WesWorld

Well, just interested in some more feedback, it is a design i posted over at the warships1 forum.
I am aware of the problem with quad turrets, but as the design was limited to 35k ton strict,
i considered the weight savings worth it.
Firepower is good, protection is excellent (her belt should stop her own shells as 17k yards),
and speed is at least equal to other capital ships.
I used the French 38cm gun, but the ship is intended for the US.


Peace&Love III, USA Battleship laid down 1936

Displacement:
33 300 t light; 35 000 t standard; 37 793 t normal; 40 027 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
704,32 ft / 690,29 ft x 103,35 ft x 31,50 ft (normal load)
214,68 m / 210,40 m x 31,50 m x 9,60 m

Armament:
8 - 14,96" / 380 mm guns (2x4 guns), 1 948,89lbs / 884,00kg shells, 1936 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
16 - 5,00" / 127 mm guns (8x2 guns), 55,12lbs / 25,00kg shells, 1936 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
4 - 5,00" / 127 mm guns (2x2 guns), 55,12lbs / 25,00kg shells, 1936 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1936 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 16 740 lbs / 7 593 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15,4" / 390 mm 446,52 ft / 136,10 m 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,57" / 40 mm 446,52 ft / 136,10 m 30,35 ft / 9,25 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15,9" / 405 mm 7,87" / 200 mm 13,4" / 340 mm
2nd: 1,97" / 50 mm 0,98" / 25 mm 1,97" / 50 mm
3rd: 1,97" / 50 mm 0,98" / 25 mm 1,97" / 50 mm
4th: 0,98" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5,52" / 140 mm, Conning tower: 11,81" / 300 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 133 605 shp / 99 670 Kw = 29,00 kts
Range 12 000nm at 14,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5 028 tons

Complement:
1 354 - 1 761

Cost:
£17,046 million / $68,184 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 836 tons, 4,9 %
Armour: 13 339 tons, 35,3 %
- Belts: 4 900 tons, 13,0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 790 tons, 2,1 %
- Armament: 2 087 tons, 5,5 %
- Armour Deck: 5 276 tons, 14,0 %
- Conning Tower: 287 tons, 0,8 %
Machinery: 3 749 tons, 9,9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14 246 tons, 37,7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4 493 tons, 11,9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 130 tons, 0,3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
55 958 lbs / 25 382 Kg = 33,4 x 15,0 " / 380 mm shells or 8,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,24
Metacentric height 7,7 ft / 2,4 m
Roll period: 15,6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,51
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,10

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0,589
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,68 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26,27 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29,53 ft / 9,00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22,97 ft / 7,00 m (22,31 ft / 6,80 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 22,31 ft / 6,80 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 22,31 ft / 6,80 m
- Stern: 22,31 ft / 6,80 m
- Average freeboard: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 86,7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 162,0 %
Waterplane Area: 51 628 Square feet or 4 796 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 197 lbs/sq ft or 960 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,94
- Longitudinal: 1,69
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Quoted

I am aware of the problem with quad turrets

Yes, and the biggest one is me! :-)
No plans for a floatplane on the design?

Peace&Love... sounds like an Admiral Hippie Class to me. :-)

"Damn Hippies!" ~unknown Admiral after being flanked by the new American battleline.

Just a note: An American Battleship wouldn't be designed on metrics.

Other than that it might be interesting.

Quoted

Just a note: An American Battleship wouldn't be designed on metrics.

It's not designed on metrics. It just looks that way. :-)

Interesting...now i just need to build a 15" gun!

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
Just a note: An American Battleship wouldn't be designed on metrics.

Well, the opposite seem much more common in wesworld, that is ships belonging to countries that have never used imperial measurements (Nordmark & the Netherlands to name two) having ships designed in imperial. So it obviously does not matter.

Quoted

Originally posted by CanisD
Interesting...now i just need to build a 15" gun!

Go ahead, what's stopping you?

Primarily political considerations, plus the general belief that the US 14" gun is comparable in performance to most 15" guns. The US had a 16" gun already developed, but the Harding administrations decision to accept the 15" limit prevented it from going to sea. Now that it looks like the treaty may be on its last legs, there's not much incentive to go and develop a new gun.

No Mark 6 / Mark 7s?

Well, the Mk3 16"/50 was the version blocked by the treaty. It actually was the gun intended for the Iowas, but there was a screw-up in the design and they had to make the Mk7 as an emergency solution, and it turned out to be superior with the 2700 lbs shell. I think the Mk6 45 cal was designed primarily because it weighed less than the 50 cal, though I'm not sure. I know it supposedly had excellent deck penetration, superior to even the Mk7. So, if there's no treaty limiting sizes, the Mk3 will be considered perfectly suitable. As for 18" designs, the Navy was never too keen on guns that big from what I've read so the US will probably stick with the Mk3, with the Mk7 becoming a modernized version entering service sometime in the early 1940's under a different designation. If the treaty is somehow renewed, US ships will probably upgrade to the 14" MkB which was intended for the North Carolina. There's always the possibility of using a foreign 15" gun, since several nations that the US has good relations with use them. There would be political hurdles, but if the guns were built in the US that would quite many critics.

Quoted

Originally posted by CanisD
Well, the Mk3 16"/50 was the version blocked by the treaty. It actually was the gun intended for the Iowas, but there was a screw-up in the design and they had to make the Mk7 as an emergency solution, and it turned out to be superior with the 2700 lbs shell. I think the Mk6 45 cal was designed primarily because it weighed less than the 50 cal, though I'm not sure. I know it supposedly had excellent deck penetration, superior to even the Mk7. So, if there's no treaty limiting sizes, the Mk3 will be considered perfectly suitable. As for 18" designs, the Navy was never too keen on guns that big from what I've read so the US will probably stick with the Mk3, with the Mk7 becoming a modernized version entering service sometime in the early 1940's under a different designation. If the treaty is somehow renewed, US ships will probably upgrade to the 14" MkB which was intended for the North Carolina. There's always the possibility of using a foreign 15" gun, since several nations that the US has good relations with use them. There would be political hurdles, but if the guns were built in the US that would quite many critics.

I dont see much point in a 16" gun over a 38cm gun, true it has better deck penetration, but most battleships here in wesworld has decks at least 125mm thick, somethick even the 2700 shell will only penetrate at over 24km, at the very limit of practical range.
And when it comes to vertical penetration it has no advantage over a powerfull 15" gun.

For the deck armour layout I'd go the other way round with 25mm deck then 130mm below. The 25mm deck will decap projectiles before they impact the deck armour and initiate the fuzes on bombs. Speaking of decapping plates, 40mm will only work against soft-nosed shells. Increase it to about 70-80mm and extend it upwards to the weather deck bounded by 25mm plate.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
For the deck armour layout I'd go the other way round with 25mm deck then 130mm below. The 25mm deck will decap projectiles before they impact the deck armour and initiate the fuzes on bombs. Speaking of decapping plates, 40mm will only work against soft-nosed shells. Increase it to about 70-80mm and extend it upwards to the weather deck bounded by 25mm plate.

Agreed that a high deck is better against bombs, but it is not much point in decapping shells as the caps have only limited use against deck armour, the difference in penetration between a capped and a uncapped shell is only around 4% against deck armour.
70mm is overkill for a decapping plate, anything smaller then a 45cm shell will most likely be decapped by a 4-5cm decapping plate.

With a 406mm shell;

49mm - 50% chance of type 1 shell being decapped
63mm - 100% chance of type 1 shell being decapped, 50% on type 2
69mm - all types decapped

Type 1= hard cap
Type 2=stronger fixed hard cap, not very common

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
With a 406mm shell;

49mm - 50% chance of type 1 shell being decapped
63mm - 100% chance of type 1 shell being decapped, 50% on type 2
69mm - all types decapped

Type 1= hard cap
Type 2=stronger fixed hard cap, not very common

Most of the Type 2 shells were historically Krupp products, which is why the new Bismarck class ships have a 70mm decapping plate. After testing with Germany's standard projectiles, the thickness relative to bore size needed for decapping was set, so the German ship has a stronger decapping plate than will be needed against most opponents. But, not having access to too many foreign shell designs, we're going by what we know.

Strange that Bismarck's designers rejected a decapping plate historically isn't it?

Not really considering the arrangement they actually went with was better for their needs.