|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 2, 2021 13:31:22 GMT -6
Ok, I figured it out. The difference was in the length of the main and secondary muzzle loading guns, the length was less. The height of the armor was not from the water line to the main deck, it was half or about 8.8 feet. Now the weight under normal load is only one pound off.... not bad.
Vitse-Admiral Popov, Imperial Russia Monitor laid down 1876 Barbette ship Central citadel ship
Displacement: 3,367 t light; 3,568 t standard; 3,657 t normal; 3,728 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (126.90 ft / 126.90 ft) x 117.70 ft x (19.00 / 19.26 ft) (38.68 m / 38.68 m) x 35.87 m x (5.79 / 5.87 m)
Armament: 2 - 12.00" / 305 mm 40.0 cal guns - 736.00lbs / 333.84kg shells, 150 per gun Muzzle loading guns in open barbette mounts, 1876 Model 2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread 4 - 3.40" / 86.4 mm 15.0 cal guns - 15.47lbs / 7.02kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1876 Model 4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread Weight of broadside 1,534 lbs / 696 kg
Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 126.00 ft / 38.40 m 8.80 ft / 2.68 m Ends: Unarmoured Main Belt covers 153 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: - - 16.0" / 406 mm
- Protected deck - single deck: For and Aft decks: 2.75" / 70 mm Forecastle: 2.75" / 70 mm Quarter deck: 2.75" / 70 mm
Machinery: Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines, Direct drive, 6 shafts, 625 ihp / 467 Kw = 8.50 kts Range 620nm at 8.50 kts Bunker at max displacement = 160 tons (100% coal)
Complement: 234 - 305
Cost: £0.224 million / $0.894 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 226 tons, 6.2 % - Guns: 226 tons, 6.2 % Armour: 1,625 tons, 44.4 % - Belts: 759 tons, 20.8 % - Armament: 377 tons, 10.3 % - Armour Deck: 489 tons, 13.4 % Machinery: 137 tons, 3.8 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,379 tons, 37.7 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 290 tons, 7.9 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 12,873 lbs / 5,839 Kg = 18.9 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 5.0 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 2.96 Metacentric height 31.4 ft / 9.6 m Roll period: 8.8 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.02 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00
Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and a round stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.451 / 0.454 Length to Beam Ratio: 1.08 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 11.26 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Average freeboard: 12.30 ft / 3.75 m Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 37.0 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 95.5 % Waterplane Area: 9,535 Square feet or 886 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 134 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 143 lbs/sq ft or 699 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.74 - Longitudinal: 15.32 - Overall: 1.00 Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space Adequate accommodation and workspace room Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 2, 2021 16:58:21 GMT -6
Ok, the Soviet Union has decided to build an updated Admiral Popov and here it is.
Vitse-Admiral Popov, Imperial Russia Monitor laid down 1920
Displacement: 3,109 t light; 3,332 t standard; 3,365 t normal; 3,391 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (126.90 ft / 126.90 ft) x 117.70 ft x (19.00 / 19.10 ft) (38.68 m / 38.68 m) x 35.87 m x (5.79 / 5.82 m)
Armament: 2 - 12.00" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 871.37lbs / 395.24kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model 2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread 4 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.27lbs / 14.64kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model 4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread Weight of broadside 1,872 lbs / 849 kg
Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 126.00 ft / 38.40 m 8.80 ft / 2.68 m Ends: Unarmoured Main Belt covers 153 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 6.00" / 152 mm - 16.0" / 406 mm
- Armoured deck - single deck: For and Aft decks: 2.75" / 70 mm Forecastle: 2.75" / 70 mm Quarter deck: 2.75" / 70 mm
Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 986 shp / 736 Kw = 10.00 kts Range 700nm at 8.50 kts Bunker at max displacement = 59 tons
Complement: 220 - 287
Cost: £0.668 million / $2.671 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 330 tons, 9.8 % - Guns: 330 tons, 9.8 % Armour: 1,525 tons, 45.3 % - Belts: 751 tons, 22.3 % - Armament: 298 tons, 8.9 % - Armour Deck: 476 tons, 14.1 % Machinery: 34 tons, 1.0 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,220 tons, 36.3 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 256 tons, 7.6 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 10,288 lbs / 4,666 Kg = 11.9 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.5 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 2.51 Metacentric height 25.7 ft / 7.8 m Roll period: 9.8 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 86 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.03 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.66
Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and a round stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.415 / 0.416 Length to Beam Ratio: 1.08 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 11.26 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Average freeboard: 12.30 ft / 3.75 m Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 51.0 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 98.8 % Waterplane Area: 9,280 Square feet or 862 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 105 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 133 lbs/sq ft or 650 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.73 - Longitudinal: 18.52 - Overall: 1.00 Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space Adequate accommodation and workspace room Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 2, 2021 17:40:26 GMT -6
I've research a comparison of wrought iron armor to nickel steel armor for historical accuracy, if possible. Here is the Admiral Popov 2 with those changes. In other words, they would have built the ship with nickel steel armor and this would change things.
