Ok guys this is an idear i have been working on

17inc

Unregistered

Friday, June 13th 2003, 4:50am

this is what a KGV class BB would look? like by 1937 if the brits had gon with a 16.80" gun desing tell what you would think of this for an i dear i figer the brits would build 6 of this class of ship

KGV , UK AUST Battleship laid down 1937

Displacement:
66,755 t light; 70,169 t standard; 76,053 t normal; 80,457 t full load
Loading submergence 2,387 tons/feet

Dimensions:
977.00 ft x 115.78 ft x 37.00 ft (normal load)
297.79 m x 35.29 m x 11.28 m

Armament:
9 - 16.80" / 427 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
16 - 5.25" / 133 mm guns (8 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
100 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
100 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 22,710 lbs / 10,301 kg

Armour:
Belt 18.80" / 478 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 19.00" / 483 mm, 2nd turrets 5.25" / 133 mm
AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm
Armour deck 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower 17.00" / 432 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 3.49" / 89 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 270,678 shp / 201,926 Kw = 32.20 kts
Range 14,100nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
2,289 - 2,976

Cost:
£31.480 million / $125.920 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,839 tons, 3.7 %
Armour: 27,635 tons, 36.3 %
Belts: 6,432 tons, 8.5 %, Armament: 8,236 tons, 10.8 %, Armour Deck: 9,272 tons, 12.2 %
Conning Tower: 662 tons, 0.9 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 3,034 tons, 4.0 %
Machinery: 7,502 tons, 9.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 28,779 tons, 37.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 9,298 tons, 12.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 6.2

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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 103,877 lbs / 47,118 Kg = 43.8 x 16.8 " / 427 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 15.4
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 79 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.88
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.41

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.636
Sharpness coefficient: 0.40
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.06
'Natural speed' for length: 31.26 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim: 56
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 74.5 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 229.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 116 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.98
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 229 lbs / square foot or 1,118 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.32
(for 33.00 ft / 10.06 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 10.28 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.01

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

2

Friday, June 13th 2003, 5:01am

well

While the brits were trying to stick to their self imposed 14" gun caliber limit it would still be possible for them to instead go for a 16" gun, but I don't see them going above the 45,000 ton limit. At 66,700 tons it would take longer to build and the brits had a tendancy to focus on number of hulls rather than size. My Ideal KGV design would have 16" guns with the 4.5" DP mount as in the QE and Renown because of their higher rate of fire.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

3

Friday, June 13th 2003, 5:28am

how does this look?

Heres my version of an alternate KGV.

KGV2, Britain Battleship laid down 1937

Displacement:
46,162 t light; 48,808 t standard; 51,262 t normal; 53,019 t full load
Loading submergence 1,906 tons/feet

Dimensions:
840.00 ft x 106.00 ft x 31.00 ft (normal load)
256.03 m x 32.31 m x 9.45 m

Armament:
9 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
20 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (10 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
48 - 1.57" / 40 mm AA guns
36 - 0.79" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 19,445 lbs / 8,820 kg

Armour:
Belt 16.00" / 406 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 92 % of normal area
Main turrets 16.00" / 406 mm, 2nd turrets 3.50" / 89 mm
AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 6.00" / 152 mm, Torpedo bulkhead 2.50" / 64 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 175,774 shp / 131,128 Kw = 30.15 kts
Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
1,703 - 2,214

Cost:
£23.670 million / $94.679 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,431 tons, 4.7 %
Armour: 18,537 tons, 36.2 %
Belts: 4,173 tons, 8.1 %, Armament: 5,393 tons, 10.5 %, Armour Deck: 7,406 tons, 14.4 %
Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,566 tons, 3.1 %
Machinery: 4,872 tons, 9.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 20,248 tons, 39.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,099 tons, 9.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.1 %

Metacentric height 5.6

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
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: 1.01
Shellfire needed to sink: 60,359 lbs / 27,378 Kg = 29.5 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 8.2
(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: 0.82
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.17

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.650
Sharpness coefficient: 0.41
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.92
'Natural speed' for length: 28.98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim: 60
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 84.1 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 194.0 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 107 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 213 lbs / square foot or 1,042 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.19
(for 26.00 ft / 7.92 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 5.00 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.02

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

4

Friday, June 13th 2003, 9:51am

KGV

My alternate KGV is quite simple. Take off the 14" guns and drop in 8 15"/42 guns in 2x3 and 1x2. Armour, speed and displacement remain unchanged.

