WesWorld

In 1942 the Dutch plan on continuing refits and escort construction, but also commencing the construction of 2 more battleships and a carrier.

In the real world, it took the lessons of a major war to kill the battleship lobby, so even though AC are now at 1945 levels, I think it reasonable for the Dutch to continue with Battleships.
The ship are "improved" versions of the preceeding Kortenaer class. This fits with a 1936(?) Dutch defense review which expected BBs to split into "A" and "B" categories, and so the Dutch hope 4 "A" class BBs will let them retain status.

The carrier is an expanded version of the Walcheren class, allowing for 64 AC. The mission, like the Eendrachts and Walcheren will be fleet air defense and scouting, with limited strike capacity.

Kortenaer v2, Nederlands Battleship laid down 1942

Displacement:
45,966 t light; 48,659 t standard; 53,712 t normal; 57,754 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
891.79 ft / 869.42 ft x 111.55 ft (Bulges 121.39 ft) x 32.15 ft (normal load)
271.82 m / 265.00 m x 34.00 m (Bulges 37.00 m) x 9.80 m

Armament:
8 - 17.13" / 435 mm guns (2x4 guns), 3,108.52lbs / 1,410.00kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns (2x2 guns), 59.52lbs / 27.00kg shells, 1935 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
16 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns (8x2 guns), 59.52lbs / 27.00kg shells, 1935 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
56 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (14x4 guns), 1.94lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
34 - 0.91" / 23.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.37lbs / 0.17kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 26,180 lbs / 11,875 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.8" / 350 mm 459.32 ft / 140.00 m 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
Ends: 1.97" / 50 mm 410.07 ft / 124.99 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Upper: 2.36" / 60 mm 459.32 ft / 140.00 m 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
Main Belt covers 81 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.77" / 45 mm 459.32 ft / 140.00 m 29.59 ft / 9.02 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 19.7" / 500 mm 10.0" / 255 mm 15.4" / 390 mm
2nd: 1.97" / 50 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 1.57" / 40 mm
3rd: 1.97" / 50 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 1.57" / 40 mm
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm 1.61" / 41 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5.51" / 140 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 131,422 shp / 98,041 Kw = 29.00 kts
Range 16,650nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 9,094 tons

Complement:
1,763 - 2,293

Cost:
£27.600 million / $110.398 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,676 tons, 5.0 %
Armour: 17,553 tons, 32.7 %
- Belts: 6,352 tons, 11.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 891 tons, 1.7 %
- Armament: 2,916 tons, 5.4 %
- Armour Deck: 7,213 tons, 13.4 %
- Conning Tower: 181 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 3,433 tons, 6.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 21,824 tons, 40.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,746 tons, 14.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 480 tons, 0.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
86,406 lbs / 39,193 Kg = 34.4 x 17.1 " / 435 mm shells or 14.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 8.3 ft / 2.5 m
Roll period: 17.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.50
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.554
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.16 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.37 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31.00 ft / 9.45 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 26.90 ft / 8.20 m (25.26 ft / 7.70 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 25.26 ft / 7.70 m (17.26 ft / 5.26 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17.26 ft / 5.26 m
- Stern: 18.90 ft / 5.76 m
- Average freeboard: 22.04 ft / 6.72 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 73.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 160.1 %
Waterplane Area: 70,736 Square feet or 6,572 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 227 lbs/sq ft or 1,110 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.14
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Warning: Armour too thick for type - 4th battery


Armor :
"other armor" on 125mm and 40mm : +50mm on the 125mm, and +41mm on the 40mm represents RPC control and stabilized hazemeyer mounts.

Belt armor : Per the Dutch habit, the upper belt information represents the 60mm decapping plate for the main belt. The main belt is inclined at 12 degrees.

End armor : The end armor is just that and is meant to exclude light shell and HE, again, nuisance damage.

Deck armor :
The 76m foward of the citadel has 30mm deck armor to exclude HE and light shells, limiting nuisance damage. The 57m aft of the citadel is a 100mm deck to protect the shafts and rear of the ship. The 132m long citadel has a 180mm deck. Averaged this works out to 139.8mm via RLBH's spreadsheet.

Miscellaneous :
The 480 tons is very roughly:
70t- tons for radar and advanced fire control.
28t - There is a 14 ton (28 ton disp) 500hp diesel engine rigged for auxilary power. This is sufficient for 4.96 knots to maintain seaway. At speed this would only grant 0.03knts.
50t- additional fire fighting system.
75t- 2 fan tail float planes
100t - Additional C&C facilities, Admirals quarters.
157t - unallocated at this time.


