WesWorld

45 ft longer, bc of .6515. 2000 tons larger with 1.11 seakeeping.

No other improvements that I can figure offhand. For a modest increase in the seakeeping factor, I'm sacrificing the type 3 dock capability, making it more expensive, and noticably exceeding the 40k ton Cleito standard.

I also tried simming the 710ft version with 2 less 5.5" mounts, but savings weren't enough to get much more seakeeping or anything else.

I think I'm going to stick with the 710ft ship. It may not be a ride on the Oceanic but it'll get the job done.



HMCS Canada, Canadian Battleship laid down 1932

Displacement:
40,704 t light; 43,028 t standard; 45,534 t normal; 47,540 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
763.57 ft / 755.00 ft x 108.00 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
232.74 m / 230.12 m x 32.92 m x 9.14 m

Armament:
12 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4x3 guns), 1,938.00lbs / 879.06kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (10x2 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1932 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
64 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x8 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 25,050 lbs / 11,363 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 460.00 ft / 140.21 m 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.00" / 25 mm 460.00 ft / 140.21 m 28.00 ft / 8.53 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 7.00" / 178 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 5.50" / 140 mm, Conning tower: 6.00" / 152 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 112,243 shp / 83,733 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,512 tons

Complement:
1,558 - 2,026

Cost:
£19.105 million / $76.420 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,756 tons, 6.1 %
Armour: 15,992 tons, 35.1 %
- Belts: 5,838 tons, 12.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 477 tons, 1.0 %
- Armament: 2,873 tons, 6.3 %
- Armour Deck: 6,640 tons, 14.6 %
- Conning Tower: 165 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 3,313 tons, 7.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,443 tons, 40.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,831 tons, 10.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 0.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
66,117 lbs / 29,990 Kg = 39.2 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 8.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 7.5 ft / 2.3 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.76
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.11

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.652
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.99 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.76 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (75 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 23.20 ft / 7.07 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 86.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 175.5 %
Waterplane Area: 65,260 Square feet or 6,063 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 215 lbs/sq ft or 1,051 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.34
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

A formidable vessel with lots o guns ™, decent speed, and heavy armor.

As others have commented, the BC still a bit high, the US SoDak, a similar compact battleship has a SIM'd BC of 0.614. However, that's not an actual defect, more a design choice. That design choice probably has the opportunity cost of more machinery, higher fuel consumption and more deck area than a thinner and deeper deeper hull. While this helps keep your belt and TDS wieght down, you may be loosing more in the long run.

As for suvivability, seems ok to me as you’re about the same as my Heemskreck class once I adjusted for the difference in tonnage vs shell count. The # Torps is the same, possibly the thin TDS. I generally figure the hull volume % seems to have a strong bearing on survivability.

This does bring me to the first of two concerns- isn’t the torpedo bulkhead also on the thin side? I realize SS shows little variation once you have one, but it’s only 1”.

The other concern is regarding the barbettes. I don’t care for your main battery barbette thickness, at 7” you have the potential to loose a turret at virtually all ranges.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 7.00" / 178 mm

A barbarette that thin i vulnerable to 20cm guns at around 13km, and against everything larger at any distance.
Also the ship seems to have a fairly low survivability considering her size, but other have already raised that issue.
I know you said you restricted yourself to fitting her into a type 3 dry-dock, but that i think if false economy as the ships becomes inferior for her weight, short and thin, try giving her a beam of 36m and see what happens

the Survivability index seems to be based soley on the size of the ship; I get the same results even taking off all the armour.

My Barbette armour is the same thickness as the St. Vincents, but I can see about beefing it a bit. What would you guys consider adequate?

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
the Survivability index seems to be based soley on the size of the ship; I get the same results even taking off all the armour.

My Barbette armour is the same thickness as the St. Vincents, but I can see about beefing it a bit. What would you guys consider adequate?

