|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 1, 2016 13:25:14 GMT -6
Just for fun, here is my Springsharp proposed design of a 1935 Battleship named the DC. All guns are centerline, forward. Try comparing this information about weights with the data I provided in the previous post about the actual Scheme A USS North Carolina. It's close, I think.
DC, USA battleship laid down 1935
Displacement:
35,009 t light; 37,460 t standard; 42,757 t normal; 46,995 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(722.17 ft / 710.00 ft) x 102.00 ft x (36.00 / 38.87 ft)
(220.12 m / 216.41 m) x 31.09 m x (10.97 / 11.85 m)
Armament:
9 - 16.00" / 406 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,065.47lbs / 936.88kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
3 x Triple mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm 51.0 cal guns - 66.47lbs / 30.15kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1.97lbs / 0.89kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 19,145 lbs / 8,684 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.5" / 292 mm 461.50 ft / 140.67 m 12.12 ft / 3.69 m
Ends: 6.00" / 152 mm 248.48 ft / 75.74 m 12.12 ft / 3.69 m
Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 461.50 ft / 140.67 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 10.00 degrees (positive = in)
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 5.00" / 127 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
- Box over machinery:
4.50" / 114 mm
Forecastle: 4.50" / 114 mm Quarter deck: 4.50" / 114 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 14.00" / 356 mm, Aft 12.00" / 305 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 160,798 shp / 119,956 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 9,535 tons
Complement:
1,486 - 1,932
Cost:
£18.614 million / $74.456 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,193 tons, 7.5 %
- Guns: 3,193 tons, 7.5 %
Armour: 11,657 tons, 27.3 %
- Belts: 4,732 tons, 11.1 %
- Armament: 3,754 tons, 8.8 %
- Armour Deck: 2,486 tons, 5.8 %
- Conning Towers: 685 tons, 1.6 %
Machinery: 4,568 tons, 10.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,591 tons, 36.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,748 tons, 18.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
60,810 lbs / 27,583 Kg = 29.7 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 4.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 6.0 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 17.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 65 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.30
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.574 / 0.584
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.96 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.65 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.00 ft / 1.83 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 35.00 ft / 10.67 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Average freeboard: 30.40 ft / 9.27 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 198.8 %
Waterplane Area: 51,692 Square feet or 4,802 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 113 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 207 lbs/sq ft or 1,012 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 2.39
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Aug 1, 2016 18:59:06 GMT -6
Looks pretty close, although that appears to most resemble the "A1" design that was upgraded to feature 16-inch guns and armor sufficient to withstand the projected 16-inch super-heavy AP shells eventually used by the NC and later battleships. The original "A" design had 14-inch guns and equivalent armor. "A1" was the only one of the three original designs to come in under the treaty tonnage limits as a balanced design with 16-inch guns. In the end the Navy went with a modification of the K-XVI design proposal, which had a top speed of 27 knots, nine 16-inch guns, and armor capable of resisting 14-inch AP shells.
I can't tell from the Springsharp stats or the drawing what the secondary/AA armament on the "A1" design would be, but I only see four triple turrets for 5"/38-cal guns (12 total) versus the 10 twin turrets on the NC.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 1, 2016 20:10:57 GMT -6
Looks pretty close, although that appears to most resemble the "A1" design that was upgraded to feature 16-inch guns and armor sufficient to withstand the projected 16-inch super-heavy AP shells eventually used by the NC and later battleships. The original "A" design had 14-inch guns and equivalent armor. "A1" was the only one of the three original designs to come in under the treaty tonnage limits as a balanced design with 16-inch guns. In the end the Navy went with a modification of the K-XVI design proposal, which had a top speed of 27 knots, nine 16-inch guns, and armor capable of resisting 14-inch AP shells. I can't tell from the Springsharp stats or the drawing what the secondary/AA armament on the "A1" design would be, but I only see four triple turrets for 5"/38-cal guns (12 total) versus the 10 twin turrets on the NC. Well, I had to guess on the freeboard. It is close to the Scheme A. I have replaced the report with a new one that has secondary guns. Take a look. Note: I increased the draught to 36 feet. This allowed me to increase the speed to 30 knots. I added 5 inch guns and 40 mm Bofors. Bofors were first fired in 1931 so they would have been available for export to GB and the US.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 2, 2016 9:08:11 GMT -6
Ok, I've developed a Scheme B, if you will. It has nine 18 inch 48 caliber guns, length is now 750 feet with a beam of 110 feet. Speed is now 29 knots. Displacement is now 50,066 tons.