Sacre, Netherlands Light Carrier laid down 1942

Displacement:
18,700 t light; 19,341 t standard; 22,537 t normal; 25,095 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
746.94 ft / 721.78 ft x 90.22 ft x 21.33 ft (normal load)
227.67 m / 220.00 m x 27.50 m x 6.50 m

Armament:
8 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns (4x2 guns), 59.52lbs / 27.00kg shells, 1935 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns in single mounts, 59.52lbs / 27.00kg shells, 1935 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.94lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 1.94lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
10 - 0.91" / 23.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.37lbs / 0.17kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,018 lbs / 462 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 295

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2.76" / 70 mm 469.16 ft / 143.00 m 10.83 ft / 3.30 m
Ends: 0.98" / 25 mm 252.59 ft / 76.99 m 10.83 ft / 3.30 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.57" / 40 mm 469.16 ft / 143.00 m 19.06 ft / 5.81 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.83" / 21 mm -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.43" / 11 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.97" / 50 mm, Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 106,093 shp / 79,145 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 17,700nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,754 tons

Complement:
919 - 1,195

Cost:
£7.316 million / $29.262 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 127 tons, 0.6 %
Armour: 3,053 tons, 13.5 %
- Belts: 697 tons, 3.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 521 tons, 2.3 %
- Armament: 48 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 1,753 tons, 7.8 %
- Conning Tower: 34 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 2,772 tons, 12.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,052 tons, 35.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,837 tons, 17.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 4,696 tons, 20.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
49,861 lbs / 22,616 Kg = 836.7 x 4.9 " / 125 mm shells or 7.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 15.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 76 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.08
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.49

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.568
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.97 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 23.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 12.01 ft / 3.66 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.97 ft / 9.44 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 29.33 ft / 8.94 m
- Mid (50 %): 29.33 ft / 8.94 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 29.33 ft / 8.94 m
- Stern: 29.33 ft / 8.94 m
- Average freeboard: 29.46 ft / 8.98 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 292.7 %
Waterplane Area: 48,140 Square feet or 4,472 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 157 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 117 lbs/sq ft or 572 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.47
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Gun battery includes 4 turrets fore/aft of the island. An additional 8 deck mounts are mounted at the corners of the flight deck, like the OTL Yorktowns.
The 23mm and 40mm mount alternate along the edge of the flight deck.

Aircraft capacity is 64 planes (4096 misc wieght)
SQRT (4096) = 64
LxB = 220mx27.5m = 6050 /70 =86

High freeboad is to represent an enclosed Hanger.

It is anticipated the main armor belt extends 1m above the waterline to the armor deck, above which is a full 2.44m deck, and then the 5.5m hanger.

The 3.66m aft overhang represents the aft round-down, giving a 230m / 758 ft. flight deck. Three large centerline lifts are provided.

Misc Weights
100 tons represents additional ventilation and fire fighting equipment.
70 tons is "Radar" /Fire control / Air control
50 tons is additional spares
80 tons misc is "spare" for domestic equipment.
300 tons is unspecified.
---
600 non-AC misc.

True range is 16,650nm, the additional 1,050nm is 532 tons of additional AVGas,

At last, another player who isn't afraid to build battleships, and certainly very powerful ones at that.
Some say the battlewagon is dead (largely through hindsight and little practical warfare in a major war), one could argue that with increasing effectiveness of AA defences a BB or a CV is going to be a tough nut to crack without suffering substantial attacker losses in aircraft. Given most carriers are floating bombs and fuel bunkers brimming with highly combustible materials covered by quite thin armour and wooden decks (in most cases) I'd wager the CV would sink before a well-armoured and compartmentalised BB. Of course both will sink, man cannot build a ship that will never sink. If a Navy lost its major CVs (think what might have happened to the USN if they had lost Midway) then they will need to fall back on their battleline to defeat the enemies capital units. Within five years or so a few Navies might struggle to seriously tackle an enemy battleline in a classic fleet action, especially when several nations are now building a new breed of BB much larger and more powerful than anything built between 1914-1925.

There are quite a few players building new BB's acctually. Atlantis 6, Britain 5, USA 4, Germany 4, SAE 4, Russia 4, Japan 4, Iberia 4, France 2. Atlantis has just recently laid down 2 of the 6 now building and IIRC the SAE has very recently laid down a pair.

I've even mulled laying down yet another pair but other needs may acctually nix that given the number already in service, some in desperate need of refit/rebuild.

