WesWorld

Gentlemen,

I like to hear your comments on this one. It is a progessive continuation of my BB24G-design which is currently on the slips and better known as RSAN Ophion.

Changes:

- less secondaries but new layout - now all centerline - allows same weight of broadside
- heavier AA caliber (105mm instead of 88mm)
- slightly increased speed
- slightly increased deck armor
- thinner turret sides

Is there anything you´d change and if so, why?

Thanks for your input,

HoOmAn

Design 29K, South African Battleship laid down 1929

Displacement:
38.601 t light; 40.606 t standard; 43.834 t normal; 46.418 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
813,66 ft / 793,96 ft x 104,99 ft x 30,68 ft (normal load)
248,00 m / 242,00 m x 32,00 m x 9,35 m

Armament:
9 - 14,96" / 380 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1.674,25lbs / 759,43kg shells, 1929 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
9 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns (3x3 guns), 102,98lbs / 46,71kg shells, 1929 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 4,13" / 105 mm guns (8x2 guns), 35,32lbs / 16,02kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
16 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (6 mounts), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
24 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns (4x6 guns), 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 16.597 lbs / 7.528 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15,7" / 400 mm 448,26 ft / 136,63 m 14,44 ft / 4,40 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 87% of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
0,98" / 25 mm 448,26 ft / 136,63 m 26,25 ft / 8,00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15,7" / 400 mm 11,8" / 300 mm 14,2" / 360 mm
2nd: 3,94" / 100 mm 2,36" / 60 mm 3,15" / 80 mm
3rd: 0,79" / 20 mm 0,39" / 10 mm -
4th: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
5th: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 6,10" / 155 mm, Conning tower: 14,96" / 380 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 147.454 shp / 110.000 Kw = 29,51 kts
Range 10.000nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5.812 tons

Complement:
1.514 - 1.969

Cost:
£14,911 million / $59,644 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2.075 tons, 4,7%
Armour: 15.616 tons, 35,6%
- Belts: 4.506 tons, 10,3%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 428 tons, 1,0%
- Armament: 3.399 tons, 7,8%
- Armour Deck: 6.883 tons, 15,7%
- Conning Tower: 401 tons, 0,9%
Machinery: 4.529 tons, 10,3%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16.281 tons, 37,1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5.233 tons, 11,9%
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0,2%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
55.819 lbs / 25.319 Kg = 33,3 x 15,0 " / 380 mm shells or 7,7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,01
Metacentric height 5,5 ft / 1,7 m
Roll period: 18,9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,64
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,01

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,600
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,56 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28,18 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4,92 ft / 1,50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 25,59 ft / 7,80 m
- Forecastle (22%): 20,18 ft / 6,15 m
- Mid (50%): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Stern: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Average freeboard: 20,34 ft / 6,20 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 86,8%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 151,8%
Waterplane Area: 60.965 Square feet or 5.664 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 197 lbs/sq ft or 964 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,99
- Longitudinal: 1,03
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

It looks like a pretty good ship to me. Slighly low stability, but sometimes you have to make sacrifices to get something you want (for the 29K it is the "Steady gun platform" rating). Love to see a picture of it.

You´re right. Her stability is somewhat low. No idea why that escaped me. :o/ Most likely it is because during the first run I had her TDS too low. When increasing it to its current hight stability must have gone downhill.

What would you propose to increase her stability?

Regards and thanks,

HoOmAn

Her armour is very good. A nice thick deep belt is good to see. The TDS is a little shallow and thin I think,but thats just my opinion. Everything seems fairly normal for a SAE ship.

Thanks...

Regarding her belt - does anybody know if SS assumes belts to tapper? Or does it sim a belt of unique thickness? Ian?

Regards,

HoOmAn

Well, I'd suggest replacing the main battery with a set of peashooters, and reducing the armour by about 399mm...

...wait, why are you looking at me like that?

:-)

Bear with me but I don´t trust you, Swamphy... ;o)

Generally a good, powerful design. Have I started a trend with all-centreline secondaries, or did your decision to have one arise from other factors?

I'll second Walter's point on stability, and add that seakeeping could use a modest increase too. Part of your operating area includes the South Atlantic, after all - you'd want the ships not to be unduly hampered by the conditions there.

How to get this? I'd just retain Ophion's deck armor and speed, both of which are still quite good.

I too await a sketch. Get drawing!

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Generally a good, powerful design. Have I started a trend with all-centreline secondaries, or did your decision to have one arise from other factors?

AKBAR surely had some influence but she doesn´t deserve all the credits. I always liked what YAMATO looked like with her superfiring secondaries and of course there always is GASCOGNE - probably the most beautiful battleship ever designed. She, too, featured superfiring secondaries.

Quoted

I'll second Walter's point on stability, and add that seakeeping could use a modest increase too. Part of your operating area includes the South Atlantic, after all - you'd want the ships not to be unduly hampered by the conditions there.