Anything larger than 40,000t would be called HMS Lion. 9x16", better armour and 2 knts extra speed than KGV. The upper limits to this design are similar to 17inc's design. An 80,000t ship with 12" deck armour but retaining the 9x16".

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

5

Friday, June 13th 2003, 10:17pm

Hey 17inc

Are you trying to match my Toyama class with your 16.8" armed KGV class ? :-)

Walter

Go to the top of the page

17inc

Unregistered

6

Tuesday, June 17th 2003, 6:31am

Yep i was thinking of you Rooijen 10

Yep i was thinking of Rooijen 10 when i came up with a ALT KGV too take you on if you ever came afthere me mate. I was working on a 18.80" gun ship but deside to stay with 16.80" gun .

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

7

Tuesday, June 17th 2003, 7:27pm

18.8

Why not 17" gun (17 as in your name 17inc) ? :-)

I shelved the idea for the use of my 21" guns during the sim, but now I might reconsider that. The only problem is that there is no good source of power available in those days to operate these 21" guns. :-(

Walter

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

8

Tuesday, June 17th 2003, 8:10pm

Mega guns

You guys are nuts.......

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

9

Tuesday, June 17th 2003, 8:24pm

"Nuts" is not the right word to use if you knew exactly why I went for a 21" gun (seriously, I doubt that idea I had would work). :-)

(Actually, the way the Japanese post treaty designs go is 16.1", 18.1", 18.1" and the back to 16.1". Wether they will be built remains unknown at this moment. I'll see when we get to 1935.)

Walter

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

10

Tuesday, June 17th 2003, 8:29pm

Enlighten us, then...

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

11

Tuesday, June 17th 2003, 9:47pm

You mean about why I went for a 21 " gun ?

A long time ago when I first designed the Athena class BB (very shortly after I got my copy of Jane's Fighting ships of WW 2, some 10 years ago or so), I was wondering what caliber main gun I should use (which would be bigger than what was in the book). At first it was about 20" until I saw a torpedo diameter of 21" and I thought: "Sure why not. When necessary I can use those 21" torpedoes for my main gun" (What on earth was I thinking back then ?!?). Anyway, that idea quickly faded away, but the caliber never changed on the Athena class (and was also used in the more recent Hathor class BB).
... I wonder why ?

Walter

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

12

Tuesday, June 17th 2003, 10:10pm

Enlighten

First of all: When calling you nuts, I was just kidding. :o) Should have put a smiley behind it...

But seriously when you ask for it....

I guess you professionals ( ;o) ) know this very famous picture:

(Picture courtesy of Peter Linau)

As you can easily see, the different in size between a 30,5cm and a 38cm gun is quite notable.

The difference in size between a 38cm and a 40,6cm gun is nearly the same in relation. Now think of 46cm or even 53,3cm (21").

Such a gun would be gigantic. The same is true for the forces involved just to handle and turn a mount for it. And at this point you haven´t even fired it! The enormous forces involved will be a real thread to the ship firing the guns. The supporting structure will eat up most of you ships weight, though, or you´ll have to go for _really_ big vessels. Think of the H-42 to H-44 design studies (see Breyer for more informations for example). The H-43 BB was a design with 8x 50,8cm guns in a 4x2 layout with a speed of 31kn. It would have had a length of 330m and a tonnage of more than 110,000ts standard. Against such a beast even Yamato would have been small!

Furthermore, think of the costs involved. Such a unit would be that precious one cannot affort to loose one. Wonderfull! What is a BB good for when you can´t make good use of it?

What about shell handling? What ROF do you expect? 1 shot every two minutes? How will you hit a fast moving target at some distance with such a low ROF? Further more you will have only few guns on a single hull due to the sheer size of the single gun. Maybe six guns, hardly more. While this was considered sufficient for the R-class BCs way back in WW1 I doubt you´ll find this good enough for a late 40s (think of the building times!) or even 50s environment. Okay, IF you hit something the results will be devasting (if the shell functions properly) but would you trade three 40kts BBs with 15" or 16" guns against a single one with 21" guns? Seriously?

