WesWorld

True, but then if you think its a sound design its your choice. All the advice, cretique ect. isn't meant to turn your design into some frankenstein design but to see where improvements can be made, at the end of it all your still the one making the alterations to your own personal specs.

Ironically this ship falls into a similar weight class to my Vengeance class BC's, same main armament as well. Speed is much lower though and the Vengeance class would likely dictate the range in a hypothetical battle.

Where to start?

Bow design: The tumblehome and ram is useful if your ship is either a submarine or steathly. Otherwise it doesn't make a great deal of sense. The tumblehome is a big no-no. Waves will nicely wash up the bow and over the forecastle making the forward turrets and probably the bridge unusable. The ship will pitch down into waves as well. Tumblehome hull limits the volume of the ship. Less space for systems and crew and definitely works to the detriment of protection by angling the armour belt inwards.

Guns: You'll have real problems with the 8" turrets. They are massively armoured which means 300-350tons per turret. All this weight is being located at the extreme beam of the hull leading to far greater stresses on the ship. Not to mention the problems with magazine space. The 8" battery isn't "useless" but it isn't particularly "useful"

3" is really too light to use as an AA weapon before automatics and proximity fuses.

The torpedo tubes are of questionable use. Above decks they can be hit by shellfire and explode. The submerged ones cannot be fired at high speed and fired at what anyway? Its unlikely for something you can hit to close to 100hm range. They make a large weak point in your TDS for water to come through.

More on machinery when I find a computer again.

Quoted

Originally posted by Salaam86
Armament:
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

well, i will join the ones that think 8" secondaries are a bit pointless.
The 8" gun will not have that great a advantage in ROF over the main battery, they are less accurate over longer ranges (were that flight time of the shell reduces the ROF even more), and at short ranges a more rapid firing 5 or 6" gun will be just as efficient. Better to drop them and increase the main battery, either in numbers or in size.

Quoted

Armament:

x8 G02 14"/56
G02E 14"/56
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

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

The weight of the shells differ between the SS sim and the Biggun sim.

I much prefere my own designHere

Edit:Also, the combination of fairly low stability, low metacentric height and bulging puts the ship in risk of capsizing if hit by torpedoes, offsetting the otherwise fairly good underwater survivability.

And the main belt is very narrow, i think it would be better to have a bit thinner but deeper belt, but that is up to you.

Nice drawing Korpen!

Go with 16-6inch for the secondary battery, with around 20-4.5inch DP guns in twin mounts for the tertiary AA Battery.

Make the belt longer (at least 90% normal length), and add deck armour, at the expense of the armour for the secondaries 5,3,3 being adequate.

As for TT's in battleships, they proved very hard to fire, and if the locker is hit, you can wave goodbye to a large chunk of ship as the warheads go off.

As for that hullform, I think the bow is too pronounced and would negate any hydraulic efficiency that the minor rams created, and cause you some real problems in rough weather.

After that shave 5ft off the beam and add it to the bulges, then use the excess strength to add 100+tons of misc weight, and increase speed and range as much as possible

The armament issue has already been discussed at great length, so I won't go in to it.

Your machinery arrangement sounds feasible, and probably would work as you describe, but I suspect the banks of batteries to provide the required power would be quite horrendous.

Regardless of what SpringSharp says, it will have atrocious seakeeping, unless you are very lucky indeed. The raked bow poses exactly no opposition to waves coming over the bow: that is in fact its' advantage, because this can reduce resistance if properly designed. However, it also means that in any sort of sea, most of the forward part of the ship will be awash. This is especially so as the centre of buoyancy is well aft of the centre of gravity, unless there is a large amount of ballast at the stern. That means that the ship will be much happier going bow-down into the water than coming out of it.

Any sort of tumblehome decreases the waterplane area as the displacement increases, meaning that draught increases quickly as well. That is, there is much poorer reserve buoyancy than a straight or outwards-flared hull. Equally, any rolling will result in less waterplane on the immersed side, and possibly more on the drying side. This will move the centre of buoyancy away from the roll, reducing the righting moment. Which means that stability is poor, again regardless of what SpringSharp says.