You´re right on this. I already spend half an hour trying to increase stability without changin the ships main characteristics but all I got was a slight increase to 1.02 at a seakeeping of 1.00. I payed for it with another 400ts - hardly what I had in mind. :o/

Either there´s something wrong or my design already is at the cutting edge of what is possible given her hull size and form.

Quoted

How to get this? I'd just retain Ophion's deck armor and speed, both of which are still quite good.

See above. I´ll try again... Stay tuned!

Quoted

I too await a sketch. Get drawing!

*BANG!*

SS doesn't go for taper in the belt, its just single thickness, or average thickness whatever you prefer. Tapering the belt at its lower edge would give a deeper belt, it shouldn't be too hard to calculate.

Na dann....

Here´s what I got when going back to OPHIONs speed and deck armor. Stability increased to 1.03 and seakeeping now is at 1.04. Range also increased by another douzand miles as did torpedo resistance.

However, I´m no longer sure if I really made a step forward from OPHION. :o/

OPHION had two more secondary turrets which at least offered better all around defense capabilties against multiple targets. She also carried more shells per main gun and had more misc weight capacity.

On the other hand the new ship has a deeper belt, heavier AA guns, a marginally increased range and a better TDS. 29K is also smaller, her displacement dropped below 40kts but 118ts hardly buy me an advantage.

In general there is neither more speed, more guns or an significant increase in protection....

Or am I wrong?

Design 29K-2, South African Battleship laid down 1929

Displacement:
37.994 t light; 39.900 t standard; 43.600 t normal; 46.560 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
813,75 ft / 793,96 ft x 104,99 ft x 30,51 ft (normal load)
248,03 m / 242,00 m x 32,00 m x 9,30 m

Armament:
9 - 14,96" / 380 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1.674,25lbs / 759,43kg shells, 1929 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
9 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns (3x3 guns), 102,98lbs / 46,71kg shells, 1929 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 4,13" / 105 mm guns (8x2 guns), 35,32lbs / 16,02kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
16 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (6 mounts), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
24 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns (4x6 guns), 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 16.597 lbs / 7.528 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15,7" / 400 mm 439,14 ft / 133,85 m 14,44 ft / 4,40 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 85% of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
0,98" / 25 mm 439,14 ft / 133,85 m 26,25 ft / 8,00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15,7" / 400 mm 11,8" / 300 mm 14,2" / 360 mm
2nd: 3,94" / 100 mm 2,36" / 60 mm 3,15" / 80 mm
3rd: 0,79" / 20 mm 0,39" / 10 mm -
4th: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
5th: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5,91" / 150 mm, Conning tower: 14,96" / 380 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 140.750 shp / 105.000 Kw = 29,19 kts
Range 11.600nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6.660 tons

Complement:
1.508 - 1.961

Cost:
£14,711 million / $58,843 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2.075 tons, 4,8%
Armour: 15.313 tons, 35,1%
- Belts: 4.433 tons, 10,2%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 420 tons, 1,0%
- Armament: 3.401 tons, 7,8%
- Armour Deck: 6.661 tons, 15,3%
- Conning Tower: 399 tons, 0,9%
Machinery: 4.323 tons, 9,9%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16.208 tons, 37,2%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5.606 tons, 12,9%
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0,2%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
57.167 lbs / 25.931 Kg = 34,1 x 15,0 " / 380 mm shells or 7,9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,03
Metacentric height 5,7 ft / 1,7 m
Roll period: 18,5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,63
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,04

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,600
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,56 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28,18 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 67
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4,92 ft / 1,50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 25,75 ft / 7,85 m
- Forecastle (22%): 20,21 ft / 6,16 m
- Mid (50%): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Stern: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Average freeboard: 20,36 ft / 6,21 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85,1%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 152,5%
Waterplane Area: 60.965 Square feet or 5.664 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 197 lbs/sq ft or 961 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,99
- Longitudinal: 1,03
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Five years does not make a huge difference in one's machinery costs/weight, so it might be unrealistic to expect something dramatically better than Ophion (which itself is a very good design to start with).

Question then becomes - would the RSAN rather have a 29K or an improved Ophion, and why?

29K actually is an improved OPHION. There´s no need to build something completely different. I also like to have a homogenous battleline. That´s why I chosed an improved OPHION.

Why will build them at all? The RSAN has two BCs of 1911er vintage and four units of the KONING-class which were laid down 1912-13. The HERTOGs entered service late in 1913 and the first KONINGs late in 1914. I´m thus allowed to lay down a replacement for the HERTOGs in 1930 and for the KONINGs one year later.

So 4 modern units will replace 6 old ones...and from that year on I´ll never have 14 capital ships again. If the CT continues beyond 1936, that is.

[RA just triggered another problem. So far I never paid attention to the shell size automatically used by SS. I simmed my guns with BigGun not taking into account that if I use a heavier shell for those calculations I also have to donate more tonnage to magazins etc. in SS. :o/ Too late to change that on older stuff but it makes life even more difficult for 29K...]