DC-1, USA battleship laid down 1935
Displacement: 40,882 t light; 44,220 t standard; 50,066 t normal; 54,742 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (762.17 ft / 750.00 ft) x 110.00 ft x (36.00 / 38.74 ft) (232.31 m / 228.60 m) x 33.53 m x (10.97 / 11.81 m)
Armament: 9 - 18.00" / 457 mm 48.0 cal guns - 3,054.05lbs / 1,385.30kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model 3 x Triple mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread 8 - 5.00" / 127 mm 51.0 cal guns - 66.47lbs / 30.15kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model 8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread 12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1.96lbs / 0.89kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model 6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread Weight of broadside 28,042 lbs / 12,720 kg
Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 11.5" / 292 mm 461.50 ft / 140.67 m 12.12 ft / 3.69 m Ends: 6.00" / 152 mm 248.48 ft / 75.74 m 12.12 ft / 3.69 m 40.02 ft / 12.20 m Unarmoured ends Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 461.50 ft / 140.67 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m Main Belt covers 95 % of normal length Main Belt inclined 10.00 degrees (positive = in)
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads: 4.00" / 102 mm 461.50 ft / 140.67 m 27.68 ft / 8.44 m Beam between torpedo bulkheads 110.00 ft / 33.53 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 12.0" / 305 mm 2nd: 5.00" / 127 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
- Box over machinery: 4.50" / 114 mm Forecastle: 4.50" / 114 mm Quarter deck: 4.50" / 114 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 14.00" / 356 mm, Aft 12.00" / 305 mm
Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 153,018 shp / 114,151 Kw = 29.00 kts Range 12,000nm at 18.00 kts Bunker at max displacement = 10,523 tons
Complement: 1,673 - 2,175
Cost: £24.589 million / $98.356 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 4,713 tons, 9.4 % - Guns: 4,713 tons, 9.4 % Armour: 14,239 tons, 28.4 % - Belts: 4,776 tons, 9.5 % - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,891 tons, 3.8 % - Armament: 4,313 tons, 8.6 % - Armour Deck: 2,498 tons, 5.0 % - Conning Towers: 761 tons, 1.5 % Machinery: 4,347 tons, 8.7 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,583 tons, 35.1 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 9,184 tons, 18.3 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 68,835 lbs / 31,223 Kg = 23.6 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 9.8 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.19 Metacentric height 8.0 ft / 2.4 m Roll period: 16.4 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 58 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.96 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.41
Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and a round stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.590 / 0.600 Length to Beam Ratio: 6.82 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 27.39 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 41 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees Stern overhang: 6.00 ft / 1.83 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 35.00 ft / 10.67 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m - Average freeboard: 30.40 ft / 9.27 m
Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 80.0 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 204.2 % Waterplane Area: 59,777 Square feet or 5,553 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 234 lbs/sq ft or 1,141 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.91 - Longitudinal: 2.25 - Overall: 1.00 Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space Excellent accommodation and workspace room Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Aug 3, 2016 6:44:32 GMT -6
Thank you both for the interesting discussion. To your knowledge, did any other navy except for France ever give serious consideration to the all-forward design? The Italian Navy studied a radical transformation of the cruiser Bolzano, with the aim of catapult-launching a number of aircraft, which would then land at some land base. You may find some images of a model based on this design on the site: www.betasom.it/forum/index.php?showtopic=41389She is a kind of "all-forward" design of a particular type.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 3, 2016 7:20:54 GMT -6
I found a drawing of the proposed Bolzano Heavy Cruiser. Also, of the actual Battleship Ise which along with her sister Hyuga, were converted to carry aircraft. Trying to move those aircraft all the way to the stern would really slow down launches. I don't see any real advantage of this. Nihon Kaigun site states that the ISE design was never effective, and it might have been better to leave them available for the Solomon Islands. They speculate about how they would have faired with Kirishima against Washington and South Dakota. I agree that the two ships might have been better used. Hybrid designs were never very successful. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Aug 3, 2016 9:56:41 GMT -6
How much time would be necessary to get all those 12 fighters of Bolzano airborne, in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 3, 2016 11:34:58 GMT -6
Thanks you for finding that both of you. Twelve aircraft seems like a waste for that much displacement. I always thought aircraft was very much a numbers game in WW2. Since Air-to-ground and air-to-ship accuracy wasn't great, if you couldn't put enough of them over a target simultaneously to saturate the air defenses you were just wasting airframes and killing aircrew. If that cruiser was for defensive purposes then it's a little better but it's still a one-shot deal. Better, although probably more difficult, to develop an effective solution for coordinating land-based air cover over your fleet and keeping that tonnage as a conventional cruiser. But that's with hindsight and not having to account for the politics.