Also keep in mind, what kind of harbour you would need, what slips and docks. To get an impression just how important such facts are, I recommend reading Raven & Roberts "British Battleships of WW2". When reading about the design history of the post-WW1 studies which finally lead to the Nelsons (including the well knwon G3s for example) you´ll notice how seriously the British dealt with the problem to have docks available throughout their territories to dock their planned warships. The docks dictated the size of the hulls and thus - more or less - the tonnage of the planned units.

So while it might be _relatively_ easy to build such a ship in our SIM it is far from being realistic - even in the late 30s or early 40s.

What I mentioned here is just the tip of the iceberg of course so, yes, I call you guys nuts! :o)

Comments?

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

13

Tuesday, June 17th 2003, 10:13pm

?!?!?!

""Nuts" is not the right word to use if you knew exactly why I went for a 21" gun"

As a one shot booster for your CLs? You could install it in the ships sterns and fire it if necessary to vanish...either with a high speed or just because you disintegrated. :o/

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

14

Wednesday, June 18th 2003, 1:14am

lol

NUTS!! just about sums it up....lol. When I look at the Yamato class BB's I see a lumbering beast...one you wouldn't really want to tangle with but because they were so few in number they weren't really practical. Now if the japanese had built say 4 improved Nagato class BB's that would have been far more economical in terms of useage. They also would have been completed quicker. Unfortunately the japanese navy expanded too quick to get their designs perfected and never really could hope to catch up to the Americans or British in terms of number of hulls, so i guess the Yamato's looked good at the time.

Go to the top of the page

17inc

Unregistered

15

Wednesday, June 18th 2003, 4:50am

Sorry rooijen 10

Sorry Rooijen 10 i was thiking you may go to 21" guns so i been working on ships with 20" to 22" guns but there are no know plans at this time to build them . Just to show what i been working on i will post two how fare i have come in ship desing.

Javes bay, Australian Battleship laid down 1937

Displacement:
145,457 t light; 154,282 t standard; 166,237 t normal; 175,136 t full load
Loading submergence 3,860 tons/feet

Dimensions:
989.00 ft x 185.00 ft x 50.00 ft (normal load)
301.45 m x 56.39 m x 15.24 m

Armament:
16 - 20.00" / 508 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 4 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
20 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (10 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
150 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
200 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 66,000 lbs / 29,937 kg

Armour:
Belt 22.00" / 559 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 22.00" / 559 mm, 2nd turrets 4.00" / 102 mm
AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm
Armour deck 11.00" / 279 mm, Conning tower 22.00" / 559 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 10.00" / 254 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 7 shafts, 465,697 shp / 347,410 Kw = 32.20 kts
Range 18,100nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
4,116 - 5,351

Cost:
£75.425 million / $301.702 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 8,250 tons, 5.0 %
Armour: 66,792 tons, 40.2 %
Belts: 10,261 tons, 6.2 %, Armament: 15,696 tons, 9.4 %, Armour Deck: 27,495 tons, 16.5 %
Conning Tower: 1,446 tons, 0.9 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 11,893 tons, 7.2 %
Machinery: 12,907 tons, 7.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 57,508 tons, 34.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 20,780 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 12.7

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: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 201,538 lbs / 91,416 Kg = 50.4 x 20.0 " / 508 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 52.9
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 74 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.45
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.636
Sharpness coefficient: 0.46
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 5.51
'Natural speed' for length: 31.45 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim: 72
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 72.0 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 200.1 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 105 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.95
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 323 lbs / square foot or 1,577 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.60
(for 32.00 ft / 9.75 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 5.43 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

H 39, Australian Battleship laid down 1940

Displacement:
160,075 t light; 169,235 t standard; 182,943 t normal; 193,178 t full load
Loading submergence 4,168 tons/feet

Dimensions:
1,000.00 ft x 190.00 ft x 50.00 ft (normal load)
304.80 m x 57.91 m x 15.24 m

Armament:
12 - 22.00" / 559 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 4 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
20 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (10 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
200 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
300 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 66,008 lbs / 29,941 kg

