WesWorld

I followed the advice of a player and posted the design here. If anyone wants to adopt it just ask. :-)



-----------------------------------------------------------------
Type 1 A-1, Neutral battleship laid down 1931

Displacement:
34,063 t light; 35,808 t standard; 38,568 t normal; 40,776 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
779.00 ft / 779.00 ft x 98.00 ft (Bulges 103.90 ft) x 31.95 ft (normal load)
237.44 m / 237.44 m x 29.87 m (Bulges 31.67 m) x 9.74 m

Armament:
8 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
16 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (8x2 guns), 256.00lbs / 116.12kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships
20 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (16 mounts), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
51 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
14 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (7x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 15,312 lbs / 6,946 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes, 4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 426.01 ft / 129.85 m 12.07 ft / 3.68 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 84 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.25" / 32 mm 488.15 ft / 148.79 m 29.17 ft / 8.89 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 17.0" / 432 mm 7.00" / 178 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 10.8" / 273 mm 3.75" / 95 mm 1.55" / 39 mm

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 25.00" / 635 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus batteries,
Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 5 shafts, 107,876 shp / 80,475 Kw = 29.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,968 tons

Complement:
1,375 - 1,788

Cost:
£14.189 million / $56.756 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,914 tons, 5.0 %
Armour: 13,259 tons, 34.4 %
- Belts: 3,623 tons, 9.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 659 tons, 1.7 %
- Armament: 3,368 tons, 8.7 %
- Armour Deck: 4,995 tons, 13.0 %
- Conning Tower: 615 tons, 1.6 %
Machinery: 3,226 tons, 8.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,564 tons, 40.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,505 tons, 11.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
61,926 lbs / 28,089 Kg = 45.1 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 8.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
Metacentric height 5.3 ft / 1.6 m
Roll period: 18.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 85 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.87
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.51

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle, rise forward of midbreak, low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.522
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.53 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -52.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 34.14 ft / 10.41 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 23.18 ft / 7.07 m (25.18 ft / 7.67 m aft of break)
- Mid (45 %): 31.18 ft / 9.50 m (29.18 ft / 8.89 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 23.18 ft / 7.07 m (25.18 ft / 7.67 m before break)
- Stern: 23.18 ft / 7.07 m
- Average freeboard: 26.88 ft / 8.19 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 191.0 %
Waterplane Area: 54,003 Square feet or 5,017 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 193 lbs/sq ft or 943 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.59
- 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
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Type 1 Battleship
Mk 1. Gen 1

Armament:

x8 G02 14"/56
G02E 14"/56


Caliber = 14.0 inch (35.6 cm)
Shell weight = 1483 lbs (673 kg)
Muzzle velocity = 2978 fps (908 m/s)

Relative ballistic performance: 1.10

Muzzle energy = 277.3 megajoules = 102177.2 foot-tons

Relative muzzle energy: 1.16

Barrel length: 56 calibers


Elevation Range Time Velocity Fall Angle

2.5 deg 7100 yards 7.9 sec 2504 fps 2.8 deg
5.0 deg 12900 yards 15.3 sec 2190 fps 6.2 deg
7.5 deg 17700 yards 22.3 sec 1975 fps 9.8 deg
10.0 deg 21800 yards 29.0 sec 1824 fps 13.8 deg
12.5 deg 25400 yards 35.5 sec 1719 fps 17.9 deg
15.0 deg 28700 yards 41.7 sec 1649 fps 21.9 deg
20.0 deg 34400 yards 53.7 sec 1577 fps 29.6 deg
25.0 deg 39100 yards 65.1 sec 1566 fps 36.5 deg
30.0 deg 43100 yards 76.0 sec 1591 fps 42.4 deg
35.0 deg 46400 yards 86.4 sec 1635 fps 47.5 deg
40.0 deg 48700 yards 96.4 sec 1688 fps 51.9 deg
45.0 deg 50000 yards 105.9 sec 1745 fps 55.9 deg
50.0 deg 50000 yards 114.7 sec 1800 fps 59.5 deg


Armor Penetration - Belt Inclined 19 degrees

(Relative armor quality, 1.00)

