All the World's Dreadnoughts

[The Green Union]

So, my thread moves at a glacial pace but she does move.

Here's a realism review for the Kamooko Class II battleship. First, I want to note that the writeup is very good. I like the detail.

I understand the design year is 1910. That would make her roughly contemporary with the first super-dreadnoughts. 380mm guns would be more in line with the succeeding classes - the British 15"/42 was designed in 1912, the same year as the ship carrying it was laid down - but a fudge of a couple years isn't a big deal. The 38k ton displacement is at least half again what was historically being built in 1910, but is in the right general range for 10x15", heavy armor, and 24 knots, and larger ships were by no means impossible.

You being willing, I would like to ignore the discrepancy in gun size. In regional lore this would have been possible, and even though this comprehensive list is aiming to be historically accurate I would still like to think that these ships could have evolved during actual construction to take advantage of emerging technologies. Placeoderms wasn't exactly rushing them into service in 1910, and while the claim of thirty two ships finally being built is ludicrous it would still make sense from this nation's perspective to build an exceptional number. Eight may have been possible, suggesting hulls being laid down some years later.

But hearing that the Kamooko Class II is on the light side displacement wise is concerning. The ships were supposed to be exceptionally heavy, probably mostly as coastal defence ships. Speed, as far as I am aware, was a secondary concern as the ships were always expected to engage the enemy at one of a few predetermined locations (all of which were very near one another).

Probably the best explanation is this rough map used to represent the frontline of the Votadini War, the main conflict in the WWI period between Placeoderms and Vilhala. The thing to note is that the port on this map is Vilhala's only sea access, and that being one that opens onto a large bay with only one path to open ocean. We haven't really hammered down scales yet in Markion, but most likely on a clear day one would be able to see the Placeodermsian side from Vilhala and vise versa.

Placeoderms ought to also have major ports on this seaway, making it easy for them to supply a fleet, and given Vilhala's massively limited coastline it would only take victory in one major battle to gain superiority and cut the nation off from its overseas allies. For this reason Placeoderms, in lore, intended to build battleships which were extremely large and heavy. Speed and range are in this model largely unimportant, especially with mostly unrelated Placeodermsian rejection of "speed will be our armour" philosophy.

The armor scheme is most unrealistic element. 650mm is a massive amount of armor; even Yamato's belt topped out at 410mm. 650mm for a proper belt would be impossible on the given displacement. It's also worth noting that multiple layers would not provide as much protection as a single layer of their combined thickness, and that 45 degrees is a very extreme slope for an armor belt. To my knowledge, no nation used a sloped belt until the 1930s, and those belts only sloped at 15-18 degrees. I'm not an expert on the tradeoffs in this area, but I suspect ship stability would be affected.

Generally, naval engineers would attempt to armor battleships to withstand their own guns at normal combat ranges - this was considered a "balanced" design. If you simply halved the 650mm to 325mm, you would be in a realistic range; the 15" British battleships had a 330 mm belt, but Kamooko II would have better turret armor. I'd also make it a conventional belt rather than steeply inclined and layered.

This does concern me. I'm pretty sure the Kamooko Class II uses the König-Class as a baseline, meaning that the ship became much heavier and more armoured. If I understand, though, the problem is not only that the increase in displacement is far to low to validate the proposed amount of armour but also that the amount of armour stated here would never be possible in a 1910 design. Given my lack of experience in the field (my own nation had only two destroyers in this period), I'm afraid I'm going to need to hear your opinion on what would be the maximum possible displacement and armour thickness.

I am not really sure what Placeoderms meant by this layered armour concept. It is possible they were referring to the real world pre-Jutland approach to deck armour against high explosives, or maybe there was a concern of high explosives being fired at short range against the hull? I can't really think of a reason why this would be a threat.

But regardless, I'm afraid at least some form of "Gar Plating" is going to need to stay. I will also hope you are okay with retaining a slight angling (maybe less than the 15 degrees, even) for an internal citadel. I should stress that this is not an angled belt, but rather angling on the internal armoured box which contains ammunition and other key components. For the most part this is important for me because the region has had a lot of roleplay inside a Placeodermsian palace named in honour of the nation's armour innovations. A large portion of this country's lore was built around the idea of bigger and better armour, as odd as it is.

I don't know if the Kamooko Class II really counts as a "balanced" design. It's supposed to be big, heavy, and slow. The only reason there are not bigger guns on it is that they didn't exist at the time, but if more armour was possible it would have been added.

The secondary battery is a bit much. There are three unlikely things here: First, four sizes of gun is a lot. Two would be more realistic. Second, that's a LOT of guns; 51 by my count. The WWI 15" of the British and German navies carried 18 each, the American equivalents 22. It's unlikely she'd have the hull space. Third, having both 152mm and 150mm would be extremely inconvenient. There's nothing a 152 mm gun can do that a 150 mm can't, and vice versa, but you'd have to carry two types of ammo and it would confuse your fall of shot. I'd recommend deleting the 152mm and 128mm guns, and having the 88s replace the 128s in the AA listing. I'd keep the 150s because a nation that uses a true 380mm gun instead of 381mm = 15" would likely also use a 150mm instead of 152mm = 6".