Armour have noting to do with survivability, it is after all penetrating hits that is counted, armour only makes penetrations less likely, with the exception of the torpedo bulkhead, it´s thickness affects underwater survivability. As far as i know the most important thing in survivability is compartmentation (more volume to absorb damage) , draft (for some reason a shallower ship is more survivable then a deep one, all other things equal) and beam (the wider the better).
So if you increase the beam survivibility should go up significantly.

I would say at least 30cm for a battleship of this size, i would prefere someting between 35 and 38cm.

Also the survivability rating is listed as the number of hits needed to sink the ship, not including critical hits!
HMS Hood is a good example.

IIRC the survivability is indeed based on the size of the ship, the bigger the ship the more reserve boyancy it will have and thus more hits needed to sink.

Two suggestions, her CT armor is weak either raise it to 12" to keep out shells or down to 3" to allow shells to pass through without seting the fuse. Either way the CT crew will be injured either from blast concussion or spliters/debris so its really a case of weight distribution.

Her belt is high, not that thats nessassarily a bad thing but try a lower belt, 14-15 feet and see what happens. It might allow you to increase the TB to say 40mm (1.57") to improve torpedo survivability.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
the Survivability index seems to be based soley on the size of the ship; I get the same results even taking off all the armour.

My Barbette armour is the same thickness as the St. Vincents, but I can see about beefing it a bit. What would you guys consider adequate?

Barbettes- Usually I like use belt+1" for turret face, and belt-1" for barbettes. The former since they have large gunports making them less able to spread the deformation, the latter as they are curved. Further some designs thinned barbettes depending on surrounding structure or the side facing another barbette.

Survivability in SS is meant to sim those things Korpen says. However it's not strictly size dependent.
Take a CDS I'm tinkering with-
At 6,452 tons , 45.8% hull volume, she has
flotation of 15,457 and can take 3.4 torpedo hits

Stripping the armor belts to gain comp hull and then upping her engines from 18kts to 28.117 I get:
6,452 tons, 106.4% volume,
with a flotation of 6,586 and can take 1.2 torpedo hits.

Alternately, if I strip the armor belts but add fuel by upping cruise speed instead of engines...the range goes from 4500@12kts to 10,500@18kts
NOW I have the exact same hull, same engines, same weaponry, but
5,032 tons (standard like the rest), 45.8% hull volume, and
16,311 flotation, 3.5 torpedos.

Cute trick- drop tonnage, gain survivability.

So no, "survivability" is not strictly displacement linked

Latest update...lengthened a bit, armour adjusted with some of the suggestions given.


HMCS Canada, Canadian Battleship laid down 1932

Displacement:
40,319 t light; 42,635 t standard; 45,123 t normal; 47,113 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
725.64 ft / 720.00 ft x 108.00 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
221.18 m / 219.46 m x 32.92 m x 9.14 m

Armament:
12 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4x3 guns), 1,938.00lbs / 879.06kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (10x2 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1932 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
64 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x8 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 25,050 lbs / 11,363 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 460.00 ft / 140.21 m 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 98 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.50" / 38 mm 460.00 ft / 140.21 m 28.00 ft / 8.53 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 5.50" / 140 mm, Conning tower: 6.00" / 152 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 114,532 shp / 85,441 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,478 tons

Complement:
1,547 - 2,012

Cost:
£19.087 million / $76.348 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,756 tons, 6.1 %
Armour: 15,782 tons, 35.0 %
- Belts: 4,527 tons, 10.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 715 tons, 1.6 %
- Armament: 3,892 tons, 8.6 %
- Armour Deck: 6,484 tons, 14.4 %
- Conning Tower: 164 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 3,381 tons, 7.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,201 tons, 40.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,804 tons, 10.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 0.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
62,156 lbs / 28,194 Kg = 36.8 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 8.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 6.7 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 17.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.81
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.677
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.07 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (75 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 23.20 ft / 7.07 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 172.6 %
Waterplane Area: 63,728 Square feet or 5,920 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 219 lbs/sq ft or 1,067 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.40
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent






And here's a version with quads. Further improved armour, and 9000nm range.

HMCS Canada, Canadian Battleship laid down 1932

Displacement:
40,036 t light; 42,352 t standard; 45,123 t normal; 47,340 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
725.64 ft / 720.00 ft x 108.00 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
221.18 m / 219.46 m x 32.92 m x 9.14 m

Armament:
12 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3 mounts), 1,938.00lbs / 879.06kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 6 raised guns - superfiring
20 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (10x2 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1932 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
64 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x8 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 25,050 lbs / 11,363 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 470.00 ft / 143.26 m 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.50" / 38 mm 470.00 ft / 143.26 m 28.00 ft / 8.53 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 5.50" / 140 mm, Conning tower: 6.00" / 152 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 114,532 shp / 85,441 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,987 tons

Complement:
1,547 - 2,012

Cost:
£19.042 million / $76.168 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,756 tons, 6.1 %
Armour: 15,117 tons, 33.5 %
- Belts: 4,603 tons, 10.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 730 tons, 1.6 %
- Armament: 3,135 tons, 6.9 %
- Armour Deck: 6,484 tons, 14.4 %
- Conning Tower: 164 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 3,381 tons, 7.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,584 tons, 41.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,087 tons, 11.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 0.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
63,163 lbs / 28,650 Kg = 37.4 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 9.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 7.0 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 17.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.80
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.677
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.07 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (75 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 23.20 ft / 7.07 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 172.6 %
Waterplane Area: 63,728 Square feet or 5,920 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 223 lbs/sq ft or 1,090 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.47
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

I'm still not to fond of that 6" CT armor, it won't stop battleship caliber shells.

Other than that I like the second design better.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Armament:
12 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3 mounts), 1,938.00lbs / 879.06kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 6 raised guns - superfiring

You forgot to lower the number of raised guns, That will give you som more weight to raise freeboard

I doubt the 15" quads will fit on a 33m beam, Richelieu was pushing the limit with a 35m beam.

An old bump, but I got in a groove and tried adapting a different pic to represent the pair, since they're finally finished, and I wanted them to show more in common with the R&R modernizations...

The older graphic;


What I patched together today;

Aaaiiiieee! Thread necromancy!!!

Looks fairly similar. I think the bridge tower is a tad... tall, but other than that it looks shiny.

[SIZE=4]IT IS ALIVE!!! [/SIZE]

Why would somebody build two large funnels so close together on a modern ship? Wouldn´t a single funnel make much more sense?

Those turrets on the upper pic look sooooo small...

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Why would somebody build two large funnels so close together on a modern ship? Wouldn´t a single funnel make much more sense?

Those turrets on the upper pic look sooooo small...

Well, the first picture is basically something Gravina posted before he retired from running the UK; the main difference was that his original had twin 15", and I tried expanding the turrets to newer triple 15"...which didn't work out that well. So...I'm not entirely sure what the rationalé behind the stack arrangement was, but it was a unique enough look that I liked it. -shrug-

Here's a version with a single large stack, tho....


And the original Vanguard-y stacks;

I think there's somethign wrong with how the bow area is drawn in the black & white pictures: the bow isn't THAT much higher than the main deck, but in the drawings it looks like it's twice the height

The bow looks fine, if its H.M.S. Vanguard but its much higher than the orriginal drawing by Gravina.
Personally I like the bottom drawing, particularily the funnel layout.

The base picture I was working off of is HMS Vanguard, hence the high bow sheer. I can fix that up easily enough.

I'm not really a fan of the last pic; the midships space for the aircraft facilities is reduced, and there's dubious room for a proper hangar. The single large stack is kinda growin' on me tho...

Simple enough, make the aft superstructure more compact and move it, the floatplane deck inbetween it and the fore funnel aft. That might entail fiddling with the aft 40mm mount and directors but it looks doable.