Maximum penetration: 29.30 inches


Elevation Range Belt Deck

1.1 deg 3300 yards 26 in
1.9 deg 5600 yards 24 in
2.9 deg 8000 yards 22 in
3.5 deg 9400 yards ... 1 in
3.9 deg 10500 yards 20 in
5.3 deg 13400 yards 18 in
6.5 deg 15900 yards ... 2 in
6.9 deg 16500 yards 16 in
8.8 deg 20000 yards 14 in
10.0 deg 21800 yards ... 3 in
11.4 deg 23900 yards 12 in
14.7 deg 28400 yards ... 4 in
14.8 deg 28400 yards 10 in
19.1 deg 33400 yards ... 5 in
19.5 deg 33800 yards 8 in
22.5 deg 36900 yards ... 6 in
26.1 deg 40100 yards ... 7 in
26.1 deg 40100 yards 6 in
29.7 deg 42900 yards ... 8 in
33.4 deg 45400 yards ... 9 in
37.2 deg 47500 yards ... 10 in
37.4 deg 47600 yards 4 in
41.0 deg 49000 yards ... 11 in
45.0 deg 50000 yards ... 12 in
49.2 deg 50100 yards ... 13 in


Maximum range = 50100 yards at 47.6 deg elevation

x16 G06 8"/60


Caliber = 8.0 inch (20.3 cm)
Shell weight = 338 lbs (153 kg)
Muzzle velocity = 2821 fps (860 m/s)

Relative ballistic performance: 1.10

Muzzle energy = 56.721 megajoules = 20901.7 foot-tons

Relative muzzle energy: 1.28

Barrel length: 60 calibers


Elevation Range Time Velocity Fall Angle

2.5 deg 6200 yards 7.4 sec 2273 fps 2.9 deg
5.0 deg 11000 yards 14.3 sec 1936 fps 6.5 deg
7.5 deg 14800 yards 20.7 sec 1718 fps 10.4 deg
10.0 deg 18100 yards 26.8 sec 1570 fps 14.7 deg
12.5 deg 20900 yards 32.7 sec 1468 fps 19.1 deg
15.0 deg 23400 yards 38.3 sec 1401 fps 23.5 deg
20.0 deg 27600 yards 49.0 sec 1335 fps 31.8 deg
25.0 deg 31000 yards 59.1 sec 1323 fps 39.0 deg
30.0 deg 33800 yards 68.7 sec 1343 fps 45.2 deg
35.0 deg 36000 yards 77.9 sec 1380 fps 50.4 deg
40.0 deg 37500 yards 86.7 sec 1426 fps 54.9 deg
45.0 deg 38300 yards 95.0 sec 1473 fps 58.8 deg
50.0 deg 38100 yards 102.8 sec 1521 fps 62.3 deg


Armor Penetration - Belt Inclined 19 degrees

(Relative armor quality, 1.00)

Maximum penetration: 17.80 inches


Elevation Range Belt Deck

1.8 deg 4800 yards 14 in
3.3 deg 7800 yards 12 in
5.1 deg 11200 yards 10 in
5.6 deg 12000 yards ... 1 in
7.9 deg 15400 yards 8 in
12.1 deg 20400 yards 6 in
12.4 deg 20700 yards ... 2 in
19.2 deg 27000 yards 4 in
20.0 deg 27600 yards ... 3 in
26.5 deg 31900 yards ... 4 in
33.4 deg 35400 yards ... 5 in
34.7 deg 35900 yards 2 in
40.8 deg 37700 yards ... 6 in
48.8 deg 38200 yards ... 7 in


Maximum range = 38300 yards at 46.8 deg elevation

(CanisD lineart photo, modified by me)

Very unusual freeboard... o_O
Personally I'd increase bulges (or shrink the beam of the hull a bit), ditch the torpedoes, smaller caliber secondaries, bit more torpedo bulkhead, add some miscellaneous weights, and keep stability above 1.05...
Oh yeah. Slightly different direction regarding the bow angle and slightly higher BC.

Not quite stable enough for my tastes...great seakeeping though.

Definitely NOT one more of the same thing we've been seeing. The 8" secondary is.... questionable, since there's no heavy AA. The batteries I'm also a bit surprised by, what's the reasoning behind them? Good armor, though, and the speed's definitely in the range we're seeing now. The block coefficient might be a bit too low for a battleship, .51 is more like a cruiser's BC, but all in all, interesting.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Very unusual freeboard... o_O

It's what gives the ship it's excellent characteristics.