Shifting gears a little, I have a tactical question for the all forward design now as well. Could you take a chance on building this design if you weren't in a position to be assured of numerical superiority or at least firepower superiority? The British could expect to always have the numerical advantage in home waters and so would probably never be in a position of having to retreat from superior firepower. This design is at a major disadvantage if it has to retreat no? But what if they were to fight the Japanese in the mid 30's. Let's say the Washington treaty never happens and the world's navies actually get to build something like what they were planning, economics notwithstanding, would they be able to send their entire battlefleet or at least enough of it to Asia to expect to never be in a position to have to retreat from a battle? Or what if an Anglo-American trade war developed and escalated in the mid-to-late 20's, as improbable as it would be? Wouldn't the tactical disadvantage of an all-forward design have significant impacts on your strategic deployments and if and when you chose to fight since you had to be able to ensure the firepower advantage no matter what or risk any retreat in an individual battle turning into a disaster?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 3, 2016 12:10:57 GMT -6
How much time would be necessary to get all those 12 fighters of Bolzano airborne, in your opinion? The Balzano concept might be useful for the protection of convoys and ASW, except where do the planes go after completion of the mission. Well, the convoys for supply to North Africa started in Naples and unloaded at Bizerte which means they could have flown to Sicily or flown ahead and landed at Bizerte or possibly Benghazi. You could launch two to four aircraft configured with depth charges for ASW, then launch four for CAP over the convoy. The other four might be configured as attack or maybe two are hanger queens with two as backup for problems with the others. The first two launched won't take but five minutes, but after that, you have to reset the launch bridle, insert two new charges then lift the birds onto the catapult and attach the bridle. This might take 10 minutes to complete this action then launch two more. You won't launch two at the same time, you have to give the first one time to lift off and break away. You also have to be careful of prop wash so you have to wait about a minute. I am looking at 17 minutes to get off four aircraft. After that initial launch, 12 minutes for another two, so maybe one hour to launch all twelve aircraft and as I stated above, I don't think you would do that everytime. One problem for this ship is all the avgas in the birds on deck. Since they aren't coming back, you really don't have to refuel them, which make things simpler but they are exposed to the weather so they will have to be covered and maintained. Also, the storage on deck of all that powder, whether black or something else is quite dangerous. One bomb and poof, there goes the stern.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 3, 2016 13:58:05 GMT -6
...... Shifting gears a little, I have a tactical question for the all forward design now as well. Could you take a chance on building this design if you weren't in a position to be assured of numerical superiority or at least firepower superiority? The British could expect to always have the numerical advantage in home waters and so would probably never be in a position of having to retreat from superior firepower. This design is at a major disadvantage if it has to retreat no? But what if they were to fight the Japanese in the mid 30's. Let's say the Washington treaty never happens and the world's navies actually get to build something like what they were planning, economics notwithstanding, would they be able to send their entire battlefleet or at least enough of it to Asia to expect to never be in a position to have to retreat from a battle? Or what if an Anglo-American trade war developed and escalated in the mid-to-late 20's, as improbable as it would be? Wouldn't the tactical disadvantage of an all-forward design have significant impacts on your strategic deployments and if and when you chose to fight since you had to be able to ensure the firepower advantage no matter what or risk any retreat in an individual battle turning into a disaster? I don't think your military power status in the world is going to make that much difference. It makes no difference whether you are in a numerical superiority or not, you can't predict what fleet or portion of the fleet will be in contact with the enemy and what his numerical strength will be. If you have to do a full turn away for torpedoes, you would have to comb the torpedoes by sailing directly at your opponent, which tactically may not be the best choice. A retreat from battle may make the best sense, depending on the objectives of the operation and tactical necessity.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 3, 2016 14:17:39 GMT -6
Excellent point. So tactically, the design has several drawbacks just as a gunship not even getting into things like AAA placement and sky arcs that you mentioned in a previous post. So the weight savings for the same level of protection would have to be pretty significant to make the tactical disadvantages worth it. Just speculation but a possible reason (one of several, not necessarily the most important one) for going back to a more conventional design for KGV and Lion/Vanguard?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 3, 2016 15:01:21 GMT -6
Excellent point. So tactically, the design has several drawbacks just as a gunship not even getting into things like AAA placement and sky arcs that you mentioned in a previous post. So the weight savings for the same level of protection would have to be pretty significant to make the tactical disadvantages worth it. Just speculation but a possible reason (one of several, not necessarily the most important one) for going back to a more conventional design for KGV and Lion/Vanguard? There were other technical reasons for returning to the conventional turret and machinery designs, even the French after the Richelieu were returning to the conventional design because the concept of aircraft handling on such ships was not practical and with the development of fleet and light carriers, the spotting aircraft on there ships were not entirely necessary. All militaries are, by their very nature, conservative and don't make major changes in their design philosophy without some adequate evidence of its usefulness.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 10, 2016 21:38:33 GMT -6
The Bolzano conversion might be more effective for scouting - no fleet ever has enough scouts and the Italian Navy, with an independent airforce, was particularly blind.