Armour:
Belt 24.00" / 610 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 24.00" / 610 mm, 2nd turrets 6.00" / 152 mm
AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm
Armour deck 13.00" / 330 mm, Conning tower 24.00" / 610 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 13.00" / 330 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 8 shafts, 510,138 shp / 380,563 Kw = 32.32 kts
Range 20,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
4,422 - 5,749

Cost:
£86.659 million / $346.634 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 8,251 tons, 4.5 %
Armour: 78,569 tons, 42.9 %
Belts: 11,501 tons, 6.3 %, Armament: 14,672 tons, 8.0 %, Armour Deck: 35,081 tons, 19.2 %
Conning Tower: 1,683 tons, 0.9 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 15,633 tons, 8.5 %
Machinery: 13,640 tons, 7.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 59,615 tons, 32.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 22,868 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 13.0

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: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 232,617 lbs / 105,513 Kg = 43.7 x 22.0 " / 559 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 176.7
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 82 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.43
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.674
Sharpness coefficient: 0.48
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 5.39
'Natural speed' for length: 31.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim: 81
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 66.9 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 201.1 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 106 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.95
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 316 lbs / square foot or 1,542 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.56
(for 32.00 ft / 9.75 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 4.92 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

this ones a ALT Lion class BB as runing mate to ALT KGV class BBs

Lion, UK AUST Battelship laid down 1940

Displacement:
117,426 t light; 124,681 t standard; 133,413 t normal; 139,866 t full load
Loading submergence 3,492 tons/feet

Dimensions:
1,035.00 ft x 150.10 ft x 43.00 ft (normal load)
315.47 m x 45.75 m x 13.11 m

Armament:
16 - 18.80" / 478 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 4 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
20 - 5.25" / 133 mm guns (10 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
200 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
200 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 55,035 lbs / 24,964 kg

Armour:
Belt 18.80" / 478 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 19.00" / 483 mm, 2nd turrets 5.25" / 133 mm
AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm
Armour deck 7.80" / 198 mm, Conning tower 19.00" / 483 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 3.90" / 99 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 6 shafts, 419,688 shp / 313,087 Kw = 32.69 kts
Range 15,200nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
3,490 - 4,537

Cost:
£68.758 million / $275.031 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 6,879 tons, 5.2 %
Armour: 46,733 tons, 35.0 %
Belts: 7,954 tons, 6.0 %, Armament: 15,890 tons, 11.9 %, Armour Deck: 17,635 tons, 13.2 %
Conning Tower: 1,078 tons, 0.8 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 4,174 tons, 3.1 %
Machinery: 11,222 tons, 8.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 52,592 tons, 39.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 15,987 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 9.2

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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 175,449 lbs / 79,582 Kg = 52.8 x 18.8 " / 478 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 31.3
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 73 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.97
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.36

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.699
Sharpness coefficient: 0.44
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.20
'Natural speed' for length: 32.17 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim: 54
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 78.1 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 273.8 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 107 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.95
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 301 lbs / square foot or 1,469 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.65
(for 41.05 ft / 12.51 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 15.63 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

But this one im am planing to built as a runing mate for my KGV class BB

Lion, UK AUST Battelship laid down 1940

Displacement:
104,084 t light; 109,755 t standard; 117,698 t normal; 123,582 t full load
Loading submergence 3,162 tons/feet

Dimensions:
988.00 ft x 150.10 ft x 43.00 ft (normal load)
301.14 m x 45.75 m x 13.11 m

Armament:
16 - 16.80" / 427 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 4 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
20 - 5.25" / 133 mm guns (10 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
200 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
200 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 39,811 lbs / 18,058 kg

Armour:
Belt 18.80" / 478 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 19.00" / 483 mm, 2nd turrets 5.25" / 133 mm
AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm
Armour deck 7.80" / 198 mm, Conning tower 19.00" / 483 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 3.90" / 99 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 6 shafts, 412,967 shp / 308,073 Kw = 33.17 kts
Range 15,200nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
3,177 - 4,130

