WesWorld

Or, as the Design Bureau jokes, "adequate battleships"...

Attached are three possible Indian battleships in the ~31,000 t range. I was shooting for 30,000 t but overshot just a bit, and couldn't see a way to trim it down without going to Walter's "battleship/oiler" route.

I'd appreciate thoughts on these. None will set the world afire or revolutionize warfare at sea - they are intended to be good enough. Are they?

(Don't ask about versions 1-3...)

IBB27, version 4l, laid down 1927

Length, 723 ft x Beam, 99.0 ft x Depth, 29.0 ft
33805 tons normal displacement (31003 tons standard)

Main battery: 9 x 13.8-inch (3 x 3; 1 superfiring)
Secondary battery: 14 x 4.9-inch (7 x 2)
AA battery: 14 x 1.4-inch
Light battery: 14 x 0.6-inch

Weight of broadside: 12671 lbs

Main belt, 13.0 inches; ends unarmored
Torpedo bulkhead, 1.0 inches
Armor deck, average 4.5 inches
C.T., 14.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 14.0" / secondary, 3.0"
AA, 1.0" shields / light guns, 1.0" shields

Maximum speed for 104768 shp = 28.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 10000 nm / 15 kts

Typical complement: 1247-1620


Estimated cost, $40.987 million (£10.247 million)

Remarks:

Relative extent of belt armor, 90 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 1584 tons = 5 pct
Armor, total ..................... 11033 tons = 33 pct

Belt 2787 tons = 8 pct
Torpedo bulkhead 504 tons = 1 pct
Deck 4089 tons = 12 pct
C.T. 317 tons = 1 pct
Armament 3336 tons = 10 pct

Machinery ........................ 3307 tons = 10 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 13148 tons = 39 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 4534 tons = 13 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 200 tons = 1 pct
-----
33805 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 5.7 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 29271 tons
Standard displacement: 31003 tons
Normal service: 33805 tons
Full load: 35911 tons

Loading submergence 1403 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.08

Shellfire needed to sink: 37012 lbs = 28.2 x 13.8-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 5.0
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 61 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.51

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.08

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.57
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 6.84
'Natural speed' for length = 26.9 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 51 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 87 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 150 percent


Displacement factor: 112 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 191 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.17
(for 20.0 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +0.7 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.02

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

723.00 x 99.00 x 29.00; 20.00 -- Dimensions
0.57 -- Block coefficient
1927 -- Year laid down
28.00 / 10000 / 15.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
200 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
9 x 13.80; 3; 1 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
14 x 4.90; 7 -- Secondary battery; turrets
:
14 x 1.40 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
14 x 0.60 -- Fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
13.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 1.00; 90 -- Belt armor; relative extent
4.50 / 14.00 -- Deck / CT
14.00 / 3.00 / 1.00 / 1.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


IBB27, version 5, laid down 1927

Length, 780 ft x Beam, 96.0 ft x Depth, 30.0 ft
35301 tons normal displacement (30978 tons standard)

Main battery: 9 x 13.8-inch (3 x 3; 1 superfiring)
Secondary battery: 14 x 4.9-inch (7 x 2)
AA battery: 8 x 1.4-inch
Light battery: 8 x 0.6-inch

Weight of broadside: 12662 lbs

Main belt, 14.0 inches; ends unarmored
Torpedo bulkhead, 1.0 inches
Armor deck, average 4.0 inches
C.T., 14.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 14.0" / secondary, 2.5"
AA, 1.0" shields / light guns, 1.0" shields

Maximum speed for 102774 shp = 28.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 15000 nm / 15 kts

Typical complement: 1288-1674


Estimated cost, $40.818 million (£10.204 million)

Remarks:

Relative extent of belt armor, 85 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Magazines and engineering spaces are roomy, with superior
watertight subdivision.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 1583 tons = 4 pct
Armor, total ..................... 10804 tons = 31 pct