I'm not saying that the hullform you're depicting can't be done; it can. However, it is only really seen on modern vessels, due to lightweight superstructure materials, which improve stability; more exhaustive processes for structural analysis, to be sure that the bow does not snap off in heavy seas, which can happen; and the fact that continued tumblehome is only really beneficial if you want to reduce the radar signature.

Plus, it just looks ugly, which is reason enough for me.

The tumblehome design was also seen on French-built or designed predreadnoughts, the picture that Ithekro posted (the one that is _so_ ugly) is one of these. Most of the Russian battleships at Tsushima had this design "feature".

There are arguments for and against the 8" secondary. The 3" tertiary battery might be better if it were a 88-90mm secondary, but there were a several 3" AA mountings used through the WWII period that were not designed or fitted for automatic fire or with proximity fused rounds.

Quoted

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

Actually, testing the design in SS, I found out that that unusual freeboard eats up a little bit of hull strength.
Also using paint to exactly draw the lines of the freeboard, it just looks weird!

Quoted

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.

In a life and death situation with dozens of torpedoes in the water, the captain of the ship might think otherwise. :-)

Quoted

Besides, 8.8 torpedoes isn't bad at all.

Yes, it's better than my Tachibana class.

Quoted

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.

Okay. Having seen the picture, I now understand the reason for the bow angle and low BC.

Quoted

I noticed that some of your designs have much lower gun steadiness and sea worthiness than this design.

The low sea worthiness has to do with me sacrificing it for the higher speeds I am aiming for. I think that the only exception would be the Waissu/Shuraiento Class which has a high speed yet still has good sea worthiness.
The low steadiness is either because I need to increase my stability a bit (I have one design that will be at 0.90 when using a trim of 50) or I cannot get to the 70% mark without getting the stability below 1.05 or I just plainly forgot about it.

Quoted

Your bow, it just looks UGLY!!!

To be honest, I think it looks rather interesting. :-)
(even if it does have the drawbacks as mentioned)

Quoted

I'd say your AA armament is high, even using wesworld standards, for 1931.

I think it is actually less than what I have on my new BCs.
The fact that such a gun is an anti-aircraft guns, doesn't mean they need to be used for that purpose or are even fitted for that purpose. Like I said with the Tachibana, "Why waste big shells (actually anything over the 75mm shells) and/or torpedoes on a merchant vessel while you can easily punch many small holes in them, incapacitate their crews and then take them over without any resistance."

Well now the engineers have spoken. And yes that ugly ship I posted is a French 1880s - 1890s Battleship Design with a tumblehome hull (and ram bow). Specifically it is Massena.

I actually like the heavy secondary designs, and with a heavier primary battery I would mount such 8" guns to engage heavy cruisers in fleet actions while the main batteries are engaging the battleships. However as mentioned by other, such heavy secondaries could be a problem for your ship in combat for various reasons. However I'd note that your battleship has a secondary battery that is equal to the entire primary battery of the Wesworld Chilean Armored Cruiser Capitan Tylor.

In Wesworld, a battleship such as yours would probably be used by a smaller power that wanted a big edge without having to invest in more heavy guns. The 8"guns add a lot to the shell weight of the broadside, as much as a heavy cruiser. This is about like the British Predreadnough Swifture with 10" primaries and 7.5" secondaries and high speed (for the time). This makes for a high speed Second Class Battleship that has the equivalent of an Armored cruiser (or one and a half armored cruisers) and a Battleship in one package. Lots of the Semi-dreadnoughts had very heavy secondaries and most of the American predreadnoughts had 8" secondaries (and later ones had 7" tetriaries). I mean if this ship used American 14'/45 cal guns, or just could use the shells for that gun, and mounted American 8"/55 cal cannons as the secondaries, Chile would probably try to build it as a cheaper fast battleship with extra punch. (But I like crazy.)

What do you envision this vessel being used for in a real world situation?

Walter, could you post your paint drawing of this ship's freeboard? I'm curious now.

Crap! I closed Paint about 10 minutes ago without bothering to save it... :-\

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
True, but then if you think its a sound design its your choice. All the advice, cretique ect. isn't meant to turn your design into some frankenstein design but to see where improvements can be made, at the end of it all your still the one making the alterations to your own personal specs.

