|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 1, 2020 19:25:41 GMT -6
Here are some limitations that the German designers had to work through.
Shallow draft harbors - 30.89 feet
beam curves in the Kiel Canal -118.11 feet
Draft was limited by the tidal locks of the Jade River across from Wilhelmshaven.
I had a feeling that the harbors and the Kiel limited their designs. However, they did not have to build the ship with that wide a beam or that low of a freeboard.
Many nations had or have limitations on their ship designs or where they could build the ships due to physical features. You know about Germany. The UK had a problem with the Thames as London expanded, there was no room to expand the Royal Shipyard berths or docks so ship building moved to the Clyde in Scotland which caused problems of supply and technical expertise. We had a problem because ships had to be limited to less than 100 feet in beam due to the Panama Canal. I am certain France, Italy, Japan and Russia especially, had their own.
|
|
|
Post by director on Dec 2, 2020 12:41:48 GMT -6
Interesting quote- I always wondered why the designers of Bismarck didn't go with a longer, thinner, and more elegant Hood-style hull shape. Hood's hull-form was dictated by the need for extreme high speed: 30+ knots. With 1919 propulsion technology this could be achieved most easily on a long, thin hull. In Bismarck's case, propulsion technology had advanced to permit a less-severe hullform while her designers needed both internal volume and a wide beam for protection. Boilers in particular had advanced tremendously - Hood's 24 boilers would have been replaced in refit by something like 8, with large savings in space and weight and possibly additional power. The problem with a long thin hull is that it limits the volume of stuff that can be put inside and a slim beam can be a serious limitation on stability, especially so if damage admits water into the ship. Given that Bismarck was intended to cruise for long distances, and given her multitude of gun systems and the demand for high speed and resistance to damage, her designers needed the room. Bismarck's oval hull form is more likely due to the same factor as her turtle-back armor scheme - two decades of inexperience in designing and building large warships. If you compare, the oval or football-shaped hull is almost exactly the same as the US 'Standard' battleships, which mostly date from the late teens and early twenties. King George V and Littorio use the oval form while US battleships from North Carolina through Iowa, and the Yamato class, have a tapering bow and full - almost square - mid and after sections, but even KGV and Littorio are somewhat fuller in the aft section than a true oval. US designers were fighting the beam limitation of the Panama Canal, the draft limitations of harbors, the better-handling characteristics of a short hull and the need to have at least some point on the front of the box... but they did have good, reliable very-high-pressure propulsion plants, which gave them a lot of horsepower in a smaller, lighter-weight package... hence the look of North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa. Research into hull forms had shown that a tapering aft section was not as necessary as previously thought... and guns, ammo, crew, stores, armor and engines all need volume. Bismarck and Tirpitz were, in many ways, experimental ships designed and built by near-novices, and any later designs (had there been any) would have incorporated the lessons learned.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 3, 2020 9:29:13 GMT -6
Interesting quote- I always wondered why the designers of Bismarck didn't go with a longer, thinner, and more elegant Hood-style hull shape. Hood's hull-form was dictated by the need for extreme high speed: 30+ knots. With 1919 propulsion technology this could be achieved most easily on a long, thin hull. In Bismarck's case, propulsion technology had advanced to permit a less-severe hullform while her designers needed both internal volume and a wide beam for protection. Boilers in particular had advanced tremendously - Hood's 24 boilers would have been replaced in refit by something like 8, with large savings in space and weight and possibly additional power. The problem with a long thin hull is that it limits the volume of stuff that can be put inside and a slim beam can be a serious limitation on stability, especially so if damage admits water into the ship. Given that Bismarck was intended to cruise for long distances, and given her multitude of gun systems and the demand for high speed and resistance to damage, her designers needed the room. Bismarck's oval hull form is more likely due to the same factor as her turtle-back armor scheme - two decades of inexperience in designing and building large warships. If you compare, the oval or football-shaped hull is almost exactly the same as the US 'Standard' battleships, which mostly date from the late teens and early twenties. King George V and Littorio use the oval form while US battleships from North Carolina through Iowa, and the Yamato class, have a tapering bow and full - almost square - mid and after sections, but even KGV and Littorio are somewhat fuller in the aft section than a true oval. US designers were fighting the beam limitation of the Panama Canal, the draft limitations of harbors, the better-handling characteristics of a short hull and the need to have at least some point on the front of the box... but they did have good, reliable very-high-pressure propulsion plants, which gave them a lot of horsepower in a smaller, lighter-weight package... hence the look of North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa. Research into hull forms had shown that a tapering aft section was not as necessary as previously thought... and guns, ammo, crew, stores, armor and engines all need volume. Bismarck and Tirpitz were, in many ways, experimental ships designed and built by near-novices, and any later designs (had there been any) would have incorporated the lessons learned. Director: As a favor, can you provide some sources, I liked what you said. I have many sources but I would like to get more. I am not calling into question what you said, I just want to get better educated. Thanks in advance
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2020 10:46:47 GMT -6
I don't know if this is already a thing or just somewhere else but... Why not just admire these magnificent titanic constructions of your own and others just because why not. Also legitimate question what qualifies as such in this game? View AttachmentPhew, 9in deck armor... Nukeee droooop!!! What? What do you mean it bounced off?!!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 3, 2020 10:53:12 GMT -6
I don't know if this is already a thing or just somewhere else but... Why not just admire these magnificent titanic constructions of your own and others just because why not. Also legitimate question what qualifies as such in this game? View AttachmentPhew, 9in deck armor... Nukeee droooop!!! What? What do you mean it bounced off?!! Yamato class had 9.1 inches, Iowa's had 6 inches and Vittorio Veneto had 8.1 inches. So, what he was doing is not exactly rare.
