WesWorld

Drawing and specs:





Zeven Provinciën, Dutch Battlecruiser laid down 1915

Displacement:
25.408 t light; 26.590 t standard; 29.398 t normal; 31.527 t full load
Loading submergence 1.219 tons/feet

Dimensions:
688,98 ft x 90,22 ft x 29,04 ft (normal load)
210,00 m x 27,50 m x 8,85 m

Armament:
8 - 11,02" / 280 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 2 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
14 - 6,10" / 155 mm guns
Secondary guns mounted low & subject to being washed down in a seaway
8 - 3,46" / 88 mm AA guns
5 - 1,57" / 40 mm guns
Weight of broadside 7.125 lbs / 3.232 kg
2 - 21,0" / 533,4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
Belt 14,96" / 380 mm, upper belt 8,86" / 225 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 93 % of normal area
Main turrets 14,96" / 380 mm, 2nd casemates 5,91" / 150 mm
AA gun shields 0,47" / 12 mm, Light gun shields 0,04" / 1 mm
Armour deck 3,15" / 80 mm, Conning tower 4,72" / 120 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 1,97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 111.451 shp / 83.143 Kw = 29,00 kts
Range 20.500nm at 10,00 kts

Complement:
1.122 - 1.459

Cost:
£3,241 million / $12,966 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 891 tons, 3,0 %
Armour: 10.585 tons, 36,0 %
Belts: 4.244 tons, 14,4 %, Armament: 2.811 tons, 9,6 %, Armour Deck: 2.485 tons, 8,5 %
Conning Tower: 97 tons, 0,3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 947 tons, 3,2 %
Machinery: 4.222 tons, 14,4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9.660 tons, 32,9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3.990 tons, 13,6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0,2 %

Metacentric height 5,0

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1,08
Shellfire needed to sink: 29.768 lbs / 13.503 Kg = 44,4 x 11,0 " / 280 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 4,2
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 60 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0,38
Relative quality as seaboat: 1,01

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0,570
Sharpness coefficient: 0,39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6,83
'Natural speed' for length: 26,25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim: 60
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 92,4 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 139,7 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 112 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1,00
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 156 lbs / square foot or 762 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1,10
(for 19,30 ft / 5,88 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 0,51 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1,01



As usual , the drawing will be updated later with top view and underwater details.


Comments?

I think the turrets may be to close to the stem and stern, you may have to squeeze more into a smaller area by reducing the size of your funnels and generaly making things more compact. Other than that shes very nice.

Updated pic with underwater details. Also reduced the size of some superstructures, the funnels are now a bit smaller, and the turrets have been moved to more suitable positions.

I like that you're establishing a consistent "look" to your capital ships (or at least, I think you are).

Is this class in home waters or the NEI?

Hi there...

Many nice things have been said already so I won´t repeat that. I´ll focus on critics! ;o)

Quoted

Originally posted by RAM
Zeven Provinciën, Dutch Battlecruiser laid down 1915

Displacement:
25.408 t light; 26.590 t standard; 29.398 t normal; 31.527 t full load
Loading submergence 1.219 tons/feet

Dimensions:
688,98 ft x 90,22 ft x 29,04 ft (normal load)
210,00 m x 27,50 m x 8,85 m

Armament:
8 - 11,02" / 280 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 2 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
14 - 6,10" / 155 mm guns
Secondary guns mounted low & subject to being washed down in a seaway
8 - 3,46" / 88 mm AA guns
5 - 1,57" / 40 mm guns
Weight of broadside 7.125 lbs / 3.232 kg
2 - 21,0" / 533,4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
Belt 14,96" / 380 mm, upper belt 8,86" / 225 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 93 % of normal area
Main turrets 14,96" / 380 mm, 2nd casemates 5,91" / 150 mm
AA gun shields 0,47" / 12 mm, Light gun shields 0,04" / 1 mm
Armour deck 3,15" / 80 mm, Conning tower 4,72" / 120 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 1,97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 111.451 shp / 83.143 Kw = 29,00 kts
Range 20.500nm at 10,00 kts

