WesWorld

Quoted

Considering how relations between NATO/AEGIS and FAR-AEGIS have improved such a deployment would be a signal that those relations would have taken a turn for the worse.

It would only be in response to a likely Mexican invasion of central america.

The US isn't making any superheavy 16" shells, as the only 16" guns are old ones that can't use them. Need to up the shell weight in SS as well to reflect the heavier shell, even with the 2240lb one.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Right now I would have absolutely no way of doing so. Plus the Gulf/Carribbean is no place for a battleship. Sending large expensive units such as this one into the Gulf would only be done as an act of desperation.

...but it is a possibility. It would be an additional cost saving messure if you designed a ship that could operate in both theatres, merging your small coastal design with the larger pacific design.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
A decent ship but too small for my needs. It is just the equal of a Villar and can not stand up to La Luna or any of the Peruvian BBs. My design with 16" superheavy shells at least stands the chance of inflicting serious damage on a Mercury.

I'd prefer to see guns in the 14-15" range in order to improve armour. If your going to get into a sluging match you might as well carry the armour to endure some of the punnishment.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
The US isn't making any superheavy 16" shells, as the only 16" guns are old ones that can't use them. Need to up the shell weight in SS as well to reflect the heavier shell, even with the 2240lb one.

Actually, the spring report for the Tennessee modernizations imply they're being armed with new manufacture guns (they're listed as 1936 model), but they aren't equipped with the super heavy shell. The way the various sim rules work out, it'd cost the US just as much to make new guns as it would be to equip the old ones, which is probably why that's happened that way, plus the fact that there wouldn't be enough guns in storage for all 6 ships (Tennessee and California were not planned for 16" originally) unless they tried equipping the 16"/50 meant for the South Dakotas instead of the 16"/45 originally intended.

Regardless, I see no reason to assume the US hasn't investigated the usual range of weapons and shells just because no ships are currently using them; A cursory search of Navweaps shows a great deal of weapons that were produced but not shipped anywhere. Furthermore, while the US has forgone 16" on it's new build ships, the US does occasionally take foreign contracts, and would keep options open (Chile has the Admiral Gideon, and Mexico has ordered several US built ships in addition to this proposal)

In short, just because no mention has been made of testing or using a super-heavy shell in the US (yet), I'd be very wary of discounting the possibility they've been considered or tested; it's really Hrolf's decision either way.

I believe the Gideon was built using surplus US 14"/L45 guns and turrets.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
The US isn't making any superheavy 16" shells, as the only 16" guns are old ones that can't use them. Need to up the shell weight in SS as well to reflect the heavier shell, even with the 2240lb one.

Actually, the spring report for the Tennessee modernizations imply they're being armed with new manufacture guns (they're listed as 1936 model), but they aren't equipped with the super heavy shell. The way the various sim rules work out, it'd cost the US just as much to make new guns as it would be to equip the old ones, which is probably why that's happened that way, plus the fact that there wouldn't be enough guns in storage for all 6 ships (Tennessee and California were not planned for 16" originally) unless they tried equipping the 16"/50 meant for the South Dakotas instead of the 16"/45 originally intended.

Regardless, I see no reason to assume the US hasn't investigated the usual range of weapons and shells just because no ships are currently using them; A cursory search of Navweaps shows a great deal of weapons that were produced but not shipped anywhere. Furthermore, while the US has forgone 16" on it's new build ships, the US does occasionally take foreign contracts, and would keep options open (Chile has the Admiral Gideon, and Mexico has ordered several US built ships in addition to this proposal)

In short, just because no mention has been made of testing or using a super-heavy shell in the US (yet), I'd be very wary of discounting the possibility they've been considered or tested; it's really Hrolf's decision either way.

Correct, the 16" guns going onto the refitted Tennessee-class ships are new construction guns, similar to the historical 16" Mk 8 guns. The US has done work on various super-heavy projectiles (see the 18" projectile as an example), but chose to equip the refitted Tennessee-class ships with lighter shells because those guns and shells were ready for production while the super-heavy shells would have needed more testing.

some inspiration hit me, so for Foxy's consideration;

You've got an extra 5" mount midships in the profile that isn't in the plan view.

