Alternate warships of nations

If you drop armor and speed, what's it's purpose then? Wouldn't it be to slow to be a cruiser killer, and risky as a Panzershiff chaser too?

It is not meant to be a Panzerschiff killer (or even cruiser killer). It is meant to be a Panzerschiff analogue, but French.

That 17000 ton Dunkerque ancestor seemed to be the best idea for that to me.
 
It is not meant to be a Panzerschiff killer (or even cruiser killer). It is meant to be a Panzerschiff analogue, but French.

That 17000 ton Dunkerque ancestor seemed to be the best idea for that to me.
I'm pretty sure that design was pretty optimistic, also the whole quad main battery turrets en echelon thing they had going looked just wrong
 
I'm pretty sure that design was pretty optimistic, also the whole quad main battery turrets en echelon thing they had going looked just wrong

It might be optimistic, I am not sure but the design I found after searching seems more sensible than what you are talking about:
1647382491455.png
 
It might be optimistic, I am not sure but the design I found after searching seems more sensible than what you are talking about:
I'm thinking about a different variant in that series, with the main turrets both at deck level but en echelon, weird looking ship, saw it somewhere
 
Screw it, I managed to get it below 20000 tons standard. Which is good enough, I guess.

Displacement:
18.908 t light; 19.927 t standard; 21.395 t normal; 22.569 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
656,17 ft / 656,17 ft x 101,71 ft x 29,53 ft (normal load)
200,00 m / 200,00 m x 31,00 m x 9,00 m

Armament:
8 - 12,00" / 305 mm guns (2x4 guns), 864,00lbs / 391,90kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 4,00" / 102 mm guns (2x2 guns), 32,00lbs / 14,51kg shells, 1932 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 1,50" / 38,1 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,69lbs / 0,77kg shells, 1932 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 7.054 lbs / 3.199 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7,87" / 200 mm 426,51 ft / 130,00 m 12,11 ft / 3,69 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 0,79" / 20 mm 426,51 ft / 130,00 m 8,01 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers %100 of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,18" / 30 mm 426,51 ft / 130,00 m 19,52 ft / 5,95 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11,8" / 300 mm 7,87" / 200 mm 11,8" / 300 mm
2nd: 4,72" / 120 mm 3,54" / 90 mm 4,72" / 120 mm

- Armour deck: 3,15" / 80 mm, Conning tower: 3,94" / 100 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 83.260 shp / 62.112 Kw = 30,00 kts
Range 7.800nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.641 tons

Complement:
883 - 1.149

Cost:
£7,938 million / $31,754 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 882 tons, %4,1
Armour: 6.029 tons, %28,2
- Belts: 1.853 tons, %8,7
- Torpedo bulkhead: 364 tons, %1,7
- Armament: 1.287 tons, %6,0
- Armour Deck: 2.460 tons, %11,5
- Conning Tower: 65 tons, %0,3
Machinery: 2.458 tons, %11,5
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9.540 tons, %44,6
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2.487 tons, %11,6
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, %0,0

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
34.760 lbs / 15.767 Kg = 40,2 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 6,0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,27
Metacentric height 7,9 ft / 2,4 m
Roll period: 15,2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 57 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,23
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,14

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0,380
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,45 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31,00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28,18 ft / 8,59 m
- Forecastle (%20): 17,95 ft / 5,47 m
- Mid (%50): 17,95 ft / 5,47 m
- Quarterdeck (%15): 17,95 ft / 5,47 m
- Stern: 17,95 ft / 5,47 m
- Average freeboard: 18,77 ft / 5,72 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): %86,9
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): %163,4
Waterplane Area: 42.217 Square feet or 3.922 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): %119
Structure weight / hull surface area: 171 lbs/sq ft or 834 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,94
- Longitudinal: 1,74
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Was basing it on the supposedly 17500 tons design I posted. Removed a bunch of the secondaries, dropped the speed to 30 knots and changed the turret layout (a pre-dreadnought seemed better for a raider compared to all forwards, which is pretty ideal for OTL French cruser killer/raider hunter role plan).
 
Any chance the Siegel ferries Concept is revived in the postwar era?
1 really cheap to make ,
2 provide some AAW ASUW support for coastal convoys Against threats posed by Third World nations( against OPV IPV etc)
3 able to transport decent cargo
4 seakeeping is poor but majority of naval conflicts post ww2 were in littorals rivers and maybe lakes so probably not a major factor
 
Any chance the Siegel ferries Concept is revived in the postwar era?
1 really cheap to make ,
2 provide some AAW ASUW support for coastal convoys Against threats posed by Third World nations( against OPV IPV etc)
3 able to transport decent cargo
4 seakeeping is poor but majority of naval conflicts post ww2 were in littorals rivers and maybe lakes so probably not a major factor
You mean "Siebel"? I doubt, tbh. Those things are dead traps. They were the product of a nation that had nothing else to use, had little clue on amphib ops and desperatly needed something. Sure, they sailed more or less ok, but only if they didn't hit a wave. Note that no one used anything like them post war, going instead for more conventional designs, like converted LCIs or river gunboats (like the US versions in Vietnam) or monitor-like ships (like the Brazilian Parnaiba).
 
