WesWorld

Beowulf III, Denmark Battleship laid down 1925

Displacement:
39,415 t light; 41,774 t standard; 44,300 t normal; 46,144 t full load
Loading submergence 1,757 tons/feet

Dimensions:
850.00 ft x 110.00 ft x 31.00 ft (normal load)
259.08 m x 33.53 m x 9.45 m

Armament:
9 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
21 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (7 2nd turrets x 3 guns)
16 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
24 - 0.50" / 13 mm guns
Weight of broadside 17,673 lbs / 8,016 kg
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 15.00" / 381 mm, upper belt 8.00" / 203 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 80 % of normal area
Main turrets 14.00" / 356 mm, 2nd turrets 3.00" / 76 mm
AA gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm, Light gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm
Armour deck 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower 14.00" / 356 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 1.25" / 32 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 100,708 shp / 75,128 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
1,526 - 1,984

Cost:
£12.086 million / $48.344 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,209 tons, 5.0 %
Armour: 15,174 tons, 34.3 %
Belts: 4,710 tons, 10.6 %, Armament: 3,605 tons, 8.1 %, Armour Deck: 5,687 tons, 12.8 %
Conning Tower: 380 tons, 0.9 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 792 tons, 1.8 %
Machinery: 3,270 tons, 7.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,662 tons, 42.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,885 tons, 11.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.2 %

Metacentric height 6.4

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.05
Shellfire needed to sink: 50,166 lbs / 22,755 Kg = 29.7 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 7.5
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 70 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.46
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.08

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.535
Sharpness coefficient: 0.37
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.35
'Natural speed' for length: 29.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 43 %
Trim: 65
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 77.5 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 130.0 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 112 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.12
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 224 lbs / square foot or 1,092 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 0.96
(for 18.00 ft / 5.49 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -2.39 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Main armament layout is A=3, B=3, Y=3
Secondary armament layout is 3X triple turrets on each beam and 1 X triple turret in X position
A/A armament is in twin mounts, and 13mm machine guns are in quad mounts
She will carry 4 recon floatplanes, type unknown - possibly the next generation of Hansa Brandenburg aircraft.

fearsome secondary armament!
turrets are weaker armoured than the belt?

apart from that very cool.

You'll get better hull strength, meaning more stuff you can put on the hull, and better seakeeping. If you use the extra hull strength for more range, you'll reduce the Standard Displacement, so your ship will be less overweight, not that anyone would notice 1700 tons on a 40,000 ton ship.

Good armament, armor, and speed. Pretty well balanced.

Not bad, shes got lots of armor and a decent armament. Not an easy oponent for sure!

Shes ok but could be made a lot better.
E.g. Caracciolo is nearly 10,000t smalller. She is faster by 1knt. Mounts 1 less gun. Main belt and deck armour are only slightly thinner. She doesn't have quite as many secondaries however.

I'd use a smaller hull with a larger block coeffiecient. I'm sure that i could fit 12x15" and better armour onto 41,000t. Making the hull smaller reduces the weight of armour that is needed.

Torpedoes on a BB? Why?

why torpedoes?......a la Tirpitz, could be used to finish an opponent, as happened with Bismarck.
Just a fanciful Danish design idea!!

CG,

for a first shot she´s not bad but she could be much better as others have pointed out.

First let me say that the block coefficient you´re using is way too low for a vessel of her size. Try 0,58+...

She´s too heavy. In real life the difference would be marginal and yes, we are excepting little overweight but it shouldn´t be standard.

So... This is not only adressed to you, CG, but to all players here: Please try to stick to the limits set by the CT. First we all tried to stick to it best we could but during the last weeks I noticed a tendency among players to design ships that are clearly above the limits - in fact all vessels design to their categories limits were too heavy (and several of them used a bc too low). I wonder if this does make sense because it should be most interesting to achieve a good compromise on a given tonnage....every fool can get better designs on a larger/heavier hull.