That said I like the size of the new Dutch BB's, its reasonable and yet potent enough to take on some of its bigger counterparts.

The Dutch thought process is in-line with Hood's. Between Radar, the stabilized 40mms and prox fused 125mms, they see them as a terribly tough target. Which they were. What really killed them was that a carrier was more lethal and flexible offensively...but that's hard to tell at the moment.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
75t- 2 fan tail float planes

What's a fan tail float plane?

Where they are parked on the stern rather than amidships.
I prefer them back there, that way if there's a fire, there's not a bunch of avgas amidships.

Ah. Floatplanes on the fantail, not fan-tailed floatplanes.

Well, I suppose I could field a "burlesque" model floatplane 8p

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
At last, another player who isn't afraid to build battleships, and certainly very powerful ones at that.
Some say the battlewagon is dead (largely through hindsight and little practical warfare in a major war)

If that statement is aimed at me - and there aren't many other people it would be aimed at - watch your fire. I've never claimed the battleship is dead, and I don't like being accused of using hindsight as justification for it. The main issue for me is that all of my countries have effectively gotten priced out of the battleship market. It's all well and good to talk about building a bunch of new hyper-dreadnoughts when you've got fifty factories to pay for them, of course; but I don't have that many, and I have to figure out the difference between what I want (which does, in fact, include some fast battleships) and what I need. In case people haven't noticed, in the last year, France has scraped sixty old destroyers and thirty old submarines, and I've got another thirty or so submarines, cruisers, and destroyers that need replacements laid down ASAP. Sure, I could build more battleships. Why would I, when I've got six modern fast battleships and four modern battlecruisers? I've got as many as I need, and I don't have any pressing need to play in the "My 'Whang!' is bigger than your 'Whang!'" contest with battleships.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Well, I suppose I could field a "burlesque" model floatplane 8p

Maybe paint the tail up with peacock feathers and give the pilots a fuzzy boa instead of a scarf?

Building battlewagons is all very well and good, and considering that a number of nations went with Plus 15in as the main battery weapon of choice I can understand why the Dutch would want to go with a larger caliber.

The USN is in much the same position as the French Fleet. When the Montanas complete the USN will have 18 battlewagons, of which 10 have 16in guns, and 8 have 14. Is the USN battleline going to have the superority that it did IOTL? No, I don't have 50 factories either. Is it a powerful opponent that even the RN would have to treadly lightly around? Yes. While getting into a battlewagon race would be interesting, the USN is playing "catch-up" in that is a top-heavy and bottom-heavy fleet with needs in the middle and auxillary fleets.

Regarding aircraft carriers, I have 8 and am building 2. Capital Ships will outnumber battlewagons 18 to 10 by 44, so the USN is hardly moving towards carriers here.

Hence my decision to postpone battleship construction till 45. I need 20 oilers and 10 supply ships more than I need an extra 2 or 4 battleships.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Capital Ships will outnumber battlewagons 18 to 10 by 44, so the USN is hardly moving towards carriers here.

Think you mean "Capital ships will outnumber carriers..."

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Building battlewagons is all very well and good, and considering that a number of nations went with Plus 15in as the main battery weapon of choice I can understand why the Dutch would want to go with a larger caliber.

... the USN is playing "catch-up" in that is a top-heavy and bottom-heavy fleet with needs in the middle and auxillary fleets.

Regarding aircraft carriers, I have 8 and am building 2. Capital Ships will outnumber battlewagons 18 to 10 by 44, so the USN is hardly moving towards carriers here.

Hence my decision to postpone battleship construction till 45. I need 20 oilers and 10 supply ships more than I need an extra 2 or 4 battleships.

The Dutch already have a pair of Kortenaer class BBs with 435mm guns. Kortenaer and Piet Heyn entered sea trials Q2/40, but by adding two more they will be able to field a full "first rate" division. The two [iUtrecht[/i] class and the van Heemskerck add 3 more 380mm ships. The two slow Ijelsijk class can be used in some cases. A decent "modern" force.

At which time they will probably finally retire a number of the older ships- if not sooner. Though most of the oldest BBs have already been refitted, and De Rutyer will in 1942, so it's not pressing.

The carrier situation is different. With 3 primary fleets, they have 1 Eendracht style CV(L) with each for air cover. However the plan to use the Hund as a deployable reserve is optimist- it's role as training carrier is needed and suitable. So 4th CV(l) is needed to replace it in those plans. Meantime the two strike carriers- the large Van Meel class will allow an independent aerial striking arm to supplement the battlefleet.