:-)

Quoted

Personally I'd increase bulges (or shrink the beam of the hull a bit),

Nope. I decided that my design would have to be no more than 34,000 tons light. No alterations can be made.

Quoted

ditch the torpedoes,

Nope. I'm not going to do that. The Tirpitz battleship had torpedoes. And so did a lot of other capital ships.

Quoted

smaller caliber secondaries,

No. If I did that I'd have to increase the caliber of the main guns or the number of main guns. Both are a no go. So while I think your comment in this case is very logical and well founded, it would be illogical in the big picture of things. sorry.

Quoted

bit more torpedo bulkhead,

For a ship of this size it's an optimal bunkerage. It would only be able to take 1.2 more torpedoes if the bulge was increase by another inch. So it's not worth the tonnage. Besides, 8.8 torpedoes isn't bad at all.

Quoted

add some miscellaneous weights,

Not my style. sorry.

Quoted

and keep stability above 1.05...

Okay I did it. I thought it was good advice although as long as it's over 1.00, it's considered a stable design. No increase after that produce positive advantages.

Quoted

Oh yeah. Slightly different direction regarding the bow angle and slightly higher BC.

No and no. My response to these two comments are that it'd be silly to do so. The tumblehome bow design has it's benefits. And the BC should be low to produce better seaworthiness. I noticed that some of your designs have much lower gun steadiness and sea worthiness than this design. Sorry, but I disagree. :-(

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
Not quite stable enough for my tastes...great seakeeping though.

You should see my other battleship design that nearly has 2.00!

Btw, I increased stability to 1.05. Increasing it beyond 1.00 actually doesn't add any benefits or advantages though. Now the design has 85% steadiness at 1.05 stability. I prefered how it was, which was 94% steadiness and 1.01 stability.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Definitely NOT one more of the same thing we've been seeing.

Oh, hehe. is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Quoted

The 8" secondary is.... questionable, since there's no heavy AA.

I wanted the 8" to be DP but it wouldnt let me. So I added 14 3" DP guns.

So it has a 14-8-3 caliber arrangement now. Instead of the 14-8.

The 8" secondaries allowed a higher firing rate and broadside without an increase in the main guns.

Quoted

The batteries I'm also a bit surprised by, what's the reasoning behind them?

It's used to increase fuel efficiency. While at cruising speeds ships actually tend to waste power. And with the electric cruising motors, the batteries can save power that would otherwise be wasted. Springsharp can't understand that obviously, but thats one of the reasons that they are there. The other is for a primative silent running. Acoustic torpedoes wern't in development until the late 1930's, but submarines still had hyrophones. But thats really just a side benefit that I didnt consider to after I implemented it. Submarines would try and use their hydrophones if they were submerged below periscope depth. But like I said, I didn't really factor that in when I implemented the electric motors and batteries.

A lot of my designs have that feature. (electric motors or cruising motors, and bateries)

Another thing about the batteries is response time. See, with the batteries you don't have to wait for the boilers to heat up. It's instant go power thats always available so long as they are charged.

Quoted

Good armor, though, and the speed's definitely in the range we're seeing now.

:-)

Glad you like it.

Quoted

The block coefficient might be a bit too low for a battleship, .51 is more like a cruiser's BC, but all in all, interesting.

yup. it's my design philosophy. I minimize the BC through tonnage/weight reductions. just the way i design i guess?

Well, it is too long to be built in Chile (unless I go with the historical dock of 800 feet rather than the Type 3 limit of roughly 720 feet). The main belt doesn't seem to cover all of the ship's vitals.

You have no extra weight for radar, sonar, your large number of potentially fatal torpedoes (to yourself I mean). I don't think SS takes those systems into account, or at least that is what I've been lead to believe around here.

Any spotting aircraft or radar so that these long range guns have a chance of actaully hitting something more than 13 miles away?

You choice of large numbers of torpedoes seems odd in the post-Great War era. Sure torpedoes were still fitted to capital ships and cruisers, but I don't recall anyone fitting submerged tube anymore do to the tubes being a weak point in the hull. The above water tubes seem Japanese in concept here, and could be a problem if hit (especially if they are like the Japanese Long Lance oxygen burners....those blow up nice when the ship is on fire).