Thanks for your praise for my project and for your contribution to it!

I do agree with this. So the new setup for the secondary armament becomes:

15 x 150mm guns (one is on the centreline for some reason)

12 × 88mm guns (AA)

The AA armament in lore came after intense Vilhalan air attacks started against blockading forces. While largely ineffective, the prospect of not being able to hit the attackers' origin caused much concern. I won't list them, but will also assume rifle-calibre machine guns would have been mounted to further deter aircraft and small craft.


Man, this has taken a lot of my time! I hope I'm not coming across as uncooperative, but I really do want to balance realism with the lore of the region and finally finish coming up with proper statistics for this warship. After all, if a regional WWI roleplay ever kicks off these monsters will be front and centre.

[Mount Shavano]

So, my thread moves at a glacial pace but she does move.

Here's a realism review for the Kamooko Class II battleship. First, I want to note that the writeup is very good. I like the detail.

I understand the design year is 1910. That would make her roughly contemporary with the first super-dreadnoughts. 380mm guns would be more in line with the succeeding classes - the British 15"/42 was designed in 1912, the same year as the ship carrying it was laid down - but a fudge of a couple years isn't a big deal. The 38k ton displacement is at least half again what was historically being built in 1910, but is in the right general range for 10x15", heavy armor, and 24 knots, and larger ships were by no means impossible.

You being willing, I would like to ignore the discrepancy in gun size. In regional lore this would have been possible, and even though this comprehensive list is aiming to be historically accurate I would still like to think that these ships could have evolved during actual construction to take advantage of emerging technologies. Placeoderms wasn't exactly rushing them into service in 1910, and while the claim of thirty two ships finally being built is ludicrous it would still make sense from this nation's perspective to build an exceptional number. Eight may have been possible, suggesting hulls being laid down some years later.

But hearing that the Kamooko Class II is on the light side displacement wise is concerning. The ships were supposed to be exceptionally heavy, probably mostly as coastal defence ships. Speed, as far as I am aware, was a secondary concern as the ships were always expected to engage the enemy at one of a few predetermined locations (all of which were very near one another).

Probably the best explanation is this rough map used to represent the frontline of the Votadini War, the main conflict in the WWI period between Placeoderms and Vilhala. The thing to note is that the port on this map is Vilhala's only sea access, and that being one that opens onto a large bay with only one path to open ocean. We haven't really hammered down scales yet in Markion, but most likely on a clear day one would be able to see the Placeodermsian side from Vilhala and vise versa.

Placeoderms ought to also have major ports on this seaway, making it easy for them to supply a fleet, and given Vilhala's massively limited coastline it would only take victory in one major battle to gain superiority and cut the nation off from its overseas allies. For this reason Placeoderms, in lore, intended to build battleships which were extremely large and heavy. Speed and range are in this model largely unimportant, especially with mostly unrelated Placeodermsian rejection of "speed will be our armour" philosophy.

The armor scheme is most unrealistic element. 650mm is a massive amount of armor; even Yamato's belt topped out at 410mm. 650mm for a proper belt would be impossible on the given displacement. It's also worth noting that multiple layers would not provide as much protection as a single layer of their combined thickness, and that 45 degrees is a very extreme slope for an armor belt. To my knowledge, no nation used a sloped belt until the 1930s, and those belts only sloped at 15-18 degrees. I'm not an expert on the tradeoffs in this area, but I suspect ship stability would be affected.

Generally, naval engineers would attempt to armor battleships to withstand their own guns at normal combat ranges - this was considered a "balanced" design. If you simply halved the 650mm to 325mm, you would be in a realistic range; the 15" British battleships had a 330 mm belt, but Kamooko II would have better turret armor. I'd also make it a conventional belt rather than steeply inclined and layered.

This does concern me. I'm pretty sure the Kamooko Class II uses the König-Class as a baseline, meaning that the ship became much heavier and more armoured. If I understand, though, the problem is not only that the increase in displacement is far to low to validate the proposed amount of armour but also that the amount of armour stated here would never be possible in a 1910 design. Given my lack of experience in the field (my own nation had only two destroyers in this period), I'm afraid I'm going to need to hear your opinion on what would be the maximum possible displacement and armour thickness.

I am not really sure what Placeoderms meant by this layered armour concept. It is possible they were referring to the real world pre-Jutland approach to deck armour against high explosives, or maybe there was a concern of high explosives being fired at short range against the hull? I can't really think of a reason why this would be a threat.

But regardless, I'm afraid at least some form of "Gar Plating" is going to need to stay. I will also hope you are okay with retaining a slight angling (maybe less than the 15 degrees, even) for an internal citadel. I should stress that this is not an angled belt, but rather angling on the internal armoured box which contains ammunition and other key components. For the most part this is important for me because the region has had a lot of roleplay inside a Placeodermsian palace named in honour of the nation's armour innovations. A large portion of this country's lore was built around the idea of bigger and better armour, as odd as it is.