Vitse-Admiral Popov, Imperial Russia Monitor laid down 1920
Displacement: 2,841 t light; 3,059 t standard; 3,089 t normal; 3,113 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (126.90 ft / 126.90 ft) x 117.70 ft x (19.00 / 19.09 ft) (38.68 m / 38.68 m) x 35.87 m x (5.79 / 5.82 m)
Armament: 2 - 12.00" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 871.38lbs / 395.25kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model 2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread 4 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.28lbs / 14.64kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model 4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread Weight of broadside 1,872 lbs / 849 kg
Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 13.4" / 341 mm 126.00 ft / 38.40 m 8.80 ft / 2.68 m Ends: Unarmoured Main Belt covers 153 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 5.04" / 128 mm - 13.4" / 341 mm
- Armoured deck - single deck: For and Aft decks: 2.35" / 60 mm Forecastle: 2.35" / 60 mm Quarter deck: 2.35" / 60 mm
Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 910 shp / 679 Kw = 10.00 kts Range 700nm at 8.50 kts Bunker at max displacement = 54 tons
Complement: 206 - 269
Cost: £0.645 million / $2.579 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 330 tons, 10.7 % - Guns: 330 tons, 10.7 % Armour: 1,274 tons, 41.2 % - Belts: 625 tons, 20.2 % - Armament: 250 tons, 8.1 % - Armour Deck: 398 tons, 12.9 % Machinery: 32 tons, 1.0 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,206 tons, 39.0 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 248 tons, 8.0 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 9,042 lbs / 4,102 Kg = 10.5 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.2 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 2.52 Metacentric height 25.8 ft / 7.9 m Roll period: 9.7 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 91 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.03 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.75
Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and a round stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.381 / 0.382 Length to Beam Ratio: 1.08 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 11.26 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 61 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m, 12.30 ft / 3.75 m - Average freeboard: 12.30 ft / 3.75 m Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 55.1 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 103.2 % Waterplane Area: 9,078 Square feet or 843 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 105 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 136 lbs/sq ft or 664 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.72 - Longitudinal: 19.83 - Overall: 1.00 Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space Adequate accommodation and workspace room Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
Note: this thickness is equivalent to the wrought iron and better is resistance.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 3, 2021 10:47:49 GMT -6
Just some interesting information about designing round warships. Now, I don't know if this is valid, I haven't examined by ship construction books yet, but when I tried to build a round warship of 680 feet by say 580, the ship ended up at 106,000 tons. A bit much for a coastal patrol and harbor gun platform. If the length is 680 and beam is 580 with a 15 foot draught, the ship starts at 92,966. I can reduce the draught but then I have a problem outside along the coast with patrolling. ...still working this issue.
Update: I did some checking and I designed this round (well almost round) ship. I call her a Coastal and Harbor Monitor. Ominous name....
HMS Loch Ness, Great Britain Coastal and Harbor Monitor laid down 1920
Displacement:
58,176 t light; 59,680 t standard; 60,153 t normal; 60,531 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(600.00 ft / 600.00 ft) x 540.00 ft x (18.00 / 18.07 ft)
(182.88 m / 182.88 m) x 164.59 m x (5.49 / 5.51 m)
Armament:
4 - 12.00" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 871.37lbs / 395.24kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.27lbs / 14.64kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model
4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,615 lbs / 1,640 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 390.00 ft / 118.87 m 27.89 ft / 8.50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm - 6.00" / 152 mm
- Protected deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 3.00" / 76 mm Quarter deck: 3.00" / 76 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 5,780 ihp / 4,312 Kw = 10.00 kts
Range 600nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 851 tons
Complement:
1,919 - 2,496
Cost:
£5.709 million / $22.835 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 640 tons, 1.1 %
- Guns: 640 tons, 1.1 %
Armour: 17,455 tons, 29.0 %
- Belts: 6,151 tons, 10.2 %
- Armament: 418 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 10,887 tons, 18.1 %
Machinery: 339 tons, 0.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 39,742 tons, 66.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,977 tons, 3.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,486,653 lbs / 1,127,927 Kg = 2,878.1 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 342.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 4.50
Metacentric height 501.6 ft / 152.9 m
Roll period: 10.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 76 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.29
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.361 / 0.362
Length to Beam Ratio: 1.11 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 14 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Average freeboard: 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 8.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 521.5 %
Waterplane Area: 194,581 Square feet or 18,077 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 283 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 247 lbs/sq ft or 1,207 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.88
- Longitudinal: 3.17
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 3, 2021 19:51:02 GMT -6
I had another idea about round warships. If they are primarily Harbor, coastal and river ships, do we really believe that the enemy would risk an expensive battleship in those locations. Nope, I answered to myself. So here is another round warship, apply named, that should be to handle light cruisers, destroyers, MTB's and submarine.
