WesWorld

Linear galleon "Tsar Ivan the Terrible"

Now that is one scary ship.
I do however have doughs about turrets of 380mm placed on sides.
The weight is not the only issue.
Under water protection is another.

The size is actually quite conservative considering some of the ideas that were put forward on this board.

I also like the French ship very much.
I always liked the way the French superstructures.
And Japanese Funnels.

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski
Now that is one scary ship.

This sort of reductio ad absurdum example of French naval architecture. The story was conceived as a joke

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski
I always liked the way the French superstructures.
And Japanese Funnels.

"Grand Hotel" I also like it.
I also like Japanese Funnels.

The light cruiser seems a little advanced for the time period. IIRC, turrets on light cruiser weren't introduced until 1923......but awesome work. Very incredible drawings.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
IIRC, turrets on light cruiser weren't introduced until 1913.

Sorta... not true. It depends a bit on your definitions. There were some protected cruisers - the type which slowly morphed into the classical "light cruiser" - which had turrets in barbettes. The Giovanni Bausan is an example.

In any case, the point is odd: you say turrets on light cruisers weren't introduced until 1913, yet that's exactly when that cruiser is laid down.

Typo...should have said 1923...

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
IIRC, turrets on light cruiser weren't introduced until 1923

In a comic alternative to anything is possible
Variants of light cruisers with towers in the Russian Imperial Navy have been developed after the Russian-Japanese War. The first projects of the light cruisers type "Svetlana" (1907) included weapons 1x1 203 mm and 3x2 120 mm, all in the towers. In 1911 there was even a variant 4x3 152 mm linear sublime
At the end of the towers refused to board a better book. And also because the construction of battle cruisers needed more money. This money is taken from the light cruisers.

Real project a high-speed cruiser with a displacement of 4,600 tons, designed by naval architect IA Gavrilov. Option number 1 November 1907. Russian Empire.

Real project a high-speed cruiser with a displacement of 8000 tons, designed by naval architect IA Gavrilov. Option number 2, 1907. Russian Empire.

The USN's Omaha class was laid down with the first ship in late 1918 with 6" guns in turrets.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
The USN's Omaha class was laid down with the first ship in late 1918 with 6" guns in turrets.

As far as I know Omaha is altered under the tower in the course of construction?

Of the top of my head, I don't know for sure; I'll double-check my copy of U.S. Cruisers when I get home tonight.

As per this lovely Web page on the HNSA site, the Mark 16 twin mounts for the Omaha were in fact what we "Springsharpers" would refer to as "Mount and Hoist" not "Turret on Barbette". So, do they 'count' as the 1st cruiser with 'turrets'?

Quoted

Originally posted by exigeant
Interesting, from what I can find on the internet, the Omahas were originally designed with 8*6 inch guns, and were modified to 10, so this may suggest turrets are an after thought, I do not have book references on the USN so I wait for definitive answer.
Looking at Russian & Soviet Battleships it shows that in 1906/7 imperial Russia were actively designing ships with turreted lower/smaller caliber armament from lessons learnt from the Russo-Japanese war, so battleships and/or cruisers both seem feasible.
So happy I am learning something new

As I understand it the turrets were added at the end to increase the broadside, originally they only had the casemates guns.

However, didn't a number of AC's and PC's have all turreted armament (the UK's last AC's had four 9.2-inch guns in twin turrets plus ten 7.5-inch guns in single turrets)?

There's not really a problem in having turreted armament, there were a few ships that did, and no particular structural reasons preventing them.

Why didn't most navies have turreted designs? Because for most navies, simpler mountings gave better performance, namely in weight and rate of fire. Light turreted armament of the period was very heavy and fired very slowly by comparison. It's only when you go to above 6" guns, open ocean, and decent protection, that the turreted option becomes more effective.