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 891 tons, 3,0 %
Armour: 10.585 tons, 36,0 %
Belts: 4.244 tons, 14,4 %, Armament: 2.811 tons, 9,6 %, Armour Deck: 2.485 tons, 8,5 %
Conning Tower: 97 tons, 0,3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 947 tons, 3,2 %
Machinery: 4.222 tons, 14,4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9.660 tons, 32,9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3.990 tons, 13,6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0,2 %

There are many things I´d like to comment on. Please don´t take it as personal offense. Points in no order:

1.) With a hull 8,85m deep I can hardly believe those ships can use mamy if any dutch harbors (homewaters) in 1915.

2.) Accourding to your drawing engine rooms are seperating your aft turrets. Her stats seem to differ.

3.) Her armor sheme is unrealistic and ... ahem ... weird.

3.a) The amount of armor used (36% of her weight) is maybe too much. Only full-scale BBs of her era can (hardly) beat that much armor. The british QEs had approx. 31,2% of their weight distributed to armor for example while the last two classes of german BBs had ~40%.

Also: The total percentage would be different for your design if you hadn´t "cheated" on her size (see below). This has to be considered.

3.b) The germans prefered armor over firepower and you seem to have something similar in mind. However, 380mm plates for belt and turrets are too much. Even the Germans - who build the best BCs ever during those years - never used belts of more than 300mm for their Large Cruisers. Of course there is no reason not to use thicker plates in an alternate world but it is my personal opinion that everything beyond 320mm is pushing things a little bit in 1915. Same for her turrets.
I think the amount of armor used and the firepower installed is heavily off balance.

3.c) The distribution of armor doesn´t make any sense to me. Your vessels belt armor is thicker than anything ever seen in the real world except mighty YAMATO and the british KGV while her turret armor is only beaten by some late US-standards and WW2-BBs (!!!). On the other hand her CT armor is heavy enough to make incoming heavy shells go boom (set their fuze) but not to keep them ouside. 1mm light gun shields don´t make any sense, too.

I recommend not only to thin her belt and turret armor to make her more realistic but also to think about thickness of armor at all. Is a ships CT meant to keep shells away from the people inside? If not, do you need a CT at all and wouldn´t be splinter armor be enough (see british example in WW2)?

4.) You´ve given her a range of 20000+nm at 10kn !!!!

4.a) Of all BB/BCs I know only british VANGUARD with 9000nm at 20kn and YAMATO with 7200nm at 27kn (figures as planned!) are getting close! Even the german diesel driven PBs couldn´t beat that kind of range. Up until the first nuclear driven warship I can think of nothing to beat 20knm at 10kn (not taking ships of sail into consideration).

So I ask you: Honestly, don´t you think you´re pushing things a little bit?

4.b) With such a great range you´ve also heavily modified the vessels displacement. This is what I meant with "cheating" above. If you hadn´t done so that vessels size surely would have been different - and most likely larger than any other BC laid down in the real world up until HMS HOOD. You know, she´s already as large as the british R-class BC as build....

Hopefully I´m not sounding rude but you´ve to work on that design again. That´s my personal opinion of course...

Regards,

HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
I like that you're establishing a consistent "look" to your capital ships (or at least, I think you are).

Is this class in home waters or the NEI?

Glad you like it.

Both Zeven Provinciëns are based at the NEI, and are the core of the Dutch Eastern Indies Fleet- and both will attend the Akbar launching ceremony .


Hooman:

Quoted

There are many things I´d like to comment on. Please don´t take it as personal offense. Points in no order

constructive critizism is never taken as an offense, so don't worry

Quoted

1.) With a hull 8,85m deep I can hardly believe those ships can use mamy if any dutch harbors (homewaters) in 1915.

ZPs were designed and built for service in the Far East, that shouldn't be a problem

Quoted

2.) Accourding to your drawing engine rooms are seperating your aft turrets. Her stats seem to differ.

There's no chance to select this option in a 1915 design of Springsharp, as it is still not enabled. Otherwise it would be selected.

