NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Taihei Tengoku]

The more weapons you give them, the more tempted they'll be to get into fights instead of doing their "proper" job.

Given the very high force densities that would inevitably occur in a war on the Radictistani mainland, that probably can't be avoided. Also, I am talking about company-sized units.

The STA units will have an easier job then. Don't give them mortars.

[Gallia-]

Recon battalion will probably want a actual motor rifle company so they can perform some RIF and deception. Also infantrymen will help the recce troops solve their biggest problem: lack of hands to do basic labors.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjd ... IZW-c/edit

A better idea would be to give the heavy armor car company a Stryker MGS but whatever that's for Hussars I guess, the benefits of sharing engines and wheels is more applicable than having a slightly bigger gun since a pillbox won't notice if it's being shot at by 90mm or 105mm or 120mm.

[Gallia-]

the only recon you really need tbh

[Danternoust]

(Image)

the only recon you really need tbh

dropbox stopped hosting images




Danternusian coastal defence militia

[Purpelia]

Battleship with no main guns but has the turrets loaded with massive torpedo launchers instead? Y/N?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Battleship with no main guns but has the turrets loaded with massive torpedo launchers instead? Y/N?

Consider: Torpedo hit rates in 1940 hovered around 0-5%.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Battleship with no main guns but has the turrets loaded with massive torpedo launchers instead? Y/N?

Consider: Torpedo hit rates in 1940 hovered around 0-5%.

Not bad, considering battleship main gun accuracy, which could get as low as 1.4% against head on targets.

[The Corparation]

Consider: Torpedo hit rates in 1940 hovered around 0-5%.

Not bad, considering battleship main gun accuracy, which could get as low as 1.4% against head on targets.

While this is true you can generally carry many times more shells than you can torpedoes.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Not bad, considering battleship main gun accuracy, which could get as low as 1.4% against head on targets.

While this is true you can generally carry many times more shells than you can torpedoes.

It's a truism. The data is from USN's estimations assuming an engagement between USS Iowa and Bismarck at no less than 30,000 yards, and both battleships never try to close the range.

[The Manticoran Empire]

While this is true you can generally carry many times more shells than you can torpedoes.

It's a truism. The data is from USN's estimations assuming an engagement between USS Iowa and Bismarck at no less than 30,000 yards, and both battleships never try to close the range.

The highest accuracy was over 30% against a broadside target at 10,000 yards.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It's a truism. The data is from USN's estimations assuming an engagement between USS Iowa and Bismarck at no less than 30,000 yards, and both battleships never try to close the range.

The highest accuracy was over 30% against a broadside target at 10,000 yards.

German surface vessel hitrates in 1940: 0 out of 500+ torpedoes launched.

[New Vihenia]

610 mm 50-55 cal Battleship gun anyone ?

[Gallia-]

Are you shooting Volkswagens?

16" is fine.

[United Earthlings]

Battleship with no main guns but has the turrets loaded with massive torpedo launchers instead? Y/N?

No...

Because depending on the time period, during the Dreadnought era all the torpedo launchers would be submerged thereby still permitting a small amount of main guns.

Interwar and World War II era, you'd be better off just building cruisers {light or heavy} with a large torpedo armament, something matching that carried by a destroyer.

Either way a Torpedo Battleship is impractical and not cost effective.

610 mm 50-55 cal Battleship gun anyone ?

Sure, if the loss of the total number of guns and a terrible ROF of around 1 shell every 2 to 3 minutes are acceptable trade-offs for your nation. 6 guns in three twin turrets with a ROF of 1 round every 2 to 3 minutes if you’re lucky on a 90,000+ ton displacement vs 9 guns in three triple turrets with a ROF of 2 rounds per minute on 45,000 to 65,000 ton displacement seems like a no brainer to me.

457 mm* is generally considered the maximum practical size limit for battleship guns. Anything larger is just the law of diminishing returns.

Are you shooting Volkswagens?

16" is fine.

I believe a better analogy for a 610mm gun would be shooting a deuce and a half.

---

* Yes, I'm well aware the Yamato had 460 mm guns.

[Connori Pilgrims]

610 mm 50-55 cal Battleship gun anyone ?

Past a certain point (406mm-460mm?), there's diminishing returns where whatever gains in range and penetrating power are outweighed by the the mass and cost penalties.

