WesWorld

Latest version of Tiger renuild. Thoughts?




HMAS Tiger, Australia Battlecruiser laid down 1912 (Engine 1932)

Displacement:
29,747 t light; 31,483 t standard; 34,793 t normal; 37,440 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
728.44 ft / 721.00 ft x 91.00 ft x 32.00 ft (normal load)
222.03 m / 219.76 m x 27.74 m x 9.75 m

Armament:
8 - 13.50" / 343 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,230.19lbs / 558.00kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
24 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns (12x2 guns), 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1932 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
32 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1932 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
40 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (20x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 12,023 lbs / 5,454 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 390.00 ft / 118.87 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 390.00 ft / 118.87 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 83 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
0.50" / 13 mm 390.00 ft / 118.87 m 30.00 ft / 9.14 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 5.00" / 127 mm 9.00" / 229 mm
2nd: 9.00" / 229 mm 5.00" / 127 mm 9.00" / 229 mm
3rd: 5.00" / 127 mm - -
4th: 1.20" / 30 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 10.00" / 254 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 158,205 shp / 118,021 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 12,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,957 tons

Complement:
1,273 - 1,655

Cost:
£2.957 million / $11.829 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,503 tons, 4.3 %
Armour: 10,319 tons, 29.7 %
- Belts: 2,694 tons, 7.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 216 tons, 0.6 %
- Armament: 2,822 tons, 8.1 %
- Armour Deck: 4,356 tons, 12.5 %
- Conning Tower: 230 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 4,670 tons, 13.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,955 tons, 37.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,046 tons, 14.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 0.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
49,137 lbs / 22,288 Kg = 39.9 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 5.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 5.2 ft / 1.6 m
Roll period: 16.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.84
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.14

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.580
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.92 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.85 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 44
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 35.00 ft / 10.67 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Mid (60 %): 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Quarterdeck (30 %): 19.00 ft / 5.79 m (29.00 ft / 8.84 m before break)
- Stern: 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Average freeboard: 26.48 ft / 8.07 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 100.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 204.4 %
Waterplane Area: 47,097 Square feet or 4,375 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 179 lbs/sq ft or 872 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.66
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

She definately needs some sort of tower superstructure aft, forward of "X" turret and behind the aft funnel.

The aircraft seems a tad large, why not stick the cat on the deck between X and Y turrets ala Kongo? You could likely shrink the size of the forward superstructure as well.

Comments;

Use the 1400lb greenboy shell for the 13.5"/45 instead of the lighter shell. Its better.

How do you fit 12 duple 120mm mounts onto the ship? Twin powered gunhouses with the 4.7"/40 AA gun?

I'd be tempted to remove all the casemated guns as they won't be particularly useful.

The anti-torpedo bulkhead is useless if it is 13mm thick.

Very nice picture. As Wes says, needs an after director.

I wouldn't mind seeing a top view, those forward pairs of 4.7" mounts will need some room.

To add to RA's comment's I'd ditch 1 or two sets of twin 4.7" mounts for improved torpedo bulkhead thinkness.

Either that or go with a uniform 4.7" armament, a broadside of 4x6" isn't particularily usefull.

Otherwise shes not too shabby...

Nice

I like this ship wery much but uniform secondarys mayby better loose the casamete all together.

The note "Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces " would certainly concern me.

I'll agree with other comments on the 6" guns: a broadside of only 4 guns isn't enough. If you don't have the tonnage for more, pull them all and use the tonnage for something else (like increasing the thickness of the torpedo bulkhead).

I think you've got to stretch the main belt a bit.

I'd suggest going the other way; put a full set of modern 6" guns in the casemate positions, and scale back on what has to be considered a massive AA battery even by Wesworld standards - then use some of that miscellaneous weight to beef up the torpedo bulkhead.

Keeping the end belts might not be a bad decision here. This ship does not want to lose speed to destroyer gunfire and find herself unable to evade an Akbar or Fuso.

You are going to need some additional HA directors. A minimum after superstructure would be in order, or more HA directors abreast the funnels...

Quoted

I'd suggest going the other way; put a full set of modern 6" guns in the casemate positions, and scale back on what has to be considered a massive AA battery even by Wesworld standards - then use some of that miscellaneous weight to beef up the torpedo bulkhead.

That's certainly an option: removing two 4.7" mountings on each beam would free up some weight for additional 6" guns. Not as much as it might, of course, since the 4.7" guns are just shielded, not enclosed as shown in the picture.

Can't really stretch the main belt. Its probably worth keeping the 5" and 4" portions.

I'm not really suprised that 150.000shp won't fit in a space intended for 85.000shp


http://www.warship.get.net.pl/WBrytania/…otection_01.gif

Here is an updated version. Thicker bulkhead, no 6", end belts.

On the picture, I know she needs an after director but I havent found a way to fit one without making her look ugly. Any ideas?

I dont want to put the catapult between the rear turrents for the same reason she isnt on Y turrent. It would interfear with X turrent firing arcs.