Quoted

3.) Her armor sheme is unrealistic and ... ahem ... weird.

I'll answer more in the other questions.

Quoted

3.a) The amount of armor used (36% of her weight) is maybe too much. Only full-scale BBs of her era can (hardly) beat that much armor. The british QEs had approx. 31,2% of their weight distributed to armor for example while the last two classes of german BBs had ~40%.

Don't see this ships as the conventional battlecruiser, because they aren't. I would have called them battleships but they can't be named that either.


Very strong armor for a given displacement is a standard practice in the Dutch fleet. Ijselijks' 37% displacement is devoted to armor. 36% in ZPs, and 34.3% in the De Ruyters.

In fact more than Battlecruisers I should call them "light battleships". But that would add confusion to everything because a light battleships isn't expected to carry that much armor.

The dutch approach to Capital Ship concept is to build a medium-sized ship with extremely heavy armor, medium-to-good top speed and (from Zeven Provinciën onwards) very long ranges at high tactical cruise speeds. All that in exchange for relatively few barrels of a light caliber.

I'd say that a capital ship launched in 1915 with only 8x280mm guns is exactly as rare as a 1915-launched capital ship with the ammount of armor the ZPs have.

Quoted

Also: The total percentage would be different for your design if you hadn´t "cheated" on her size (see below). This has to be considered.

that will be explained later. It's no cheating at all, the range of the ZPs is only about 2000nm@10kn over the "normal" range given by Springsharp for this design.

Quoted

3.b) The germans prefered armor over firepower and you seem to have something similar in mind. However, 380mm plates for belt and turrets are too much. Even the Germans - who build the best BCs ever during those years - never used belts of more than 300mm for their Large Cruisers. Of course there is no reason not to use thicker plates in an alternate world but it is my personal opinion that everything beyond 320mm is pushing things a little bit in 1915. Same for her turrets.

well this is something I really don't know. If the general consensus is that in 1915-18 (while this ships were built) there was no way to build plates that thick, then I'll redraw the ship with lighter armor (but then again, probably with heavier weapons too).

But I'd say that 380mm plates were within the realistic ranges of armor plates built at that era. The fact that they never were, doesn't mean they couldn't be. Granted, I'm don't know that much as to say this for sure, as I said if everybody agrees this is a design out of the practicable reach for that time, then I'll redesign it.

Quoted

I think the amount of armor used and the firepower installed is heavily off balance.

That was purposely done,and the reason for this is explained in the thread "a brief history of the dutch fleet". The very particular needs of the dutch fleet forced heavy armor and very long ranges. The dutch fleet took those needs to the extreme at the cost of paying a high price in firepower.


That the ship's unconventional and weird...doesn't mean it's impossible . I agree that the ZPs are very unconventional ships, very off-balanced in firepower/armor. But they were designed this way on purpose. After all, they were intented to BE unbalanced on the first place .

Quoted

3.c) The distribution of armor doesn´t make any sense to me. Your vessels belt armor is thicker than anything ever seen in the real world except mighty YAMATO and the british KGV while her turret armor is only beaten by some late US-standards and WW2-BBs (!!!). On the other hand her CT armor is heavy enough to make incoming heavy shells go boom (set their fuze) but not to keep them ouside. 1mm light gun shields don´t make any sense, too.

on the CT you're right. I downgraded it to 50mm. On the light gun shields too...was a typo, and is erased in the final version.

However the belt and turret armors...I repeat that the ship was designed to be the most armored one afloat for the time she was built and to have an unchallenged range at a high tactical speed, and a very good top speed. All that at a cost: very light guns, and limited in number (8x11.1inches in a ship that entered service in 1918... enuff said)

Quoted

Quite some BB designs I've seen around here have those 380mm of armor on belts, turrets, ot both...just not that early.

and not with those sacrifices on weapons either .

Quoted

4.) You´ve given her a range of 20000+nm at 10kn !!!!

