ships pull the turrets from the BB for two properly armoured Large Cruisers and a monitor and take Tiger in hand for a full rebuild.
 
Oh!
Thank you very much for your attention.
It was a test job for SSharp 3b4 & I have lost some charachteristics.
So chars'list will be corrected tomorrow perhaps with image too,
I have the same problem myself, I can go over a design a dozen times and still miss a problem each and every time. Which is why I like others to proofread the design to see what I missed.

Most of my designs are SS2 because I can't save SS3 designs for some reason plus I frequently screw something up...
 
Has anyone Springsharped an alt-Brandenburg along the lines you're suggesting? I have zero Springsharp skills.
Me neither. Could not find anything, but as the Germans had a lot of ideas (calibers from 24-28cm; single mounts vs dual mounts, centre line vs. wing mounts etc.) before settling on the otl design it might just be hidden somewhere.

Edit: Tried SpringSharp for the first time to try it, but I might be doing something wrong: apparently even the otl Brandenburg should have sunk in port.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Probably the British S class is going to be ordered in numbers. The US has some very good subs available though, and really so does Italy. But again I am in a British rut and hopefully by this point have a good working relationship with UK yards, probably a frequent buyer discount too.
I think you may have saved a shipyard from closing! Those Iron Duke LEPs (life extension programmes) are some pretty major refits.

Iron_Duke_class_battleship_-_Jane's_Fighting_Ships,_1919.png


@Count of Crisco I've not changed the numbers yet (any ideas?) but I estimate 725ft oa with two-compartment false ends added. So even with and extra 16ft on beam from bulges the length to beam ratio is only decreasing from 6.955 down to 6.872. Beam of about 104.24 ft to remain the same.

Iron_Duke_class_battleship_-_Jane%27s_Fighting_Ships%2C_1919_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_24797.png
 
Last edited:
I would suggest lightening the ends of the ship by removing the thin armour. That should reduce the pitching moment and can reduce the stress and longitudinal deformation of the hull. Also trunk the fore funnel aft into the second funnel and give more room for a commodious bridge structure. Additionally lose the conning tower. put that weight into deck amour or something else.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I would suggest lightening the ends of the ship by removing the thin armour. That should reduce the pitching moment and can reduce the stress and longitudinal deformation of the hull. Also trunk the fore funnel aft into the second funnel and give more room for a commodious bridge structure. Additionally lose the conning tower. put that weight into deck amour or something else.
I think the vertical hatching might not be armour, but structural cells in the thin part of the hull? I have tried to reflect that this is 1919 - so that is an error! The AA should be twin DP four inch gun turrets and most/half of the six inch guns should go. Maybe keep second, fourth and fifth on each side?

Iron Duke (1930 refit), UK Fast Battleship laid down 1930

Displacement:
29,828 t light; 31,259 t standard; 35,000 t normal; 37,993 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(725.75 ft / 720.00 ft) x 90.00 ft (Bulges 104.50 ft) x (30.40 / 32.75 ft)
(221.21 m / 219.46 m) x 27.43 m (Bulges 31.85 m) x (9.27 / 9.98 m)

Armament:
8 - 14.00" / 356 mm 50.0 cal guns - 1,600.01lbs / 725.75kg shells, 85 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1930 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
1 raised mount aft - superfiring
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
6 - 6.00" / 152 mm 60.0 cal guns - 118.30lbs / 53.66kg shells, 145 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1930 Model
6 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck aft
22 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 50.0 cal guns - 14.29lbs / 6.48kg shells, 400 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1930 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
3 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
3 raised mounts
4 - 1.50" / 38.1 mm 30.0 cal guns - 1.56lbs / 0.71kg shells, 24 per gun
Breech loading guns in open barbette mounts, 1930 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 13,830 lbs / 6,273 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: 1.00" / 25 mm 320.00 ft / 97.54 m 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Main Belt covers 85 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.75" / 44 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 74.50 ft / 22.71 m

- Hull Bulges:
0.75" / 19 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 26.00 ft / 7.92 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
2nd: 6.00" / 152 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.75" / 19 mm -

- Box over machinery & magazines:
12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 100,000 shp / 74,600 Kw = 27.57 kts
Range 11,114nm at 16.50 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,733 tons

Complement:
1,279 - 1,663

Cost:
£11.437 million / $45.746 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,412 tons, 6.9 %
- Guns: 2,412 tons, 6.9 %
Armour: 12,207 tons, 34.9 %
- Belts: 4,620 tons, 13.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 829 tons, 2.4 %
- Bulges: 289 tons, 0.8 %
- Armament: 2,270 tons, 6.5 %
- Armour Deck: 4,199 tons, 12.0 %
Machinery: 3,030 tons, 8.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,179 tons, 34.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,172 tons, 14.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
57,163 lbs / 25,929 Kg = 41.7 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 9.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.22
Metacentric height 6.2 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 17.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.56
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.45

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a ram bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.536 / 0.540
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.89 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.83 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 25.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 24.00 ft / 7.32 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Aft deck: 25.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarter deck: 20.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 24.30 ft / 7.41 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 149.8 %
Waterplane Area: 44,617 Square feet or 4,145 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 187 lbs/sq ft or 911 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.57
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Iron Duke (1930 refit), UK Fast Battleship laid down 1930