Belt 2973 tons = 8 pct
Torpedo bulkhead 563 tons = 2 pct
Deck 3712 tons = 11 pct
C.T. 326 tons = 1 pct
Armament 3230 tons = 9 pct

Machinery ........................ 3244 tons = 9 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 13386 tons = 38 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 6084 tons = 17 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 200 tons = 1 pct
-----
35301 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 5.2 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 29216 tons
Standard displacement: 30978 tons
Normal service: 35301 tons
Full load: 38618 tons

Loading submergence 1433 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.05

Shellfire needed to sink: 38982 lbs = 29.7 x 13.8-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 5.3
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 71 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.59

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.18

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.55
Sharpness coefficient: 0.37
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 7.27
'Natural speed' for length = 27.9 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 47 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 83 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 145 percent


Displacement factor: 118 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 186 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.02
(for 19.5 ft average freeboard)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

780.00 x 96.00 x 30.00; 19.50 -- Dimensions
0.55 -- Block coefficient
1927 -- Year laid down
28.00 / 15000 / 15.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
200 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
9 x 13.80; 3; 1 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
14 x 4.90; 7 -- Secondary battery; turrets
:
8 x 1.40 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
8 x 0.60 -- Fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
14.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 1.00; 85 -- Belt armor; relative extent
4.00 / 14.00 -- Deck / CT
14.00 / 2.50 / 1.00 / 1.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


IBB27, version 6, laid down 1927

Length, 713 ft x Beam, 104.0 ft x Depth, 29.0 ft
33792 tons normal displacement (30974 tons standard)

Main battery: 8 x 14.5-inch (2 x 4)
Secondary battery: 16 x 4.9-inch (8 x 2)
AA battery: 12 x 1.4-inch
Light battery: 12 x 0.6-inch

Weight of broadside: 13153 lbs

Main belt, 14.0 inches; ends unarmored
Torpedo bulkhead, 1.0 inches
Armor deck, average 4.5 inches
C.T., 14.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 14.0" / secondary, 3.0"
AA, 1.0" shields / light guns, 1.0" shields

Maximum speed for 105316 shp = 28.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 10000 nm / 15 kts

Typical complement: 1246-1620


Estimated cost, $41.725 million (£10.431 million)

Remarks:

Relative extent of belt armor, 90 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 1644 tons = 5 pct
Armor, total ..................... 10504 tons = 31 pct

Belt 3059 tons = 9 pct
Torpedo bulkhead 497 tons = 1 pct
Deck 4136 tons = 12 pct
C.T. 317 tons = 1 pct
Armament 2495 tons = 7 pct

Machinery ........................ 3324 tons = 10 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 13529 tons = 40 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 4590 tons = 14 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 200 tons = 1 pct
-----
33792 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 6.7 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 29202 tons
Standard displacement: 30974 tons
Normal service: 33792 tons
Full load: 35912 tons

Loading submergence 1419 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.13

Shellfire needed to sink: 38142 lbs = 25.0 x 14.5-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 5.3
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 70 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.48

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.13

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.55
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 6.75
'Natural speed' for length = 26.7 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 51 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 88 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 156 percent


Displacement factor: 112 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 196 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.35
(for 20.5 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +1.2 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.03

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

713.00 x 104.00 x 29.00; 20.50 -- Dimensions
0.55 -- Block coefficient
1927 -- Year laid down
28.00 / 10000 / 15.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
200 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
8 x 14.50; 2; 0 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
16 x 4.90; 8 -- Secondary battery; turrets
:
12 x 1.40 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
12 x 0.60 -- Fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
14.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 1.00; 90 -- Belt armor; relative extent
4.50 / 14.00 -- Deck / CT
14.00 / 3.00 / 1.00 / 1.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is 8,000nm enough of a radius? If so, you can get your desired armament, armor, and speed onto 30,000 tons standard. But if the 10,000nm radius is a requirement, you've done very well for the tonnage. I'd go with version 6.

