WesWorld

www.geocities.com/red_admiral_italy/bbsicilia.html

I've grouped the main guns into 4 turrets but springstyle computes the main battery armour wrong because you can't enter the arrangement of guns~so i have altered the weight. Because you can't enter the arrangement of the guns it would be possible to have 1-7s-1s-1.
weight of 3 gun turret=1,059ton
weight of 2 gun superfiring turret=1,080ton

this gives a total weight of 4278ton.

Springstyle gives total weight as 4818ton.

4818-4278=527
So i have put -527 in the miscellaneous weight box.

Is everyone ok with me doing this?


MM Sicilia, Italian Battleship laid down 1922

Displacement:
37,712 t light; 40,058 t standard; 43,492 t normal; 46,066 t full load
Loading submergence 1,576 tons/feet

Dimensions:
771.00 ft x 106.00 ft x 33.50 ft (normal load)
235.00 m x 32.31 m x 10.21 m

Armament:
10 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4 Main turrets, 2 superfiring turrets)
12 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (6 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
16 - 1.59" / 41 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 17,712 lbs / 8,034 kg

Armour:
Belt 16.00" / 406 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 85 % of normal area
Main turrets 15.00" / 381 mm, 2nd turrets 2.00" / 51 mm
AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower 3.00" / 76 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 115,383 shp / 86,076 Kw = 27.80 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
1,505 - 1,957

Cost:
£10.166 million / $40.665 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,214 tons, 5.1 %
Armour: 16,042 tons, 36.9 %
Belts: 3,585 tons, 8.2 %, Armament: 5,012 tons, 11.5 %, Armour Deck: 6,122 tons, 14.1 %
Conning Tower: 80 tons, 0.2 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,242 tons, 2.9 %
Machinery: 3,914 tons, 9.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,069 tons, 36.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,780 tons, 13.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: -527 tons, -1.2 %

Metacentric height 5.9

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: 1.04
Shellfire needed to sink: 44,768 lbs / 20,306 Kg = 26.5 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 6.7
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 57 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.52
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.556
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.71
'Natural speed' for length: 27.77 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim: 55
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 83.6 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 134.0 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 106 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.99
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 207 lbs / square foot or 1,009 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.08
(for 19.20 ft / 5.85 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -1.12 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

I'm not sure about the turret weight adjustment, but I do like the idea of continuing the Italian 2x3/2x2 arrangment

humm how did you calculate the weight of the turrets?. and which figure did you use to calculate the actual weight of the twin and triple turrets?

your ship seems fantastic,BTW

I just used Springstyle to calculate the weight of the individual turrets. I just put 1 twin superfiring turret on the design and looked to see how much that weighed. Then i put a triple non-superfiring turret and saw how much that weighed. Then I added the weights together, doubled and got the figure 4278t instead of 4818t.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I just used Springstyle to calculate the weight of the individual turrets. I just put 1 twin superfiring turret on the design and looked to see how much that weighed. Then i put a triple non-superfiring turret and saw how much that weighed. Then I added the weights together, doubled and got the figure 4278t instead of 4818t.

wow, good idea...

let's see how this turns out for my own design:


weight of quadruple 15' turret: 1407t
weight of triple 15' turret: 1055t (this is what SpringStyle said when I introduced the triple 15' turret)

weight of a 10 gun arrangement with 3 turrets (A turretx4,B and Cx3)= 3517t


weight of a 10 gun arrangement with 3 turrets according to springstyle: 3515t

(seems that springstyle knew exactly what was I wanting to do ).


re-model of almirante Churruca to accept 10 guns:


Almirante Churruca, Spain Battleship laid down 1922

Displacement:
37.578 t light; 39.950 t standard; 42.879 t normal; 45.051 t full load
Loading submergence 1.540 tons/feet

Dimensions:
780,00 ft x 97,50 ft x 33,00 ft (normal load)
237,74 m x 29,72 m x 10,06 m

Armament:
10 - 15,00" / 381 mm guns (3 Main turrets, 1 superfiring turret)
16 - 5,12" / 130 mm guns (8 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
32 - 1,57" / 40 mm AA guns
12 - 3,00" / 76 mm guns
Weight of broadside 18.172 lbs / 8.243 kg

Armour:
Belt 16,00" / 406 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 91 % of normal area
Main turrets 16,00" / 406 mm, 2nd turrets 0,50" / 13 mm
Armour deck 6,00" / 152 mm, Conning tower 3,00" / 76 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2,00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 117.642 shp / 87.761 Kw = 28,00 kts
Range 10.000nm at 14,00 kts

Complement:
1.489 - 1.936

Cost:
£10,314 million / $41,258 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2.272 tons, 5,3 %
Armour: 15.345 tons, 35,8 %
Belts: 3.652 tons, 8,5 %, Armament: 4.394 tons, 10,2 %, Armour Deck: 5.982 tons, 13,9 %
Conning Tower: 80 tons, 0,2 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1.238 tons, 2,9 %
Machinery: 3.991 tons, 9,3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15.969 tons, 37,2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5.301 tons, 12,4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 2 tons, 0,0 %