Also, maybe take note of the fire-control technology and systems available to the country in question at the time said ship is conceived and built. Even if country A could practically build a battleship carrying 6+ such monster guns, could such a ship make use of such weapons quickly and effectively enough to justify it against ships equipped with more modest 406-460mm weapons?

The concept behind Yamato and A-150 is a good example of this; yeah sure build bigger guns to outrange US battleships, but by mid-late war, US radar fire-control would have allowed their modern battleships armed with 406mm/45 or 406mm/50 guns to almost match the Japanese giants at range in daylight (possibly exceed them in responsiveness and accuracy due to the automated for its time FCS), and most especially if in bad weather or night.

[The Manticoran Empire]

610 mm 50-55 cal Battleship gun anyone ?

Past a certain point (406mm-460mm?), there's diminishing returns where whatever gains in range and penetrating power are outweighed by the the mass and cost penalties.

Also, maybe take note of the fire-control technology and systems available to the country in question at the time said ship is conceived and built. Even if country A could practically build a battleship carrying 6+ such monster guns, could such a ship make use of such weapons quickly and effectively enough to justify it against ships equipped with more modest 406-460mm weapons?

The concept behind Yamato and A-150 is a good example of this; yeah sure build bigger guns to outrange US battleships, but by mid-late war, US radar fire-control would have allowed their modern battleships armed with 406mm/45 or 406mm/50 guns to almost match the Japanese giants at range in daylight (possibly exceed them in responsiveness and accuracy due to the automated for its time FCS), and most especially if in bad weather or night.

Case in point Surigao Strait.

[Purpelia]

What about my other idea about the river warship from the last page?

[United Earthlings]

Some more fuel for the fire...

After my last post, my curiosity for what form a practical 24 inch gun battleship would appear was piqued and so I did the only logical thing, I ran it threw SpringSharp.

I borrowed from the following three designs: Montana Class, Yamato Class and A-150 Class to establish a baseline. Of course I took a few liberties and some best guesses.

Also note I ran it threw an older version of SpringSharp, version 2.1. Still even SpringSharp was smart enough to know you don’t put 24in guns on a battleship as noted by the bolded part.

24in Gun Class Battleship, laid down 1943 (Engine 1945)

Displacement:
70,543 t light; 74,035 t standard; 78,961 t normal; 82,902 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
904.00 ft / 888.00 ft x 126.00 ft x 38.00 ft (normal load)
275.54 m / 270.66 m x 38.40 m x 11.58 m

Armament:
6 - 24.00" / 610 mm guns (3x2 guns), 6,460.00lbs / 2,930.21kg shells, 1943 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
20 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (10x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 5 raised mounts - superfiring
72 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (18x4 guns), 1.94lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
56 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 40,163 lbs / 18,218 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 85

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 18.0" / 457 mm 523.92 ft / 159.69 m 15.25 ft / 4.65 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 91 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
5.00" / 127 mm 523.92 ft / 159.69 m 36.48 ft / 11.12 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 28.0" / 711 mm 16.0" / 406 mm 26.0" / 660 mm
2nd: 2.50" / 64 mm 2.50" / 64 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 7.80" / 198 mm, Conning tower: 20.00" / 508 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 149,509 shp / 111,534 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,867 tons

Complement:
2,354 - 3,061

Cost:
£49.088 million / $196.352 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 5,360 tons, 6.8 %
Armour: 31,510 tons, 39.9 %
- Belts: 6,375 tons, 8.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 3,536 tons, 4.5 %
- Armament: 7,902 tons, 10.0 %
- Armour Deck: 12,904 tons, 16.3 %
- Conning Tower: 793 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 3,775 tons, 4.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 29,798 tons, 37.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 8,418 tons, 10.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
101,421 lbs / 46,004 Kg = 14.7 x 24.0 " / 610 mm shells or 19.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.04
Metacentric height 7.6 ft / 2.3 m
Roll period: 19.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.69
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.08

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.650
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.05 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.43 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 33.86 ft / 10.32 m
- Forecastle (21 %): 20.80 ft / 6.34 m
- Mid (50 %): 20.68 ft / 6.30 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 20.80 ft / 6.34 m
- Stern: 20.80 ft / 6.34 m
- Average freeboard: 21.86 ft / 6.66 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 78.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 150.1 %
Waterplane Area: 89,423 Square feet or 8,308 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 258 lbs/sq ft or 1,261 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.11
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Warning: Calibre too large - Main battery