Standard for dutch capital ships and understandable under 1910+ circunstances. A great war was being fought, the Far East Indies were on the other side in the world and Netherlands didn't have too many refuelling points in the trip at that time. Those problems should've been much more evident during the Andaman war of 1916.


Extreme range became a standard requirement for Dutch ships in 1913

and extreme ranges at high tactical speeds, too. The De Ruyter BBs are able to sail for 11500nm@15 knots...go figure (and when I first designed them, they were good for 13500nm@15knots ).

Quoted

4.a) Of all BB/BCs I know only british VANGUARD with 9000nm at 20kn and YAMATO with 7200nm at 27kn (figures as planned!) are getting close! Even the german diesel driven PBs couldn´t beat that kind of range. Up until the first nuclear driven warship I can think of nothing to beat 20knm at 10kn (not taking ships of sail into consideration).

So I ask you: Honestly, don´t you think you´re pushing things a little bit?

Maybe, because not sure either (again I've seen this done in other players' ships, I recall one japanese ship having an insane range too).

Again ,if general consensus is that this is unrealistic I'll lower somewhat the requirements of the dutch fleet regarding long ranges....

Quoted

4.b) With such a great range you´ve also heavily modified the vessels displacement. This is what I meant with "cheating" above. If you hadn´t done so that vessels size surely would have been different - and most likely larger than any other BC laid down in the real world up until HMS HOOD. You know, she´s already as large as the british R-class BC as build....

As I said previously, I don't think so, Hooman. SS says that the "normal range" for this ship is 18200nm@10knots. Sim it under SS and you'll see it with your own eyes.

I reduced the range to 10000nm@10knots to see the displacements involved: this was the result:

Zeven Provinciën, Dutch Battlecruiser laid down 1915

Displacement:
26.843 t light; 28.024 t standard; 29.394 t normal; 30.372 t full load
Loading submergence 1.219 tons/feet

Dimensions:
688,98 ft x 90,22 ft x 29,04 ft (normal load)
210,00 m x 27,50 m x 8,85 m

Armament:
8 - 11,02" / 280 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 2 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
14 - 6,10" / 155 mm guns
Secondary guns mounted low & subject to being washed down in a seaway
8 - 3,46" / 88 mm AA guns
5 - 1,57" / 40 mm guns
Weight of broadside 7.125 lbs / 3.232 kg
2 - 21,0" / 533,4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
Belt 14,96" / 380 mm, upper belt 8,86" / 225 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 93 % of normal area
Main turrets 14,96" / 380 mm, 2nd casemates 5,91" / 150 mm
AA gun shields 0,47" / 12 mm
Armour deck 3,15" / 80 mm, Conning tower 1,97" / 50 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 1,97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 111.444 shp / 83.137 Kw = 29,00 kts
Range 10.000nm at 10,00 kts


only 1500 tons more at standard displacement...a ship of that size was a perfectly feasible build for the dutch navy at that time.

Quoted

Hopefully I´m not sounding rude but you´ve to work on that design again. That´s my personal opinion of course...

on a first view it may be, but I think that a more close look at it will tell the whole story.

The ship is unbalanced as hell because dutch naval policy is the one it is...you might question its real value with such heavy armor and light weapons (I, for sure, do question myself if this will be good for anything other than killing cruisers after a long boring pursuit at high speed ), but I think it's perfectly realistic for the technology in the late 10s...



If that's not the case I'll revise the design, of course. I wanted to design a WEIRD ship, strange in her caracteristics because of a very particular set of priorities. But not an unrealistic one .

Quoted

Armour deck 3,15" / 80 mm

So, let's see here....Basilan, with 10"/40-cal main guns, can pop one through ZP's deck at ~22,000 yards...

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen
So, let's see here....Basilan, with 10"/40-cal main guns, can pop one through ZP's deck at ~22,000 yards...

Those 10''/40 guns can do that on the deck of any WW I-time design, so I'm not surprised .

These battlecruisers kept India's design team up late many nights, trying to figure out how to defeat the heavy armor and speed.

Considering what they came up with, I don't dare question your design...

