Byzantium, not an AAR...

[garrisonchisholm]

So I started a game as Byzantium, and thought I would share the following capture for a few reasons-

First, of curiosity and slight relevance to other conversations we see that the first gun to score was a tertiary battery.  Secondly, this ship is an experiment, as it has no turrets; an entirely casement design.  Thirdly, I had never given this color scheme a real chance before, and I don't think it looks half bad.  The 6 funnels are a nod to the last great (big, not good) French ACs.

Functionally the ship seems promising, as 26 knots should keep it safe for a bit longer than my usual efforts.  I am also curious to see how flash-fire chance might be affected by a no-turret design, so I'll push these as far as I can.

[keris]

That thing is pretty nuts. I always forget that you can put mains in casements -- might have to give it a try on my own. I'd really be interested in seeing the design screen for this.

Only thing I see that could be an issue is the extremely light armor on such a large ship. I guess early game it can just run from anything that might do it too much harm with those 26 kts.

[oldpop2000]

Jul 13, 2017 7:27:57 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

So I started a game as Byzantium, and thought I would share the following capture for a few reasons-

First, of curiosity and slight relevance to other conversations we see that the first gun to score was a tertiary battery.  Secondly, this ship is an experiment, as it has no turrets; an entirely casement design.  Thirdly, I had never given this color scheme a real chance before, and I don't think it looks half bad.  The 6 funnels are a nod to the last great (big, not good) French ACs.

Functionally the ship seems promising, as 26 knots should keep it safe for a bit longer than my usual efforts.  I am also curious to see how flash-fire chance might be affected by a no-turret design, so I'll push these as far as I can.

The Director of Naval Construction has requested a complete design specification to be provided. Here it is.

Isauria, Byzantine Armored Cruiser laid down 1905

Displacement:

15,119 t light; 15,832 t standard; 16,947 t normal; 17,839 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)

(509.00 ft / 504.00 ft) x 69.50 ft x (26.50 / 27.65 ft)

(155.14 m / 153.62 m) x 21.18 m x (8.08 / 8.43 m)


Armament:

12 - 7.00" / 178 mm 45.0 cal guns - 172.96lbs / 78.45kg shells, 150 per gun

Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1905 Model

12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread

14 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.92lbs / 49.41kg shells, 150 per gun

Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model

14 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread

14 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun

Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1905 Model

14 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread

Weight of broadside 4,483 lbs / 2,033 kg

Main Torpedoes

3 - 12.0" / 305 mm, 0.00 ft / 0.00 m torpedoes - 0.000 t each, 0.000 t total

submerged side tubes

2nd Torpedoes

3 - 12.0" / 305 mm, 0.00 ft / 0.00 m torpedoes - 0.000 t each, 0.000 t total

submerged bow & stern tubes


Armour:

- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)

Main: 3.50" / 89 mm 327.60 ft / 99.85 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m

Ends: Unarmoured

Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

  - Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)

Main: 5.00" / 127 mm - -

  - Armoured deck - multiple decks:

For and Aft decks: 11.00" / 279 mm

Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 10.00" / 254 mm


Machinery:

Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,

Direct drive, 2 shafts, 29,715 ihp / 22,168 Kw = 22.00 kts

Range 6,000nm at 10.00 kts

Bunker at max displacement = 2,008 tons (100% coal)

Complement:

742 - 965

Cost:

£1.344 million / $5.375 million


Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 667 tons, 3.9 %

- Guns: 667 tons, 3.9 %

Armour: 5,708 tons, 33.7 %

- Belts: 496 tons, 2.9 %

- Armament: 124 tons, 0.7 %

- Armour Deck: 5,088 tons, 30.0 %

Machinery: 4,307 tons, 25.4 %

Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,438 tons, 26.2 %

Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,828 tons, 10.8 %

Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %


Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):

23,180 lbs / 10,514 Kg = 135.2 x 7.0 " / 178 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes

Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.32

Metacentric height 4.8 ft / 1.5 m

Roll period: 13.4 seconds

Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %

- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.52

Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00



Hull form characteristics:

Hull has a flush deck,

a ram bow and small transom stern

Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.639 / 0.645

Length to Beam Ratio: 7.25 : 1

'Natural speed' for length: 24.24 kts

Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %

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 (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):

Fore end, Aft end

- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m

- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m

- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m

- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m

- Average freeboard: 28.16 ft / 8.58 m



Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.7 %

- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 195.9 %

Waterplane Area: 27,250 Square feet or 2,532 Square metres

Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %

Structure weight / hull surface area: 102 lbs/sq ft or 497 Kg/sq metre

Hull strength (Relative):

- Cross-sectional: 0.87

- Longitudinal: 3.53

- Overall: 1.00

Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space

Excellent accommodation and workspace room

Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Just a note: Emperor Justinian's Great, great, great, great, great, great..... grandson was very pleased with the design.

[director]

No turrets? Wow... that really is a floating fortress!

From the battle recap, it seems to be a successful one.


I just started a new game as the US and decided to build my first AC class with a uniform 14x7" armament. I did use turrets, though. "Ranger" and "Republic" proved their worth by taking out a French B... those 7" guns don't pack much of a punch compared to a battleship's guns, but they fire fast, hit often and set fires. And they punch right through anything but the main belt armor, too.

[garrisonchisholm]

I have always liked Ranger as a ship name, glad it's not a small disappointing carrier.

The battle was a non-starter.  The Italian CA was half her size and 5 knots slower, she tried to run the whole time.

oldpop2000 , I was at work and couldn't reply, but I grinned ear-to-ear when I saw your post. Thanks!! Is that from Springsharp? I've got to poke around with that.

I would post the ship's construction screen for the CA, but it no longer exists- I refitted it (perhaps unwisely $$$ wise, still finding out) in 1911 and it no longer resembles its 1905 stats.

I like the ship though, for exactly the reason I like the old French CAs. It is a dinosaur, frozen in time. CL armor and firepower (when gunnery negatives accounted for), CA size and durability. An anachronism.

[oldpop2000]

Well, if you do want to play with it, here is the link. Download the 3.0b2. www.springsharp.com/

Here is a link to some tips and a very good site for designs. dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/2005/01/springsharp-tips.html

[garrisonchisholm]

Well, this is very... Warrior-esque.  Isauria's sister did not fair well...

Though I suppose stumbling into a squadron of BCs in the middle of the night isn't a fair test for any cruiser.

However, one thing I note- the shell that detonated the magazines doesn't say it hit a Secondary or Tertiary battery, or even one of the mains.  It went straight to the magazine.  The shell plowed clean through the side of the ship.  This may indicate that turretless designs are more vulnerable to magazine explosion, more-so than other ships.

In the same action to be fair, Isauria took a beating but did make it home.

She is currently interned, for with their blatant vulnerability it seemed commerce raiding might be their best contribution, ultimately bagging at least 12-15 Spanish freighters.  Oddly though, *after* announcing she was interned, the game gave me a raider interception, where-by an AMC attempted to track her down.  This, is not warranting of a combat report, & the captain in fact is refusing to fill one out.

(sorry they're a bit blurry, didn't take the time to sharpen them-  off to work!)

[boomboomf22]

Actually I think ammo mag detonation is a risk on any lightly armored ship. I had one game where no less than 5 of 8 8" armed PCs when boom that way after belt penetrations. Also holy hell, why do you have 5 sub tubes on them?

[garrisonchisholm]

Well, 150 tons of armor wouldn't really help a lot, once the decision is made to emphasize firepower. It also provides a ~ 1 in 20 chance to serve as an equalizer against a greater opponent. However, I didn't intend them to be "good" or ground-breaking, they were really an expensive homage to those French ACs. Isauria's main guns are identical, though the secondary is much stronger. Had I left off the secondary her armor would have been closer to the Edgar Quinet, though still faster.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Quinet-class_cruiser

[boomboomf22]

Ah, France in the steam and iron era.... Home of gloriously derpy ship design

[garrisonchisholm]

LOL ...I cannot argue with "derp" as an appropriate adjective. However, for some reason I have always admired these huge, useless, derpy ships. :]

[bcoopactual]

Not me, that thing looks like a factory with turrets on it. Belongs in Stalingrad more than it does the water.