---

The design works and is actually a pretty good design at least according to SpringSharp. The amount of calculated power needed for speed of 28 knots is pretty close to what it was historically. 150,000 shp for the Yamato class, adjust for advancements in engine power that SpringSharp isn't good at factoring in and you have something like the Iowa's 212,000 SHP or even Montana's 172,000 shp. The design should in theory achieve at least 28 knots if not slightly more depending on the exact amount devoted to machinery space and therefore overall horsepower.

Went with a all-or-nothing armor scheme and even though not stated in the data file, the belt armor would be inclined probably the same 19 degrees as was to be found in the Montana class, so the belt armor should provide good protection.

Good thing these things were never built, because damn would they be expensive to build and man. By the time a nation got done building the first of the class, they would already be obsolete and a massive waste of expenditure and resources.

[Purpelia]

Are there any good tutorials and resources on how to use that thing properly? Like, from what I gather you do need an encyclopedia of ships (or ten) to get the data but like a video tutorial on the basics would be great for a start. That way I can get cracking on my ultimate dream design. Just picture it.... What if the French school of PreDreadnaught designs was called to counter the Yamato.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Are there any good tutorials and resources on how to use that thing properly? Like, from what I gather you do need an encyclopedia of ships (or ten) to get the data but like a video tutorial on the basics would be great for a start. That way I can get cracking on my ultimate dream design. Just picture it.... What if the French school of PreDreadnaught designs was called to counter the Yamato.

NO! NO GOD PLEASE NO! NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Purpelia]

Are there any good tutorials and resources on how to use that thing properly? Like, from what I gather you do need an encyclopedia of ships (or ten) to get the data but like a video tutorial on the basics would be great for a start. That way I can get cracking on my ultimate dream design. Just picture it.... What if the French school of PreDreadnaught designs was called to counter the Yamato.

NO! NO GOD PLEASE NO! NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Why not? It would go well with my conceptual PreDreadnaught Yamato build. That one is slated to have Congo turrets as secondaries.

[The Manticoran Empire]

NO! NO GOD PLEASE NO! NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Why not? It would go well with my conceptual PreDreadnaught Yamato build. That one is slated to have Congo turrets as secondaries.

But why the French of all things?!!!!

[Danternoust]

WWII Missile Barges armed with TV-guided V1 rockets

Y/N?

[Radictistan]

Are there any good tutorials and resources on how to use that thing properly? Like, from what I gather you do need an encyclopedia of ships (or ten) to get the data but like a video tutorial on the basics would be great for a start. That way I can get cracking on my ultimate dream design. Just picture it.... What if the French school of PreDreadnaught designs was called to counter the Yamato.

The old version (2.xx) had some RL ships included. I consider 3.xx to be overly complicated for the program's purpose. The core problem is all these measurements like width between bulkheads that I've never been able to find sources for. Even freeboard is surprisingly hard to find for historical ships.

[New Vihenia]

Yes, above is apparently limitations of springsharp. The freeboard information is probably found from actually measuring available blueprints/sketch.

Other than that. First of all thanks for the input. regarding the ship for the 610mm gun. I envisaged that it would be much larger than what was available in WW-II in service or concept. The 33 m barrel for 61cm 55 caliber requires rather large turret, probably much larger than even Yamato. The ship itself will be monstrous.. Not 200-290 m But likely closer to a super-tanker. in range of 300-400 or even 500m. The displacement is therefore much greater in the order of about 200K metric tonne or more. This in turn put strain on machineries. 4 shafts might no longer be enough if 30 Knots is desired. Some other solution have to be sought like tandem propeller.

It is yes an extremely large undertaking. Can be a good history story tho.

----------
Other than that. Lemme introduce you guys to a doodle. The Vihenian BSRBM (Battlefield Short Range Ballistic Missile)
The launcher there is basically a place holder. The missile itself only slightly bigger and longer than R-400 Oka. It however carries over 4 metric tonne of propellant, 500 Kg warhead and range of 800 Km, guidance is Radar correlation. It will be a Regiment level asset.