Cost:
£56.214 million / $224.855 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 4,976 tons, 4.2 %
Armour: 42,671 tons, 36.3 %
Belts: 7,642 tons, 6.5 %, Armament: 14,084 tons, 12.0 %, Armour Deck: 15,968 tons, 13.6 %
Conning Tower: 991 tons, 0.8 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 3,985 tons, 3.4 %
Machinery: 11,042 tons, 9.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 45,394 tons, 38.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 13,615 tons, 11.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 9.2

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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 167,149 lbs / 75,818 Kg = 70.5 x 16.8 " / 427 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 33.8
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 76 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.74
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.35

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.646
Sharpness coefficient: 0.43
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.17
'Natural speed' for length: 31.43 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim: 56
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 73.7 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 272.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 113 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.94
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 283 lbs / square foot or 1,380 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.82
(for 41.05 ft / 12.51 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 16.25 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

16

Wednesday, June 18th 2003, 1:07pm

17inc you should look at Fujimoto's designs they are only slightly less capable than yours but on 1/3 of the tonnage. My favourite beast has; 12x20" guns all forward in 3 turrets, armour similar to Yamato and a 30knt speed. All this on 50,000t. These ships are impossible to sim with springstyle however.

Monty's page has some pics and more details.
www.montanaman.netfirms.com

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

17

Wednesday, June 18th 2003, 3:00pm

Alrighty then...

I think India would have an easier time developing 26" nuclear-tipped torpedoes than building equivalents.

I just simmed 20" and 22" projectiles with "big gun" and here's what you get:

20p0c50 - 20.0" gun

Caliber = 20.0 inch (50.8 cm)
Shell weight = 4500 lbs (2042 kg)
Muzzle velocity = 2700 fps (823 m/s)

Relative ballistic performance: 1.00

Muzzle energy = 691.8 megajoules = 254910.8 foot-tons

Relative muzzle energy: 1.00

Typical barrel length: 50 calibers

Elevation Range Time Velocity Fall Angle

2.5 deg 6100 yards 7.2 sec 2420 fps 2.7 deg
5.0 deg 11400 yards 14.2 sec 2205 fps 5.8 deg
7.5 deg 16100 yards 20.9 sec 2044 fps 9.1 deg
10.0 deg 20200 yards 27.3 sec 1924 fps 12.5 deg
12.5 deg 23900 yards 33.6 sec 1833 fps 16.1 deg
15.0 deg 27300 yards 39.7 sec 1769 fps 19.8 deg
20.0 deg 33200 yards 51.4 sec 1696 fps 26.8 deg
25.0 deg 38200 yards 62.6 sec 1676 fps 33.3 deg
30.0 deg 42300 yards 73.3 sec 1690 fps 39.2 deg
35.0 deg 45400 yards 83.5 sec 1724 fps 44.4 deg
40.0 deg 47600 yards 93.2 sec 1768 fps 49.0 deg
45.0 deg 48700 yards 102.3 sec 1816 fps 53.3 deg
50.0 deg 48500 yards 110.8 sec 1863 fps 57.3 deg

Armor Penetration - Vertical Belt Armor

(Relative armor quality, 1.00)

Maximum penetration: 40.65 inches

Elevation Range Belt Deck

1.1 deg 2700 yards 38 in
2.0 deg 5000 yards 36 in
2.7 deg 6500 yards ... 1 in
3.1 deg 7400 yards 34 in
4.2 deg 9900 yards 32 in
4.9 deg 11100 yards ... 2 in
5.6 deg 12600 yards 30 in
7.0 deg 15200 yards ... 3 in
7.2 deg 15500 yards 28 in
9.0 deg 18600 yards 26 in
9.4 deg 19200 yards ... 4 in
11.2 deg 22100 yards 24 in
11.9 deg 23100 yards ... 5 in
14.0 deg 26000 yards 22 in
15.1 deg 27500 yards ... 6 in
17.4 deg 30300 yards 20 in
18.8 deg 31800 yards ... 7 in
21.0 deg 34300 yards ... 8 in
22.1 deg 35400 yards 18 in
23.4 deg 36700 yards ... 9 in
25.8 deg 38900 yards ... 10 in
28.2 deg 40900 yards ... 11 in
28.2 deg 40900 yards 16 in
30.6 deg 42700 yards ... 12 in
33.0 deg 44300 yards ... 13 in
35.4 deg 45600 yards ... 14 in
36.3 deg 46100 yards 14 in
37.9 deg 46900 yards ... 15 in
40.4 deg 47800 yards ... 16 in
42.9 deg 48400 yards ... 17 in
45.4 deg 48700 yards 12 in
45.5 deg 48800 yards ... 18 in
48.2 deg 48700 yards ... 19 in