Visit my Russian/French fantasy fleet page:
http://admkuznetsov.tripod.com

Quoted

(Don't ask about versions 1-3...)

Why ? Did the Raj shoot a couple of designers because they were far below the standards ? :-)

"battleship/oiler" ?

While I'm not too fond of quad main guns (too crowded; I wonder why I tried to go for a KGV look on my Owari), I might agree with Admiral Kuznetsov there. Drawback of course would be (as someone else pointed out with some other designs, right H. ?) that if one turret is knocked out of action, you'll loose about half your firepower.

Walter

As with the Star Wars movies, you don't get good ones until #4.

The Raj isn't one for shooting people, but overly disappointing people can turn up in weather stations in the Himalayas.

I'm not so fond of quads myself, but they do work while they're intact.

Just ribbing you a bit about Nagato's 30,000 nm range at 12 kts...

Adm K - I'll tinker with that suggestion, see what happens. I suppose I could trim the deck armor to 4.25" and see what that lets me do, too...

Quoted

Just ribbing you a bit about Nagato's 30,000 nm range at 12 kts...

I'm aware of that but why "battleship/oiler" ? Wouldn't battle-oiler be more fitting ?

The reason it has quite some range is of course to keep it under 40,000 tons.

Working at a weather station in the Himalayas, eh ? That's a nice job for them. Perhaps we should make a "punishment" list on this board as well.

Walter

Why not just "Boilers"?

See the Meeting Place, regarding punishment.

Captain: "Sailor ! Can you make out what that smoke is on the horizon ?"
Sailor: "Boilers, Sir !"
Captain: "Coal-firing or Oil-firing ?"
Sailor: "Shell-firing, sir !"

*Kaboom*

Nice one!

And I would not choose version 6.

I like version 5 myself but I would ditch the CT armor and beef up the deck armor, but thats my preferance.

I would also choose variant No. 5 but I really don´t think you need to increase deck armor. 4" _average_ thickness is more than enough (see other post) IMHO.

Compare her deck armor to that of HMS Nelson. I know Nelson was designed to get the maximum punch for the 35,000 ton limit but Rocky's designs are all around the 30,000 ton limit and have smaller guns, so I think you could get 5" (average) of deck armor compared to nelsons 6.25" and still be realistic. I think we all tend to look at the washington treaty designs for comparison and forget we have an extra 5000 tons for a BB to play with in our treaty.

Quoted

And I would not choose version 6.

What other drawbacks does the design have besides the fact that it uses two quads ("too many eggs in the basket" as you often point out), and it is finacially the more expensive ship ?

As for design five: perhaps an increase to 4.5 in order to give it the same thickness as the other ships, but you might want to stick to that thickness, otherwise you need to sacrifice something, whether it be speed, armor on other places, range, or tonnage (bigger ship).

Ditch the CT armor and beef up the deck armor ?
I doubt that ditching the CT armor would give you enough hullstrength to 'beef up' the deckarmor. You only get enough to throw an additional 0.5 inch on the deck. you you want to beef up deck armor, you'll need to ditch something else, too.

Walter

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Compare her deck armor to that of HMS Nelson. I know Nelson was designed to get the maximum punch for the 35,000 ton limit but Rocky's designs are all around the 30,000 ton limit and have smaller guns, so I think you could get 5" (average) of deck armor compared to nelsons 6.25" and still be realistic.

Most important the NELSONs are much slower than "Rocky´s" (*g*) designs - and you know how much weight and hull space you need to get those additional knots.

And here at this point I´ve to say I understand the Rock Doctors wish for faster units. He will not be able to maintain more than 2-3 capital units for his small navy so he needs to be able to deplay them whereever he needs them and make sure they can run if they meet an opponent to powerful for them. For his small navy a hit and run tactic is the only way possible and therefore he needs ships that survive to fight another day. To do so, they need to be able to outrun all most likely opponents (italian or australian captitals for example).