By "Improved Ophion" I meant "the design is unchanged except that the lay-down date is 1929". Essentially it seems to boil down to which secondary/AA layout you like more.

I'll take a look and see what I can get out of your original design.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
By "Improved Ophion" I meant "the design is unchanged except that the lay-down date is 1929". Essentially it seems to boil down to which secondary/AA layout you like more.

More or less, yes. However, there is a difference in damage resistance. 29K´s deeper belt and smaller powerplant have their effect. It takes 27 shells or 5 1/2 TTs to sink OPHION but you´ll need 34 shells or 8 TTs to get rid of 29K. That´s an increase of ~40% - which actually could be worse. :o)

How about this?
Slightly slower, using the same 105 MW engines as your 29K-2. Slight increase in armor; Additional 150 tons miscellaneous weight; Stability = 1.05; Seaboat Quality > 1.05; "steady gun platform" rating.


Design 29W, South Africa Battleship laid down 1929

Displacement:
37,996 t light; 40,000 t standard; 43,834 t normal; 46,902 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
826.53 ft / 803.81 ft x 90.22 ft (Bulges 104.99 ft) x 30.81 ft (normal load)
251.93 m / 245.00 m x 27.50 m (Bulges 32.00 m) x 9.39 m

Armament:
9 - 14.96" / 380 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,674.25lbs / 759.43kg shells, 1929 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
9 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (3x3 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1929 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (8x2 guns), 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6 mounts), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x6 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 16,597 lbs / 7,528 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.1" / 410 mm 465.22 ft / 141.80 m 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 89 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.97" / 50 mm 465.22 ft / 141.80 m 29.53 ft / 9.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.1" / 410 mm 11.8" / 300 mm 14.2" / 360 mm
2nd: 3.94" / 100 mm 2.36" / 60 mm 3.15" / 80 mm
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
4th: 0.59" / 15 mm - -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5.91" / 150 mm, Conning tower: 16.14" / 410 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 140,751 shp / 105,000 Kw = 29.24 kts
Range 12,018nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,901 tons

Complement:
1,514 - 1,969

Cost:
£14.711 million / $58.844 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,075 tons, 4.7 %
Armour: 15,428 tons, 35.2 %
- Belts: 4,777 tons, 10.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,001 tons, 2.3 %
- Armament: 3,477 tons, 7.9 %
- Armour Deck: 5,741 tons, 13.1 %
- Conning Tower: 432 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 4,323 tons, 9.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,920 tons, 36.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,839 tons, 13.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 250 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
54,998 lbs / 24,947 Kg = 32.8 x 15.0 " / 380 mm shells or 8.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
Metacentric height 4.7 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 20.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.64
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.11

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.590
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.66 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.35 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 63
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4.92 ft / 1.50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.84 ft / 9.40 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 20.83 ft / 6.35 m
- Mid (50 %): 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Stern: 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Average freeboard: 21.40 ft / 6.52 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 88.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 135.2 %
Waterplane Area: 52,547 Square feet or 4,882 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 199 lbs/sq ft or 974 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.02
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

staff facilities (100 tons)
catapult + crane (25 tons)
5 float planes (125 tons)

Her speed and armor make for a powerful design. Although given the fact that nearly all barbette hits will be at an angle, you could probably spare 20mm or so there to use on something else.

And sextuple 20mm mounts?? I'd hate to be the one passing ammo to that beast.

Quoted

[RA just triggered another problem. So far I never paid attention to the shell size automatically used by SS. I simmed my guns with BigGun not taking into account that if I use a heavier shell for those calculations I also have to donate more tonnage to magazins etc. in SS. :o/ Too late to change that on older stuff but it makes life even more difficult for 29K...]

Tell me about it. Of course, the deck penetration of the big shells make it worthwhile.

Well done, Walter!

Looks like bulges offer some interesting alternative. I havn´t played around with them yet - probably a mistake.

Meanwhile I also solved the problem (including 825kg shells). How? I noticed I made a calculation error. As I explained the HERTOGs were laid down 1911 and the first KONINGs 1912. Thus I thought to be allowed to lay down a replacement in 1928. I couldn´t do so as there was no spare capacity and so planned for 1929. I now re-read the CT again and noticed I am allowed to lay down a replacement 17 years after the ship to be replaced commissioned. So the earliest date for a HERTOG replacement is 1930 - and that single year bought me enough to shape my BB29 the way I wanted.

Anyway, your design is still superior so I´ll go and copy it, methinks. Probably decreasing armor to original levels and increasing speed again. :o)

Thanks for your help.

HoOmAn

In order to get to that 29W design I made, I messed around with all kind of attributes. One thing I also increased at one point was the Barbette. It is definitely possible to increase the barbette, maybe evn up to 400mm while slightly reducing one (or more) aspects of the design.