Metacentric height 5,0

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: 1,02
Shellfire needed to sink: 42.218 lbs / 19.150 Kg = 25,0 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: 60 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0,78
Relative quality as seaboat: 1,12

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0,598
Sharpness coefficient: 0,39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6,82
'Natural speed' for length: 27,93 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim: 54
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 90,2 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 144,8 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 103 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0,99
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 203 lbs / square foot or 993 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1,14
(for 21,00 ft / 6,40 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 0,74 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1,00



got a couple of ideas to improve this design but now I've got no time to modify it further.

6 in deck armour? a bit much for 1922 - remember that this is _average_ thickness. Also wasn't Spain metric at the time? I am wondering that you obviously design in imperial.

nice ship tho!

cheers

Bernhard

the deck armour of N&R is given as 160 mm but that is the average of the parts that are armoured, whereas AFAIK SS uses the whole deck area as reference.

cheers

Bernhard

Quoted

Originally posted by LordArpad
6 in deck armour? a bit much for 1922 - remember that this is _average_ thickness. Also wasn't Spain metric at the time? I am wondering that you obviously design in imperial.

nice ship tho!

cheers

Bernhard

in fact-Spain uses metric...but I've been reading so much about WWII ships in english books that when I'm talking or writing about them ,I always tend to use imperial measures.

weird...but true

Well to find out what the average deck thickness was for an early 20's design lets look at what was built during those years.

Nelson/Rodney 1922/27, 159-95mm/6.25"-3.75" deck
Nagato/Mustu 1920/21, 89mm/3.5" deck (as built)
Colorado/Maryland/West Virginia 1921/23, 102mm/4"

Nelsons deck varied in thickness over certain area's, while nagato on the other hand recieved additional armor, in a layout i have yet to see but apparently she had 8" of armor over her magazines while having little in the way of protection over the machinery. As Tiornu from the warships 1 board says, Nagato has a very unusual armor scheme post 1934 refit.

RAM how did you get those figures? By using your design and looking to see what the turret armour weights were i got the total weight of 3,975t while springstyle says 4328t. I don't think you have allowed for a superfiring turret when calculating the individual weights.

As for average deck thicknesses of armour, then Nelson comes out at around 5.5-6" average. The 6.25" deck armour over the magazines was protection against 16" shells.
G3 the preceeding design had 9" deck armour over the magazines to protect against 18" shellfire. Over the machinery it was thinned to about 7".

9" deck armour is superfluous here as we don't have 18" guns yet.....

I put 6" average deck armour on my design because i know that there will be bigger ships with bigger guns in the future.

I was actually quite surprised to see N&R with such solid deck armour. I wll have to reconsider my designs.

Bernhard

Useing less hindsight my most powerfull BB's deck armor is around 5.5" and this is after a redesign. Most of the post washington treaty designs starting with the Nelsons were armored primarily against the largest guns allowed under the treaty, the 16". With the Cleito treaty limit of 15" guns it would seem logical for navy's to design their ships with armor to protect them from 15" guns and as such have slightly weaker armor.

I doubt one can do what Red Admiral did with turret weights.
It seems as if his calculation did not take into account raised barbets for superfiring turrets. Further more you can´t compensate the heavier turrets by using negative misc weight because the formulae used calculate turret/barbet weight to be high on the ship while this is not true for misc weight.

Finally, we all agreed that springstyle/sharp defines the physics of the Wesworld so I don´t see a reason to fool around with negative misc weight.

Cheers,

HoOmAn

NELSON and RODNEY are unique in several ways one being her deck armor thickness and layout. They can hardly be used as a benchmark for 1920s-BBs - especially not in a CT-influenced environment.

What might help you to get an idea of what your _average_ deck protection should be is the weight dedicated to that protection. Both springstyle and springsharp list the tonnage devoted for that purpose. Compare that to similar values provided by either reference books like Raven&Roberts, Gröner, Breyer, Whitley etc. or weppages like the warships of the world pages on www.warships1.com. You may find out that an average 4"-5" (single or multi layer) is way enough - still allowing 6+" over magazins but much less on other places. In fact, going for weight is the only way to realistically simulate a multi layer design I know of.

Cheers,

HoOmAn

You should try and sim a separate version of your ship using the superfiring twins as main armament and the triples as secondary. In case of the Silicia, the difference between the two in regards of armor is 541 tons...

Using almost exactly the same data as the MM Sicilia, I get this...


