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.

goggles2

Unregistered

1

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 7:31am

German Battleship 1934 (just experimenting)

german battleship laid down 1934

this is my 2nd ever spring sharp design posted here for your consideration and scrutiny

took most of the armor values from the real life battleship bismarck with some slight adjustments as well as some hull form characteristics

simmed in ss3b3

Bayern, Germany Battleship laid down 1934

Displacement:
65,709 t light; 68,415 t standard; 71,932 t normal; 74,746 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(825.37 ft / 813.00 ft) x 122.89 ft (Bulges 122.90 ft) x (37.00 / 38.25 ft)
(251.57 m / 247.80 m) x 37.46 m (Bulges 37.46 m) x (11.28 / 11.66 m)

Armament:
6 - 18.00" / 457 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3,086.99lbs / 1,400.24kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
1 x Twin mount on centreline, aft deck aft
8 - 4.10" / 104 mm 45.0 cal guns - 34.75lbs / 15.76kg shells, 200 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1934 Model
2 x Twin mounts on sides, aft deck centre
2 x Twin mounts on sides, forward deck centre
6 - 1.30" / 33.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1.11lbs / 0.50kg shells, 350 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
2 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck aft
4 x Single mounts on sides, aft deck forward
10 - 0.80" / 20.3 mm 50.0 cal guns - 0.27lbs / 0.12kg shells, 500 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
10 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 18,809 lbs / 8,532 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.2" / 310 mm 643.04 ft / 196.00 m 13.55 ft / 4.13 m
Ends: 3.94" / 100 mm 157.48 ft / 48.00 m 13.29 ft / 4.05 m
12.48 ft / 3.80 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 5.91" / 150 mm 643.04 ft / 196.00 m 10.60 ft / 3.23 m
Main Belt covers 122 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 13.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
4.72" / 120 mm 787.40 ft / 240.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 113.70 ft / 34.66 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.0" / 381 mm 7.00" / 178 mm 13.0" / 330 mm
2nd: 3.50" / 89 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -
4th: 0.80" / 20 mm 0.60" / 15 mm -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 3.35" / 85 mm
Forecastle: 3.62" / 92 mm Quarter deck: 3.62" / 92 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3.15" / 80 mm, Aft 3.15" / 80 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, plus diesel motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 168,715 shp / 125,862 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 7,050nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,331 tons

Complement:
2,196 - 2,855

Cost:
£24.175 million / $96.698 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,251 tons, 4.5 %
- Guns: 3,251 tons, 4.5 %
Armour: 16,493 tons, 22.9 %
- Belts: 6,472 tons, 9.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,806 tons, 2.5 %
- Armament: 2,952 tons, 4.1 %
- Armour Deck: 5,028 tons, 7.0 %
- Conning Towers: 235 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 4,854 tons, 6.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 40,171 tons, 55.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,224 tons, 8.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 940 tons, 1.3 %
- Hull below water: 200 tons
- Hull above water: 640 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
133,195 lbs / 60,416 Kg = 45.7 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 27.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 8.2 ft / 2.5 m
Roll period: 18.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.42
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.89

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle, low quarterdeck ,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.681 / 0.684
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.62 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.51 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 79
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 21.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 31.00 %, 14.00 ft / 4.27 m, 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Forward deck: 32.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Aft deck: 18.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Quarter deck: 19.00 %, 12.00 ft / 3.66 m, 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
- Average freeboard: 18.12 ft / 5.52 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 52.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 157.1 %
Waterplane Area: 78,724 Square feet or 7,314 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 158 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 423 lbs/sq ft or 2,064 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 2.05
- Longitudinal: 2.15
- Overall: 2.06
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather




sorry if that comes out messy i couldnt get it to paste properly

anyway this is my 2nd ever design and i need advice and tips for future desgins

cheers :D

2

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 8:08am

At least it won't break in half like my first attempt! :D

Quoted

Ship space, strength and comments:
- Overall: 2.06
The ship is twice as big as it has to be. Reduce dimensions untill this value gets close to 1.00.