You mean "Siebel"? I doubt, tbh. Those things are dead traps. They were the product of a nation that had nothing else to use, had little clue on amphib ops and desperatly needed something. Sure, they sailed more or less ok, but only if they didn't hit a wave. Note that no one used anything like them post war, going instead for more conventional designs, like converted LCIs or river gunboats (like the US versions in Vietnam) or monitor-like ships (like the Brazilian Parnaiba).
Yes sorry auto correct
I don’t think they had much amphibious use anymore just more like armed transport barges
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
HMS Queen Elizabeth (max refit), Royal Navy Fast Battleship laid down 1912 (Engine 1934)

Displacement:
33,314 t light; 35,682 t standard; 36,968 t normal; 37,996 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(725.92 ft / 715.00 ft) x 90.60 ft (Bulges 104.00 ft) x (29.00 / 29.76 ft)
(221.26 m / 217.93 m) x 27.61 m (Bulges 31.70 m) x (8.84 / 9.07 m)

Armament:
8 - 15.00" / 381 mm 52.0 cal guns - 1,984.16lbs / 900.00kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1922 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 4.00" / 102 mm 56.0 cal guns - 34.65lbs / 15.72kg shells, 500 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
2 x Twin mounts on sides amidships
2 double raised mounts
16 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 56.0 cal guns - 14.62lbs / 6.63kg shells, 600 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck aft
4 raised mounts
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
4 raised mounts
20 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 2.14lbs / 0.97kg shells, 1,200 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1932 Model
10 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
20 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.25lbs / 0.11kg shells, 2,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
20 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
20 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 16,848 lbs / 7,642 kg


Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 416.30 ft / 126.89 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: 2.00" / 51 mm 298.70 ft / 91.04 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 416.30 ft / 126.89 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 20.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.00" / 51 mm 416.30 ft / 126.89 m 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 74.60 ft / 22.74 m

- Hull Bulges:
0.50" / 13 mm 416.30 ft / 126.89 m 24.00 ft / 7.32 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.75" / 19 mm 0.75" / 19 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.75" / 19 mm 0.50" / 13 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 7.00" / 178 mm
Forecastle: 0.75" / 19 mm Quarter deck: 0.75" / 19 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 121,867 shp / 90,913 Kw = 28.50 kts
Range 6,999nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,315 tons

Complement:
1,332 - 1,732

Cost:
£3.327 million / $13.306 million (if new build)

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,075 tons, 8.3 %
- Guns: 3,075 tons, 8.3 %
Armour: 13,214 tons, 35.7 %
- Belts: 4,799 tons, 13.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 832 tons, 2.2 %
- Bulges: 185 tons, 0.5 %
- Armament: 2,305 tons, 6.2 %
- Armour Deck: 5,094 tons, 13.8 %
Machinery: 3,506 tons, 9.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,519 tons, 36.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,654 tons, 9.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
49,777 lbs / 22,578 Kg = 29.5 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 7.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.14
Metacentric height 5.5 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 18.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.76
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.12

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
an extended bulbous bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.600 / 0.601
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.88 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.74 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.80 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Forward deck: 45.90 %, 29.00 ft / 8.84 m, 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Aft deck: 17.60 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Quarter deck: 15.70 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Average freeboard: 23.61 ft / 7.20 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 159.8 %
Waterplane Area: 47,378 Square feet or 4,402 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 203 lbs/sq ft or 992 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.39
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

The R-class and QE-class were both the beneficiaries of the UK government's attempts to maximise spending (to refloat the economy) while sticking to their own naval treaties. All parties were informed of the changes and invited to inspect. This made the Japanese position harder to accept. The bow and quarterdeck had to be removed on each ship to refit the machinery.

To stretch them out to 715ft at the waterline the replacement ends were extended, but with less armour. Just splinter protection. While the standard displacement exceeded 35,000t by 525t the British were at pains to point out that this was entirely due to the extra anti-torpedo bulges and added deck armour, as stipulated in the London naval treaty.

The reworked turrets and ammunition stores put the shells above the propellant and increased elevation to 33º /-2º the new 15inch/52 barrels were all tube to reduce sagging. The same Greenboy shells were made a little heavier to make full use of the extra muzzle velocity without increasing wear excessively.

While the 4in DP secondaries and 3in heavy AA guns were quite conservative bores the higher velocity barrel lengths and motor assisted loading/ramming were modern and innovative. Pye Ltd had a new kind of fuse in development that promised to ease the clock setting delay. This made use of the the small and metal clad valve tubes Mullard Ltd were producing after the massive industry wide retooling and R&D grants had gone to work.

