You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

BattleshipBoy

Unregistered

1

Monday, July 28th 2003, 2:11am

Possble Battleship For India

If They are allowed by the celito treaty,This would be a good ship for them:

Raj, India Battleship laid down 1928

Displacement:
42,932 t light; 45,381 t standard; 48,663 t normal; 51,094 t full load
Loading submergence 1,689 tons/feet

Dimensions:
720.00 ft x 115.00 ft x 34.00 ft (normal load)
219.46 m x 35.05 m x 10.36 m

Armament:
8 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 2 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
16 - 5.40" / 137 mm guns (8 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
20 - 0.80" / 20 mm AA guns
15 - 2.00" / 51 mm guns
Weight of broadside 17,709 lbs / 8,033 kg
2 - 24.0" / 609.6 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 15.00" / 381 mm, upper belt 10.00" / 254 mm, end belts 5.00" / 127 mm
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 16.00" / 406 mm, 2nd turrets 4.00" / 102 mm
AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm
Armour deck 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower 4.00" / 102 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 86,795 shp / 64,749 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 11,200nm at 14.00 kts

Complement:
1,638 - 2,129

Cost:
£14.281 million / $57.125 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,214 tons, 4.5 %
Armour: 19,211 tons, 39.5 %
Belts: 6,141 tons, 12.6 %, Armament: 5,214 tons, 10.7 %, Armour Deck: 6,563 tons, 13.5 %
Conning Tower: 115 tons, 0.2 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,177 tons, 2.4 %
Machinery: 2,702 tons, 5.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,754 tons, 38.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,731 tons, 11.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.1 %

Metacentric height 7.2

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

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.09
Shellfire needed to sink: 66,556 lbs / 30,189 Kg = 32.5 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 11.3
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 61 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.41
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.605
Sharpness coefficient: 0.43
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.03
'Natural speed' for length: 26.83 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 65.6 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 139.8 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 115 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.10
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 232 lbs / square foot or 1,135 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.47
(for 20.78 ft / 6.33 m average freeboard)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Apperance,it looks like the 1920s British Battleship design "M2",A Drawing of which can be found on page 126 of "Janes Battleships of the 20th Century, 4th down form the top.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

2

Monday, July 28th 2003, 2:14am

In which way!

Hi!

In which way is this a good design for India? Why do you think India would need such a ship? For what kind of mission?

If you like to know if such a battleship is allowed under the Cleito Treaty feel free to read the Cleito Treaty first:

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?th…2991dcfdae26d4c

Waiting for your answers...

HoOmAn

3

Monday, July 28th 2003, 4:46am

Hi BattleshipBoy

Thanks for the proposal; you may find that the treaty does rule out certain aspects of this particular design, but I appreciate the effort.

In general, the ship seems oversized for its mission; with the ample remaining internal space and hull strength, the ship could stand to see its speed increased somewhat. Alternately, the size of the hull can be reduced - these things do cost time and money to put in the water. Historically, I believe the Nagato and Colorado classes, with the same main battery, used smaller hulls.

For information purposes, India:

-Favors a heavily armored conning tower

-Does not employ an upper belt

-Utilizes period-appropriate German weapons (4.1", 5.9", 8.2", 11", 12", maybe 13.8/15/16.5 in the future). An exception is the light battery, for which I've chosen 0.6 and 1.4" (15 and 35 mm) just to be different.

If you're interested in offering suggestions about Indian capital ship development, I invite you to consider an "intermediate" design as India goes from cruiser builder to battleship builder. This could be a really big cruiser, a battlecruiser, a small battleship, or some other concept in the 20,000 to 30,000 ton range; regardless, it would be a necessary step prior to construction of full-sized battleships. The design needs to be a useful one given what my neighbours (Australia, Britain, France, Russia, Japan, Netherlands, ~Italy) will be operating.

Thanks,

J

4

Monday, July 28th 2003, 10:58am

like this?

cheers

Bernhard

Bombay, India BC laid down 1923

Displacement:
29,671 t light; 30,954 t standard; 33,577 t normal; 35,541 t full load
Loading submergence 1,476 tons/feet

Dimensions:
820.21 ft x 95.14 ft x 27.89 ft (normal load)
250.00 m x 29.00 m x 8.50 m

Armament:
9 - 11.14" / 283 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
9 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (3 2nd turrets x 3 guns)
8 - 3.46" / 88 mm AA guns
12 - 1.38" / 35 mm guns
Weight of broadside 7,333 lbs / 3,326 kg

Armour:
Belt 11.81" / 300 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 11.81" / 300 mm, 2nd turrets 5.91" / 150 mm
AA gun shields 1.18" / 30 mm
Armour deck 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower 13.78" / 350 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 0.79" / 20 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 163,625 shp / 122,065 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
1,240 - 1,612

Cost:
£7.488 million / $29.953 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 917 tons, 2.7 %
Armour: 10,069 tons, 30.0 %
Belts: 3,068 tons, 9.1 %, Armament: 2,496 tons, 7.4 %, Armour Deck: 3,761 tons, 11.2 %
Conning Tower: 310 tons, 0.9 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 433 tons, 1.3 %
Machinery: 5,469 tons, 16.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,142 tons, 39.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,906 tons, 11.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.2 %

Metacentric height 5.4

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: 1.08
Shellfire needed to sink: 35,702 lbs / 16,194 Kg = 51.6 x 11.1 " / 283 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 4.3
(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: 0.38
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.07

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.540
Sharpness coefficient: 0.36
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.78
'Natural speed' for length: 28.64 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim: 65
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 94.8 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 169.2 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 118 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.08
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 176 lbs / square foot or 857 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 0.98
(for 21.33 ft / 6.50 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 2.03 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

5

Monday, July 28th 2003, 11:26am

Hey!

Nice one, B, a SCHARNHORST-clone (with thinner armor) 12 years before GNEISENAU was laid down.

Is it possible to raise the designs freeboard somewhat to gain more seakeeping?

6

Monday, July 28th 2003, 11:47am

not bad

Not a bad little design.

7

Monday, July 28th 2003, 12:39pm

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Nice one, B, a SCHARNHORST-clone (with thinner armor) 12 years before GNEISENAU was laid down.

Is it possible to raise the designs freeboard somewhat to gain more seakeeping?


and faster ...

This is a design for the Indian Ocean which has quite ok weather, so I wasn't fussed over seakeeping. As it is destined to hunt cruisers, speed was more important.

cheers

B

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

8

Monday, July 28th 2003, 12:50pm

Faster?

"and faster ... "

?!?!? SCHARNHORST topped out to 32,5kn if my sources are correct.......but half a knot is hardly a difference worth to be mentioned and at least GNEISENAU was somewhat slower (not exceeding 32kn).

Cheers,

HoOmAn

9

Monday, July 28th 2003, 12:56pm

was working from memory and for some reason I had her down with 30 kn

B