Like the US, the Dutch tend to be top & bottom heavy, In large part due to the distortion of Clieto, but in part that's because looking at the building choices of Italy and Iberia in AEGIS, or the UK in SEAR, that seemed the way to go.

Fleet train is really the weakness of the Dutch force, they have some old surplus liners and freighters they bought in the 1930s, but they are built to operate from friendly bases, or co-opt Royal Dutch & Shell oilers (which apparently have been required to have refueling gear and various merchants. One of the attractions of AANM/AEGIS has always been the strategic basing and global presence.

The range on that battleship seems rather high (I'm sure you'll say it's for a nonstop transit), but otherwise, I'm digging it.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
The range on that battleship seems rather high (I'm sure you'll say it's for a nonstop transit), but otherwise, I'm digging it.

That or extended operations at high speed. Avoiding air and sub attack and whatnot.

It's a range you see on a number of Dutch Capital ships. It would allow a "worst case" unrefueled cruising from Amsterdam around Scotland, around the horn of Africa to Java.

Smaller vessels tend to have ranges for Kongo-Java + some cruising.

Ed: the guideline I go by for reasonableness is keepign the Fuel/Ammo % at 20% or less. Sometime ago I tried several long legged USN ships and they came out less than that, so its my personal guide.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Capital Ships will outnumber battlewagons 18 to 10 by 44, so the USN is hardly moving towards carriers here.

Think you mean "Capital ships will outnumber carriers..."

Yes thats what I meant to type.

I will say that yes pushing carriers without anyone having sunk a modern battleship with aircraft (the Peruvian one didn't count) may be using hindsight. I will also say that the expenditure to build a modern capital ship is quite a bit more than to build a modern aircraft carrier so in that way at this point at least building a carrier is cheaper than a battlewagon.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
I will also say that the expenditure to build a modern capital ship is quite a bit more than to build a modern aircraft carrier so in that way at this point at least building a carrier is cheaper than a battlewagon.

I'd agree, though I'd also note that it's due to in-sim costs. The cost of building and training the airgroup, not represented in our system, is quite significant.

I remember seeing references to a mid-1930s RAF study that wound up showing a wing of bombers cost more than a battleship. I presume lifetime costs there. RA may have a more definitive take.

However, it wouldn't suprise me at if carriers were very expensive.


Wandering off... imagine attitudes towards carriers if Russia had collapsed and WWII ground to an end in fall of 1941. With Glorious's death off skandanavia, and the RN's surving the Stukas off Crete- where the ships that sunk were ones that got seperated from the main AA envelope, and surface forces stopped the german reinforcements. I somewhat think that is where 'mentally' we should be.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Wandering off... imagine attitudes towards carriers if Russia had collapsed and WWII ground to an end in fall of 1941. With Glorious's death off skandanavia, and the RN's surving the Stukas off Crete- where the ships that sunk were ones that got seperated from the main AA envelope, and surface forces stopped the german reinforcements. I somewhat think that is where 'mentally' we should be.

We've seen some similar and different things in Wesworld - a Taranto, Glorious, and Coral Sea equivalent in the South American War, plus a few actions in the Peruvian War. I think your conclusions are supportable based on the evidence, but I don't believe this is a binary system where there's only one correct answer and one incorrect answer. I think it's myopic to assume that every country will interpret these events in exactly the same way and come up with exactly the same answer. We all interpret newly-received data through a set of mental filters; some of that data will be classified as Very Important while other pieces of information will be seen as unimportant and minor; but it makes a big difference when the final judgment of all that information is made.

For an example from real-life - the Invasion of Crete. The paratrooper assault proved so costly to the Germans that they swore off further major airborne landings, and ended up using the Fallschirmjaegers as elite infantry for the rest of the war. On the other hand, the Allies were so impressed by the German performance (not knowing about the casualties) that they rushed to add greater strength to their own paratroop forces. They took one event, came to radically different conclusions based on their perception of the the results, and changed their doctrine to adjust to it.

If we had the exact same event in Wesworld, I would wonder about the response. Would someone, viewing that event, say "I need more airborne forces"? And would others suggest that such a response is only viable through the use of that player's hindsight? The same thing holds true for the endless battleship-versus-carrier debate. I think we can come to very different conclusions, both genuinely supportable based on the information, without either of us being wrong. So yes, I think you've drawn the right answer. I also think that I've drawn a right answer... even though it may be completely different from yours. (And I think, as an aside, that people have misconstrued my statements on battleship-versus-carriers to say things that I have not actually said.)