|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 15, 2015 13:27:02 GMT -6
Here is the final version of my 20,000t battlecruiser. I have return to first version with new guns position and normal deck armor Interesting design features. Doesn't two gun turrets simplify targeting, fittings and equipment? What's your reasoning behind single gun turrets?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 13:55:37 GMT -6
In talking to some survivors of PH, the Arizona had a small black powder magazine between #1 and #2 turret. The bomb struck some oil stored between those turrets, ignited it, this touched off the black powder which ignited the forward 14" magazine. This information was gathered from photographic evidence and diver information. There was no procedural problems, just peacetime operations. When the war started, all flammable material was removed, like wooden furniture.
This is off topic but interesting.
I am rather impressed with US standard battleships. They seem to boast decent torpedo defense, a heavy dose of 12 x 14inch guns, good turret armor, solid top protection and all/nothing armor scheme even before Jutland. I reckon the 12inch belt in poor weather battles and slow-ish speed is bit of a downside but the merits seem to outweight them. Even the RN admits that their ships are behind tech wise post ww1 hence the 1920s yamato-ish design of G/N3
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 15, 2015 14:19:01 GMT -6
In talking to some survivors of PH, the Arizona had a small black powder magazine between #1 and #2 turret. The bomb struck some oil stored between those turrets, ignited it, this touched off the black powder which ignited the forward 14" magazine. This information was gathered from photographic evidence and diver information. There was no procedural problems, just peacetime operations. When the war started, all flammable material was removed, like wooden furniture.
This is off topic but interesting.
I am rather impressed with US standard battleships. They seem to boast decent torpedo defense, a heavy dose of 12 x 14inch guns, good turret armor, solid top protection and all/nothing armor scheme even before Jutland. I reckon the 12inch belt in poor weather battles and slow-ish speed is bit of a downside but the merits seem to outweight them. Even the RN admits that their ships are behind tech wise post ww1 hence the 1920s yamato-ish design of G/N3 Actually, our battleships were tough nuts to crack as evidenced by the fact that out of eight battleships, only two were lost and only one of those to a bomb. The bomb was, in fact, a 16 inch armor piercing shell, carved out with more explosive put in it, and with a tail assembly attached.
The model used in the US Naval War College testing assessed the life of a battleship to be about eighteen 14 inch shells. The bomb used by the Japanese was estimated to be about 1.08 times the size of a 14 inch shell. It was determined that it could penetrate 5.91 inch of armor if dropped from 8200 feet. It gets complicated after that about hit percentages using both the deterministic model or the stochastic. It isn't relevant in this discussion. The magazines of our battleships were estimated to occupy about 23% of the cross-section and each level bomber had about a 4% chance of hitting one. The speed of those old battleships was a hindrance and that is why the North Carolina's and South Dakotas were being built. They were the fast battleships with higher length to beam ratios, and bigger engines. As an aside, the Lexington's had one of the highest length to beam ratios in the fleet, in fact the LtoB for the Iowa's was derived from the Lexington's. They were the fastest ships. Saratoga held the speed record from San Diego to Hawaii until the Nimitz broke it.
Might be interesting to use Designship and build an equivalent Lexington class ship with that length to beam.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 15, 2015 14:32:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by gornik on May 15, 2015 15:32:15 GMT -6
Here is the final version of my 20,000t battlecruiser. I have return to first version with new guns position and normal deck armor What a wonderful design, Alex! Bravo! Seem your ships may dominate any fleet in comparable numbers. Hope your Great Britain will never be my enemy as my good old LeviaFun looks outdated now
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 17:54:57 GMT -6
oh bloody hell. Thor the Großes Torpedoboot shall give your paper capitals a run for their money! (yes tis a joke...)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 15, 2015 18:51:42 GMT -6
oh bloody hell. Thor the Großes Torpedoboot shall give your paper capitals a run for their money! (yes tis a joke...)