I'd offer a slightly different cut on the 'all-forward' design. If your concern is for maximum gunpower and armor on limited displacement, then 'all-forward' has a lot to recommend it. But if you have more efficient engines, or better weight controls, or a higher displacement cap, then going with a more conventional layout trumps the modest tonnage savings of 'all-forward'.
The original G and N designs had late teens-early twenties weight control and lower pressure, less-efficient engines. Nelson and Rodney's design and construction were marked by close attention to weight controls (and engines sharply limited in size and power). So I think that if Nelson and Rodney had been built in 1932 instead of 1922, they would have looked like Duke of York or Lion instead of being cut-down G/N ships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 11, 2016 8:05:26 GMT -6
The Bolzano conversion might be more effective for scouting - no fleet ever has enough scouts and the Italian Navy, with an independent airforce, was particularly blind. I'd offer a slightly different cut on the 'all-forward' design. If your concern is for maximum gunpower and armor on limited displacement, then 'all-forward' has a lot to recommend it. But if you have more efficient engines, or better weight controls, or a higher displacement cap, then going with a more conventional layout trumps the modest tonnage savings of 'all-forward'. The original G and N designs had late teens-early twenties weight control and lower pressure, less-efficient engines. Nelson and Rodney's design and construction were marked by close attention to weight controls (and engines sharply limited in size and power). So I think that if Nelson and Rodney had been built in 1932 instead of 1922, they would have looked like Duke of York or Lion instead of being cut-down G/N ships. Nelson and Rodney- The O3 designs- assumed importance during the Washington Naval Conference for the reasons we expect; lower weight due to all forward guns. They had the capability required for future combat at sea, but as naval warfare changed, meaning aircraft carriers and submarines, the building of dreadnoughts was supplanted by those new technologies. As far as the Italian fleet and its need for scouts, Italy's geographic position was a great advantage especially with the placement of reconnaissance aircraft on Sicily. This is what Mussolini had decided; to let the Regia Aeronautica perform air cover missions for the Regia Marina. Unfortunately, the Regia Aeronautica was never up to the task being a weak and ineffective force. This caused the loss of three battles and the sinking of Italian warships. So, yes, scouting was important and either carriers and/or land based reconnaissance aircraft were vital.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 11, 2016 10:19:11 GMT -6
I want to recommend a book to you. It's titled "The Battleship Builders: Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships" by Ian Johnston and Ian Buxton. It is an excellent book on the dockyards, shipbuilding companies and the whole story about its history.
If you read this book, you will find out as I did that the limitations on capital ships was more due lack of space to extend the docks for the length and beam of the newer capital ships. Along with would be crane capability to lift the heavier and larger beams into place. The problem on the Thames and at Portsmouth along with Devonport was simply the lack of physical space. The game uses tonnage which simply equates to the number ships, but I am not certain that that is the correct parameter. For the British at least, it was length and beam. At Devonport it was the lack of basins available to finish the construction of the ship. One of the reasons that the Nelson and Rodney were built, is because the Portsmouth or Devonport docks were just capable of building these ships.
I am not going to inject this information into the dock discussion in Rule the Waves, but it might be useful. I haven't found any information on the Germans except in "The Arms of Krupp" and "The Wages of Destruction".
|
|