WesWorld

Heh, not a bad plan, considering. Of course, it might be difficult to do, since Blucher's unlikely to be making any high-speed transits to Papua.

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
As to hangar height, the slope of the deck gives room. With a 5m hangar height and the elevator mechanism on the deck below, the floor of the elevator room is still 3-3.5 meters above the waterline. The floor of the hangar will be 5.5-6 meters above the waterline.

Can´t help it but

a) hangar floor being 5m above sealevel seems quite high which makes me wonder if your calculated 11m freeboard at her bow is correct and

b) given the zone you´ll run your ship through most likely I wonder if 5m above sealevel is high enough at anything above seastate 3? Keep in mind her bowwave won´t be small too at high speeds - something that has to be kept in mind considering German experience after Jutland and the loss of LÜTZOW.

However, if you´re right with your 11m freeboard and all other calculations the risk of a flooded bow is smaller than I originally thought it would be.

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
12 200kg rounds incoming on Blucher.
9 330kg rounds coming back.

Blucher has an edge in guns and armor, no doubt, balanced a bit by Makarov's greater stability, steadiness, and speed. Makarov will hit earlier and more often . Blucher will hit harder.

Might want to run this one through Alt_Naval's spreadsheet.

Hm, i do not think agree with that, Blücher is slightly larger and have guns that are a bit more accurate, something that would at least equal the minor advantage is steadiness that makarov have. More often maybe, but that is only due to more guns.But i agree it would be a intesting fight, my money would be on the ship with largest guns

Obukhoff guns are noted for their accuracy. Ask Goeben .

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
Obukhoff guns are noted for their accuracy. Ask Goeben .

I know the russian ships did alot of first rate shooting in ww1, but all other things equal, a larger gun is more accurate then a smaller one.

Not to mention that the 283mm/54.5 IS one of the weapons that's in the running for longest ever hit on a moving target (Scharnhorst vs Glorious).

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov

As for affording fuel costs, Russia is particularly blessed in that regard. Oil seeps out of the ground at Baku,.... And supplying the Far East are major deposits on the northern end of Sakhalin Island

The latter have been in the news of late. OTL I believe the Sakhalin fields exported to Japan in this period, though my recollection could be off.

You are absolutely correct that a country with the manpower and resource base of Russia can indulge in frills. Likewise, you are free to run your equipment at full power.

I would hazard though, that a cruise ship that spends four days between major ports is likely to have better servicing facilities than a warship making high speed runs. By placing the planned cruise speed at 30-34 knots, that is what you are declaring.

While we get to praise good design aspects or comment on perceived flaws, these are really risk/reward decisions for your Admiralty. Indeed, you can even choose to make "mistakes"- I have- because that's what people did.

However it pokes a pet peeve regarding high cruise speed- and 30+ is extreme- as being without problems. While Russia does indeed have copious oil, planning all high speed runs places a heavy burden on your logistics chain in addition to your maintenance crews.

For example, take "Ship A" which needs 1,000 tons of oil to go 5,340nm at 15 knots. At 24 knots the same vessel needs 2.7 times the fuel. At 32 knots she needs 5.7 times the fuel and at 34 knots she needs 6.7 times the fuel. Though there should be a benefit from optimizing your engines for that speed, so let's call it 6 times.

That means to keep each one of these ships running at peak takes 6 times the oil production, 6 times the refining. Then you have to transport it to those bases and store it, requiring more rolling stock or more tankers.

In peacetime, everything should run on schedule. In wartime, what happens if the rail link is bombed, or the tank farms damaged? Rely on the tankers from Sakhalin? Oh you can go slower, but your engines will not be optimized for that and presumably not be as efficient.

Roughing out a tanker, sufficient fuel for one of these vessels would take around a 13,500 ton tanker. If your war time presumption is to operate at high speed, that could theoretically mean a full tanker per ship every 4.2 days.

Then add in the "inventory investment". It would take roughly 10 days for 1 tanker to make the 5000nm round trip across the pole and back. Which means if you really want to exploit that high speed cruise, you need 2-3 tankers/vessel. That's expensive.

One or two vessels may be doable, but high speed ops on a fleet or squadron basis has the potential to shackle you to your supply lines.