Question: How are you going to fit a turbine system that generates 158,400 HP, in that small ship, fit the oil bunkers necessary for extreme range plus the crew and ammunition. Just asking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 22:09:52 GMT -6
oldpop2000, The Force, of course.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 15, 2015 22:15:11 GMT -6
oldpop2000, The Force, of course. Ah! This is fantasy. Ok I get it. Because the largest German destroyer topped out at about 2500 tons. Your equipment is three times the weight of that ship. No problem, fantasy it is.
|
|
gato
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gato on May 16, 2015 0:58:45 GMT -6
Thanks! Exellent!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 1:09:28 GMT -6
OK this is based on the SAI. Probably many will change in RTW but just for sport of it. Objective: build a 1920 end date, competitive BB, without Washington treaty and all those historical limitations. Requirements: 50k ton or less; 8+ 16inch main guns; 26kts+; all/nothing armor scheme; an immunity zone of 15 - 22k yards against rival 16inch gun; good torpedo defense; good anti destroyer secondaries; long range+ for colonial duty; My biggest assumptions here are what I read off SAI data. This is vpen.dat and hpen.dat From what I can tell horizontal axis is range, vertical axis is caliber, numbers are penetration values in mm. I have no idea what "30p" stands for? This is Gundata.dat Easier with this. Caliber, shell weight, rate of fire, max range. Max range at least corroborates with what I see in-game. From these data the 16inch gun has a max range of 26k yards (or meters, but doesn't matter), has a penetration of 187mm (7.4inch) at 15k yards against vertical armor (belt), a penetration of 48mm (1.9inch) at 22k yards against horizontal armor (deck). But something is wrong. The penetration numbers are too low, obviously. Without being able to see the code (hey I'm not Fredrik!!!!) I apply a 1.8 coefficient for the penetration values. This is purely a guess. What ends up is a 13.3in belt pen and a 3.4in deck pen which seems reasonable enough. To prevent destroyed turrets and even worse flash fires I armor the turrets more heavily, 16in fronts and 4.5 inch tops. I'd like to make turret face 18inch, as via in-game testing even 16in face gets penetrated by 15in guns, probably due to penetration values randomized to some extent by the game engine, but designship limits it to 16inch so I digress. The conning tower I have never seen it gets hit via the game damage logs. The "critical hit*bridge destroyed!" messages does not denote a "CT" appendix like "B" or "D" hits so no idea what effect it has, but I leave it at 16in same as turret. The secondaries armor is set to 3in, which is to prevent 6inch penetrations at 10k yards or less by the same calculation used on B and D armor above. Strictly speaking A/N armor scheme doesn't use it but hits on secondaries in-game does have a good chance to cause fires. I dunno how this would change when RTW implements A/N armor. Torpedo defense is set with early TPS. With in-game experience 1 torp hit on early TPS equates to about 6 heavy caliber hits damage wise with good crew and damage control, so the ship could withstand 3 to 5 torps without sinking and gives it a good survival chance. Main guns. I would like to set it as 12 x 16 like South Dakota, but that would exceed displacement limit and I had to settle with 9 x 16. Secondaries are in turrets. I seem to remember RTW screenies showing waves effecting casemate guns. Torps are for night self defense. Sometimes they do hit other BBs in night battles tho! They're not submerged, otherwise they'll cause flooding when hit, via in-game experience and apparently historical as well. All in all I end up with a 50,000 ton, 26kts, 9 x 16in dinosaur!
|
|
|
Post by alex on May 16, 2015 3:55:49 GMT -6
nice calculation. However if coefficient equal 2.0 (not 1.8) you need more than 48*2.0/25 = 3.8 inches deck to protect against 16 inches shells at 22k yards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 4:05:44 GMT -6
alex it is 48*1.8/25.4=3.40 so round it up to 3/3.5/4 whatever or thereabouts. The game engine seems to randomize the penetrations quite a bit anyway and more importantly, the numbers, like the linear 1.8 or 2.0 "coefficient" are all hypothetical so... edit: ok i see what u mean.
Would love to know how the numbers really work within the game from the developer, after the RTW release. It would really help us in designing the ships.
|
|
|
Post by alex on May 16, 2015 5:13:27 GMT -6
The cruisers hunter: about 10k tonns, 30 konts to operate with my BC, protection against 6in at 8k yards, firepower superiority
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 16, 2015 8:05:01 GMT -6
Here is a link to Nathan Okun's Naval Gun/Armor Data Resource Page. It contains articles with formulas on Armor penetration and properties of Armor Plate.
www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.htm
If you follow the page down, Okun provides the runtime system and the programs for face hardened and homogenous armor penetration along with tables for each nations weapons.
I hope this is useful to you in your discussion.
UPDATE: The programs he provides are dos based programs. I use the Windows 7 Professional Window XP mode and load them into a single directory. They are not windows programs. It might be better create a spreadsheet and make the data set yourself.
|
|