USS Monitor, USA Harbor, River Monitor laid down 1920
Displacement: 3,142 t light; 3,281 t standard; 3,297 t normal; 3,310 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (179.00 ft / 179.00 ft) x 179.00 ft x (10.50 / 10.52 ft) (54.56 m / 54.56 m) x 54.56 m x (3.20 / 3.21 m)
Armament: 8 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.92lbs / 49.41kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model 8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread 4 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model 2 x Single mounts on centreline, aft deck forward 2 x Single mounts on centreline, forward deck aft 2 double raised mounts Weight of broadside 874 lbs / 396 kg Main DC/AS Mortars 4 - 100.00 lbs / 45.36 kg Depth Charges + 2 reloads - 0.268 t total in Stern depth charge racks
Armour: - Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks: For and Aft decks: 2.00" / 51 mm Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 20.00" / 508 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 1.00" / 25 mm, Aft 1.00" / 25 mm
Machinery: Oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 407 ihp / 304 Kw = 8.00 kts Range 0nm at 4.00 kts Bunker at max displacement = 30 tons
Complement: 216 - 282
Cost: £0.366 million / $1.463 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 131 tons, 4.0 % - Guns: 131 tons, 4.0 % - Weapons: 0 tons, 0.0 % Armour: 1,360 tons, 41.3 % - Armament: 23 tons, 0.7 % - Armour Deck: 1,328 tons, 40.3 % - Conning Towers: 10 tons, 0.3 % Machinery: 24 tons, 0.7 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,627 tons, 49.3 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 155 tons, 4.7 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 66,697 lbs / 30,253 Kg = 617.6 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 22.3 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 4.03 Metacentric height 84.4 ft / 25.7 m Roll period: 8.2 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00
Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and a round stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.343 / 0.344 Length to Beam Ratio: 1.00 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 13.38 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 32 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 14.70 ft / 4.48 m, 14.70 ft / 4.48 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 14.70 ft / 4.48 m, 14.70 ft / 4.48 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 14.70 ft / 4.48 m, 14.70 ft / 4.48 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 14.70 ft / 4.48 m, 14.70 ft / 4.48 m - Average freeboard: 14.70 ft / 4.48 m Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 17.0 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 247.2 % Waterplane Area: 19,067 Square feet or 1,771 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 183 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 99 lbs/sq ft or 485 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.78 - Longitudinal: 8.73 - Overall: 1.00 Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space Excellent accommodation and workspace room Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 4, 2021 17:51:02 GMT -6
Well, I think I've reached the end of this thread. We have no way of testing the designs but history does tell us that they were not successful. Speed is probably the reason and maneuverability which I would have to research. So, it was fun to finally figure out how to build a round warship, if they are accurate.
By now.
|
|
|
Post by wa1971 on May 9, 2022 21:19:32 GMT -6
Really interesting post. I’ve always had a “ thing “ for circular warships since I saw a sketch of Novogorod, years ago. Thankyou No problem, I have a "thing" for designing ships. I just wish I could draw them... can't. Give me some ideas for round warships you might like to see. I welcome them. You meant a round hull , literally , not a radically rounded hull , I'm sure.
But I know absolutely zero about ship design , so I'll float the suggestion of an "improved " or " better " C.S.S. Manassas anyway .
I like odd duck ships , and the Manassas is one of my favorites.
There is the added factor that I cannot help thinking , " It SHOULD HAVE worked ! "
Maybe it would have worked if the Confederacy had anything more than fourth rate engines , they didn't , more than third rate industrial capacity , they didn't , and anything more than the most primitive ship building capacity , they didn't.
But I likewise cannot help thinking it should have worked right up until WW I .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 10, 2022 7:27:04 GMT -6
No problem, I have a "thing" for designing ships. I just wish I could draw them... can't. Give me some ideas for round warships you might like to see. I welcome them. You meant a round hull , literally , not a radically rounded hull , I'm sure.
But I know absolutely zero about ship design , so I'll float the suggestion of an "improved " or " better " C.S.S. Manassas anyway .
I like odd duck ships , and the Manassas is one of my favorites.
There is the added factor that I cannot help thinking , " It SHOULD HAVE worked ! "
Maybe it would have worked if the Confederacy had anything more than fourth rate engines , they didn't , more than third rate industrial capacity , they didn't , and anything more than the most primitive ship building capacity , they didn't.
But I likewise cannot help thinking it should have worked right up until WW I .