Ironically this ship falls into a similar weight class to my Vengeance class BC's, same main armament as well. Speed is much lower though and the Vengeance class would likely dictate the range in a hypothetical battle.

I understand and I am very very thankful for the comments and feedback. But at the same time, some of these features i'm not willing to change. I dont think anyone is trying to make my design a frankenstein design; but I do think everyone is trying to change it into what they would have designed.

hehe. oo!

I just looked at ur BC. Your design has only 12" of armor on the main belt? Meaning that both my 14" guns and 8" guns will both penetrate? Range is kinda irrelevant considering that you'd have to draw in closer than me to fire because my design has 3 inches more armor.

And my design can overtake some of your BB's as well.

Quoted

Originally posted by RLBH
The armament issue has already been discussed at great length, so I won't go in to it.

Quoted

Your machinery arrangement sounds feasible, and probably would work as you describe, but I suspect the banks of batteries to provide the required power would be quite horrendous.

Well you have to remember that it's a 33,000 ton ship. I'd say theres enough to power it for 20 mins without exceeding 30T in batteries. Of course the speed would be around 5 kts. So...not exactly the cruise speed of 15 kts by far.

Quoted

Regardless of what SpringSharp says, it will have atrocious seakeeping, unless you are very lucky indeed.

I disagree.

Quoted

The raked bow poses exactly no opposition to waves coming over the bow: that is in fact its' advantage, because this can reduce resistance if properly designed.

The actual term for tumblehome is "Wave piercing tumblehome hull," and tumblehome hulls actually have signficant advantages. The power to wave would waste much less power in comparison.

Quoted

However, it also means that in any sort of sea, most of the forward part of the ship will be awash.

Which is why my ship has it's peculiar freeboard.

Quoted

This is especially so as the centre of buoyancy is well aft of the centre of gravity, unless there is a large amount of ballast at the stern. That means that the ship will be much happier going bow-down into the water than coming out of it.

Put a ballast in the front then. :-)

Quoted

Any sort of tumblehome decreases the waterplane area as the displacement increases, meaning that draught increases quickly as well. That is, there is much poorer reserve buoyancy than a straight or outwards-flared hull. Equally, any rolling will result in less waterplane on the immersed side, and possibly more on the drying side. This will move the centre of buoyancy away from the roll, reducing the righting moment. Which means that stability is poor, again regardless of what SpringSharp says.

The Tumblehome is a type of ship hull form with an exaggerated ram bow; a wave-piercing bow shape, in which the stem rakes aft. This results in a more stable weapons platform, as the vessel does not rise to the waves but passes through them. The rake of the stem is continued to the stern in the form of tumble-home. This combination of features results in a very wet deck and a potentially lower radar reflection. This aspect gives the vessel something of the faceted appearance of a stealth aircraft. The ship is a compromise between a surface vessel and a submarine, which is designed to pass through the surface of the sea rather than over it.

Quoted

I'm not saying that the hullform you're depicting can't be done; it can. However, it is only really seen on modern vessels, due to lightweight superstructure materials, which improve stability; more exhaustive processes for structural analysis, to be sure that the bow does not snap off in heavy seas, which can happen; and the fact that continued tumblehome is only really beneficial if you want to reduce the radar signature.

Not true. If done correctly it's absolutely a positive feature. Read the above.

Quoted

Plus, it just looks ugly, which is reason enough for me.

I think it's hawt. ;-)

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
Well now the engineers have spoken. And yes that ugly ship I posted is a French 1880s - 1890s Battleship Design with a tumblehome hull (and ram bow). Specifically it is Massena.

Quoted

I actually like the heavy secondary designs, and with a heavier primary battery I would mount such 8" guns to engage heavy cruisers in fleet actions while the main batteries are engaging the battleships. However as mentioned by other, such heavy secondaries could be a problem for your ship in combat for various reasons. However I'd note that your battleship has a secondary battery that is equal to the entire primary battery of the Wesworld Chilean Armored Cruiser Capitan Tylor.

