They said the same thing about charcoal!
Paths of Civilization II: Paths of Industrialization
Screw propeller? Though that probably lies in mid 19th century ship design.
There are non-steam ironclads. The big ironclad VS ironclad battle in the US civil war had one side non-steam powered.
Both ships fired uselessly at one another until one hit a sandbank.
We put out the word that we will pay for Nohon hulls, we issue letters of marque, we flat out hire them as auxilliaries. We need to keep the Nohon economy down if we're going to win and commerce raiding is a huge part of that which doesn't necessarily need top of the line war ships. That lets us concentrate our actual navies against hard targets.
It should really be Higher Pressure Steam - we're already using high pressure steam by Watt's standards or we wouldn't have railway locomotives. OTL sea going, iron hulled steam ships existed since the 1820s. That's not the same as having the range* and speed while carrying the armour and guns that we'd need for a war ship of course. That will require the power and efficiency of higher pressure steam.
We already know that we want screw propellers rather than paddles so we should be developing the thrust bearings and grease bearings for the prop shaft now rather than waiting on the powerplant.
*Range can be supplemented by sail.
Its a problem in SEA yeah, the archipelago makes for a shitload of hidden ports for any pirates, especially in the straits of Malacca.
Hiring them on would be difficult, considering the distance and lack of prior friendly contact.
Cheap Steel and High Pressure Steam mainly
Noting many of those were riverine/coastal ironclad. Oceangoing war vessels are harder
Actually developing prototype steamships.
Question: if an ironclad goes pirate, can they keep going for a long while or will they run out of fuel too quickly to become effective pirates?
They would be, in the same way modern pirates would love to be sailing aircraft carriers.
Ironclads are too expensive build and to run to be useful as a pirate vessel. They are resource hogs.
No, Nations love them because 1 ironclad can more or less win 1 VS any number of timberclads and or go mono a mono Vs costal fortresses.
That's going to be unpleasant for the Trelli fortresses, isn't it?
There is a REASON in civ 6 that Ironclads can more or less facetank and take a costal city without support.
Ironclads are the cause of a funny period where armor tech surpasses weapon tech until someone invents explosive shells. IRONCLADS can't stop ironclads. Shooting at them was basically pointless.
The main thing with ironclads is they depended heavily on your economy. They can beat anything they run into, but force projection can get hard because of how costly they were
It goes from "don't even try" to "hard fight"
Mutually supporting star forts could field bigger guns than ironclads, but the ironclads can actually suppress/blockade them given enough quantity. But the demands of supply makes it expensive as hell
Still way easier to come overland.
Last edited:
Yeah, maybe. Without good steel cannons I am not sure we will be able to actually HURT an Ironclad.
Now, if breachloading rifles leads to a tech names "shells" we take it. Ironclads would then be in for a surprise
Now, if breachloading rifles leads to a tech names "shells" we take it. Ironclads would then be in for a surprise
Explosive shells would basically one-shot wooden hulls with impunity, wouldn't they?
Yeah. Also, you can pack in a lot of earth to soften the blow, pre-sight the guns, high ground and our ships can still retreat behind the straits for resupply. And no one forces us to put all guns in the fortress. Spread some bunkers with cannons around and it becomes a right nightmare to silence them all from the sea.
And Ironclads being resource hogs is actually great for us as we have the fuel and ore to produce them on a large scale. If anyone else tries to buy up that much steel, they just fund us as we can sell more steel and coal.
Heh, the Kielmyr would probably be ecstatic at the invention of steam driven ironclads as it creates a huge demand for their metals. Enough so that they'd consider giving the tech away.
- Location
- his hidden lair
Not really. The might of the British navy and far more sophisticated technology didn't make Gallipoli a total and collosal fuckup that by all rights should have torpedoed Churchill's career. And that was against the sick man of Europe all but uncontested on the seas.
Anyone who wants to force Trelli is placing a proverbial limb where it doesn't belong and screaming we don't have the guts. Any naval operation to force Trelli open and keep it open is going to look more like Operation Overlord in scope than anything more period appropriate.