Again, Wes, note that NELSON didn´t have 6,25" AVERAGE deck thickness. You´re talking about maximum thickness. With an average of 4-4,5" you can have 6-6,5" maximum thickness over a small part of the hull (magazins for example) while the rest is armoured with 2-2,5" only.
(....but I still doubt FC will allow ranges where you need that much armour within the next years....)

Just my thoughts of course...

HoOmAn

PS: Ditching the CT armour doesn´t make sense. You´ll not free up enough weight to get your deck increase significally.

I tested it with the Rock's 5th design... I mean the Rock Doctor's 5th Design: ditching all the CT armor gives you enough hullstrength to add a mere 0.5 inch to the deck.

As to Nelson, I have looked on only a few sites (the couple that I have) but its deck thickness is given as 611mm. It's not given as an average, it's not given as a minimum, it's not given as a maximum. Maybe it is a maximum, but I have nothing where it is given as a maximum.
Perhaps you know a site where it is given as a maximum for the Nelson class ?


Walter

Now I´m curious. So far I´ve taken those 6" as given because I was too lazy to work through my sources. But let´s see what I can dig out.

Source: Siegfried Breyer

Breyers says that deck protection was rated high during the design process and that due to the shorter citadel (all forward arrangement of the main guns) armour thickness could be improved to 76mm over machinery spaces and 159mm over main and some secondary magazins (all single layer, no other armoured decks). Due to the heavy weight of the horizontal protection the vertical protection had to be shortened in length. To keep a decent overall protection the Brits adapted AoN.

Btw, Nelson featured two torpedobulkheads of 19mm each due to Breyer.

Just to add more info: Deck thickness of the armoured decks on KGV where 25mm (weather deck) and 127-152mm single layer armoured deck on top of the belt. Same 127-152mm are given vor Vanguard.

To add more confusion: turret roofs (main guns) on Nelson had a thickness of 178mm, on KGV 229mm and on Vanguard 102mm (!!!).

Note: No informations about cemented or non-cemented armour.


Source: Raven and Roberts

For Nelson this reads as 108mm aft of the citadel and over rudder machinery, 158,8mm over magazins and 95,2mm over machinery (all non-cemented). Turret roofs had 184,1mm (cemented). KGV got (due to R&R) turret roofs of 149,4mm non-cemented while she had non-cemented decks of 152mm over magazins, 127mm over machinery and 63,5mm to 127mm forward of the citadel and 114,3mm to 127mm aft. Vanguard got non-cemented turret roofs of 152mm and decks comparable to KGV.

Nelsons torpedobulkheads are given as 38mm D-Steel. There´s no comment of this being two seperated layers but the drawing indicates it. So this goes hand in hand with those 2x 19mm one could find in Breyers book.

Source: Croix, Steer and Moore

Due to this source Nelson had decks of up to 159mm (no comment on cemented or not) while the main artillery got a vertical protection of 178mm. For the KGV-class the values already known are given once again. That´s 63-127mm outside the citadel and 127-152mm within. Main turrets had a armoured roof of 152mm due to this source.

Vanguard is not discribed in this book.


Summery:

R&R seems to be the most precise source and is, of course, second to none in detail when discussing british battleships and battlecruisers. The stats one can find in Breyers almost support the stats in R&R even though he got the armour over machinery too thin. Other minor inaccuracies can be credited to transfering data from the imperial to the metric system.

There are some discrepancies on turret roofs, especially regarding the KGV-class, I cannot explain right now. Breyer has them at 229mm while R&R offer a mere 150mm. Even if Breyer rated the backing of the plate as armour it should have been much less than 229mm.

All sources agree that Nelson featured deck plates of slightly more than 6" (~152mm) but only small areas where that thick. The rest was 5" (127mm) and much less.

Hope this helps...

HoOmAn