I don't know if the Kamooko Class II really counts as a "balanced" design. It's supposed to be big, heavy, and slow. The only reason there are not bigger guns on it is that they didn't exist at the time, but if more armour was possible it would have been added.

I do agree with this. So the new setup for the secondary armament becomes:

15 x 150mm guns (one is on the centreline for some reason)

12 × 88mm guns (AA)

The AA armament in lore came after intense Vilhalan air attacks started against blockading forces. While largely ineffective, the prospect of not being able to hit the attackers' origin caused much concern. I won't list them, but will also assume rifle-calibre machine guns would have been mounted to further deter aircraft and small craft.

Man, this has taken a lot of my time! I hope I'm not coming across as uncooperative, but I really do want to balance realism with the lore of the region and finally finish coming up with proper statistics for this warship. After all, if a regional WWI roleplay ever kicks off these monsters will be front and centre.

Quick note: I'm trying to go out of my way to avoid being the realism police. I'm essentially treating the table as the claims of each nation - each individual player can decide how silly is too silly for it be "canon" for them. K2 would hardly be the silliest thing on there. So, all final decisions are yours, you don't need my permission.

So, with that in mind, let me see what I can do to answer your questions:

You being willing, I would like to ignore the discrepancy in gun size. In regional lore this would have been possible, and even though this comprehensive list is aiming to be historically accurate I would still like to think that these ships could have evolved during actual construction to take advantage of emerging technologies. Placeoderms wasn't exactly rushing them into service in 1910, and while the claim of thirty two ships finally being built is ludicrous it would still make sense from this nation's perspective to build an exceptional number. Eight may have been possible, suggesting hulls being laid down some years later.

15"s on a ship laid down in 1910 isn't jarring to me at all, I'd definitely say to go for that.

A lot of NS nations play as being much larger than any historical power (logically, given the counts it shows on your "official" page). A 32-ship class spread out over several years doesn't phase me at all in that regard.

I would note that, leaving aside total economic strength, it is worth considering that ships have to be physically built somewhere. It takes, at minimum, the better part of a year to build and launch a dreadnought (HMS Orion, 1910, took 9 months, and was much smaller than your design), and longer for larger ships. The number of ships you can build in parallel is capped by the number of slipways you have of sufficient size. It wasn't uncommon for nations to have ship widths or draughts determined by physical constraints.

This does concern me. I'm pretty sure the Kamooko Class II uses the König-Class as a baseline, meaning that the ship became much heavier and more armoured. If I understand, though, the problem is not only that the increase in displacement is far to low to validate the proposed amount of armour but also that the amount of armour stated here would never be possible in a 1910 design. Given my lack of experience in the field (my own nation had only two destroyers in this period), I'm afraid I'm going to need to hear your opinion on what would be the maximum possible displacement and armour thickness.

I could show you a chart of what the largest battleship anyone had built at a given date was, but really maximum believable size would be dictated by the physical constraints of your nation's facilities and waterways.

If you're going for a German style ship, have you looked over the Bayern class? They were a 15" design with the same armor scheme. They carried only 8 guns, but it may be an easier baseline to extrapolate from than König. I would say that your original 38k displacement would be about right for a 10x15" ship with a 350mm belt like that carried by the Bayerns. A 610mm belt while keeping a 10x15" armament... 45 to 50k tons? The armor belt (although not the deck) would be equivalent to Yamato's, but with much reduced weight for guns and much less speed.

I am not really sure what Placeoderms meant by this layered armour concept. It is possible they were referring to the real world pre-Jutland approach to deck armour against high explosives, or maybe there was a concern of high explosives being fired at short range against the hull? I can't really think of a reason why this would be a threat.

Possibly the Bismarck style with the armored deck being comparatively low in the hull?

But regardless, I'm afraid at least some form of "Gar Plating" is going to need to stay. I will also hope you are okay with retaining a slight angling (maybe less than the 15 degrees, even) for an internal citadel. I should stress that this is not an angled belt, but rather angling on the internal armoured box which contains ammunition and other key components. For the most part this is important for me because the region has had a lot of roleplay inside a Placeodermsian palace named in honour of the nation's armour innovations. A large portion of this country's lore was built around the idea of bigger and better armour, as odd as it is.

If it's not an angled belt I don't know enough to say what appropriate angling would be.

The AA armament in lore came after intense Vilhalan air attacks started against blockading forces. While largely ineffective, the prospect of not being able to hit the attackers' origin caused much concern. I won't list them, but will also assume rifle-calibre machine guns would have been mounted to further deter aircraft and small craft.

That seems reasonable. Especially if they were added on after the initial design, which was common with light AA guns.

Man, this has taken a lot of my time! I hope I'm not coming across as uncooperative, but I really do want to balance realism with the lore of the region and finally finish coming up with proper statistics for this warship. After all, if a regional WWI roleplay ever kicks off these monsters will be front and centre.

Not at all. I'm happy to have enthusiastic participants!