Exactly. And then when the cruisers are dead or dying, those 8" batteries turn on the battleships that are left. ;-)

Quoted

In Wesworld, a battleship such as yours would probably be used by a smaller power that wanted a big edge without having to invest in more heavy guns. The 8"guns add a lot to the shell weight of the broadside, as much as a heavy cruiser. This is about like the British Predreadnough Swifture with 10" primaries and 7.5" secondaries and high speed (for the time). This makes for a high speed Second Class Battleship that has the equivalent of an Armored cruiser (or one and a half armored cruisers) and a Battleship in one package. Lots of the Semi-dreadnoughts had very heavy secondaries and most of the American predreadnoughts had 8" secondaries (and later ones had 7" tetriaries). I mean if this ship used American 14'/45 cal guns, or just could use the shells for that gun, and mounted American 8"/55 cal cannons as the secondaries, Chile would probably try to build it as a cheaper fast battleship with extra punch. (But I like crazy.)

It's all yours if you agree to adopt it without changing anything except for the torpedo tubes. If you don't like the tubes, toss them.

They are all angled aft anyways. So unless your counting on the development of acoustic homing torpedoes in Chile by the late 1930's, they might not be your thing.

Quoted

What do you envision this vessel being used for in a real world situation?

AShW.

Taking on other ships. Primarily slower battleships and smaller ships such as cruisers. At least the ones it can catch. Aircraft carriers are a secondary target. Basically anything that can't get away is game.

As for catching the faster things...you should see my Type 2 design. @44,075 tons it does 32 kts and carries x12 14" G02 guns.

And the Type 4...well...fear only God and Type 4 in any given situation. ;-)

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?th…657e18c5fc5fe43

The point of her heavy secondary battery is to be able to fight two battlecruisers at once, crippling one with her 6x381mm main battery, while keeping the other occupied with her 6x240mm. There's a bunch of battlecruisers lurking in the Pacific.

And she's high on France's list for post-Treaty acquisitions.

Quoted

And the Type 4...well...fear only God and Type 4 in any given situation. ;-)

And... Soyuz Nerushimy.

Fear only God and Type 4? Now I'm really curious how that one will look like.
I think I better look where I have left that Yukihime Mk.2 design...

Hm, i just realized that none of the guns on the ship is raised, so the picture is incorrect, all gun should be at deck level, with no superfiring main battery. (but i guess it is simply forgotten in SS)
Funny nobody have seen that, i guess I simply took it for granted.

Quoted

Originally posted by Korpen
Hm, i just realized that none of the guns on the ship is raised, so the picture is incorrect, all gun should be at deck level, with no superfiring main battery. (but i guess it is simply forgotten in SS)
Funny nobody have seen that, i guess I simply took it for granted.

Actually they arent deck level. The freeboard elevates the turrets so that turret B is superfiring and turret C is superfiring.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Fear only God and Type 4? Now I'm really curious how that one will look like.
I think I better look where I have left that Yukihime Mk.2 design...

Well I'm not sure I want to post it since no one is really interested in adopting my designs. Plus, I'm not sure this is the proper time to reveal it. It's a terror at sea but its not a matter of size. The Type 2 which as I've stated is 44,000 tons light, is larger than the type 4. But the Type 4 is nearly five fold more lethal.

I'll give ya a tease though...

Type 4 A-11, Neutral Battleship laid down 1934

Displacement:
38,982 t light; 41,035 t standard; 53,578 t normal; 63,613 t full load

Part of it all is the mere discussion of concepts, not necessarily seeing a design adopted.

Then there's the matter of the OPFOR- what the ship is designed to do, and whom has a need for that role. In WesWorld, there is the further constraint of the treaty limiting tonnage for many players.

Another part is seeing what others feel are a weak point on a design, which you may/may not agree with. I have changed some elements of my designs post-critique, but left other things alone.

To me, the point of guns being modeled as superfiring or not...is not a matter of the picture and how high above freeboard they are portrayed, but rather an issue of barbette height as measured from the armor deck. My interpretation is that right now, all your barbette cylinders are modeled at the same height, when some turrets have more distance between the turret and the armor deck than others. This could mean the barbettes actually average thinner than shown as the armor is spread out over the higher barbettes (and they start thin).

we call these Battle Oilers. Or "Boilers" for short.

Quoted

Type 4 A-11, Neutral Battleship laid down 1934
Displacement:
38,982 t light; 41,035 t standard; 53,578 t normal; 63,613 t full load