By practically rebuilding the WW1 built battleships into Fast Battleships the RN avoided block obsolescence. Indeed by the time they had finished in 1934 replacement was an option, but not an imperative.

By 1935 a KGV class of new builds to this design were started. Only a little longer and faster and a bit over displacement by the time they were launched in 1937-1939 and commissioned 1938-1940.
 
Last edited:
I response to the British economy being in the doldrums and the general strike, the demand side intervention starts in 1927.
In that case, I'd say you have far too much light AAA for a ship of that era. Compare with other BBs of the era. Simply put, no one thought ships would need such numbers of guns, because no one though light planes would carry a big enough payload, fast enough to worry. The main enemy was the high altitude bomber. It took 10 years of development and WWII to ram that lesson into everyone. Look, for example, at HMS Nelson: in 1939 it had 3 x8 pompons and some quad .50s. The loadout you have would be found in a ship of the 1944/45 period. Also afaik there were no the 20mm AAA guns. As for the 40mm, you can carry a handfull of pompoms but for a pre-1935-39 ship, any more would be clairvoyance...
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
In that case, I'd say you have far too much light AAA for a ship of that era. Compare with other BBs of the era. Simply put, no one thought ships would need such numbers of guns, because no one though light planes would carry a big enough payload, fast enough to worry. The main enemy was the high altitude bomber. It took 10 years of development and WWII to ram that lesson into everyone. Look, for example, at HMS Nelson: in 1939 it had 3 x8 pompons and some quad .50s. The loadout you have would be found in a ship of the 1944/45 period. Also afaik there were no the 20mm AAA guns. As for the 40mm, you can carry a handfull of pompoms but for a pre-1935-39 ship, any more would be clairvoyance...
That's true. They don't make much difference to the weight. Assume that these are optional AA positions for the future. It shows their potential.
 
Why both 4" and 3" AA? The two calibres make fire control harder while not really filling different roles.
The 4" in RN service was considered an AA gun, with not enough range or shell weight for anti-ship use. Even if they could find the deck space for 18 secondary turrets, I doubt the designers would devote them all to AA, with no anti-destroyer guns. More likely, if they were going for the secondary/tertiary split, would be to have heavier secondaries (5.25", 5.5" or 6", maybe 3x2 a side) with 4" tertiaries for AA. (I don't think the RN used 3" AA on any major vessels post-WW1, it was seen as lacking range). Or a unified DP secondary battery with more anti-ship punch, maybe 5x2 4.7" a side.
 
That's true. They don't make much difference to the weight. Assume that these are optional AA positions for the future. It shows their potential.
20x20 mm
20x40 mm
16x3 inch guns
20x4 inch guns

Wow thats a lot.

Its really unlikely that they would have gone for 36 secondary guns. They definitely would not have gone for two different secondary calibres. I do agree that the 4 inch gun is a little light for anti ship work but if you are putting in around 30 secondary guns you can afford to be a little light and rely on weight of fire. Historically the modernised QEs got 20 4.5 inch guns. Your textual blurb suggests that the 3 inch are anti air and the 4 inch are anti ship but your specs list them all as dual purpose. 4 inch is too light if you are just going to rely on 20 for anti ship work.

In the era I don't think people would have invested that much in anti air but I have seen people suggest that it would be seen more as a morale thing to be able to put up a wall of fire. Mind you that was about a suggestion for 90 heavy machine guns for anti air on a refit standard.
 
How realistic was this ?
 
How realistic was this ?
Realistic as in, could it be done? Probably yeah with some tweaks. Useful or practical? Not in the slightest. Thats the beauty of Soviet cold war sub designs.
 
Realistic as in, could it be done? Probably yeah with some tweaks. Useful or practical? Not in the slightest. Thats the beauty of Soviet cold war sub designs.
Why is it not useful ? Too few tanks and troops carried ? Or too hard to disembark them ?

I always thought the older Golf and Hotel classes could be useful in 70s and 80s as carriers for soviet special forces and frogmen with some minor modifications. Kind of a similar idea but much modest scale
 
Why is it not useful ? Too few tanks and troops carried ? Or too hard to disembark them ?

I always thought the older Golf and Hotel classes could be useful in 70s and 80s as carriers for soviet special forces and frogmen with some minor modifications. Kind of a similar idea but much modest scale
It's more a matter of an amphibious landing typically requires huge numbers of troops and isn't what you would call discrete. Landing a few hundred guys ashore with some armour won't accomplish much. You need more than can be carried in a single sub.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
It's more a matter of an amphibious landing typically requires huge numbers of troops and isn't what you would call discrete. Landing a few hundred guys ashore with some armour won't accomplish much. You need more than can be carried in a single sub.
Also subs sit deep in the water and are shaped for fast underwater speed. Landing ships sit high in the water, with a shallow draft and struggle to be fast on the surface due to their ramp foreward leading to a blocky shape.
 
Top