[Greater Germany]

A lot would have depended on how the war ended. Was it a German victory or a stalemate? Was it longer or shorter than the real war? Is there still a Washington treaty?

Well, we do know what they wanted to build historically. In September 1918 (when it was clearly not going to actually happen), they approved the "L20e alpha" design for construction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_20e_%CE%B1-class_battleship (Image)

She would have been big (43.8k tons) and relatively fast (26 knots). Armor protection would have followed the same scheme and approximate thickness of Bayern, but in order to get the ships into service as quickly as possible they would have skimped on torpedo protection. Main armament would have been 8x16.5" guns (16.5" ~= 42 cm, and since Germans think in metric that was the next logical step up from the ~15", actually 14.96" = 38 cm, guns on Bayern).

They might have selected a different design had things changed earlier, which would have had to happen for the Empire to survive, but that shows their thinking. They were happy with their armor, but wanted faster ships with bigger guns ASAP.

A ship of that scale would likely have either meant no Washington treaty or been scrapped on the conference table. If the former, the Americans and Japanese would have rushed their equivalent ships, and the British would not have taken a break from the game. The G3 design was from years later and they wouldn't have answered a BB with more Hood type BCs, so I don't know what a British design would look like.

In a German Empire that was in better military and economic shape, they might have built another class of 15" ships, likely a refinement of the Bayern design, beginning in 1915 and 1916.

Thank you for this reply. I'll have to work on a new design. I wish there was more of a battleship community here. Maybe I'll have to branch into space battleships.

[The Green Union]

Quick note: I'm trying to go out of my way to avoid being the realism police. I'm essentially treating the table as the claims of each nation - each individual player can decide how silly is too silly for it be "canon" for them. K2 would hardly be the silliest thing on there. So, all final decisions are yours, you don't need my permission.

Regardless, I would like to have a grasp of what really was built and why. Like you said, it's easy to simply input larger numbers than anything which actually existed. The difference is that I want to have backing behind it. If the real world ships of 1910 were the standard of the time then why was the K2 built bigger?

That's what I'm aiming to answer.

15"s on a ship laid down in 1910 isn't jarring to me at all, I'd definitely say to go for that.

A lot of NS nations play as being much larger than any historical power (logically, given the counts it shows on your "official" page). A 32-ship class spread out over several years doesn't phase me at all in that regard.

Despite the sky being the limit on NS, I'm still not willing to accept a thirty two ship class. Maybe one day I will write up the Kamooko Class I as a coastal armoured ship, and that can have closer to thirty two units.

I would note that, leaving aside total economic strength, it is worth considering that ships have to be physically built somewhere. It takes, at minimum, the better part of a year to build and launch a dreadnought (HMS Orion, 1910, took 9 months, and was much smaller than your design), and longer for larger ships. The number of ships you can build in parallel is capped by the number of slipways you have of sufficient size. It wasn't uncommon for nations to have ship widths or draughts determined by physical constraints.

This should not be an issue. Placeoderms had extremely large and well developed maritime infrastructure in this period, and went on to build successor classes to the K2 which were even larger. Three or four ships would have been constructed simultaneously in the same dockyard. One note, though, is that the port it is stated these ships were built in should freeze over in the winter. I don't know how much of an impact this would have on production with icebreaking capabilities available.

I could show you a chart of what the largest battleship anyone had built at a given date was, but really maximum believable size would be dictated by the physical constraints of your nation's facilities and waterways.

These physical constraints should not be a concern. The most constricted waterway is supposed to be open to modern tanker traffic, so a 1910s battleship ought to be just fine unless I am getting something wrong. Coastal regions would mostly have hard shelf dropoffs suited to deep drafts.

A chart would actually be very good for allowing me context.

If you're going for a German style ship, have you looked over the Bayern class? They were a 15" design with the same armor scheme. They carried only 8 guns, but it may be an easier baseline to extrapolate from than König. I would say that your original 38k displacement would be about right for a 10x15" ship with a 350mm belt like that carried by the Bayerns. A 610mm belt while keeping a 10x15" armament... 45 to 50k tons? The armor belt (although not the deck) would be equivalent to Yamato's, but with much reduced weight for guns and much less speed.

I am not well familiar with the different battleship philosophies of the great powers during this time, but if I am correct that German designs were mostly optimized for close range, low angle fire engagements in the North Sea then this sounds about right.

I am hesitant to go back to 610mm, though. Even if that were possible, would it be reasonable? Should the critical areas of the belt be the only areas with substantial armour, making the ship all but invulnerable to shots there but highly susceptible to plunging fire or aircraft bombs into the deck or turret tops?

The more I look into this design the more I realize the K2 would be more of an oversized coastal defence ship than an actual battleship. She's big, heavy, and designed to operate within the littoral waters. Perhaps on paper she could have firepower, armour, and speed(?) superior to any ocean-going ship of a similar displacement. The catch would be her harshly curtailed range. With poor open ocean performance, limited storage space for fuel, provisions, ammunition etc., and cramped crew conditions, she would be tethered to friendly ports.