10x 15 inch in four turrets design:
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1922

Displacement:
37,712 t light; 40,058 t standard; 43,492 t normal; 46,065 t full load
Loading submergence 1,576 tons/feet

Dimensions:
771.00 ft x 106.00 ft x 33.50 ft (normal load)
235.00 m x 32.31 m x 10.21 m

Armament:
10 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4 Main turrets, 2 superfiring turrets)
12 - 5.12" / 130 mm AA guns
16 - 1.61" / 41 mm guns
Weight of broadside 17,713 lbs / 8,035 kg

Armour:
Belt 16.00" / 406 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 86 % of normal area
Main turrets 15.00" / 381 mm, AA gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm, Light gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower 3.00" / 76 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 115,383 shp / 86,076 Kw = 27.80 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
1,505 - 1,957

Cost:
£10.167 million / $40.666 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,214 tons, 5.1 %
Armour: 15,983 tons, 36.7 %
Belts: 3,619 tons, 8.3 %, Armament: 4,919 tons, 11.3 %, Armour Deck: 6,122 tons, 14.1 %
Conning Tower: 80 tons, 0.2 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,242 tons, 2.9 %
Machinery: 3,914 tons, 9.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,602 tons, 35.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,780 tons, 13.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 6.2

Remarks:
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.07
Shellfire needed to sink: 43,229 lbs / 19,608 Kg = 25.6 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 6.4
(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: 0.49
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.556
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.71
'Natural speed' for length: 27.77 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 85.2 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 134.0 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 105 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.96
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 201 lbs / square foot or 980 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.05
(for 19.20 ft / 5.85 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -1.12 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 0.97


2x2, 2x3 turrets design:

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1922

Displacement:
37,712 t light; 40,058 t standard; 43,492 t normal; 46,065 t full load
Loading submergence 1,576 tons/feet

Dimensions:
771.00 ft x 106.00 ft x 33.50 ft (normal load)
235.00 m x 32.31 m x 10.21 m

Armament:
4 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (2 Main turrets x 2 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
6 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (2 2nd turrets x 3 guns)
12 - 5.12" / 130 mm AA guns
16 - 1.61" / 41 mm guns
Weight of broadside 17,713 lbs / 8,035 kg

Armour:
Belt 16.00" / 406 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 86 % of normal area
Main turrets 15.00" / 381 mm, 2nd turrets 15.00" / 381 mm
AA gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm, Light gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower 3.00" / 76 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 115,383 shp / 86,076 Kw = 27.80 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
1,505 - 1,957

Cost:
£10.167 million / $40.666 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,214 tons, 5.1 %
Armour: 15,442 tons, 35.5 %
Belts: 3,619 tons, 8.3 %, Armament: 4,379 tons, 10.1 %, Armour Deck: 6,122 tons, 14.1 %
Conning Tower: 80 tons, 0.2 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,242 tons, 2.9 %
Machinery: 3,914 tons, 9.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,142 tons, 37.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,780 tons, 13.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 6.4

Remarks:
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.09
Shellfire needed to sink: 42,901 lbs / 19,460 Kg = 25.4 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 6.4
(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: 0.48
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.06

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.556
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.71
'Natural speed' for length: 27.77 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 85.2 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 134.0 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 106 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.93
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 208 lbs / square foot or 1,014 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.10
(for 19.20 ft / 5.85 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -1.12 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 0.95


... Well that is something completely different compared with the original design.

Differences:
RA design:
- 12 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (6 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
- Belts cover 85 % of normal area
- Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 83.6 %
- Relative margin of stability: 1,02
- Relative quality as seaboat: 1,12
- Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.99
- Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.08
- Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

10x15 4 turret design:
- 12 - 5.12" / 130 mm AA guns
- Belts cover 86 % of normal area
- Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 85.2 %
- Relative margin of stability: 1.07
- Relative quality as seaboat: 1.05
- Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.96
- Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.05
- Relative composite hull strength: 0.97

2x2, 2x3 turret design:
- 12 - 5.12" / 130 mm AA guns
- Belts cover 86 % of normal area
- Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 85.2 %
- Relative margin of stability: 1.09
- Relative quality as seaboat: 1.06
- Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.93
- Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.10
- Relative composite hull strength: 0.95

If you want to do it right, I think you should do it the "2x2, 2x3" way, like I did with several designs(Atatake, several Go-type vessels), but use the same caliber for main and secondary.
That is, if you only have 3 types of guns on your ship.

Walter

I agree. I just hope that SS 1.3 will allow more flexible placement of the guns - I for instance tend to use 6 secondary turrets - 2 superimposed over the main ones and 4 wing turrets.

Bernhard

I hope so, too. I have plans for 4x3 and 4x2 secondary layout on the new type BBs, and the heavier ones even a 6x3 and 4x2 secondary layout with two of the triples superimposed over the main guns in both cases.
Currently when you enter respectively 8 and 10 with Springsharp, the report will not give you a number of secondary turrets.

Walter

oh well. I have re-re-designed Sicilia so now she is rather indistinguishable but leaner and meaner and more efficient.