Other things to do, include:
Increase secondary armament
Increase armor (if battleship)
Decrease torpedo bulkhead
Increase speed (if battlecruiser)
Increase freeboard

Not bad really, just a bit big.

goggles2

Unregistered

3

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 8:29am

soooo you want to make hull strength lower? ?( that seems counter intuitive?

and freeboard would improve seakeeping i assume?

decrease torpedo bulkhead wat would u recommend?

4

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 8:40am

The optimum hull strength should be around 1.00, more than that you are just wasting tonnage, less the ship might be in danger.

Freeboard will increase seakeeping.

I generally go with 1" on the torpedo bulkhead, but most use between 2"-3", more than that is actually worse.

goggles2

Unregistered

5

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 8:54am

ah i see i wasnt sure what average hull strength would be so i assumed anything less than 2.00 a was weak :P

as for torpedo buldge i couldnt find the specific figure in my design charts of bismarck so i just guessed:P

goggles2

Unregistered

6

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 9:19am

my revised verision of Bayern 1934 with the improvements suggested by desertfox

still a tad big and high hull strength but i trimmed it down a little and added another set of dual 4.10" secondary DP mounts, trimmed down torpedo bulkhead, increased freeboard, buffed up armor protection in all areas, speed remains the same as this is a battleship

Bayern, Germany Battleship laid down 1934

Displacement:
54,790 t light; 57,282 t standard; 60,457 t normal; 62,996 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(783.98 ft / 770.35 ft) x 119.61 ft (Bulges 119.62 ft) x (33.72 / 34.94 ft)
(238.96 m / 234.80 m) x 36.46 m (Bulges 36.46 m) x (10.28 / 10.65 m)

Armament:
6 - 18.00" / 457 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3,087.00lbs / 1,400.24kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
1 x Twin mount on centreline, aft deck aft
12 - 4.10" / 104 mm 45.0 cal guns - 34.74lbs / 15.76kg shells, 200 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1934 Model
3 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
3 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
6 - 1.30" / 33.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1.10lbs / 0.50kg shells, 350 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
2 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck aft
4 x Single mounts on sides, aft deck forward
10 - 0.80" / 20.3 mm 50.0 cal guns - 0.26lbs / 0.12kg shells, 500 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
10 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 18,948 lbs / 8,595 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.4" / 315 mm 600.39 ft / 183.00 m 13.55 ft / 4.13 m
Ends: 4.33" / 110 mm 114.83 ft / 35.00 m 13.29 ft / 4.05 m
55.13 ft / 16.80 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 6.50" / 165 mm 600.39 ft / 183.00 m 10.60 ft / 3.23 m
Main Belt covers 120 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 13.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
2.72" / 69 mm 787.40 ft / 240.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 113.06 ft / 34.46 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.4" / 392 mm 7.16" / 182 mm 13.3" / 337 mm
2nd: 3.78" / 96 mm 1.43" / 36 mm 2.28" / 58 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -
4th: 0.80" / 20 mm 0.60" / 15 mm -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 3.58" / 91 mm
Forecastle: 3.86" / 98 mm Quarter deck: 3.74" / 95 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3.31" / 84 mm, Aft 3.31" / 84 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, plus diesel motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 155,865 shp / 116,275 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 7,050nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,714 tons