Don´t get me wrong - I also think nobody would notice an additional 500ts on a CA or 1000ts on a BB but where will this tendency lead us? These is the first generation of ships designed under the CT (which already allows larger ships than the WT) and you´re already over! How will you improve later design? Make use of 45000ts and still say nobody would notice?

Again: I think the competition is to stay within the boudaries of the CT. Even my little sister can design ships larger than that!

Regards,

HoOmAn

I totally agree with Hooman on this one. What are those limits for if we are just going to ignore them and build over them?

I already considerably streching the Italian purse by completing 3 Caracciolos, not to mention another BB, CDA and destroyers.

folks, we have a gentlemen's agreement that we stay within 5%, and will not push it. Isn't that good enough? I have given my word on this. If you want to go back on your word on what you will accept or not, do so, but don't expect me to take anything you say seriously after that.

Where does this concern about "pushing the limits" come from? I reiterate my point: historically cheating to a much larger scale did not get noticed. Iberia is acting under a realpolitik frame, cricket is not something nation states play. I hold you to your word Hooman. I also, as you probably can tell am getting really tired of this. We have an agreement. Isn't that enough?

And if I was to build a 45 kton BB, what woudl happen? War, cancellation of the CT? Well, these are game dynamics issues - if Iberia wants to risk that why not? The CT is not a rule, it is an agreement our nations have entered.

pissed off

Bernhard

Beowulf III? Where'd the first two go? Not with Walter's Kongos, I hope.

She would certainly cause an uproar in India if she were to park herself in Siam. She's a fairly capable unit.

I'd lose the torps, though, or at least submerge them. I know, submerged torps aren't so sensible either, but it was being done at the time, and it leaves them less vulnerable to gunfire. After all, you don't want an errant splinter setting off four torpedoes on your deck.

The size of a Danish battleship isn't constrained by any treaty at this time, so legally, we can't object. However, jumping from a 13,000 t cruiser to a full-out 40,000 battleship is quite a leap for the Danish naval builders...

and on a size 3 slip to boot ...

Take a look at this one. She can be built on your existing type 3 slips. shes 1/2knt slower, 1700t smaller and mounts another 15" turret. I've taken away the triple 6" that was in X position. And i've taken off that 8" upper belt for that 0.58knts of speed up from 26knts.

Beowulf IV, Danish Battleship laid down 1925

Displacement:
37,327 t light; 40,043 t standard; 42,452 t normal; 44,210 t full load
Loading submergence 1,548 tons/feet

Dimensions:
721.00 ft x 106.00 ft x 32.50 ft (normal load)
219.76 m x 32.31 m x 9.91 m

Armament:
12 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 3 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
18 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (6 2nd turrets x 3 guns)
16 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
24 - 0.50" / 13 mm guns
Weight of broadside 22,412 lbs / 10,166 kg

Armour:
Belt 14.96" / 380 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 94 % of normal area
Main turrets 13.78" / 350 mm, 2nd turrets 1.57" / 40 mm
Armour deck 5.12" / 130 mm, Conning tower 14.96" / 380 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 1.38" / 35 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 100,029 shp / 74,621 Kw = 26.58 kts
Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
1,478 - 1,922

Cost:
£13.465 million / $53.860 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,801 tons, 6.6 %
Armour: 14,548 tons, 34.3 %
Belts: 3,493 tons, 8.2 %, Armament: 4,755 tons, 11.2 %, Armour Deck: 5,129 tons, 12.1 %
Conning Tower: 394 tons, 0.9 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 777 tons, 1.8 %
Machinery: 3,248 tons, 7.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,680 tons, 39.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,126 tons, 12.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.1 %

Metacentric height 5.8

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.03
Shellfire needed to sink: 39,510 lbs / 17,921 Kg = 23.4 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 5.3
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 52 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.67
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.04

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.598
Sharpness coefficient: 0.41
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.32
'Natural speed' for length: 26.85 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 94.0 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 139.6 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 98 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.97
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 222 lbs / square foot or 1,082 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.24
(for 20.00 ft / 6.10 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -0.22 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00


Or staying with 9x15", i have something faster on the same hull;

Beowulf IV, Danish Battleship laid down 1925

Displacement:
37,743 t light; 40,065 t standard; 42,452 t normal; 44,193 t full load
Loading submergence 1,548 tons/feet

Dimensions:
721.00 ft x 106.00 ft x 32.50 ft (normal load)
219.76 m x 32.31 m x 9.91 m

Armament:
9 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
21 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (7 2nd turrets x 3 guns)
16 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
24 - 0.50" / 13 mm guns
Weight of broadside 17,673 lbs / 8,016 kg

Armour:
Belt 14.96" / 380 mm, upper belt 7.87" / 200 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 94 % of normal area
Main turrets 13.78" / 350 mm, 2nd turrets 1.57" / 40 mm
Armour deck 5.12" / 130 mm, Conning tower 14.96" / 380 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 1.38" / 35 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 140,015 shp / 104,451 Kw = 28.93 kts
Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
1,478 - 1,922

Cost:
£12.479 million / $49.917 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,209 tons, 5.2 %
Armour: 14,862 tons, 35.0 %
Belts: 4,679 tons, 11.0 %, Armament: 3,883 tons, 9.1 %, Armour Deck: 5,129 tons, 12.1 %
Conning Tower: 394 tons, 0.9 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 777 tons, 1.8 %
Machinery: 4,546 tons, 10.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,076 tons, 37.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,710 tons, 11.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.1 %

Metacentric height 6.3

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.08
Shellfire needed to sink: 43,970 lbs / 19,944 Kg = 26.1 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 5.6
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 53 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.60
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.06

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.598
Sharpness coefficient: 0.41
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.32
'Natural speed' for length: 26.85 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 93.1 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 164.0 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 102 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.96
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 207 lbs / square foot or 1,013 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.47
(for 23.50 ft / 7.16 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 3.28 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Quoted

The size of a Danish battleship isn't constrained by any treaty at this time, so legally, we can't object.

Yes, so if you have any objections, you should come back and register your complains once Denmark has signed the CT.

Quoted

However, jumping from a 13,000 t cruiser to a full-out 40,000 battleship is quite a leap for the Danish naval builders...

But who says that it will be built on a Danish slip? Perhaps he has made a deal with me and while he builds smaller vessels for me, I will build those BBs for him. The fact that it is a Danish design does not mean that it has to be build by a Danish Yard.


Walter

True. But if you're building battleships for an European Imperialist Power, I'm going to be disappointed in you...

J

Just an example. Although it could be...

*evil mode on*
... a truly brilliant plan to get a foothold in Europe and then conquer all those who oppose us!!!

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
(Monty Python's DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER)

*evil mode off*

Walter

Who dares to call the Kingdom of Denmark an imperialist power?

It'll be handbags at 10 paces if you are not careful sir!!!!!

Ha! That is well within my immunity zone to such weapons.

And as for you, Walter, that plan is so brilliant you could go blind staring at it.


J

By the way, are those Italian designers available for a busman's holiday in Aarhus??
I'm sure the guys in the Naval Engineering Department would like some pointers on where to go next!!

As for a jump to BB from CA/AC, it's just fanciful at the moment, I was thinking of going to something around 20000/25000 tons first!

I've a feeling some Italian naval experts will be making a journey to Copenhagen soon.

As for 20,000-25,000t designs, i posted one a few days ago with 8x12" guns.

Quoted

It'll be handbags at 10 paces if you are not careful sir!!!!!

OH NO!!! You don't mean the "Hell's Grannies " are on your paycheck?!?!?!?!

(for those who do not know what I'm talking about, check here)

Walter