Possibly the Bismarck style with the armored deck being comparatively low in the hull?

If it's not an angled belt I don't know enough to say what appropriate angling would be.

A low armoured deck and citadel below the waterline seem to fit with this philosophy of protection against low angle fire. K2 could be extremely well armoured in this way, with it almost impossible to penetrate anything of importance at close range?

That seems reasonable. Especially if they were added on after the initial design, which was common with light AA guns.

That's all the armament decided, then.

Not at all. I'm happy to have enthusiastic participants!

And I'm happy to be here! Only wish I'd caught on to this forum sooner.

[Mount Shavano]

Glacial pace, but on she moves...

A chart would actually be very good for allowing me context.

Here you are:



- The year is for the first ship of a class being laid down.

- Only BBs are included, no BCs.

- Ships laid down for foreign countries then later seized are not included (e.g. Agincourt).

- If multiple classes were laid down in the same year, only the largest is shown.

- All ships laid down are included, even those never completed.

I am not well familiar with the different battleship philosophies of the great powers during this time, but if I am correct that German designs were mostly optimized for close range, low angle fire engagements in the North Sea then this sounds about right.

Framing what the British did as "normal", and doing a quick summary of how other powers deviated from that...

The Germans favored a smaller main battery than British practice, believing the higher rate of fire of the smaller weapons would make up for the deficit in throw weight. German weapons also usually threw lighter shells at a higher velocity than British weapons of the same size. Although German ships outperformed British ships in gunnery during the war, I'd put that down to crew drill rather than German theory being superior.

With less weight devoted to the weapons, German ships carried heavier armor and better watertight subdivisions, although I wouldn't say they were more optimized for close range than the British at this time. German ships also carried heavier secondary batteries until about ~1911's new contruction, at which time the British jumped from 4" to match the German 6".

The Americans were ahead of the game in figuring out how to design ships so they could fire the upper turret in a superfiring arrangement without killing the crew of the lower turret, giving them an advantage in turret layout for their first few dreadnoughts (the United States Navy never built a BB wing turret); other, up through Texas they built pretty baseline ships.

Starting with Nevada, the Americans switched to the "All-or-Nothing" armor scheme, which eliminated medium thickness armor; the theory was that getting hit by medium size shells was now very unlikely, so the key parts (guns, engines, conning tower, enough bouancy that flooded ends couldn't sink the ship) of the ship should get the maximum possible armor while for the rest there were just be splinter protection and you'd hope it wasn't enough to set off a fuse. The British, Japanese, and French moved to this armor scheme after Jutland; the Germans never did. Armament and speed were initially the 10x14" main battery, 5" secondaries, 21 knots of Texas; the secondaries, speed, and armor basically stayed the same for the duration of WWI new contruction, while armament gradually increased to Colorado's 8x16".

The Japanese basically paralleled the Americans in terms of gun size, but placed emphasis on deck over belt armor and long-range gunnery training. The idea was that the US fleet was guaranteed to be larger, so Japan would focus on getting superiority at long range, build her ships enough faster to pick the range (generally IJN BBs managed 24 knots vice USN 21) and thusly offset the US material advantage. The Americans didn't believe that decisive results could be obtained at long range, given accuracy and ammo constraints, and instead optimized their ship for medium range where they believed decisive victory was possible.

A low armoured deck and citadel below the waterline seem to fit with this philosophy of protection against low angle fire. K2 could be extremely well armoured in this way, with it almost impossible to penetrate anything of importance at close range?

That depends on how close we're talking about... Bismarck's "Immune Zone" against her own weapons was from ~20 to 30 km.

[Vlasdol]

Class Name: Savannah-Class
Displacement (standard): 75,000 tons
Primary Armament (in inches): 12 x twin-Ordnance, Naval, 30 inches
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches: 650 mm
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc): All-or-nothing
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc): Reciprocating diesel
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc): Oil
Speed in knots: 28.3 knots
Endurance in nautical miles: 5,000
Year in service: 2008-present
Year last unit retired or sunk: Never
Number of units: 1

[Vespertia]

Class Name: Kingdom (Rahandir)-class
Displacement (standard): 48,000 t
Primary Armament (in inches): 9× 16 inch/50 naval rifles in three-gun turrets, two fore (one superfiring), one aft
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches: 14.2 inches
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc): All-or-nothing
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc): Turbines
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc): Oil
Speed in knots: 31 kts
Endurance in nautical miles: 10,000 nmi
Year in service: 1106 AVU (1938 AD)
Year last unit retired or sunk: In Vespertian service, 1123 AVU (1955 AD), with the retirement of HVMS Renai; in Tenjoinese service, 1960
Number of units: 4
• HVMS Rahandir, named for the historical Kingdom of Rahandir. Scrapped 1119 AVU (early 1952)
• HVMS Veigar, named for the historical Kingdom of Veigar. Transferred to the Tenjoinese Navy in 1113 AVU (1945) as the Masuda, as a result of the outbreak of the Fourth Tenjoin-Grand Horde War. Scrapped 1966.
• HVMS Beralon, named for the historical Kingdom of Beralon. Transferred to the Tenjoinese Navy in 1113 AVU (1945) as the Oyama, as a result of the outbreak of the Fourth Tenjoin-Grand Horde War. Preserved as a museum in Tenjoin.
• HVMS Renai, named for the historical kingdom of Renai. Became the most decorated Vespertian battleship of the 1106-1114 Lupo-Vespertian War. Preserved as a museum.

