WesWorld

They might have trouble but she packs enough of a punch to make her advasary's think twice. Plus Denmark lacks the resources of her larger neighbours so they have to build on the cheap. Not a "worlds best" design but she's adequate. Its worth examining a slower design with 3 more 15' guns though.

The subject of this thread "Your thoughts please" has always made me want to post the following :

regarding costs, it all depends on the weapons Denmark has access to. I've been reading some ship reports and seems that soon several navies are going to move on calibers well over 406mm. When that happens, this ship will be seriously handicapped because of the limited 380mm caliber.

Here's a fast exercise I did on SS3 some weeks ago, on an hypotetical 1939 BB. I've changed date for 1937 and changed it slightly to achieve the needed hull strenght.

Notice the cost is only around 0.4 M £ over thor, yet has better armor , speed and broadside weight (with better shells to go with it), on a somewhat smaller displacement. Something along this line would have a longer life span than what Thor promises with that main battery.



Alfonso XII, Spanish Battleship laid down 1937

Displacement:
40.004 t light; 42.258 t standard; 44.894 t normal; 47.003 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(825,63 ft / 803,81 ft) x 105,48 ft x (30,18 / 31,36 ft)
(251,65 m / 245,00 m) x 32,15 m x (9,20 / 9,56 m)

Armament:
8 - 15,94" / 405 mm 45,0 cal guns - 2.189,19lbs / 993,00kg shells, 110 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1937 Model
2 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
1 x 2-gun mount on centreline forward
1 raised mount
16 - 5,12" / 130 mm 45,0 cal guns - 67,62lbs / 30,67kg shells, 400 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1937 Model
8 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
36 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 1,96lbs / 0,89kg shells, 900 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1937 Model
6 x 4-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
6 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
6 double raised mounts
42 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1.450 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1937 Model
20 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
20 raised mounts
3 x 4-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
3 double raised mounts
22 - 0,51" / 13,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 0,07lbs / 0,03kg shells, 1.750 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1937 Model
22 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
22 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 18.678 lbs / 8.472 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15,9" / 405 mm 524,93 ft / 160,00 m 14,76 ft / 4,50 m
Ends: 4,33" / 110 mm 277,23 ft / 84,50 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
1,64 ft / 0,50 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
2,56" / 65 mm 524,93 ft / 160,00 m 23,79 ft / 7,25 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 70,54 ft / 21,50 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16,1" / 410 mm 8,07" / 205 mm 12,6" / 320 mm
2nd: 4,13" / 105 mm 1,97" / 50 mm 3,15" / 80 mm
3rd: 1,77" / 45 mm - -
4th: 0,98" / 25 mm - -
5th: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 6,50" / 165 mm
Forecastle: 3,94" / 100 mm Quarter deck: 3,94" / 100 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 4,33" / 110 mm, Aft 2,17" / 55 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 159.947 shp / 119.320 Kw = 30,00 kts
Range 8.500nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4.746 tons

Complement:
1.541 - 2.004

Cost:
£19,931 million / $79,726 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3.182 tons, 7,1 %
- Guns: 3.182 tons, 7,1 %
Armour: 17.054 tons, 38,0 %
- Belts: 5.697 tons, 12,7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1.182 tons, 2,6 %
- Armament: 3.102 tons, 6,9 %
- Armour Deck: 6.896 tons, 15,4 %
- Conning Towers: 177 tons, 0,4 %
Machinery: 4.433 tons, 9,9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14.896 tons, 33,2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4.890 tons, 10,9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 440 tons, 1,0 %
- Hull below water: 90 tons
- Hull above water: 90 tons
- On freeboard deck: 180 tons
- Above deck: 80 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
66.044 lbs / 29.957 Kg = 32,6 x 15,9 " / 405 mm shells or 10,4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,13
Metacentric height 6,8 ft / 2,1 m
Roll period: 17,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 61 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,64
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,614 / 0,619
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,62 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28,35 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 28,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6,56 ft / 2,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 25,00 %, 28,71 ft / 8,75 m, 21,33 ft / 6,50 m
- Forward deck: 25,00 %, 21,33 ft / 6,50 m, 21,33 ft / 6,50 m
- Aft deck: 33,00 %, 21,33 ft / 6,50 m, 21,33 ft / 6,50 m
- Quarter deck: 17,00 %, 21,33 ft / 6,50 m, 21,33 ft / 6,50 m
- Average freeboard: 22,06 ft / 6,72 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 99,8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 165,6 %
Waterplane Area: 62.825 Square feet or 5.837 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 202 lbs/sq ft or 988 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,99
- Longitudinal: 1,06
- Overall: 1,00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room



Note I make no use of transom stern or bulbous bow in the design, could be a bit more capable using them...

I've got a 28knot 10-gun version with similar armor somewhere, too...bottom point is that investing in a ship with nine 380mm guns when most fleets plan to move on 16+ inches doesn't sound that good.

That design does look rather tempting, actually.

From where I sit, it seems unlikely that the Danes are planning to fight the new breed dreadnoughts, and instead face off against the older treaty and pre-treaty battleships. I think the 9x15" is good enough for that, particularly with that heavy shell.

The biggest question I have... what can this ship fight that Mac's ship can't? I'm not certain I see anything which Thor can't beat and Alfonso XII can... both are slightly inferior to the Okunis, both are superior to the Indian battleships (though Alfonso XII is less inferior). The extra torpedo bulkhead might come in handy in sub and MTB-infested waters, so I see that as a bigger advantage than the guns.

The way I see it, the shell size will matter a lot. This ship won't take any of the incoming monsters which will roam the SIM in a few sim-years, but that gun size gives it at least the chance to do some damage and make the ship a credible threat. 9x380mm can be taken much less seriously than 8x405mm and a 990kg shell.

All that in exchange for one less gun, and the extra knot and better armor always comes in handy...

I don't really agree, there are fairly hard limits on armour thickness that can't be changed. The problem is that the quality of the armour plate falls off with increasing thickness. If the armour is 10% thicker it isn't 10% more effective and so it comes down to lugging around excess weight. For the UK the limit was 15" thick plates. For more or less everyone else it was around 12-13". The Japanese just disregarded the issue and simply built bigger instead.

Against any likely armour schemes a high performance weapon like the Italian 381/50 can realistically penetrate anything it can hit. With the growth in vulnerable external systems, the need for penetrating hits becomes less.

Guns larger than 16" cost more to develop and have more operational restrictions.

I have mixed feelings about this issue. Personally, I'm not looking at any new battlewagons at present, except for coast defense ships.

I wonder of all those designing ships with guns 16"+ consider muzzle blast. From OTL Yamato one could easily learn what large guns do to exposed equipment and gun mounts. As a result you need armored hangars for everything and get a cramped and crowded superstructure......

Canada already examined this issue several years ago when designing Canada/Excelsior; If Canada wanted to, it was free of Cleito restraints and could have gone with larger guns. Instead, it was decided that more barrels, and attention to other details of the design would be a better choice.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I wonder of all those designing ships with guns 16"+ consider muzzle blast. From OTL Yamato one could easily learn what large guns do to exposed equipment and gun mounts. As a result you need armored hangars for everything and get a cramped and crowded superstructure......

For Atlantis its worth the extra difficulty's, seeing as its 15" shells are smaller than other navy's similar caliber shells.

My next BB design does take into account the blast issues, with equipment being moved further towards midships though the after guns will be limited in their firing arcs dirrectly aft over the aircraft and launch equipment. That just means it will be more costly to turn tail and run with covering fire thereby further reducing that option to captains in a fight!