LOL, I was reading the wiki page and then started following the links (typical Wikipedia rabbit hole) of all the ships that were destroyed by their own magazine explosions. I'm glad the designers decided not to make that a random event (I count the sabotage one as different because it was caused by enemy action not an accident due to old powder). It seems to have happened a lot in the period.




I circled the ones that happened inside the game's time frame.  Most but not all were magazine explosions.  A battery explosion got one submarine and there were one or two boiler explosions.  

[director]

The big French ACs were intended for the same purposes as the big American and Russian ACs - heavily-armed commerce-raiding. As armored cruisers go, they were pretty good ships, more than a match in speed, armor and firepower for most of the other armored cruisers of the world. Britain built big, powerful ACs in response as hunters.

The two problems I have with the French ACs were their somewhat peculiar looks (all those funnels, and that upside-down-frying-pan turret design) and their extended construction times. I think in service they would have been very useful and hard to counter until the battlecruisers came in - the pocket battleships of their day.

The French separated out the marine engineering and architectural teams who designed and built the ships from the operational officers who ran and fought them. This seems to have had poorer results than the same setup in Germany, but why I do not really know - I will speculate that the independence of the design teams was just carried too far and they were too insulated. The French were more willing to experiment with radical ideas and seemingly less constrained by conservative notions of 'how ships should look', but the political changes at the top were so frequent and the shipbuilding times were so long that it is hard to properly evaluate the real value ships they did produce.

I have always had a lot of respect for those big ACs, despite their unorthodox looks.


bcoopactual - developing 'non-gunpowder' propellants was a long, complex and frustrating process (look up 'dynamite guns' for one example). The clear benefits of using the new propellants meant that navies rushed them into production and use without knowing much about how to store and care for them. If the propellants were stored near heat they could 'sweat' nitroglycerin, or over time the chemistry could change from decomposition in fatal ways. I think every navy lost at least one ship to internal explosions except (perhaps) the US and Germany.

Which ones of those 'own goals' were you most interested in? For me it was Leonardo da Vinci, in part because of the very advanced salvage work afterward.

[bcoopactual]

I'd take a Tennessee (ACR) or a Tsukuba (12 inch guns on an ACR!?!) over an E.Q. but neither could catch her if the French cruiser had a clean hull and boilers and didn't want to fight.  The British Drake's could catch her.  That would be a pretty even fight on paper.  

director, I wasn't interested in any one in particular just surprised how often it happened in the time period.  But you provided the explanation I think.  Not enough understanding of how the new propellants would react and destabilize over time and rushed timetables due to their military usefulness.   

[oldpop2000]

Jul 14, 2017 14:08:15 GMT -6 boomboomf22 said:

Actually I think ammo mag detonation is a risk on any lightly armored ship. I had one game where no less than 5 of 8 8" armed PCs when boom that way after belt penetrations. Also holy hell, why do you have 5 sub tubes on them?

Secondary armament can only be given medium thickness armament about 6 inches and this could be easily penetrated by large main armament shells at any range. There is also a lot of ready-use ammunition near and more in transit from the shell rooms and magazines. Examine the fire that almost destroyed Malaya at Jutland. The conclusions before the aircraft was that medium caliber guns on capital ships were expensive and according to reports from Jutland, unlikely to score any hits and their own exposed ammunition could endanger. This information is from D. K. Brown's " The Grand Fleet, Warship Design and Development 1906-1922. He also states that submerged torpedo tubes were another potential hazard to battleships. Casemates, cannot be heavily armored, they have limited traverse and elevation, and visibility is usually poor do to spray from ships movement. The secondary's in casemate at the freeboard level- between the waterline and main deck were especially dangerous as they disrupted the upper armor belt and they could not be used in heavy seas. All this information is confirmed by John Brooks in his books.

So, for the British poor handling and an unstable propellant were factors, there are many others in designs that can contribute to a violent end to a ship. It is the old idea of the Domino Effect.