Other armaments include:
• 20× 5 inch/45 DP naval guns in two-gun turrets
• 56× 37 mm/60 autocannons in quadruple mounts
• 36× 20 mm/70 autocannons in single mounts

Complement is 2,500 men.

TRIVIA:

• The Tenjoinese considered replacing the Vespertian weapons with their own, but testing showed that the original Vespertian armaments were sufficient.
• The Alliance (Balefor)-class was an up-gunned and up-armoured version of this design that would sacrifice speed in favour of heavier armour and 18 inch guns, akin to the Yamato. It never came to be, as it was decided that battleships were becoming obsolete. (Despite this thought, they sent the Tenjoinese Navy two Rahandir-class battleships, as the top brass saw it fit that these two ships are a perfect fit for the Tenjoin-Grand Horde War.)
• There were two camps of secondary armament design when it came to this class: one which subscribed to a mix of 6 inch guns and 4 inch guns (like that of the Bismarck), and another which subscribed to 5-inch DP guns (like that of U.S. battleships). The latter camp won, hence, the Iowa clone.
• The HVMS Renai was basically the "Lucky Jervis" of Vespertian battleships. She had the most amount of decorations of any battleship during the 1106-1114 Lupo-Vespertian War, and made it without any damage or casualty, at least due to enemy action.
• During a naval battle involving a battleship duel, two Rahandirs, HVMS Rahandir and HVMS Renai duked it out against two Skolris-class battleships, their Lupan equal. The Rahandirs sunk their Lupan counterparts, although Rahandir was damaged to a level similar to that of the HMS Warspite during the Battle of Jutland. (Like the Warspite, Rahandir did make it back to port, although she would never see action again, eventually being scrapped.) Renai, on the other hand, took no damage.

NOTE: The AVU calendar starts in March, rather than in January. The scrapping of the Rahandir occured on February 1952, which corresponds to the last month of the 1119th year since the unification of Vespertia, hence, the "early" part.

[The Green Union]

Framing what the British did as "normal", and doing a quick summary of how other powers deviated from that...

The Germans favored a smaller main battery than British practice, believing the higher rate of fire of the smaller weapons would make up for the deficit in throw weight. German weapons also usually threw lighter shells at a higher velocity than British weapons of the same size. Although German ships outperformed British ships in gunnery during the war, I'd put that down to crew drill rather than German theory being superior.

With less weight devoted to the weapons, German ships carried heavier armor and better watertight subdivisions, although I wouldn't say they were more optimized for close range than the British at this time. German ships also carried heavier secondary batteries until about ~1911's new contruction, at which time the British jumped from 4" to match the German 6".

The Americans were ahead of the game in figuring out how to design ships so they could fire the upper turret in a superfiring arrangement without killing the crew of the lower turret, giving them an advantage in turret layout for their first few dreadnoughts (the United States Navy never built a BB wing turret); other, up through Texas they built pretty baseline ships.

Starting with Nevada, the Americans switched to the "All-or-Nothing" armor scheme, which eliminated medium thickness armor; the theory was that getting hit by medium size shells was now very unlikely, so the key parts (guns, engines, conning tower, enough bouancy that flooded ends couldn't sink the ship) of the ship should get the maximum possible armor while for the rest there were just be splinter protection and you'd hope it wasn't enough to set off a fuse. The British, Japanese, and French moved to this armor scheme after Jutland; the Germans never did. Armament and speed were initially the 10x14" main battery, 5" secondaries, 21 knots of Texas; the secondaries, speed, and armor basically stayed the same for the duration of WWI new contruction, while armament gradually increased to Colorado's 8x16".

The Japanese basically paralleled the Americans in terms of gun size, but placed emphasis on deck over belt armor and long-range gunnery training. The idea was that the US fleet was guaranteed to be larger, so Japan would focus on getting superiority at long range, build her ships enough faster to pick the range (generally IJN BBs managed 24 knots vice USN 21) and thusly offset the US material advantage. The Americans didn't believe that decisive results could be obtained at long range, given accuracy and ammo constraints, and instead optimized their ship for medium range where they believed decisive victory was possible.

You may move at a glacial pace, but I'll one up you with my tectonic speed.

Now that I understand better, the German small gun concept is looking mighty appealing, especially given the possibility to save weight which could be devoted to more armour. I will have to consult the original Placeoderms player on it, though, since they originally wrote the K2 with big guns and I don’t want to diverge too much from the source material if I can avoid it.