Your Dual Purpose 8" guns probably won't be around for a while. The only kind of shell I can think of that could make it like that were the Japanese heavy AA shells, but they are only effective at very long ranges. And the rapid fire 8" guns wouldn't be deployed until the American late model heavy cruiser after the Second World War (Automatic 8" guns).

I don't know if you need the 3" guns for a 1931 design, since airpower still isn't a serious threat yet. It is a threat, but not to the scale if would be in the Pacific Theater from 1942-1945.

It looks like you are trying to make either an Ultra Heavy Cruiser or a Ultra "Modern" Predreadnought style capital ship using mixed heavy weapons. The only practical problem is defining your shell splashes between the 14 inch and 8 inch guns at range. A similar problem that happens in Navalism to the Rohirrim Battleships using either 12" and 9" or soon 14" and 9" guns...but then it is only 1904.

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
Well, it is too long to be built in Chile (unless I go with the historical dock of 800 feet rather than the Type 3 limit of roughly 720 feet). The main belt doesn't seem to cover all of the ship's vitals.

Sorry. I forgot I had altered the belt. It's fixed now.

Quoted

You have no extra weight for radar, sonar, your large number of potentially fatal torpedoes (to yourself I mean). I don't think SS takes those systems into account, or at least that is what I've been lead to believe around here.

Added 100 t for misc weight. :-)

Quoted

Any spotting aircraft or radar so that these long range guns have a chance of actaully hitting something more than 13 miles away?

with the 100t

Quoted

You choice of large numbers of torpedoes seems odd in the post-Great War era. Sure torpedoes were still fitted to capital ships and cruisers, but I don't recall anyone fitting submerged tube anymore do to the tubes being a weak point in the hull. The above water tubes seem Japanese in concept here, and could be a problem if hit (especially if they are like the Japanese Long Lance oxygen burners....those blow up nice when the ship is on fire).

No. It would use western torpedo designs.

As for the torpedo tubes. They stay. the weak point in the hull concept is irrelevant considering if a torpedo struck the ship it'd mess everything up with or without the tubes there. The problem with above water tubes is that they can't be reloaded at sea right? And if they were it would take a long time. Submerged tubes don't have that problem.

And with torpedoes of that era, 7,000 yards lends a lethal advantage in close up.

Quoted

Your Dual Purpose 8" guns probably won't be around for a while. The only kind of shell I can think of that could make it like that were the Japanese heavy AA shells, but they are only effective at very long ranges. And the rapid fire 8" guns wouldn't be deployed until the American late model heavy cruiser after the Second World War (Automatic 8" guns).

Accounted for. I added x14 3" guns in twin turrets.

8" guns are the same as they were.

Quoted

I don't know if you need the 3" guns for a 1931 design, since airpower still isn't a serious threat yet. It is a threat, but not to the scale if would be in the Pacific Theater from 1942-1945.

You can never be too prepared. :-)

Plus they were being used at that point in time.

Quoted

It looks like you are trying to make either an Ultra Heavy Cruiser or a Ultra "Modern" Predreadnought style capital ship using mixed heavy weapons.

It's a battleship.

it has a primary and secondary battery. A dreadnought would have more than that. This ship has no tetriary battery so...it's throroughly of modern design even if a bit odd.

Quoted

The only practical problem is defining your shell splashes between the 14 inch and 8 inch guns at range. A similar problem that happens in Navalism to the Rohirrim Battleships using either 12" and 9" or soon 14" and 9" guns...but then it is only 1904.

That problem would have been accounted for by 1931 I imagine. I mean, it has a primary and secondary battery. Thats a modern concept.

Furthermore check this link-
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-056.htm

The Mark 1 firing computer was available at about the time this ship was being built. And that would solve a majority of the problems you mentioned.

Fire Control might help, but I'm not an expert on such things.

Most modern Battleships don't have a heavy secondary battery. The predreadnoughts do, but after Dreadnought the largest secondary I think you'll find in the 6.1" guns on the Yamato-class. Most post-dreadnought era secondary batteries are for use against destroyer sized vessels, lighter cruisers, and later heavy DP guns for stopping any aircraft dead in the air. Some nations had separate medium single purpose weapons for use against surface targets and aircraft (Germany comes to mind). I've heard rumors that the successor to the Yamato-class was to have 8" secondaries, but I've not found a reason why they would mount such weapons aside from maybe to engage heavy cruisers without having to use their proposed 20" guns. Your lighter 14" shells make excellent cruiser killers in Wesworld, since we are dealing with cruisers that are actually armored on 13,000 tons.