Maximum range = 48800 yards at 46.8 deg elevation

22p0c50a - 22.0" gun

Caliber = 22.0 inch (55.9 cm)
Shell weight = 6000 lbs (2722 kg)
Muzzle velocity = 2704 fps (824 m/s)

Relative ballistic performance: 1.00

Muzzle energy = 925.1 megajoules = 340902.5 foot-tons

Relative muzzle energy: 1.00

Barrel length: 50 calibers

Elevation Range Time Velocity Fall Angle

2.5 deg 6200 yards 7.3 sec 2444 fps 2.7 deg
5.0 deg 11600 yards 14.2 sec 2246 fps 5.7 deg
7.5 deg 16400 yards 21.0 sec 2091 fps 8.9 deg
10.0 deg 20700 yards 27.5 sec 1975 fps 12.3 deg
12.5 deg 24500 yards 33.9 sec 1887 fps 15.9 deg
15.0 deg 28100 yards 40.0 sec 1824 fps 19.3 deg
20.0 deg 34300 yards 51.9 sec 1752 fps 26.2 deg
25.0 deg 39500 yards 63.3 sec 1732 fps 32.7 deg
30.0 deg 43800 yards 74.2 sec 1745 fps 38.5 deg
35.0 deg 47100 yards 84.5 sec 1779 fps 43.6 deg
40.0 deg 49400 yards 94.4 sec 1823 fps 48.3 deg
45.0 deg 50600 yards 103.7 sec 1870 fps 52.7 deg
50.0 deg 50300 yards 112.3 sec 1917 fps 56.7 deg

Armor Penetration - Vertical Belt Armor

(Relative armor quality, 1.00)

Maximum penetration: 44.86 inches

Elevation Range Belt Deck

1.2 deg 3000 yards 42 in
2.1 deg 5200 yards 40 in
2.5 deg 6200 yards ... 1 in
3.1 deg 7500 yards 38 in
4.2 deg 10000 yards 36 in
4.4 deg 10400 yards ... 2 in
5.5 deg 12700 yards 34 in
6.3 deg 14200 yards ... 3 in
7.0 deg 15400 yards 32 in
8.3 deg 17900 yards ... 4 in
8.6 deg 18400 yards 30 in
10.5 deg 21500 yards ... 5 in
10.6 deg 21700 yards 28 in
13.0 deg 25200 yards ... 6 in
13.0 deg 25300 yards 26 in
15.9 deg 29200 yards 24 in 7 in
19.0 deg 33100 yards ... 8 in
19.5 deg 33700 yards 22 in
21.1 deg 35500 yards ... 9 in
23.2 deg 37700 yards ... 10 in
24.1 deg 38600 yards 20 in
25.3 deg 39800 yards ... 11 in
27.4 deg 41700 yards ... 12 in
29.4 deg 43300 yards ... 13 in
30.2 deg 43900 yards 18 in
31.5 deg 44900 yards ... 14 in
33.6 deg 46300 yards ... 15 in
35.8 deg 47600 yards ... 16 in
37.6 deg 48500 yards 16 in
37.9 deg 48600 yards ... 17 in
40.2 deg 49500 yards ... 18 in
42.3 deg 50100 yards ... 19 in
44.6 deg 50500 yards ... 20 in
45.4 deg 50600 yards 14 in
46.9 deg 50600 yards ... 21 in
49.3 deg 50500 yards ... 22 in

Maximum range = 50600 yards at 46.8 deg elevation

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

18

Wednesday, June 18th 2003, 3:22pm

The data seems impressive, but I suspect fire control would be an issue at longer ranges. You've got to predict where a 30 knot target is going to be almost two minutes after you shoot at her...good luck!

J

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

19

Wednesday, June 18th 2003, 3:46pm

Uhhh....