With that said, I suppose I could probably follow this with what I know about Placeodermsian military history at the time, and how I think it would have translated into a dreadnought:

The Placeodermsians were pursuing a defensive military policy, with no resources being allocated to protecting trade lanes or asserting naval dominance on the high seas. However, they remained concerned about the possibility of a far off power sending their own grand fleet to Placeoderms to try and strongarm the country into something, and so were planning a dreadnought which could outclass any similar ship she came up against. To do this, the ship would need to be larger, faster, and better armed and armoured than the competition, and would need to remain so for some years to come. This is, of course, pretty much what everyone was going for, though.

I think the key to what she would really look like lies in the fact that, since Placeoderms was pretty much exclusively interested in countering ships which may enter her own waters, this limits the list of enemies to long range open ocean fleets, which would have required larger devotions to crew provisions and housing, ammunition stores, fuel, etc.

I think I’ll be trying for these tentative statistics, and we can work from here.

Class Name: Kamooko-Class II
Displacement (standard): 38000 t (old stat)
Primary Armament (in inches): 380 mm
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches: 400 mm
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc): All-or-nothing
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc): (Honestly no idea)
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc): Coal
Speed in knots: 24.2 knots
Endurance in nautical miles: 2,000 at 10 knots
Year in service: 1910 – 1929 gun ship
Year last unit retired or sunk: Last gun ship retired 1929
Number of units: 3

I think this should be a decent start, though there is still some work to do. I don’t know what level of armour is actually reasonable for what is essentially an upsized coastal defence ship, and will probably try extrapolating from the Siegfried class to come up with a number. Similarly, I have no idea how to come up with a displacement which fits with all the armour and armament I’m mounting on the K2.

I also find myself unsure about the pros and cons of each type of propulsion system, and don’t know how to pick the correct one.

And lastly, some help with the year of retirement would be great. By the numbers I have, the last K2 configured a battleship was retired 1929, but one stayed in service as a reconfigured AA barge until being mothballed in the mid 1940s or so. However, that one was not actually finished off until being used to test nuclear weapons in, I believe, 1952. Which of these numbers should I use for that section?

As always, any thoughts or suggestions for tweaks would be massively appreciated.

[American Pere Housh]

Class Name:Alabama Class
Displacement (standard):60,000 tons
Primary Armament (in inches):3 triple turrets each barrel is 18"
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches:16"
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc):All or nothing
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc):Turbines
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc):Nuclear
Speed in knots:36 knots
Endurance in nautical miles:unlimited
Year in service:1990-present
Year last unit retired or sunk:N/A
Number of units:15
Cost per Ship:5,000,000,000 NSD

[Markev]

Did Russian battleships have any distinguishing design traits?

[Opplandia]

Class Name: Thunderstorm-class
Displacement (standard): 51613tn.l.
Primary Armament (in inches): 10x 15in/52
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches: 15in
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc): incremental
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc): turbines
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc): oil
Speed in knots: 29kn
Endurance in nautical miles: 15700 nmi at 15kn
Year in service: 1943
Year last unit retired or sunk: 1992 Thunderstorm struck from the reserve fleet´s ship-list
Number of units: 6

Stat block

Length: 869ft
Beam: 124ft
Draft: 33ft
Displacement: max. 62992tn.l.
Complement: 2300- 3000
Powerplant& Propulsion: 8 three-drum water-tube boilers, operating at 600 psi;
4 geared turbines, 4 4-bladed screws
Installed power: ~200.000shp
Arament:
Main: 10x 15in/52 guns, in two triple- and two twin-turrets (2 fore, 2 aft);
Secondary: 16x 5,9in/60, in 8 twin-turrets;
Anti-air: 24x 4,1in AA-guns;
20x 40mm AA-guns;
56x 20mm AA-guns

[Royaume de Alpes]

Class Name:Prince Royale
Displacement (standard):34,300
Primary Armament (in inches): 8x 13"(330mm) guns
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches:
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc): All-or-Nothing
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc): Turbines
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc): Oil
Speed in knots: 29.7 Kn
Endurance in nautical miles:6,850 Nautical miles at 15 Kn
Year in service: 1935-1954
Year last unit retired or sunk: 1954
Number of units:3 planned, 2 built

Class Name: Duc de Provence
Displacement (standard): 41,400 tons, 45,500 after 1954 refit
Primary Armament (in inches): 3x Triple 16"(406mm) guns
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches:12.9"
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc):All-or-Nothing
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc):Turbines, Turbo-Electric
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc): Oil
Speed in knots: 32 Kn
Endurance in nautical miles:9,500 Nautical miles at 15 Kn
Year in service: 1943-1949
Year last unit retired or sunk: 2006, Duc de Provence, Marseille retired into museaum ships. 1999, Albon decomissioned, scrapped 2007
Number of units:5

WIP

[Gylthas]

Class Name: Triumphant
Displacement (standard): 67,500
Primary Armament (in inches): 12× 16" naval rifles in three-gun mounts
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches: 8" to 16"
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc): All-or-Nothing
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc): Gas Turbine
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc): Oil
Speed in knots: 28 kts
Endurance in nautical miles: 15,000 nmi
Year in service: IY 1032 (1941)
Year last unit retired or sunk: One in ceremonial service today.
Number of units: 3
• HIGMS Triumphant
• GNS Victorious
• GNS Glorious

The Triumphant-class battleship is the last battleship class used by Gylthan naval forces. Equipped with twelve 16 inch guns and boasting an armour of 16 inches, it is comparable to the cancelled Montana-class of the Americans.