But I'm not an expert at why things are done verses what I've read or heard why things are done. It is very possible to mount such weapon on a battleship, but most nations would rather go for maximum single caliber fire than split heavy fire as it increases to amount of different magazines you have and increases the headache of the quartermasters. I know the American Fast Battleships only had the 16" guns and 5"/38 cal DP secondaries, with some suggestion that automatic 6" could have been used if the surface threats were greater or the rest of the fleet was lighter on escorts. I don't know how good these weapons are against aircraft. I know their were plans to refit ships with the automatic 3" guns, but that was to replace the 40mm and 20mm guns. No word on use of the automatic 8" guns on a capital ship.

Oh, and I'm not saying I don't like it. I do like heavy secondaries (as shown in the Rohirrim use of 9" guns in Navalism). I'm just stating what is known or generally accepted in what I think would be the 1930s mindset. I could be very wrong, but the engineers and those that have been here longer haven't said anything yet.

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
Fire Control might help, but I'm not an expert on such things.

Most modern Battleships don't have a heavy secondary battery. The predreadnoughts do, but after Dreadnought the largest secondary I think you'll find in the 6.1" guns on the Yamato-class.

Quoted

Some nations had separate medium single purpose weapons for use against surface targets and aircraft (Germany comes to mind).

Bismarck had three calibers.

which made for a Primary, Secondary and Tetriary.

Quoted

Your lighter 14" shells make excellent cruiser killers in Wesworld, since we are dealing with cruisers that are actually armored on 13,000 tons.

Yup. Thats why I designed it. I also designed the Type E shell which is 1,438 lbs. I became convinced that the LR shells (lighter ones u mentioned) wouldn't work against the heavier designs in this sim. So I used a heavier shell for use against those surface targets.

Quoted

But I'm not an expert at why things are done verses what I've read or heard why things are done. It is very possible to mount such weapon on a battleship, but most nations would rather go for maximum single caliber fire

I did. An increase in the main caliber produces more weight that I can disspiate through the freeboard. So I had to increase the caliber of the secondaries.

Quoted

than split heavy fire as it increases to amount of different magazines you have and increases the headache of the quartermasters.

It's still just two magazines. Primary and secondary.

Quoted

I know their were plans to refit ships with the automatic 3" guns, but that was to replace the 40mm and 20mm guns. No word on use of the automatic 8" guns on a capital ship.

My design would be something new. But also quite feasible for the era.

Quoted

Oh, and I'm not saying I don't like it. I do like heavy secondaries (as shown in the Rohirrim use of 9" guns in Navalism). I'm just stating what is known or generally accepted in what I think would be the 1930s mindset. I could be very wrong, but the engineers and those that have been here longer haven't said anything yet.

I'd agree. But at the same time this sim is no longer historically accurate. The designs are starting to deviate. Especially with the Atlantean designs. New threats require new responses. I think WesWorld has it's own mindset in many ways.

but thanks for the feedback. it's appreciated. and that goes for everyone else who commented too! u guys are really nice. :-)

Quoted

Bismarck had three calibers.

which made for a Primary, Secondary and Tetriary.

That I wasn't disputing. All I'm pointing out is that the Secondaries on ships of the era aren't 8" guns, but more often 6" or 5" guns. Tetriary is common with some countries but still the size of the weapons don't generally exceed 6". Not saying it can't be done, just that it wasn't in real history during this era.

8" secondaries were common in the predreadnought era when the reload time of the primaries and the reliability of the primaries was in question. The quicker 8" guns would do most of the work while the 12" or 13" guns would finish the job. But then combat ranges were 6,000 yards or less (in general).

I don't see your twin mounted turreted secondaries on your new drawing. It looks like it is meant to ram, again a predreadnought era and before concept. (the angle suggests a look like the new American destroyer design (the Zumwalt I believe).

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro

Quoted

Bismarck had three calibers.

which made for a Primary, Secondary and Tetriary.