|
|
|
Post by novatopaz on Dec 3, 2020 11:33:32 GMT -6
Seeing as this thread is slightly off the beaten path now, here's a sketch design for a BB I'm considering on a save I have as GB. Haven't actually prepped the design or built it because frankly it's outrageous to be building something like this in 1932 when the biggest thing the AI has built is in the 40,000 ton range, if that. And being at war with multiple people while trying to keep my colonial empire in check has been a pain so I stopped playing it for a bit. But this is a design I could build on the save if I wanted. Attachments:
|
|
spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Dec 3, 2020 11:39:33 GMT -6
Seeing as this thread is slightly off the beaten path now, here's a sketch design for a BB I'm considering on a save I have as GB. Haven't actually prepped the design or built it because frankly it's outrageous to be building something like this in 1932 when the biggest thing the AI has built is in the 40,000 ton range, if that. And being at war with multiple people while trying to keep my colonial empire in check has been a pain so I stopped playing it for a bit. But this is a design I could build on the save if I wanted. Nice design- I would personally use 18 in main guns and many more 8in secondaries at most, but it seems adequately armored- one future-proofing thing you might need is to make the speed at least 28 kts to counter further enemy speed increases.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 3, 2020 18:17:26 GMT -6
One of the problems with four gun turrets besides having to increase the beam to compensate for them and increased structural weight is that with the 12 guns in four turrets, one hit on one turret now reduces your firepower by thirty percent in one shot. If every turret contains the same number of guns, that's strictly a function of the number of turrets; it does not matter whether losing a turret costs you one of three, two of six, three of nine, or four of twelve guns, you are losing a third of your nominal firepower when you lose one of three turrets. Dropping the number of guns per turret without increasing the number of turrets will not change anything insofar as resilience against battle damage goes.
Also, if we're talking about reality, a turret hit is probably more likely to occur on a ship with a large number of small turrets than on a ship with a small number of large turrets given that both ships carry the same number of guns, so there's a trade-off between the likelihood of losing a turret and the degree to which losing a turret hurts the ship.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 3, 2020 18:56:44 GMT -6
One of the problems with four gun turrets besides having to increase the beam to compensate for them and increased structural weight is that with the 12 guns in four turrets, one hit on one turret now reduces your firepower by thirty percent in one shot. If every turret contains the same number of guns, that's strictly a function of the number of turrets; it does not matter whether losing a turret costs you one of three, two of six, three of nine, or four of twelve guns, you are losing a third of your nominal firepower when you lose one of three turrets. Dropping the number of guns per turret without increasing the number of turrets will not change anything insofar as resilience against battle damage goes.
Also, if we're talking about reality, a turret hit is probably more likely to occur on a ship with a large number of small turrets than on a ship with a small number of large turrets given that both ships carry the same number of guns, so there's a trade-off between the likelihood of losing a turret and the degree to which losing a turret hurts the ship.
The information about four gun turrets comes from D. K. Brown's books. The British researched this type of action and decided that it was too dangerous to lose one turret. I tend to agree with them. I believe that less guns and more turrets gives you a better chance plus, four gun turrets expands the beam and this affects many other variable especially length to beam which is important for speed. It also increases the structural stress requiring heavier bulkheads and longitudinal beams. All this increases cost plus, actual tests show that the four guns turrets can't fire as fast as the two or three gun turrets. In point of fact, the problem with this discussion not the facts. The issue is whether the game can duplicate the issues involved with the four gun or three gun turrets. I have no idea so maybe a four gun turret is better IN THE GAME. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 4, 2020 11:31:00 GMT -6
The information about four gun turrets comes from D. K. Brown's books. The British researched this type of action and decided that it was too dangerous to lose one turret. I suspect that you are not entirely correct in your recollection of that information. Most likely, the British were evaluating battery configurations for a fixed number of guns when they chose to reject quad turrets whereas you seem to be suggesting that the only thing that matters is the number of guns in the turret. There is no significant difference between twin, triple, and quad turrets in resilience to the loss of one turret when you have a fixed number of turrets; losing one of three twin turrets is neither better nor worse than losing one of three quad turrets, in terms of percentage of nominal firepower lost. There is however a significant difference between twin, triple, and quad turrets in the resilience to the loss of one turret when you have a fixed number of guns; say you have 12 guns in the battery, then your options are six twin, four triple, or three quad turrets, so losing one quad turret costs you a third of the battery whereas losing one twin turret costs only a sixth of it.
