You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

1

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 4:16am

SR Shah Jahan

Shah Jahan was the son of Jahangir and grandson of Akbar, two of the great Mughal emperors of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Born as Khurram, he took the name Shah Jahan upon ascension to the throne in 1627. Like his predecessors, he was a patron of the arts, and one of the great architectural works of the time, the Taj Mahal, was commissioned by him in 1631 as a tomb for his deceased queen, Mamtaz. Shah Jahan’s reign saw the beginning of the Marathas’ revolt, which would continue well after his death. His last nine years were marked by illness and imprisonment as his four sons fought for control of the empire; he died in 1666.

The Akbar class battleships, laid down in 1924, were India’s first domestically built capital ships. Small by contemporary standards, the size allowed India to plan for three similar ships, which would ensure that one could be out of service for refits and still leave India with two vessels. The class was generally considered successful, being well armored, fast, and with a decent armament, the primary concerns being the thickness of the deck armor and the concentration of the main battery into just two turrets. That said, the primary battery has proven effective, the turrets proving spacious, with adequate ammunition handling, and sufficient barrel spacing to minimize dispersion. The secondary battery is also continued, with the layout allowing all guns to fire on either beam.

Operational experience with the Akbars indicated some places for improvement, and these have for the most part been incorporated into the Shah Jahan:

-A heavier tertiary battery. The number of 10.5 cm guns has doubled, though the additional (“outer”) mounts are low-angle weapons to be used against small warships as well as low-flying aircraft such as torpedo bombers. The inboard 10.5 cm mounts are dedicated anti-aircraft guns. In time, it's expected that both sets of mounts will be replaced by a type capable of engaging either set of targets. The light battery has also been bolstered, with double the 3.5 cm mounts as well as the addition of four quadruple 1.5 cm machine guns.

-The armor protection has been modified, with the belt armor reduced to 34 cm to allow the average deck armor to increase to 11.5 cm (15 cm over the vitals, 3 cm at the ends). The 4 cm decapping plate has been retained by Shah Jahan.

-Range is increased to 14,200 nm @ 12 knots. The ship's dimensions are slightly enlarged to accomodate this, although the standard displacement is almost identical.

-Two aircraft are carried, rather than Akbar’s one, and the facilities are now amidships after some issue with vibrations at the aft catapult/hanger position on Akbar. Shah Jahan’s aircraft are housed in hangers flanking the aft funnel, and are serviced by a cross-deck catapult.

-Finally, some adjustments have been made to the "pagoda", with one of the two primary rangefinders moved to the top. An enclosed Admiral's Bridge has also been placed on the tower.



Shah Jahan(N), India Battleship laid down 1929

Displacement:
26,378 t light; 27,997 t standard; 30,208 t normal; 31,977 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
691.25 ft / 679.13 ft x 99.74 ft x 28.38 ft (normal load)
210.69 m / 207.00 m x 30.40 m x 8.65 m

Armament:
8 - 13.78" / 350 mm guns (2x4 guns), 1,308.33lbs / 593.45kg shells, 1929 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (4x2 guns), 103.21lbs / 46.82kg shells, 1929 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (8x2 guns), 35.22lbs / 15.98kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
16 - 1.38" / 35.1 mm guns (8x2 guns), 1.31lbs / 0.59kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
16 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.10lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1929 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 11,878 lbs / 5,388 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15.0" / 380 mm 398.00 ft / 121.31 m 11.80 ft / 3.60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.00" / 25 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 26.00 ft / 7.92 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.8" / 400 mm 11.8" / 300 mm 13.8" / 350 mm
2nd: 3.15" / 80 mm 1.38" / 35 mm 3.15" / 80 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
4th: 0.78" / 20 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.52" / 115 mm, Conning tower: 14.17" / 360 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 99,195 shp / 74,000 Kw = 27.94 kts
Range 14,200nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,980 tons

Complement:
1,145 - 1,489

Cost:
£10.388 million / $41.552 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,485 tons, 4.9 %
Armour: 9,876 tons, 32.7 %
- Belts: 3,112 tons, 10.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 385 tons, 1.3 %
- Armament: 2,130 tons, 7.1 %
- Armour Deck: 3,953 tons, 13.1 %
- Conning Tower: 296 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 3,047 tons, 10.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,871 tons, 39.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,830 tons, 12.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
41,784 lbs / 18,953 Kg = 31.9 x 13.8 " / 350 mm shells or 6.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 6.0 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 17.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.51
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.12

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.81 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.06 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 62
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Mid (0 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Stern: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 20.60 ft / 6.28 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 157.3 %
Waterplane Area: 47,273 Square feet or 4,392 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 183 lbs/sq ft or 894 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.42
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

2

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 6:31am

A nice drawing as usual.

I'd comment on her features but I've seen this design under the designation of practically every letter of the alphabet.......

One thing though, I'd love to see her and Akbar compaired to one another in a drawing.

3

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 8:39am

The midships catapult strikes me as a waste of deck space in it's current configuration. Raising it above the superstructure (as in the Twins and Hipper class), or a Bismack/KGV fixed catapult would be far more efficient, no?

4

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 9:01am

Or twin the existing one and make em flush with the superstructure edge.

5

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 1:54pm

Deck armour. Isn't 30mm thick over the steering gear kinda poor? It means that a destroyer can cripple her with gunfire. I'll send you a spreadsheet that'll hopefully give you something to play around with more.