Quoted

Maybe. not sure either (again I've seen this done in other players' ships, I recall one japanese ship having an insane range too).

Insane? Might not be the right word for that. The fuel is just there to keep the standard displacement down, especially with the Zuiho.
I also find it a bit odd to compare 10 knot cruising speed with with 20kn and 27kn. Range at 15 knots for the Zeven Provincien is 8563nm at 15 knots, 4281nm at 20 knots, and 1915nm at 27 knots. So to compare it with the Vanguard with its 9000nm at 20kn and the Yamato design with its 7200nm at 27kn does seem to be a little bit silly.
Even if it has a range of +20,000 nautical miles at 10 knots, you cannot really compare a 10 knots cruising speed with a 20 knots or 27 knots cruising speed until you convert that range to 20 or 27 knots cruising speed.

Quoted

These battlecruisers kept India's design team up late many nights, trying to figure out how to defeat the heavy armor and speed.

Considering what they came up with, I don't dare question your design...

I think one of the most obvious solution will come from the air.

Many of the early BB/BC designs had the after turrets seperated by the engine room. There was critism of this policy since it made temperature control in the magazines more difficult since the steam lines had to be routed around it.
One rationale was that it elminated some of the problems associated with superfiring turrets.
But in many cases, including this design, there are superfiring turrets forward, so that argument doesn't stand up to well.
I will admit, it does make the design look 'cooler'.
What is the reasoning behind this arrangement of turrets?
Thanks in advance

Quoted

Originally posted by JohnEStauffer
What is the reasoning behind this arrangement of turrets?
Thanks in advance

one less superfiring turret means better seaworthiness and steadiness, not to mention that requires/consumes less hull strenght.

with 2 superfiring turrets, one fwd, other aft, the ship simply won't have her composite hull strenght over 1.00 and won't have been a viable SpringSharp design.


And, I like the looks, too . But this was done for practical reasons.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
These battlecruisers kept India's design team up late many nights, trying to figure out how to defeat the heavy armor and speed.

Given that this class of ships was built with the indian fleet as one of the most likely contenders in mind, I'm glad that she made you think ... It means that she did her duty well .

Quoted

Considering what they came up with, I don't dare question your design...

hehehehe, cant wait to see Ackbar's stats and/or drawing to see what you've come up with


however, Rooijen's right. The best bet to hunt this ship comes from the air...

Monday, my dear sir. That's the big day.

Don't you worry, I'm working on my naval aviation program too...

J

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Don't you worry, I'm working on my naval aviation program too...

Oh! there's no need to hurry!!! .



BTW, drawing updated with top view included.

I read and understand your arguments but it doesn´t change my mind.

However, I have no right telling you how to design your ships of course. :o) So if I´m the only one thinking modifications should be done... Keep ´em coming.

Regards,

HoOmAn

PS: On armor I already gave some examples. So here are some historical examples regarding range:

Royal Navy - Ship with longest legs during those days was IRON DUKE with 7780nm/10kn. HOOD was build for 4000nm/10kn.

USN - From BB34 NEW YORK to BB48 WV it was 10000nm/10kn.

HSF - KÖNIGs were planned for 8000nm/12kn, DERFFLINGERs with 5300nm/14kn. WW2-DEUTSCHLAND achieved ~21500nm/10kn (SCHEER and SPEE ~19000nm/10kn).

IJN - KONGOs and FUSOs for ~8000nm/14kn

RF - French PROVENCE-class were good for 4700nm/10kn

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
On armor I already gave some examples.

and are well noted, Hooman. What I want to know is if it was possible at the time to build armor plates of the strenghts I listed...

If it was possible, then the design won't change armor-wise. If it wasn't, then I will change it. The ship is a very very strange one because of the reasons I listed.

That the usual trend at that time is to place the armor plates you listed doesn't stop me...I'm paying a very high price in firepower for putting a lot more than usual. What can, and will, make me change the design in that department is if in 1915 it wasn't possible to build 380mm thick armor plates.

As I said, I wanted to design a very unusual ship, but never an impossible one .