Displacement:
29,698 t light; 31,287 t standard; 35,028 t normal; 38,021 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(725.75 ft / 720.00 ft) x 90.00 ft (Bulges 104.50 ft) x (30.40 / 32.75 ft)
(221.21 m / 219.46 m) x 27.43 m (Bulges 31.85 m) x (9.27 / 9.98 m)

Armament:
8 - 14.00" / 356 mm 50.0 cal guns - 1,600.01lbs / 725.75kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1930 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
1 raised mount aft - superfiring
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
6 - 6.00" / 152 mm 60.0 cal guns - 118.30lbs / 53.66kg shells, 200 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1930 Model
6 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck aft
22 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 50.0 cal guns - 14.51lbs / 6.58kg shells, 500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1930 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
3 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
3 raised mounts
4 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm 30.0 cal guns - 3.00lbs / 1.36kg shells, 21 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1930 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
4 raised mounts
48 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1930 Model
12 x Twin mounts layout not set
12 raised mounts
12 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
12 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 13,853 lbs / 6,283 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
Ends: 1.00" / 25 mm 320.00 ft / 97.54 m 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
Main Belt covers 85 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.75" / 44 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 74.50 ft / 22.71 m

- Hull Bulges:
1.00" / 25 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 26.00 ft / 7.92 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 8.00" / 203 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.75" / 19 mm -

- Box over machinery & magazines:
12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 90,061 shp / 67,185 Kw = 26.83 kts
Range 11,109nm at 16.50 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,734 tons

Complement:
1,279 - 1,664

Cost:
£11.248 million / $44.991 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,415 tons, 6.9 %
- Guns: 2,415 tons, 6.9 %
Armour: 12,396 tons, 35.4 %
- Belts: 5,200 tons, 14.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 829 tons, 2.4 %
- Bulges: 385 tons, 1.1 %
- Armament: 2,502 tons, 7.1 %
- Armour Deck: 3,481 tons, 9.9 %
Machinery: 2,729 tons, 7.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,018 tons, 34.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,330 tons, 15.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 140 tons, 0.4 %
- Above deck: 140 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
57,250 lbs / 25,968 Kg = 41.7 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 10.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 6.0 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 17.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.54
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.43

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a ram bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.536 / 0.540
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.89 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.83 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 25.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Aft deck: 25.00 %, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Quarter deck: 20.00 %, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Average freeboard: 22.75 ft / 6.93 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 71.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 139.6 %
Waterplane Area: 44,635 Square feet or 4,147 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 187 lbs/sq ft or 912 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.45
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

If you like a Queen Anne's mansion Iron Duke: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/iron-duke-in-world-war-ii-t8701.html

PS: If the Iron Dukes had been kept as allowed fleet WNT and R-Class offered up as sacrifice instead? KGV class laid down 1931 (year before Dukes are scrapped). Unthinkable to scrap the new R-Class without hindsight, unless you wanted to minimise the pressure on other nations to match them and ensure an early 1930s resumption of the option to build. All those spare turrets make a reversal of shell storage and magazines redesign and refit easier for the QE-class. All those old QE-class guns make a nine 15in gun KGV cheaper to build.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
If Bowden's Naval Aid bill was tempered by Laurier's Naval Service bill to get it through the senate, might $35 millions get you one or two QE class battleship, five cruisers and six destroyers? OTL HMS Canada would have to be named HMS Agincourt instead. So what would OTL HMS Agincourt be called?
 
Last edited:
Can commercial racing boats evolve into inshore patrol craft that are armed with cannons ATGM rockets torpedoes etc kind of like Iran’s ashura class but more streamlined and faster
They can be interceptor craft launched from larger ships for a variety of missions and their rockets torpedos and missiles may heavily damage even destroyer size ships
 
Last edited:
Can commercial racing boats evolve into inshore patrol craft that are armed with cannons ATGM rockets torpedoes etc kind of like Iran’s ashura class but more streamlined and faster
They can be interceptor craft launched from larger ships for a variety of missions and their rockets torpedos and missiles may heavily damage even destroyer size ships
I mean, that's what the first motor torpedo boats were, and the results of those ships suggest this wouldn't be particularly effective. Mostly because those small boats don't really have the sensors to take advantage of their missiles' range and they're very easy to kill.
 
I mean, that's what the first motor torpedo boats were, and the results of those ships suggest this wouldn't be particularly effective. Mostly because those small boats don't really have the sensors to take advantage of their missiles' range and they're very easy to kill.
Can they do under the naval version of GCI of the parent ship and when they are closer to their target turn on their own sensors?
Sea keeping would be terrible
Range too probably
would be better to carry naval helicopters anyway ?
 
Can they do under the naval version of GCI of the parent ship and when they are closer to their target turn on their own sensors?
Sea keeping would be terrible
Range too probably
would be better to carry naval helicopters anyway ?
These days, they could carry a small drone fitted with a good camera. Use the camera for guidance until the missile's radar can lock on.
 
Top