That I wasn't disputing. All I'm pointing out is that the Secondaries on ships of the era aren't 8" guns, but more often 6" or 5" guns. Tetriary is common with some countries but still the size of the weapons don't generally exceed 6". Not saying it can't be done, just that it wasn't in real history during this era.

8" secondaries were common in the predreadnought era when the reload time of the primaries and the reliability of the primaries was in question. The quicker 8" guns would do most of the work while the 12" or 13" guns would finish the job. But then combat ranges were 6,000 yards or less (in general).

I don't see your twin mounted turreted secondaries on your new drawing. It looks like it is meant to ram, again a predreadnought era and before concept. (the angle suggests a look like the new American destroyer design (the Zumwalt I believe).

The twin secondaries are on there, but photobucket isnt showing the updated pic yet. Just be patient

It's not a ram bow actually. It's a primative tumblehome bow with a linear tumblehome hull. It sorta looks like a Zumwalt. But a Zumwalt actually is a little different in the bow.

We'll see what the engineers think about this one tomorrow. I have notions, but no experiance. I'm a historian, not an engineer.

Radical design.

I for one like split main batteries. One of my favorite designs (yet unbuilt) has a 6x12", 6x8" battery. However I dont think a heavy secondary battery is really useful in your case mainly because of your main battery. Your main battery is perfect for shooting up CAs which is what your secondarys can do, so you have two different guns doing the same job. In that case I would go with something smaller but faster firing. (6" guns) Or go with a different main battery. BTW your 8" guns seem to small in the picture.

Underwater torpedo tubes, I would get rid of them not because of the danger to the ship but becasue they are worthless. You have to aim the whole ship just to aim the torpedoes, not a problem with a sub, but a big problem with a 35,000 ton BB. That is why above water tubes where generaly use, much easier to aim, and with a good system easy to reload.

Your bow, it just looks UGLY!!! If there is something I dont like about her is the ram bow. I just dont like ram bows, hence my PDs at Navalism had Clipper Bows when everyone else still used rams. Now this is just a personal preference.

Other than that a nice ship, good armor, hitting power (good for around Guadacanal), and speed. I even like the thin Torpedo Bulkhead, none of my ships have anything thicker than 1".

You mean something like this?

I agree on the torps, underwater types are practically useless unless your BB's prey is dead in the water.

I'd say your AA armament is high, even using wesworld standards, for 1931. Its more akin to the Yamato in mid war.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Radical design.

I for one like split main batteries. One of my favorite designs (yet unbuilt) has a 6x12", 6x8" battery. However I dont think a heavy secondary battery is really useful in your case mainly because of your main battery. Your main battery is perfect for shooting up CAs which is what your secondarys can do, so you have two different guns doing the same job. In that case I would go with something smaller but faster firing. (6" guns) Or go with a different main battery. BTW your 8" guns seem to small in the picture.

Underwater torpedo tubes, I would get rid of them not because of the danger to the ship but becasue they are worthless. You have to aim the whole ship just to aim the torpedoes, not a problem with a sub, but a big problem with a 35,000 ton BB. That is why above water tubes where generaly use, much easier to aim, and with a good system easy to reload.

Your bow, it just looks UGLY!!! If there is something I dont like about her is the ram bow. I just dont like ram bows, hence my PDs at Navalism had Clipper Bows when everyone else still used rams. Now this is just a personal preference.

Other than that a nice ship, good armor, hitting power (good for around Guadacanal), and speed. I even like the thin Torpedo Bulkhead, none of my ships have anything thicker than 1".

Actually it's a tumblehome. Not a ram. :-)

And the 8" batteries are actually implemented for use against ships larger than cruisers. More likely BC's and BB's.

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
You mean something like this?

eww! NO. what is that monstrosity?

it's ugly!

That looks like a ram bow. i assume ur teasing me.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I agree on the torps, underwater types are practically useless unless your BB's prey is dead in the water.

I'd say your AA armament is high, even using wesworld standards, for 1931. Its more akin to the Yamato in mid war.

The real reason for putting them in is for future acoustic homing torpedo developments. It's ultimately an ASW (anti-sub) feature for self defense.

Yamato in mid war. :-(

don't really know what so say.

I feel that if I altered it to everyones advice it wouldn't be my design any longer. ya kno?