Complement:
1,927 - 2,506

Cost:
£22.110 million / $88.441 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,283 tons, 5.4 %
- Guns: 3,283 tons, 5.4 %
Armour: 15,773 tons, 26.1 %
- Belts: 6,268 tons, 10.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,042 tons, 1.7 %
- Armament: 3,309 tons, 5.5 %
- Armour Deck: 4,935 tons, 8.2 %
- Conning Towers: 220 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 4,484 tons, 7.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 30,310 tons, 50.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,667 tons, 9.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 940 tons, 1.6 %
- Hull below water: 200 tons
- Hull above water: 640 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
109,227 lbs / 49,545 Kg = 37.5 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 18.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 8.2 ft / 2.5 m
Roll period: 17.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.54
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle, low quarterdeck ,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.681 / 0.685
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.44 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.76 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 21.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 31.00 %, 17.28 ft / 5.27 m, 17.28 ft / 5.27 m
- Forward deck: 32.00 %, 26.28 ft / 8.01 m, 26.28 ft / 8.01 m
- Aft deck: 18.00 %, 26.28 ft / 8.01 m, 26.28 ft / 8.01 m
- Quarter deck: 19.00 %, 15.28 ft / 4.66 m, 15.28 ft / 4.66 m
- Average freeboard: 21.40 ft / 6.52 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 59.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 188.6 %
Waterplane Area: 72,602 Square feet or 6,745 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 136 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 341 lbs/sq ft or 1,663 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.59
- Longitudinal: 2.09
- Overall: 1.63
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "goggles2" (May 15th 2008, 9:20am)


7

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 12:13pm

Still a LOT bigger than it needs to be, as shown by

Quoted

- Overall: 1.63


You've already allowed a lot of weight for growth with the 940 tons of miscellaneous weight, which is good. But you've got weight and space available for at least another 18" turret, plus a 15cm secondary battery.

8

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 12:21pm

Plus adding a deck more able to reject enemy shells might be a good idea (6+ inches)

9

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 1:18pm

Some small comments ;)

a) with her beam of >32,3m she couldn't use the panama-channel

b) poor AA armament, aircrafts are the death of a bb even if she has the biggest gun's (457mm)

c) In my eyes is building such a ship a waste of materials, because the edged place of germany. Germany has to protect the North and Baltic Sea, and for both you needn't such a ship. And for global playing, you need more than one of them, because one ship could only be at one place !!!!!
For the 63000 tons i would built a fleet of cruisers.

But that's all only my points.

10

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 3:38pm

Parador, if you're saying:

Quoted

In my eyes is building such a ship a waste of materials, because the edged place of germany. Germany has to protect the North and Baltic Sea, and for both you needn't such a ship.

then why should the Germans care about a warship that can use the Panama Canal? :)

Regarding the design, there is no need for me to add to the constructive critisism that a few others have given. I am not sure what the idea is behind the 0.005 feet (15 mm) bulges on each side of the vessel...

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (May 15th 2008, 3:40pm)


11

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 4:01pm

You are surely right. Why should Germany care about the Panama-Channel if they only have to protect the seas around Germany.
But why restrict opportunities ? For example, an enemy now knows that the ship must getting around the Falkland Islands to come to the Indian Ocean => He must only place his fleet there to get the ship. If the ship can go through the Panama Canal, then there's another option => he needs twice the number of ships, because the ship can go either through the Panama Canal or around Cape Horn ;)

12

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 4:04pm

If I want to go from Germany to the Indian Ocean, I would take the quickest route which is through the Suez Canal. :D

13

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 4:10pm

Okay with the Suez Canal you didn't have such restrictions. But through the mediteran sea ? You are kidding !!! You have there two Bottlenecks: Gibraltar and Malta. And the med-sea could be patroled by aircrafts :( and not to forget the red sea. These are all points again the med-sea (in my eyes).

14

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 4:21pm

Which is exactly why it is important to be friends with the locals when passing through that area. :)

Alternatively, I think that going around South Africa is quicker than though the Panama Canal.

15

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 4:32pm

Around South Africa is another way ;)

Having friends is important no matter which area you are passing.

16

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 6:19pm

I never really looked into German WW2 raiding stuff, but if it is pretty much like in the Movie "Battle of the River Plate" then going around South Africa is what the Germans did to get into the Indian Ocean and not through the Panama Canal.

goggles2

Unregistered

17

Thursday, May 15th 2008, 11:10pm

hehehe thanks for the tips guys i will take this into consideration on my next design

cheers:D