HMAS Tiger, Australia Battlecruiser laid down 1912 (Engine 1932)

Displacement:
30,055 t light; 31,608 t standard; 34,793 t normal; 37,340 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
728.44 ft / 721.00 ft x 91.00 ft x 32.00 ft (normal load)
222.03 m / 219.76 m x 27.74 m x 9.75 m

Armament:
8 - 13.50" / 343 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,400.00lbs / 635.03kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
24 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (12x2 guns), 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1932 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1932 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (3x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1932 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
40 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (20x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 12,545 lbs / 5,690 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 390.00 ft / 118.87 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: 3.00" / 76 mm 315.00 ft / 96.01 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
16.00 ft / 4.88 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 390.00 ft / 118.87 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 83 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.00" / 25 mm 390.00 ft / 118.87 m 30.00 ft / 9.14 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 5.00" / 127 mm 9.00" / 229 mm
2nd: 1.20" / 30 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 10.00" / 254 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 158,205 shp / 118,021 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,731 tons

Complement:
1,273 - 1,655

Cost:
£2.880 million / $11.521 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,398 tons, 4.0 %
Armour: 10,466 tons, 30.1 %
- Belts: 3,114 tons, 9.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 433 tons, 1.2 %
- Armament: 2,333 tons, 6.7 %
- Armour Deck: 4,356 tons, 12.5 %
- Conning Tower: 230 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 4,670 tons, 13.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,320 tons, 38.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,738 tons, 13.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
50,397 lbs / 22,860 Kg = 41.0 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 6.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.07
Metacentric height 5.0 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 17.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.99
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.11

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.580
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.92 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.85 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 35.00 ft / 10.67 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Mid (60 %): 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Quarterdeck (30 %): 19.00 ft / 5.79 m (29.00 ft / 8.84 m before break)
- Stern: 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Average freeboard: 26.48 ft / 8.07 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 204.4 %
Waterplane Area: 47,097 Square feet or 4,375 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 184 lbs/sq ft or 896 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.68
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Over on the Warship Discussion board, the possibility of rebuilding Tiger has reared its head several times over the years. Monty Mills (BC Renown), Mike Lewis (BigMikeL from the Warship Projects board) and myself have all fiddled with the design. Tiger is a very tough ship to update due to the location of X turret, as I'm sure you've already encountered.

Our solution to after fire control generally revolves around a stump behind the after funnel with a director on top. We've also generally dispensed with aircraft, though those drawings that did feature a catapult nearly always had it on X turret.

My only criticisms of your drawing would be I think you funnels are a little small for her horsepower, and I think the secondary battery is a little crowded. Of course, as only deck mounts, no hoists or barbettes, they are only limited by deck space.

Regards,

Big Rich

Yeah Richard, I remember quite well those enjoyable discussion we had concerning Tiger's possible rebuild. I had always felt that anything less than a full reconstruction would not suffice and extending her 9" armour belt was absolutely imperative. Battlecruisers must at least be able to gun down and stand up to cruisers with a high degree of confidence.

For the benefit of those who haven't already seen them, here are my Tiger RN rebuild versions. The first drawing shows Tiger with 9 twin 4.5" mountings, the aftermost one being mounted on the centerline. These, no doubt, might have been exposed to severe blast damage and may not have been doable.
The second drawing has Tiger with an aircraft catapult on "X" turret and only 6 twin 4.5s. The biggest problem, as Richard as already mentioned, was the lack of space between 'B" and "Q" turrets, only 172' IIRC.

Also, Desertfox, I don't think it likely that Tiger could have been fitted with twin 4.7s as long as she still carried the 6" casemate. That would have made for some severely cramped magazine spaces, not to mention the weight penalty.

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/BCRenown/Never%20Weres/nw-Tiger-RN2.png" border="0" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/BCRenown/Never%20Weres/nw-Tiger-RN3.png" border="0" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket"></a>

Regards,
Monty

By treaty, would Australia be allowed to extend the belt armor?

Monty, Rich, at any time in the discussion on Tiger, did anyone bring up the suggestion to remove X turret to free up additional space? The A/B/Y layout seemed to work out for the Renown's.

True, but then you are talking about six 13.5 inch guns verses eight to ten (or more) 8 inch guns on heavy cruisers rather than 15 inch guns on Repulse. Also there is that nasty thing about the other nation's capital ships, and not being able to stand toe to toe with any of them except to flee (which should be standard practice anyway after seeing the results of Jutland and other battles of the Great War that involved lighter ships verses heavy ships.)

I don't think any changes to side armor are permitted. Best option might be to keep the turrets and stick them in a new hull.

6x13.5" is nothing to sneeze at, if losing 1 turret improves her torpedo protection, speed and armament I'd say shes better for it. She would make a decent CV escort. It preaty tough to find a CA that can absorb multiple 13.5" shells and live to tell the tale.

You don't want to stand toe to toe with another BB in Tiger, not in her current configuration.

TIGER versus one of my RSANs HERTOGs probably would make for a good fight.

Any guesses how such a fight would end?

That would be a loss for the Hertog. 8x343 vs. 8x280