WesWorld

Look pretty solid. 3 raised guns, though? How is that working? A pair of 15" triples forward and a single twin aft? Or something else? Pretty heavy secondary armament.

Quoted

3 raised guns, though? How is that working? A pair of 15" triples forward and a single twin aft?

No just a mistake

Quoted

Pretty heavy secondary armament.

Standard for Nordmark capital ships

Isn't 79% of normal belt length a bit short for a ship without end belts? You're risking a fair amount of buoyancy loss to HE rounds, even though the ship's vitals are well protected.

Heh, well, the new Nordmark capital ship standard for secondaries is pretty strong. Certainly stronger than what the older BCs carried.

sorted, belt now covers 90+% of normal length, with no affect on standard displacement

So I see, well done.

Quoted

Look pretty solid

You just wait

Heh, given past Nordish-German relations, I'm not sure that I'm going to like what I get when I wait....

Replacements for 2xOscar-II that can be built before 1931?

Why are there 2 different ships? One for 1922, and one for 1925?

In 1922, Nordmark is still at war in SAm. It makes little sense to start building a long-term vessel then. After the war, even in 1925, there will be a few economic problems. Wars cost money, and starting building battleships straight afterwards isn't a great idea. Wouldn't Nordmark also take their time to absorb the lessons learnt in WWI and SAm conflict? Possibly laying down two ships in 1927-30?

1. Armament. Continuing with the 381mm weapon in duple turrets from Dristigheten II is probably a good idea.

2. Do you really need 16x150mm guns as secondaries?

3. Armour is fairly good, the main belt is very shallow.

4. Speed makes fairly good sense, more or less keeping pace with the older Battlecruisers.

Quoted

Why are there 2 different ships? One for 1922, and one for 1925?

One is built as a replacement for Erik den Helige, lost in the war with Argentina, and the other as a replacement for another oscar II class ship that can be scrapped as 20 years old in 1928.

As to extra costs please see my report for 1921-28 to be posted once finished latter today

Quoted

As to extra costs please see my report for 1921-28 to be posted once finished latter today.

Looking forward to it.

Quoted

2. Do you really need 16x150mm guns as secondaries?

It's not like it's an unprecedented number, it's only 1 more tube than the RSAN Ophions or the new Atlantean Memnons. And the Nordmark ships might well be operating in more constricted waters than the South African ships.

Quoted

Originally posted by Earl822

Quoted

Why are there 2 different ships? One for 1922, and one for 1925?

One is built as a replacement for Erik den Helige, lost in the war with Argentina, and the other as a replacement for another oscar II class ship that can be scrapped as 20 years old in 1928.

As to extra costs please see my report for 1921-28 to be posted once finished latter today

Consolidating the two into a single class makes a lot of sense. Its just so much cheaper than designing something twice. Another Oscar-II can be replaced before 1928 if you read the clauses in the treaty.

I'd hope that these capital ships aren't operating in littoral areas. I think I dealt with this issue from an Italian perspective in "Underwater Protection Systems".

Compared with her contemporaries;
Invincible-Slower, Lighter Armament, Lighter armour
Lepanto-Faster, far lighter armament, heavier armour
Ophion-Slower, Lighter Armament, Lighter Armour
Memnon-Lighter Armament, Lighter Armour
PEdS-Slower, Lighter Armament, Lighter Armour

This is a new class instead of the two other classes previously proposed.


Oden Class, Nordmark Battleship laid down 1924

Displacement:
38,200 t light; 40,359 t standard; 43,392 t normal; 45,819 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
808.57 ft / 800.00 ft x 105.00 ft x 32.00 ft (normal load)
246.45 m / 243.84 m x 32.00 m x 9.75 m

Armament:
8 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,687.50lbs / 765.44kg shells, 1924 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 5.90" / 150 mm guns (4x3 guns), 102.69lbs / 46.58kg shells, 1924 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships
3 - 5.90" / 150 mm guns (1x3 guns), 102.69lbs / 46.58kg shells, 1924 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
8 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (4x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1924 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1924 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 15,173 lbs / 6,882 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 490.00 ft / 149.35 m 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.50" / 64 mm 490.00 ft / 149.35 m 30.00 ft / 9.14 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.5" / 394 mm 11.0" / 279 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 6.00" / 152 mm 2.50" / 64 mm 3.00" / 76 mm
3rd: 6.00" / 152 mm 2.50" / 64 mm 3.00" / 76 mm
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
5th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower: 5.00" / 127 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 117,084 shp / 87,344 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,460 tons

Complement:
1,503 - 1,954

Cost:
£10.726 million / $42.903 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,897 tons, 4.4 %
Armour: 16,580 tons, 38.2 %
- Belts: 4,759 tons, 11.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,360 tons, 3.1 %
- Armament: 3,729 tons, 8.6 %
- Armour Deck: 6,599 tons, 15.2 %
- Conning Tower: 133 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 3,857 tons, 8.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,777 tons, 36.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,192 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 90 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
63,772 lbs / 28,927 Kg = 37.8 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 10.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 6.7 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 17.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 62 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.51
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.24

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.565
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.62 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.28 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 19.80 ft / 6.04 m
- Mid (60 %): 19.80 ft / 6.04 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 19.80 ft / 6.04 m
- Stern: 19.80 ft / 6.04 m
- Average freeboard: 21.26 ft / 6.48 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 78.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 149.2 %
Waterplane Area: 59,454 Square feet or 5,523 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 192 lbs/sq ft or 935 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.09
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Oden, Gustav V

Like it. My only question would be, would Nordmark accept a "slow" battleship after building nothing but battlecruisers previously?

But these ships are as fast as their battlecruisers. It makes more sense for them to operate in a group.

The latest design is the one I'd pick, she compairs well against Memnon or PEdS. Her AA is weaker though...

She IS a 1924 design, as opposed to a 1928/1929 design, so her AA armament ought to be lighter.

I'm not sure on the utility of the centreline 150mm mount. It would have extremely firing arcs, unless it superfires over both X and Y turrets. I need a picture to comment further.

AA isn't that much lighter. The light battery of 37mm guns is alright. Now 76mm guns for AA aren't really a good idea, especially with only 8 of them. The shell is too light compared to the 100mm which would have the same RoF.

PEdS was sadly cancelled. I'll just have to build something even meaner in future.

I will develop a larger AA gun when I get my 110mm DP guns

You'll have to wait a long time for the picture as I'm unable to draw very well, and yes the rear 150mm gun turret is superfiring.

Quoted

My only question would be, would Nordmark accept a "slow" battleship after building nothing but battlecruisers previously?

Well, one of the conclusions in Peng's writeup of the war was that design priorities had to change, to emphasize survivability and lethality at the expense of speed.

Most of my Fleet program is based on these lessons