Isn't the cresent moon on the flag the wrong way around?

The midships catapult doesn't need to rotate, it could only fire off aircraft whilst across the deck.

She seems a logical progression from Akbar.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

6

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 2:21pm

Well done.

Some comments:

- cranes too small
- catapult could be fixed (no need to rotate)
- make that two cats, one on each side, to get some back-up (technology still not perfect)
- her 15cm mounts look somewhat bulky compared to her main turrets and tertiary mounts but that´s probably just me...


Cheers,

HoOmAn

7

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 2:22pm

Thanks for the comments. I should point out, given Wes' comments, that he did the actual simming of the ship based on constant yakking with me. We designated this version "N for Nirvana"

The cat is a headache. I'm not precisely sure how a fixed-track works, whether it's a two-way device or whether it launched to either side from the middle. At any rate, the wingspan fo the scouting aircraft is not much less than the space between structures, so the presence of the rotating cat doesn't affect a lot there.

I think I've managed to arrange the tertiary and light battery to overcome the cat's presence. I didn't want to raise the cat one level because then I reckoned the hangers would need to move up as well, forcing the aft superstructure to be quite tall and blocky (more so than already.

The flag flies correctly when viewed from the port side.

I'll have a look at the spreadsheet when it arrives and perhaps revise the deck armor layout accordingly.

8

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 2:26pm



Ah, man, the cranes too?

Hadn't thought about the redundancy issue. Perhaps I'll be back to the drawing board after all.

The 15 cm are the same size as those seen on my CLs, just as the 35 cm mounts are similar in dimension to KGV quads. I wish I could remember what I'd based the CL gun size on - probably a German design - but I can't.

9

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 3:00pm

since we're nitpicking the flag anyway, shouldn't the national ensign be flying from the stern? :x

As for raising the cat a la the Twins/Hipper, where exactly were their hangars located?

10

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 3:04pm

"Beats the heck outta me", probably answers both of those questions, I'm afraid.

11

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 3:11pm

No hangars for either. 1 carried on midships catapult, one on the aft turret catapult.

Where are the directors for the secondary and tertiary guns? I can see 2 smaller directors on the pagoda, but thats all.

12

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 3:30pm

There's a small director on either side of the pagoda, and a third atop the forward superstructure. I'm open to suggestions as to numbers.

13

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 3:46pm

Quoted

since we're nitpicking the flag anyway, shouldn't the national ensign be flying from the stern? :x

On the picture on page 92/93 of "Anatomy of the Ship: Battleship Fuso" (RIG: scheme of rig after 1933 (1:500 scale):
- The Jack flies from the Jackstaff all the way at the stem (101x67.5 cm).
- Battle Ensign flies from the gaff halfway on the aft mast (405x270 cm)
- Admiral's flag flies from the top of the aft mast (270x180 cm)
- Imperial Japanese Navy Ensign on the ensign staff at the stern (either 405x270 cm or 540x360 cm)

Can't find it in the Hood book, but the cover picture shows Hood flying the Admiral's flag (Rear admiral to be exact) from the fore topmast and the Navy Ensign from the ensign staff at the stern.

I would say that India's "Leaping Tiger" flag would be the Battle Ensign and the national flag in its current size should be on the Ensign staff at the back. If you were to shrink that flag (about 50%), it could be the Admiral's flag.

14

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 4:51pm

Maybe the Indians just do their flags differently? ;-)

Way nice ship, Rocky!

15

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 5:06pm

Always a possibility...

16

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 7:20pm

It would be nice to modify the section between the stacks. In the future that area could be used for increased air defense weapons. (Locating the cats at deck edge means you lose a lot of space for medium & light AA weapons)

17

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 7:44pm

Agreed, the cat does take a lot of space away, but I'm trying to avoid employing too much hindsight here. The AA battery has already doubled from the preceding class; it might be considered adequate for the foreseeable future.

Anyway, I expect India would end up removing the 15 and 10.5 cm mounts and replacing them with 8x2 or 12x2 12.5 cm DP twin mounts some time in the late thirties. I think that'd be a reasonable AA fit for a ship of this size.

18

Sunday, October 16th 2005, 8:24pm


http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/gneisena…seatrials15.jpg

On the site, it has a different text underneath it than in the book (*). In the book it says:

Quoted

Gneisenau seen from the starboard quarter in June 1938. The naval flag at the ensign staff indicated a Revierfahrt, i.e. a passage through territotial or narrow waters such as Kieler Förde or the ship canal. On the high seas the flag was flown from the pole mast abaft the forward catapult and in battle at the truck of the mainmast (immediately abaft the funnel)


So that could be the case with the pictures of India's BBs.

(*) Battleship of the Scharnhorst class by Gerhard Koop and Klaus-Peter Schmolke.

19

Monday, November 14th 2005, 8:21pm

Have we got a picture of her with a cross-deck catapult yet J?

if with cross-deck catapult, raise the portion amidships by 1 deck giving her a more similar appearance to Akbar?

Definitely need longer cranes.

FC directors. The two main directors are ok. What scale are you using btw? 1:40? That gives directors of ~8m which is enough when combined with the 15m turret mounted ones. For 150mm guns, probably 1 director each beam, or 1 fore and aft. AA directors are still fairly rudimentary.

20

Monday, November 14th 2005, 8:46pm

No modification yet - other priorities. Though I did like the suggestion that two cats might be better, providing redundancy.

The scale is one pixel to a foot.