It is however worth noting that the difference between three turrets and four turrets is not that significant and that the British were historically willing to use both three- and four-turret battery configurations, so if I had to guess I'd say that the battery whose configurations were being evaluated was probably an 8- or 9-gun battery, where you'd have four twin, three triple, or two quad turrets, with the 2x4 configuration being rejected for putting too many eggs into one basket.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 4, 2020 13:40:18 GMT -6
The information about four gun turrets comes from D. K. Brown's books. The British researched this type of action and decided that it was too dangerous to lose one turret. I suspect that you are not entirely correct in your recollection of that information. Most likely, the British were evaluating battery configurations for a fixed number of guns when they chose to reject quad turrets whereas you seem to be suggesting that the only thing that matters is the number of guns in the turret. There is no significant difference between twin, triple, and quad turrets in resilience to the loss of one turret when you have a fixed number of turrets; losing one of three twin turrets is neither better nor worse than losing one of three quad turrets, in terms of percentage of nominal firepower lost. There is however a significant difference between twin, triple, and quad turrets in the resilience to the loss of one turret when you have a fixed number of guns; say you have 12 guns in the battery, then your options are six twin, four triple, or three quad turrets, so losing one quad turret costs you a third of the battery whereas losing one twin turret costs only a sixth of it.
It is however worth noting that the difference between three turrets and four turrets is not that significant and that the British were historically willing to use both three- and four-turret battery configurations, so if I had to guess I'd say that the battery whose configurations were being evaluated was probably an 8- or 9-gun battery, where you'd have four twin, three triple, or two quad turrets, with the 2x4 configuration being rejected for putting too many eggs into one basket.
"Their weight was based on estimates made in 1919 for such a turret. Adopting quadruple turrets would shorten the ship’s citadel and thus would reduce displacement from 34,000 to 32,800 tons. Otherwise the ship would be similar to 14TLA. " Friedman, Norman. The British Battleship 1906-1946 (p. 483). Seaforth Publishing. Kindle Edition. Anyway that is the quote and its page number.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2020 10:23:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 5, 2020 13:11:44 GMT -6
"Their weight was based on estimates made in 1919 for such a turret. Adopting quadruple turrets would shorten the ship’s citadel and thus would reduce displacement from 34,000 to 32,800 tons. Otherwise the ship would be similar to 14TLA. " Friedman, Norman. The British Battleship 1906-1946 (p. 483). Seaforth Publishing. Kindle Edition. Anyway that is the quote and its page number. I believe you misunderstood - I was not replying to you about the weight costs for the turrets of a King George V-style battleship, I was replying to you regarding the supposed danger of quad turrets.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2020 13:23:47 GMT -6
"Their weight was based on estimates made in 1919 for such a turret. Adopting quadruple turrets would shorten the ship’s citadel and thus would reduce displacement from 34,000 to 32,800 tons. Otherwise the ship would be similar to 14TLA. " Friedman, Norman. The British Battleship 1906-1946 (p. 483). Seaforth Publishing. Kindle Edition. Anyway that is the quote and its page number. I believe you misunderstood - I was not replying to you about the weight costs for the turrets of a King George V-style battleship, I was replying to you regarding the supposed danger of quad turrets. Okay, sorry. But the idea of firepower loss was taken into consideration and I have a couple quotes in my books about the concern British designers had about this. KGV class ships had two quad turrets and one dual. If they lost a quad turret, they would lose about 40% of their firepower. If it was the aft turret, they now were vulnerable aft. When designing ships, possible losses due to damage is as vital as firepower, speed etc. Survivability is important.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 5, 2020 14:33:29 GMT -6
I believe you misunderstood - I was not replying to you about the weight costs for the turrets of a King George V-style battleship, I was replying to you regarding the supposed danger of quad turrets. I tend to favor triple and quad turrets, but to be a bit of a devil's advocate, I'll note that Prince of Wales was forced to withdraw at Denmark Strait due to difficulties with her quad turrets.
|
|