On paper it might not seem like bad odds, that doesn't change the fact it's just pissing away lives and materials. Hell- Trelli's more vulnerable to a Not!Schlieffen plan through MAKUG or Not!Greece than anything approaching a naval assault. If 18 Battleships, obsolete or no- couldn't force the Dardenelles in 1915 I sure as hell am skeptical they can force Trelli with Ironclads.
Last edited:
Luckily we aren't far away from getting those improved cannon having picked rifling and breachloading as development targets. Rifling is important so we can use long tapering shot with the sectional density to penetrate. Note that penetration was an arms race between ever harder, stronger armour and ever harder, stronger, better shaped shot - plus weight vs weight of course.
Bursting charges were important because modern ships didn't generate storms of wooden splinters across open gun decks but they we even more effective at putting down wooden hulls fast. Again rifling lets you have a long round that packs more explosive for the same bore and have an impact fuse at the front.
Explosive shot for anti-personnel use is hardly new at this point, the shell surviving the armour and having power to do serious damage to the warship is.
edit:
Bursting charges were important because modern ships didn't generate storms of wooden splinters across open gun decks but they we even more effective at putting down wooden hulls fast. Again rifling lets you have a long round that packs more explosive for the same bore and have an impact fuse at the front.
Explosive shot for anti-personnel use is hardly new at this point, the shell surviving the armour and having power to do serious damage to the warship is.
edit:
We can put more, bigger, perfectly ranged in guns overlooking the the straight than anyone can put on a ship. Our fortification schemes everywhere have to be updated as technology changes but it's always been that way.
Last edited:
Ironically not so much. You can actually get overpenetration with some ammo-to-hull matchups.
Though the accuracy, range and rate of fire makes up for that anyway and they're going to be torn to bits with no save.
Last edited:
DocMatoi
Theoretical Lover of Girls
- Location
- within 2 hours of the White House
- Pronouns
- They/Them
clearly the answer to this is solid shot mortars. break the ship in half with one shot!
Thats the thing. Wooden hulls, barring a couple of major structural elements, are not really anything near a single piece to snap like that. The shot would go straight through
That and mortars are really inaccurate, especially during this era before mechanical fire directors.
Yeah. You need wood target specific contact fuses. You basically want your shell to go off at the instant of contact.
Matching shells to armor is a thing still until missiles and torps take over ship killing. Tiny ships beat big ships in ww2 when big ships only had ammo for killing big ships. The little ships looked like swiss cheese, but they sailed.
Matching shells to armor is a thing still until missiles and torps take over ship killing. Tiny ships beat big ships in ww2 when big ships only had ammo for killing big ships. The little ships looked like swiss cheese, but they sailed.
It's a pity that by the time aluminium is not merely discovered but a reasonable price, wooden hulls and round shot will no longer no longer be a thing. Otherwise imagine the effects of thermite shot. Like hot shot but stronger and you don't need a furnace running on your own ship during a battle.
I wonder if anyone ever tried fin stabilised shells fused for impact with the fold out fins so whatever the material of the target the shell goes off a couple of feet past the surface.
I wonder if anyone ever tried fin stabilised shells fused for impact with the fold out fins so whatever the material of the target the shell goes off a couple of feet past the surface.
DocMatoi
Theoretical Lover of Girls
- Location
- within 2 hours of the White House
- Pronouns
- They/Them
how about quicklime? aim for the waterline and you can set a ship burning with only a couple shots, if i understand it correctly
- Location
- madison
hmm, I wonder if we could buy meta light treated steel for making super cannons for our star forts. a few super high velocity cannons could be useful for killing iron clads.
Forcing the not!Dardanelles would be possible but very, very expensive, to the degree it's unlikely that anyone will be able to afford it before the nuclear age.
The British could have done it in WWI if the commanders had been more competent, but shore based gunnery had such an advantage for the decades beforehand that no one else could.
The British could have done it in WWI if the commanders had been more competent, but shore based gunnery had such an advantage for the decades beforehand that no one else could.
Last edited: