Treaty battleship designs

Italian Stallion

Tuesday, June 3rd 2003, 6:22pm

part 3 chap a Article VI allows countries to lay down 2 new Battleships in replacement of pre-1911 ships. Here is a design i have been tossing around for some time. Faster than any other Battleship and with good firepower and excellent protection.

Sicilia, Italian Battleship laid down 1923

Displacement:
37,371 t light; 39,431 t standard; 43,012 t normal; 45,705 t full load
Loading submergence 1,588 tons/feet

Dimensions:
768.00 ft x 108.00 ft x 33.00 ft (normal load)
234.09 m x 32.92 m x 10.06 m

Armament:
8 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 2 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
Aft turrets separated by engine room
16 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (8 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
32 - 1.57" / 40 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 14,406 lbs / 6,534 kg

Armour:
Belt 16.00" / 406 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 78 % of normal area
Main turrets 15.00" / 381 mm, 2nd turrets 2.00" / 51 mm
AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 7.20" / 183 mm, Conning tower 3.00" / 76 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 118,125 shp / 88,121 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 5,400nm at 20.00 kts

Complement:
1,493 - 1,941

Cost:
£9.813 million / $39.253 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,801 tons, 4.2 %
Armour: 16,676 tons, 38.8 %
Belts: 3,293 tons, 7.7 %, Armament: 4,073 tons, 9.5 %, Armour Deck: 7,402 tons, 17.2 %
Conning Tower: 80 tons, 0.2 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,829 tons, 4.3 %
Machinery: 3,948 tons, 9.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,946 tons, 34.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,642 tons, 13.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 6.2

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.05
Shellfire needed to sink: 48,496 lbs / 21,997 Kg = 28.7 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 8.2
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 67 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.42
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.09

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.550
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.71
'Natural speed' for length: 27.71 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim: 62
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 77.2 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 134.7 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 110 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.99
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 193 lbs / square foot or 942 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.09
(for 19.00 ft / 5.79 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -1.27 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

2

Tuesday, June 3rd 2003, 10:14pm

I'd probably add a bit of turret and CT armor at the expense of deck and belt, but I seem to recall you had a preference for not armoring the CT.

My other thought was to remove a bit of deck armor to free up some hull strength for additional equipment later in the ship's life. Seven and some inches seems very high for the time - six or six and a half would still be high, but would probably have a significant effect on your stability, hull strength, and so forth.

J

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

3

Tuesday, June 3rd 2003, 10:46pm

good points-thank you.
1 yes you're right about my preference for lightly armoured CT. Heavy shells will pass straight through.
2. The turret armour is adequate and i have 4 turrets to knock out- they are sepearted a bit more than usual.
3. Freeing up hull strength can be achieved by altering the bulkhead thickness. this has little effect on characteristics save hull strength.
4. Less deck armour actually reduces stability and has little effect on hull strength.

Italy with limited numbers of capital units needs a ship that is surviable even though potetential enemies are not great in either strength or number. Oh well it looks good anyway.

Go to the top of the page

17inc

Unregistered

4

Wednesday, June 4th 2003, 12:03am

well hears my nelson

As you can see less armour and comes in just on the treaty mark of 40,000tons i been thinking of building 5 of them to replace both my 2 Queens and 3 older 13.5 BBs

Nelson, UK AUST Battleship laid down 1929

Displacement:
37,806 t light; 40,000 t standard; 43,192 t normal; 45,573 t full load
Loading submergence 1,659 tons/feet

Dimensions:
726.81 ft x 106.50 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
221.53 m x 32.46 m x 9.14 m

Armament:
9 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
Main turrets are grouped together
12 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (6 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
10 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
15 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 15,960 lbs / 7,239 kg

Armour:
Belt 15.00" / 381 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 89 % of normal area
Main belt does not fully protect magazines and engineering spaces
Main turrets 15.00" / 381 mm, 2nd turrets 4.00" / 102 mm
AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower 15.00" / 381 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2.50" / 64 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 160,240 shp / 119,539 Kw = 29.66 kts
Range 24,000nm at 10.00 kts

Complement:
1,498 - 1,947

Cost:
£14.752 million / $59.009 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,995 tons, 4.6 %
Armour: 14,800 tons, 34.3 %
Belts: 3,346 tons, 7.7 %, Armament: 4,373 tons, 10.1 %, Armour Deck: 5,370 tons, 12.4 %
Conning Tower: 400 tons, 0.9 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,311 tons, 3.0 %
Machinery: 4,921 tons, 11.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,090 tons, 37.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,386 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 5.5

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 45,912 lbs / 20,825 Kg = 27.2 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 6.5
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 67 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.64
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.651
Sharpness coefficient: 0.43
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.34
'Natural speed' for length: 26.96 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim: 67
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 90.1 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 176.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 106 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.96
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 200 lbs / square foot or 976 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.41
(for 23.90 ft / 7.28 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 3.61 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Go to the top of the page

AdmKuznetsov

Sage

Posts: 2,918

5

Wednesday, June 4th 2003, 2:16am

Sicilia, speedy and tough...

Russian hat on:
Good immune zone, even against such a powerful gun as the Russian 381mm/52.

French hat on:
But ze French 15"/40 will be dropping ze very heavy, very slow shells on ze deck...

And you've still got a pretty good immune zone.

After extensive Franco-Russian discussions on gun design considerations, a division of labor developed and agreed on. Russian capital ship guns will focus on powerful guns shooting heavy shells through belt armor. French capital ship guns will focus on relatively weak guns dropping very heavy shells onto deck armor. So once you guys design belts to resist Russian guns and decks to resist French guns, y'all won't have much left over for armament or propulsion :->

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

6

Wednesday, June 4th 2003, 3:46am

not bad

Like rocky said, I'd ditch abit of deck armor and try to improve another area. The light CT armor scheme is a feature I like. Shells hiting the CT even if they don't penatrate are still going to wreak havoc on the people and equipment inside, and your director outside will surely be damaged as well. Take a look at the abuse the U.S.S. Atlanta took at Guadalcanal and she still was afloat for some time and had very little in the way of armor. I think she took the whole japanese inventory of shells, I have very little info on what shells exactly but the quote I have is something like 50 14" shells!, most of them going through the ship rather than exploding inside it.

Go to the top of the page

WesWorld