Are you guys on a aowwt-trip or what´s wrong with you?! :o/

Why not try to install some Dora-cannons on a BB hull? Wouldn´t a 80cm gun be quite impressive? Uh, but wait, they needed several railways, 2500 men and several days just to fire a single gun every few hours.....

*shaking my head*

Go to the top of the page

AdmKuznetsov

Sage

Posts: 2,918

20

Wednesday, June 18th 2003, 3:58pm

Spot the loonie...

Quoted

Why not try to install some Dora-cannons on a BB hull? Wouldn´t a 80cm gun be quite impressive? Uh, but wait, they needed several railways, 2500 men and several days just to fire a single gun every few hours

Here she is!!

BB_Dora, laid down 1940

Length, 500.0 m x Beam, 60.0 m x Depth, 13.0 m
255583 tonnes normal displacement (236995 tonnes standard)

Main battery: 6 x 80.0-cm (3 x 2; 1 superfiring)
Secondary battery: 24 x 15.0-cm (12 x 2)
AA battery: 12 x 10.0-cm
Light battery: 120 x 3.7-cm

Weight of broadside: 43980 kg

Main belt, 45.0 cm; bow and stern, 20.0 cm
Upper belt, 20.0 cm
Torpedo bulkhead, 10.0 cm
Armor deck, average 30.0 cm
Conning tower, 50.0 cm

Battery armor:
Main, 50.0 cm / secondary, 2.5 cm
AA, 2.5 cm shields / light guns, 2.5 cm shields

Maximum speed for 181991 shaft kw = 26.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 20000 nm / 15 knots

Typical complement: 5684-7389

Estimated cost, $453.742 million (£113.436 million)

Remarks:

Relative extent of belt armor, 55 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Excellent seaboat; comfortable and able to fight her guns
in the heaviest weather.

Magazines and engineering spaces are roomy, with superior
watertight subdivision.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.

Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 12094 tonnes = 5 pct
Armor, total ..................... 89512 tonnes = 35 pct

Belt 10397 tonnes = 4 pct
Torpedo bulkhead 6621 tonnes = 3 pct
Deck 52842 tonnes = 21 pct
C.T. 1727 tonnes = 1 pct
Armament 17925 tonnes = 7 pct

Machinery ........................ 6521 tonnes = 3 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 115593 tonnes = 45 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 31762 tonnes = 12 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 100 tonnes = 0 pct
-----
255583 tonnes = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 6.1 m

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 223821 tonnes
Standard displacement: 236995 tonnes
Normal service: 255583 tonnes
Full load: 269430 tonnes

Loading submergence 22663 tonnes/metre

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.22

Shellfire needed to sink: 287930 kg = 40.5 x 80.0-cm shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 175.0
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 71 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.57

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.52

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.65
Sharpness coefficient: 0.40
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 7.91
'Natural speed' for length = 40.5 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 26 percent

Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 51 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 387 percent

Displacement factor: 135 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)

Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight per square
metre of hull surface: 1745 kg)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.01
(for 14.55 m average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +5.72 m)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

1640.00 x 196.80 x 42.64; 47.72 -- Dimensions
0.65 -- Block coefficient
1940 -- Year laid down
26.00 / 20000 / 15.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
100 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
6 x 31.50; 3; 1 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
24 x 5.91; 12 -- Secondary battery; turrets
:
12 x 3.94 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
120 x 1.46 -- Fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
17.72 / 7.87 / 7.87 / 3.94; 55 -- Belt armor; relative extent
11.81 / 19.69 -- Deck / CT
19.69 / 0.98 / 0.98 / 0.98 -- Battery armor

(Note: For portability, values are stored in Anglo-American units)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And you can have her after spending only 18 2/3 years building her, at 1000 tons/month... And you only need a crew of 6,000. That's only 1,000 per Dora gun!

Indeed, that seems the very best use for the materials and slips of each of our navies except mine and those of my allies. I promise that decisive victory in all wars will be the result of building such a ship.

She's a good seaboat too! And look at that range!

I offer the assistance of the Russian and French design staffs to <any> navy that wished to build the ship!!

Okay, so you'll need special offshore berthing and docking facilities for her, but what's the impact of that minor detail?

Visit my Russian/French fantasy fleet page:
http://admkuznetsov.tripod.com

Go to the top of the page

WesWorld