Quoted

So here are some historical examples regarding range

Same story here, it wasn't seen at the time...but was it possible?. If it was, then...

But here I'm stuck with an additional argument: Springsharp tells me that at 10 knots the "normal range" of a ship like Zeven Provinciën would be around 18200nm...

I understand that in the SIM we give as granted that Springsharp results are to be followed. If SS says it's possible to do something, we can do it. If it doesn't, we can't do it.

I'm putting only 2000 extra miles to the "normal range" at 10 knots that Springsharp gives to the ZPs. I think it's a very reasonable change... and even if I changed it to 18200nm@10nm that still would be way over the usual ranges you've listed...

anyway my points of view are clear. If it was possible at the time to build a ship with that armor and range, then I'm sticking with it. If it wasn't then I'll change it...is as simple as that .


And BTW I understand what you try to tell me; this ship is VERY unusual. Being that unusual it's usefullness is also under suspect: is a ship with that heavy armor and light weapons worth it?.
I've given a reasonable set of reasons why the ships were built that way, so the motivation is there...will the results prove them worth the spending...we'll see (but I guess they won't, unbalanced ships never have been very good ).


Bottom line is that I wanted to do my planification this way. If I followed your advice (with I find a very valuable one, and it's more than welcome, even if I don't follow it) I would end having much better balanced ships, probably much more useful and all-around better...

But I don't want to build the best ships around...I want to experiment along the lines I created for the dutch navy to see how the results of such a naval policy would work .



Anyway, as I said, thanks for your advice, tips and opinions. I do want to hear opinions, both positive and critic, about my designs, policies, drawings, etc...so your thoughts are really welcome no matter that sometimes I don't go along them .

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Range at 15 knots for the Zeven Provincien is 8563nm at 15 knots, 4281nm at 20 knots...

Beg your pardon, Walter, but can you name me a capital warship (BB/BC) build before 1937 exceeding such range?

In 1937 the KGVs were laid down, planned for 6000nm/14kn but never achieved it. With clean hull VANGUARD achieved 8250nm/15kn but after 6 month at sea this was reduced to 7150nm/15kn.

Accourding to some sources all US BBs starting with BB55 NC exceeded 15000nm/15kn but none before came close to ~8500nm/15kn.

The german PBs (hardly capital units) bettered that range due to their unique machinery. The TWINs and the BISMARCK-class were designed to do so but failed under real conditions.

No IJN BB or BC short of the behemoth YAMATO/MUSASHI ever had a chance to sail for more than ~6500nm/15kn.

So please, Walter, tell me 8500nm/15kn is "standard" or not remarkable (up to the point of being beyond realism) for a 1915er design even if there is a doctrine to build ships with long legs...

Quoted

Originally posted by RAM

Quoted

1.) With a hull 8,85m deep I can hardly believe those ships can use mamy if any dutch harbors (homewaters) in 1915.

ZPs were designed and built for service in the Far East, that shouldn't be a problem

So your relatively small navy can affort to build a large portion of its capital ship fleet that will never be able to sail in homewaters? I don´t buy that...

Where were those units build? Also in the NEI?

Just curious... Of course I could be totally off regarding depth of waters in Den Helder etc.

HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

So your relatively small navy can affort to build a large portion of its capital ship fleet that will never be able to sail in homewaters? I don´t buy that...

Where were those units build? Also in the NEI?

hummm I was assuming you were talking about the harbors in the "inner seas" of Netherlands I'd say that harbors as Vlissingen or Den Helder would be perfectly accesible for ships with this depth...

Even Amsterdam should be able to harbor this ships...I recall Walter writting in the infrastructure board that the North Sea channel connecting Amsterdam with the North Sea had depths ranging from 10 to 15 m...and if I understand it correctly, the North Sea Channel was completed in 1876.


So that shouldn't be such a big trouble. I guess.

Quoted

Just curious... Of course I could be totally off regarding depth of waters in Den Helder etc.

HoOmAn

I guess we should hope Walter tells us about the harbors able to take ships with depths up to 10 m, more or less .