The HIGMS Triumphant is the ceremonial flagship of the Imperial Guard Naval Force. Originally an actual flagship, it became the ceremonial flagship at the behest of then Emperor Terence VII. Throughout its service lifespan, it was outfitted with amenities, until it resembled the battleship Yamato in terms of amenities.

[Petrovsky]

Class Name: Red Baron Class
Displacement (standard): 67,985 lbs
Primary Armament (in inches): Fourteen 18" Turrets
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches: 15 inches
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc): All-or-Nothing
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc): Turbo-electric
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc): Mixed; Solar and Oil
Speed in knots: 33 knots
Endurance in nautical miles: 100,000 at 33 knots
Year in service: 1995-now
Year last unit retired or sunk: N/A
Number of units: 190

[Karevka]

Class Name: Filitov IV
Displacement (standard): 33,500 tons
Primary Armament (in inches): x9 12-inch (30.5cm) guns
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches: 8-inches
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc): All-or-Nothing (thicc boi)
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc): x5 Turbines
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc): Oil-fired
Speed in knots: 30.5 Knots
Endurance in nautical miles: 6,000 nmi
Year in service: 1950
Year last unit retired or sunk: N/A
Number of units: 3

Write up in Progress

[Republica Federal de Catalunya]

The only Dreadnoughts of the Catalan navy were the two Jaume I class battleships. Following spanish plans of building a Class of dreadnoughts of the Alfonso XIII class. The Catalan navy ordered 2 dreadnoughts too to be built at the United Kingdom. As, our shipyards had no experience in building Such a size battleships. They were based on Colossus and Orion Class but received 13.5" guns in supersidding turrets.

Class Name: Jaume I
Displacement (standard):21000 tonnes Legnht 171m, beam 26m and draght 9m
Primary Armament (in inches):10x 13.5" 343mm
secundary: 16 × single 4-inch (102 mm) guns
3 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes.
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches: 11 inches
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc):
Belt: 8–11 in (203–279 mm)
Deck: 1.5–4 inches (38–102 mm)
Turrets: 11 in (280 mm)
Barbettes: 4–11 inches (102–279 mm)
Bulkheads: 4 and 8 in (102 and 203 mm)
Conning tower: 11 in (280 mm)
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc): steam turbines 27000hp. 4 shafts.
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc): Oil
Speed in knots: 21 knots max.
Endurance in nautical miles: 6000 at 12 knots
Year in service: 1915* 1926* 1935*-1941* they were impounded by the UK in 1914 with the start of WWI. After the entrance in war they were delivered.
Year last unit retired or sunk: 1941
Number of units: 2: Jaume I and Pere II

Complement: 791-850 as flagship (1916)

The ships were used in the Med in WWI in the Otranto Strait blockade and escorting convois bound from French north Africa to France and From Suez to Gibraltar. They also shelled Rifian positions in the 20s after rifians threatened Tangier.

Class Name: (Jaume I Class after refit) only mention if changed
Displacement (standard):
Primary Armament (in inches): 8x13.5" gun 16 4" i dual purpose turrets, 6" AA guns 8 pom poms 2 hidroplanes one catapult.
Maximum Armor Belt Thickness in inches:
Armor Layout (All-or-Nothing, Incremental, etc):
Powerplant Type (Turbines, Reciprocating, Expansion, Turbo-electric, Diesel, etc):
Power Source (Oil, Coal, Mixed, etc):
Speed in knots:
Endurance in nautical miles:
Year in service:1935-1941
Year last unit retired or sunk:1941
Number of units: 2

Complement 850 and 950 as fleet flagship.

Both Dreadnoughts were lost during WWII. The Admiralty considered them obsolete in the 20s and they considered them enough if the had to deal with the 2 surviving Alfonsos.
The Admiralty decided that was better getting 3 heavy cruisers instead of 2 new battleships only for prestige and swift to cruiser, destroyers and subs instead in the 30s, also tight budget after 1929 crack were a reason. If it had not been by Hitler ascendance to power, italian imperialism and the start of spanish civil war they would have been scrapped instead of modernized in the 30s. The unloaded turrets served as guns protecting Barcelona in Mongat and Castelldefels shore bateries.
The Ships had been used as depot untill they refit and training ships. They entered in service to 1935 and served in neutrality patrols during spanish civil war with training misions. In 1940 Jaume I was sunk in Winter 1940-1941 by Stukas while attempting to Bomb Wehrmatch columns while being towed to Gibraltar was finished by an uboat. Pere II already damaged by italian bombers was sunk by their escorts in 1941.