The Manassas design was really a riverine craft, not a real warship. It was designed for the Mississippi and other rivers in the Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by wa1971 on May 10, 2022 20:02:21 GMT -6
Yes , I was thinking in terms of Brown Water Navy , rather than Blue Water Navy. Again , I'm lost when it comes to ship design , but my guess would be that even if it were hypothetically perfectly seaworthy , the combination of a steam engine in an enclosed , almost certainly cramped , space would make a trip of any considerable distance nightmarish. --- Grrr , again I suppose you are thinking ocean - going warships. But it seems to me if a Navy had money to throw away on pork barrel , a round hulled hospital or prison ship would be cool. You could sorta justify it with the rationalization , " It's the Navy , so we wants our stuff ON THE WATER ! " --- I don't know if you are familiar with this weapon , or if it would even be included in a list of conventional ships armaments ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotchkiss_gunwww.youtube.com/watch?v=cQEs6i4fwLABut if you are going to go all the way back to the 1870's , I thought I would give it a mention for future reference. I always pretend my ships are equipped with these. I suppose by Jutland they are dated , but never the less there isn't a boat in my German High Seas fleet that doesn't carry these .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 10, 2022 20:15:28 GMT -6
Yes , I was thinking in terms of Brown Water Navy , rather than Blue Water Navy. Again , I'm lost when it comes to ship design , but my guess would be that even if it were hypothetically perfectly seaworthy , the combination of a steam engine in an enclosed , almost certainly cramped , space would make a trip of any considerable distance nightmarish. --- Grrr , again I suppose you are thinking ocean - going warships. But it seems to me if a Navy had money to throw away on pork barrel , a round hulled hospital or prison ship would be cool. You could sorta justify it with the rationalization , " It's the Navy , so we wants our stuff ON THE WATER ! " --- I don't know if you are familiar with this weapon , or if it would even be included in a list of conventional ships armaments ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotchkiss_gunwww.youtube.com/watch?v=cQEs6i4fwLABut if you are going to go all the way back to the 1870's , I thought I would give it a mention for future reference. I always pretend my ships are equipped with these. I suppose by Jutland they are dated , but never the less there isn't a boat in my German High Seas fleet that doesn't carry these . Download this piece of software and learn how to design warships. www.springsharp.com/I can help you with a good website. dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/. Also, I will give you some Naval architecture references. books written in the 1900's, and later that explain naval architecture. Brown water or riverine ships generally have low freeboards. Freeboard is easy to compute: Square root of the length times 1..0. Later it was determine that it was 1.3 times the square root of the length. Thanks for the references, I will read and watch them tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by wa1971 on May 11, 2022 17:53:04 GMT -6
Thanks , and I do appreciate the effort and the sentiment. But I don't know if I will get to any of that in the foreseeable future . With the arrival of warm weather , my gardening / landscaping chores are almost more than one person can handle . I live in Appalachia , but given just how quickly grass , briars , and vines grow here , you would think it was the Amazon Jungle. The place looks gorgeous --- FOR ABOUT TWO DAYS --- after everything has been mowed , weed - whacked , and hand - weeded . Then there is RJW - SAI , which I just bought , and the associated research , which will no doubt prove to be a 2,000 + hour time sink. Tack on to that Church activities , correspondence , and already existing art projects. --- I thought it was an interesting thread. Actually I wanted to plow into four other threads , but forebore because three of them were your threads . You might think I was stalking you. James F. Dunnigan once said that in - depth historical war games are a boutique market , and it would appear that Naval war games are a niche within a boutique market . Which I suppose means one doesn't have to post much in such a forum in order to appear superficially like an obsessive. :}
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 11, 2022 19:16:29 GMT -6
Thanks , and I do appreciate the effort and the sentiment. But I don't know if I will get to any of that in the foreseeable future . With the arrival of warm weather , my gardening / landscaping chores are almost more than one person can handle . I live in Appalachia , but given just how quickly grass , briars , and vines grow here , you would think it was the Amazon Jungle. The place looks gorgeous --- FOR ABOUT TWO DAYS --- after everything has been mowed , weed - whacked , and hand - weeded . Then there is RJW - SAI , which I just bought , and the associated research , which will no doubt prove to be a 2,000 + hour time sink. Tack on to that Church activities , correspondence , and already existing art projects. --- I thought it was an interesting thread. Actually I wanted to plow into four other threads , but forebore because three of them were your threads . You might think I was stalking you. James F. Dunnigan once said that in - depth historical war games are a boutique market , and it would appear that Naval war games are a niche within a boutique market . Which I suppose means one doesn't have to post much in such a forum in order to appear superficially like an obsessive. :} No problem, I understand. My wife and I are both retired and have almost all day. The information is here and maybe someday you will have time to use it.
|
|