D'oh. I'll fix that up. I always end up forgetting something.



And fixed

Hmm... Don't really like the superstructure, a Penascola/Cruiser style was what I was looking at. Kind of like an overgrown Villa.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Hmm... Don't really like the superstructure, a Penascola/Cruiser style was what I was looking at. Kind of like an overgrown Villa.

Tripods have more or less left the design scene by 1937. Ordering from a US yard, you're apt to either end up with something looking like this, or something more like the New Mexico rebuilds / NYC structure.

Quoted

Originally posted by exigeant
have to agree regarding the appearance, and if the funnels indicate where the boiler rooms are then where are the turbines and gears placed? it looks a bit 'chopped off' to me

It's a North Carolina with larger engineering spaces, which expand primariily (but not exclusively) aft, since there's no aft main battery.

She's only got a beam of 90 feet, so the stock NC hull is way too wide and the sim gives her a transom stern as well. I threw this together this afternoon. Needed to make some minor changes to the AA fit to cram it all in and the freeboard in the sim was a bit confusing. It went from 20 feet on the quarterdeck to 27 feet amidship and forward which seemed like an extreme jump for what was a flush deck design, so I gave her ramps like some of the early North Carolina designs. The aft AA guns were raised a deck to give better arcs over the aft deck. Nothing changes as far as construction costs.

I bow to the master, of course.

I like your's better than mine, its just that it doesn't fit the numbers. Still thinking about giving her two funnels instead of the one. There's also this early NC design, but again it will need to be narrowed considerably, which also pushes the main battery aft to give some room for the torpedo protection.


The design could be modified to make her beamier if the armor belts are modified a bit. It doesn't change her light weight, so it doesn't change any of the construction numbers.

Chapultepec, Mexican Battlecruiser laid down 1937

Displacement:
28,755 t light; 30,187 t standard; 33,527 t normal; 36,199 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
726.18 ft / 710.00 ft x 96.00 ft x 32.00 ft (normal load)
221.34 m / 216.41 m x 29.26 m x 9.75 m

Armament:
6 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (2x3 guns), 2,048.00lbs / 928.96kg shells, 1937 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
4 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (2x2 guns), 55.12lbs / 25.00kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (8x2 guns), 55.12lbs / 25.00kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 3.17lbs / 1.44kg shells, 1937 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 3 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 13,441 lbs / 6,097 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 417.13 ft / 127.14 m 11.76 ft / 3.58 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.50" / 38 mm 417.13 ft / 127.14 m 29.13 ft / 8.88 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 7.00" / 178 mm 11.0" / 279 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 11.00" / 279 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 115,976 shp / 86,518 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 14,400nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,013 tons

Complement:
1,238 - 1,610

Cost:
£15.727 million / $62.908 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,699 tons, 5.1 %
Armour: 9,955 tons, 29.7 %
- Belts: 2,364 tons, 7.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 674 tons, 2.0 %
- Armament: 2,141 tons, 6.4 %
- Armour Deck: 4,528 tons, 13.5 %
- Conning Tower: 246 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 3,214 tons, 9.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,718 tons, 40.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,771 tons, 14.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 170 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
47,421 lbs / 21,510 Kg = 23.2 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 6.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.07
Metacentric height 5.3 ft / 1.6 m
Roll period: 17.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 59 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.76
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.17

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.538
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.40 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.03 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 14.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.80 ft / 10.00 m
- Forecastle (29 %): 26.80 ft / 8.17 m
- Mid (50 %): 26.80 ft / 8.17 m (19.80 ft / 6.04 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (13 %): 19.80 ft / 6.04 m
- Stern: 19.80 ft / 6.04 m
- Average freeboard: 23.98 ft / 7.31 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 88.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 168.4 %
Waterplane Area: 48,957 Square feet or 4,548 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 194 lbs/sq ft or 948 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.93
- Longitudinal: 1.82
- Overall: 0.99
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent