WesWorld

Apparently I built Argentina a 30 knot battleship with 10x14" guns sometime in the early 1920's. Here's what I think it might look like. Built by Fore River and based on a shrunken down version of a Fast South Dakota. Apparently they wanted something rather large!

Buenos Aires, Argentinian Battleship laid down 1921

Displacement:
39,660 t light; 41,374 t standard; 42,958 t normal; 44,225 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
751.05 ft / 740.00 ft x 102.00 ft (Bulges 106.00 ft) x 32.00 ft (normal load)
228.92 m / 225.55 m x 31.09 m (Bulges 32.31 m) x 9.75 m

Armament:
6 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (2x3 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1921 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1921 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1921 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
4 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1921 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 14,774 lbs / 6,701 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.5" / 343 mm 459.00 ft / 139.90 m 12.12 ft / 3.69 m
Ends: 6.00" / 152 mm 281.00 ft / 85.65 m 12.12 ft / 3.69 m
Upper: 5.00" / 127 mm 459.00 ft / 139.90 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 95 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
2.00" / 51 mm 459.00 ft / 139.90 m 30.73 ft / 9.37 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 7.00" / 178 mm 13.0" / 330 mm
2nd: 16.0" / 406 mm 7.00" / 178 mm 13.0" / 330 mm
3rd: 3.00" / 76 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 16.00" / 406 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 161,011 shp / 120,114 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 7,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,851 tons

Complement:
1,491 - 1,939

Cost:
£9.458 million / $37.832 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,847 tons, 4.3 %
Armour: 15,224 tons, 35.4 %
- Belts: 4,829 tons, 11.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,044 tons, 2.4 %
- Armament: 3,826 tons, 8.9 %
- Armour Deck: 5,102 tons, 11.9 %
- Conning Tower: 423 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 5,544 tons, 12.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,945 tons, 39.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,298 tons, 7.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
56,738 lbs / 25,736 Kg = 41.4 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 8.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.03
Metacentric height 5.5 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 19.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.69
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.07

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.599
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.98 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.20 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 34.00 ft / 10.36 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Mid (66 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 18.40 ft / 5.61 m (27.00 ft / 8.23 m before break)
- Stern: 18.40 ft / 5.61 m
- Average freeboard: 25.89 ft / 7.89 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 190.2 %
Waterplane Area: 55,153 Square feet or 5,124 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 210 lbs/sq ft or 1,026 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.51
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

I love the design allthough I must say it seems unlikely the Argies would purchase such a large design. I'm sure the Chileans will love this ship....like a hole in the head.

Quoted

6 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (2x3 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1921 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1921 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)

Why the doubling up of main guns in the list? Seems like a normal layout to me.

PROPAGANDA!

According to my information you have the displacement wrong. It should be 30000ts, not 40000ts.

Here´s a part of a text Peng prepared recently as part of our efforts to get you all the information about the war between Argentina and Nordmark.

"In 1913, a political decision was made to expand the domestic
shipbuilding capacity of Argentina, and also expand the capabilities of
the Argentine navy. Central in this new programme were two new
battleships, which were to be built domestically to a US design.
Important components would be manufactured abroad, but the ships would
be constructed in Argentina.

The first ships so constructed were eight destroyers, basically built
to a British design for the Turkish navy, but with American-made
turbine-sets, and laid down in 1914. Four more were laid down in 1915.
These were to supplement and partially replace the existing force of
destroyers/torpedoboats. Those in service range from the 340-ton
CORRIENTES-class of 1896-98 (being relegated to secondary coastal
roles) to the 950ton CORDOBA-class of 1910-12, built in various
nations.

At the same time as the four 1915 destroyers were ordered, two new
battleships were ordered, also for laying down in 1915. Heavy armour,
guns, and turbines would manufactured in the USA, but shipped to, and
assembled in, Argentina. The medium and light armour, and quickfiring
guns of 4inch and smaller calibre would be manufactured in Argentina.
These ships were intended to take the names of the two coast-defence
armourclads, but following the South-Georgian War the surviving
coast-defence ship was retained, and the battleship that was to have
had its name was renamed Capitan Gascón.

The ships would design-wise be in many respects similar to the
Nevada-class of the US Navy - of around 30,000 tons displacement, they
would have fewer but heavier guns: ten 14inch guns, in two
triple-turrets and two twin-turrets disposed symmetrically fore and
aft, twins superfiring. Like the Rivadavia-class, the new ships would
also mimick USA in their choice of cage-masts.

As far as protection was concerned, however, they would be more
conventional - where the Nevadas had a socalled "all or nothing"
armour-scheme, which either did not armour an area or else armoured it
with the heaviest armour, Argentina preferred for its ships a more
conventional incremental scheme. In the secondary armament there was
also a difference - where USA used a uniform battery of 5inch/51 in
casemates, Argentina chose a combination of 6inch and 4inch guns, as on
the Rivadavia-class battleships.

Unfortunately, it turned out that there were far greater difficulties
involved in setting up domestic shipbuilding-industry than had at first
been anticipated - this was painfully obvious with the destroyers, the
first being completed only in 1918, and approaching obsolesence. By
1916 this was so clear that the planned 1917 laying down of four scout
cruisers domestically was postponed.

The battleships fared little better. While the US-produced goods were
delivered on time, there were severe difficulties with construction of
the hull, and the domestic armour-mills intended to deliver medium
armour to the ships consistently failed to produce satisfactory armour
of thickness greater than 2.5 inches. Eventually, by 1917, it was
realised one had to order the medium armour from USA - unfortunately
the order was not placed until after the US entry into the Great War,
and so the order was not executed until after the war. The great
delays involved also caused problems for the shipyard, and in early
1918 the government had to intervene and essentially take over the
shipyard.

Combined with the other difficulties, this led to the battleships still
not being ready by the end of 1921 - although one was launched, and
beginning the fitting out process. One might ask why, in this case,
Argentina pushed ahead with the attack on South Georgia when it did,
rather than wait for the fleet expansion to complete. The answer is
mainly political - Argentina felt it could not wait. Once Great
Britain sold the islands, it essentially abandoned any claim to those
islands - if Argentina waited, that would allow Nordmark to gain a
claim on the islands, and make Argentina less able to gain
itnernational sympathy for its claim.

As a long-term consequence, Argentine has scaled down its ambitions for
building a domestic ability to manufacture warships. With the
armourmills having repeated quality-problems with armour thicker than 3
inches, and the shipyards having problems with complicated ships, it
was determined that in the future major warships would probably have to
be procured with far greater international assistance. Financial
setbacks following from the war with Nordmark, and the greater than
planned for expenses with the battleships and destroyers, caused delays
in naval programmes, and plans for classes of cruisers and destroyers
laid down domestically in the 1918-1923 period were shelved or delayed.

The important project following the South Georgian War was the
completion of the two battleships - the one was commissioned January
1923, and the second March following year - and reapirs of surviving
tonnage."

So are we looking at a Nevada-clone or a 30knt Battlecruiser?

A NEVADA-clone....

So this is a 1915 lay-down date...fixed that in The List.

Quoted

following the South-Georgian War the surviving
coast-defence ship was retained, and the battleship that was to have had its name was renamed Capitan Gascón.

So is that the name of the class ship? (And what's the name of the other ship?)

Quoted

they would have fewer but heavier guns: ten 14inch guns, in two triple-turrets and two twin-turrets disposed symmetrically fore and aft, twins superfiring.

Heavier than the Rivadavias, presumably, not the Nevadas (which could be inferred from the context).

Quoted

unfortunately the order was not placed until after the US entry into the Great War, and so the order was not executed until after the war.

US didn't enter the Great War in WW.

Quoted

and plans for classes of cruisers and destroyers
laid down domestically in the 1918-1923 period were shelved or delayed.

...or ordered from Italy. ^_^

Yea, the USA didn´t enter the Great War in WW - according to actual information. IIRC, we originally assumed they did and that was what Peng based its story on. See, that is just one small example showing the difficulties of writing a historic story that has to fit current informations and all the ups and downs that happened meanwhile.

Regarding the DDs - "domestically" is the key word here.

Anyway, I hope this little piece is helping to bring some light into the dark...

Its just as well that I didn't build this for Argentina. I doubt the US Navy would like them to have a Battleship that they themselves would love to have!

Something like this?


Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1915

Displacement:
28,568 t light; 30,049 t standard; 31,172 t normal; 32,071 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
630.69 ft / 623.36 ft x 95.14 ft x 29.20 ft (normal load)
192.23 m / 190.00 m x 29.00 m x 8.90 m

Armament:
10 - 14.02" / 356 mm guns (4 mounts), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1915 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 100.00lbs / 45.36kg shells, 1915 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
8 - 4.02" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1915 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 15,176 lbs / 6,884 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.5" / 343 mm 340.00 ft / 103.63 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: 6.00" / 152 mm 200.00 ft / 60.96 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
83.36 ft / 25.41 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 340.00 ft / 103.63 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 84 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.00" / 51 mm 340.00 ft / 103.63 m 27.86 ft / 8.49 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13.5" / 343 mm 9.00" / 229 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 6.00" / 152 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 13.50" / 343 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 46,000 shp / 34,316 Kw = 22.48 kts
Range 5,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,022 tons

Complement:
1,172 - 1,524

Cost:
£4.140 million / $16.560 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,908 tons, 6.1 %
Armour: 12,616 tons, 40.5 %
- Belts: 5,047 tons, 16.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 701 tons, 2.2 %
- Armament: 3,279 tons, 10.5 %
- Armour Deck: 3,301 tons, 10.6 %
- Conning Tower: 288 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 1,742 tons, 5.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,252 tons, 39.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,605 tons, 8.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
43,923 lbs / 19,923 Kg = 31.9 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 7.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
Metacentric height 5.1 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 17.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 64 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.76
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.29

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.630
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.55 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.97 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Mid (60 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m (13.12 ft / 4.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Stern: 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Average freeboard: 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 139.0 %
Waterplane Area: 44,605 Square feet or 4,144 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 201 lbs/sq ft or 981 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.04
- Longitudinal: 1.45
- Overall: 1.07
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

I think the same mistake was made when the first suggestion of this new ship was posted. 30,000 tons was posted as 30 kilotons using kt, which for many of us in the United States would read as 30 knots, which would require a 40,000 ton ship to achieve.

Umm....if I was going for huge with 14 inch guns though....I'd buy it.

As it is I'm going for slightly smaller with 14 inch guns and moderate speed, it should be a relative match for the new Argentine ship. (slightly lighter, maybe slighly faster, with two less guns but all twins...maybe with heavier armor.) When I go for 40,000 tons plus I'm going for a larger guns type.

Quoted

Something like this?

That looks reasonable...and until/unless told otherwise I'll enter that into the Battleship List.

I might suggest adding a few 6-pdr and/or 3-pdr guns, tho.

Its only a rough design as yet. I was waiting any input.

Reminds me of this;



RHN B-2 Salamis Class, Greek Battleship as completed laid down 1915

Displacement:
28,653 t light; 30,531 t standard; 31,771 t normal; 32,635 t full load
Loading submergence 1,393 tons/feet

Dimensions:
660.00 ft x 104.00 ft x 27.00 ft (normal load)
201.17 m x 31.70 m x 8.23 m

Armament:
10 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (4 Main turrets, 2 superfiring turrets)
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns
6 - 4.00" / 102 mm AA guns
4 - 1.00" / 25 mm guns
Weight of broadside 14,914 lbs / 6,765 kg


Armour:
Belt 12.00" / 305 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 97 % of normal area
Main turrets 12.00" / 305 mm, 2nd gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm
Armour deck 3.40" / 86 mm, Conning tower 12.00" / 305 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 1.50" / 38 mm
Machinery: Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 66,754 shp / 49,798 Kw = 24.78 kts
Range 4,500nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
1,189 - 1,546

Cost:
£4.289 million / $17.156 million

Distribution of weights at normal Displacement:
Armament: 1,864 tons, 5.9 % Armour: 10,531 tons, 33.1 %
Belts: 2,645 tons, 8.3 %, Armament: 3,917 tons, 12.3 %, Armour Deck: 3,066 tons, 9.7 %
Conning Tower: 260 tons, 0.8 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 643 tons, 2.0 % Machinery: 2,714 tons, 8.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,544 tons, 42.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,118 tons, 9.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 6.4

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.10
Shellfire needed to sink: 36,114 lbs / 16,381 Kg = 26.3 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 5.1
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 55 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.55
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.600
Sharpness coefficient: 0.42
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.38
'Natural speed' for length: 25.69 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim: 45
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 91.0 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 173.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 103 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.96
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 203 lbs / square foot or 991 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.41
(for 22.20 ft / 6.77 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 3.12 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Well, SALAMI(s) has not cage masts...

Quoted

Anyway, I hope this little piece is helping to bring some light into the dark...

It does allow us to have now identified two of the ships sunk in the 'splendid little war': the ex-British predread Veinticinco de Mayo and one of the Libertad-class CDBBs.

(It also occured to me while thinking about this that the 'new' VdM would be considered a CA by the Treaty, so I've added it to the heavy cruisers page.)

Here is a cut and paste of Libertad for you all to enjoy!

Canis are you having image hosting problems again?

Not that I know of. I moved a great many pics several months ago to Photobucket and may have missed some older pics. I'm looking for a copy of that BB, it may be on one of my backup discs, I'm not sure.

I see the picture by CanisD fine.
Powerfull ship...Note to self buind BB.

Chile will likely be building a proper responce once the rebuild on the existing dreadnoughts is completed. In the meantime the Oyama-class Armored Cruisers will be the ship of the day.