Totally agree, if we compare the two deck 6 "setting, and two similar-caliber gun turret installation, the rate of advantage will be for the deck units .... But building on the experience of Russian-Japanese war, with its massive use of high-explosive shells and a large wastage of personnel from number of calculations deck guns, then victory will be better protected by artillery units. It is surprising that a massive shift in the tower installation on light cruisers did not take place immediately after the last rounds of the Russian-Japanese War.

That's an interesting point, but post Russo-Japanese war fire control improved quite a bit which lead to an increase in fighting ranges. I'm hard pressed to think of any particular examples from WWI where gun crews on cruisers got a particularly mauling.

Yes it was a very interesting time. Even now in Russia is criticized program to build the armor deck cruisers of 6000 tons displacement, whose apotheosis of the cruiser class Bagatyr. But it is not good (Varangian) and effective (Bagatyr and Askold) printing error has left the entire program. Top marks were cruisers 2 ranks - Russian Novik class and Japanese / English elzvigskie "dog", whose further development led to the scouts. After the war in Russia is actively being worked out various options for light cruisers, scouts, but lacked funds and their construction was constantly postponed. Not yet prevailed on the concept of standing in the cruisers of 6000 tons - the full benefit of a single cruiser on a group of cruisers of the enemy, but its implementation could only give a well-protected and heavily armed cruiser, so there was a project of tower light cruisers, their implementation in the metal prevented the eternal lack of money, eventually appeared cheaper (but compared with foreign counterparts are still expensive) version - the cruiser type Svetlana - back to the old concept of a higher technical level. I wonder what would have led to the creation of Russian cruiser tower without cheapening or delays in construction. Perhaps England would have created a Hawkins already by 1914.

Some very interesting designs here. And the surprising thing is that they SS quite well..

*************

Andrej Pervozvannyj, Russian Battleship laid down 1906

Displacement:
14,815 t light; 15,489 t standard; 16,708 t normal; 17,683 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
472.80 ft / 467.80 ft x 79.70 ft x 29.10 ft (normal load)
144.11 m / 142.59 m x 24.29 m x 8.87 m

Armament:
8 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (4x2 guns), 864.00lbs / 391.90kg shells, 1906 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns in single mounts, 35.22lbs / 15.98kg shells, 1906 Model
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
2 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1906 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread, all raised mounts
2 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1906 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 7,504 lbs / 3,404 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 80

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 300.00 ft / 91.44 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: 3.00" / 76 mm 80.00 ft / 24.38 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
87.80 ft / 26.76 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 5.00" / 127 mm 250.00 ft / 76.20 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.50" / 38 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.50" / 38 mm, Conning tower: 9.00" / 229 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 19,281 shp / 14,384 Kw = 19.50 kts
Range 4,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,194 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
734 - 955

Cost:
£1.499 million / $5.997 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 938 tons, 5.6 %
Armour: 5,275 tons, 31.6 %
- Belts: 2,114 tons, 12.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 444 tons, 2.7 %
- Armament: 1,875 tons, 11.2 %
- Armour Deck: 715 tons, 4.3 %
- Conning Tower: 127 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 1,377 tons, 8.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,125 tons, 42.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,893 tons, 11.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
23,629 lbs / 10,718 Kg = 27.3 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 4.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.02
Metacentric height 3.7 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 17.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 79 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.99
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.88

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.539
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.87 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.63 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 42
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 23.79 ft / 7.25 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 23.79 ft / 7.25 m
- Mid (50 %): 23.79 ft / 7.25 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 23.79 ft / 7.25 m (15.14 ft / 4.61 m before break)
- Stern: 15.14 ft / 4.61 m
- Average freeboard: 21.63 ft / 6.59 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 92.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 143.4 %
Waterplane Area: 25,753 Square feet or 2,393 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 179 lbs/sq ft or 873 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.02
- Longitudinal: 3.15
- Overall: 1.14
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

Main Battery in a "Kongo"/"Tiger"-type layout. The 75mm cannons are on top of "B" and "X" turrets.