WesWorld

Working on firepower and survivability, a proposed new post treaty battleship for the Greek Navy.

Simmed in SS2 and 3.



1936-design-ss2, Greek Battleship laid down 1936

Displacement:
41,398 t light; 43,800 t standard; 48,450 t normal; 52,169 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
728.45 ft / 720.00 ft x 115.00 ft x 32.00 ft (normal load)
222.03 m / 219.46 m x 35.05 m x 9.75 m

Armament:
8 - 16.50" / 419 mm guns (3 mounts), 3,000.00lbs / 1,360.78kg shells, 1936 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward
24 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (12x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1936 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 25,500 lbs / 11,567 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 12.87 ft / 3.92 m
Ends: 2.00" / 51 mm 345.58 ft / 105.33 m 12.87 ft / 3.92 m
Upper: 2.00" / 51 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
4.00" / 102 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 30.63 ft / 9.34 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 12.0" / 305 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 4.00" / 102 mm

- Armour deck: 7.00" / 178 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 100,904 shp / 75,274 Kw = 26.90 kts
Range 8,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,369 tons

Complement:
1,632 - 2,122

Cost:
£20.508 million / $82.033 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,434 tons, 5.0 %
Armour: 18,311 tons, 37.8 %
- Belts: 4,763 tons, 9.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,040 tons, 4.2 %
- Armament: 2,674 tons, 5.5 %
- Armour Deck: 8,490 tons, 17.5 %
- Conning Tower: 344 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 2,831 tons, 5.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,622 tons, 36.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,052 tons, 14.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 0.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
85,842 lbs / 38,937 Kg = 38.2 x 16.5 " / 419 mm shells or 16.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.32
Metacentric height 10.1 ft / 3.1 m
Roll period: 15.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 46 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.90

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise aft of midbreak, low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.640
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.26 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.35 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Mid (31 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m (22.00 ft / 6.71 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (23 %): 13.00 ft / 3.96 m (22.00 ft / 6.71 m before break)
- Stern: 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Average freeboard: 18.65 ft / 5.68 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 70.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 161.3 %
Waterplane Area: 65,557 Square feet or 6,090 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 214 lbs/sq ft or 1,044 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.31
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather


----
ss3
----

1936-design-ss3, Greek Battleship laid down 1936

Displacement:
41,378 t light; 43,800 t standard; 48,450 t normal; 52,169 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(736.45 ft / 720.00 ft) x 115.00 ft x (32.00 / 33.99 ft)
(224.47 m / 219.46 m) x 35.05 m x (9.75 / 10.36 m)

Armament:
8 - 16.50" / 419 mm 45.0 cal guns - 3,000.00lbs / 1,360.78kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts , 1936 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 x 2-gun mount on centreline, forward deck forward
24 - 5.00" / 127 mm 40.0 cal guns - 59.90lbs / 27.17kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts , 1936 Model
8 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 25,438 lbs / 25,438 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
Ends: 2.00" / 51 mm 251.98 ft / 76.80 m 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
18.02 ft / 5.49 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 2.00" / 51 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
4.00" / 102 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 30.63 ft / 9.34 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 12.0" / 305 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 4.00" / 102 mm

- Armour deck: 7.00" / 178 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 100,904 shp / 75,274 Kw = 26.90 kts
Range 8,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,369 tons

Complement:
1,632 - 2,122

Cost:
£19.273 million / $77.091 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,904 tons, 8.1 %
Armour: 18,625 tons, 38.4 %
- Belts: 4,918 tons, 10.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,040 tons, 4.2 %
- Armament: 2,834 tons, 5.8 %
- Armour Deck: 8,490 tons, 17.5 %
- Conning Tower: 344 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 2,831 tons, 5.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,566 tons, 36.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,072 tons, 14.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 0.4 %
- Hull below water: 200 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
95,265 lbs / 43,212 Kg = 42.4 x 16.5 " / 419 mm shells or 19.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.44
Metacentric height 11.6 ft / 3.5 m
Roll period: 14.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 45 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.41
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.90

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise aft of midbreak, low quarterdeck ,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.640 / 0.649
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.26 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.35 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 25.00 %, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m, 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Forward deck: 9.00 %, 14.00 ft / 4.27 m, 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Aft deck: 43.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarter deck: 23.00 %, 14.00 ft / 4.27 m, 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Average freeboard: 18.64 ft / 5.68 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 66.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 157.7 %
Waterplane Area: 65,557 Square feet or 6,090 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 213 lbs/sq ft or 1,041 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.32
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

This is scary for 2 reasons

1) Greece is planning the most powerful BB in the Med.

2)That superstructure! Yuk!

Not the fastest, and not suitable for rough waters, but for her likely area of operations she's just brutal.

I like that in a battleship

The lack of light AA in the design, though not in the drawing, and atouch better trim to get her gunnery steadiness to 50 would be my only nitpicks.

Quoted

1) Greece is planning the most powerful BB in the Med.

Nah, I think Lepanto will hold that title for some time yet to come. Rain of shells beats pretty much anything.

In real-world terms, I'd think the costs of developing two different mounts for the 42cm guns would be rather high, probably higher than the savings incurred from allowing a somewhat smaller design. In sim terms, of course, it's not an issue.

Other than that, the splinter armor is a good touch, and clearly the design is anticipating either long-range combat or lots of protection against bombs with it's heavy deck armor. The belt armor is, perhaps, a bit light considering the size and power of it's main battery, but if combat remains at long range it won't matter. Longer-ranged than some previous Greek designs, and I'm not sold on the poor seakeeping, though perhaps the Aegean/Adriatic/Central-Eastern Med areas are not prone to Sea State 4 seas.

In the picture, I can only find 5 twin 5" mounts, where I should find 6.

tis there, just well hidden

Yep, found it now.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

1) Greece is planning the most powerful BB in the Med.

Nah, I think Lepanto will hold that title for some time yet to come. Rain of shells beats pretty much anything.

Those are preaty heavy shells she's throwing, each ones a pain train on its own.

Personally I'd like to see a 3x3 version myself but thats my preferance, the Greeks like to mix and match.

Quoted

Those are preaty heavy shells she's throwing, each ones a pain train on its own.

Twice as many shells from Lepanto though. There isn't much difference between a 16" hit and a 15" hit (or 14")

16.5" acctually, and they are roughly 30% heavier shells.

What happens with a large calibre shell hit is that it explodes and destroys the compartment it landed in. The compartment is destroyed whether its a 14" shell or 18" and the ones each side are relatively unaffected apart from big hot splinters which may, or may not get through the dividing walls. Then again, the shell may hit an ice-cream making machine and plunge straight down into the vitals.

Larger calibre shells are useful for added penetration, but 15" shells can penetrate any reasonable armour so whats the point in larger? Armour thicknesses are limited to around 16" max for belts and other FH pieces and then there were only a very few sites in the world that could produce such plates satisfactorarily. 15"-16" is the peak of usefulness.

For an 18" shell the belt is good for beyond 28000 yards. The deck is good upto 32000 yards.

In regards to Lepanto, Lepanto can take 20 16.5" hits vs this ships 40 15" hits so its about even.

I went with 16.5" because 14" was the standard for Greek battleships. To go beyond 14" it may as well be worth it and there is no telling how big battleships are going to get.

Cheers,

Just a quick glance, re: the SS2 version : I am not keen on an 8" barbette thickness, it leaves your main battery subject to being knocked out by even a 11" armed BC.
I'd like to see the belt higher, and even the SS3 barbette a little thicker.

Also, just to continue my tradition of mentioning this point regarding various folks designs - a 20knt cruise speed nearly doubles the fuel consumption and means the ships will be thirsty, placing greater strain on budget and supply lines.

Quoted

Also, just to continue my tradition of mentioning this point regarding various folks designs - a 20knt cruise speed nearly doubles the fuel consumption and means the ships will be thirsty, placing greater strain on budget and supply lines.

The ship doesn't have to cruise at 20knts though. Steam powerplants are strange things and take time to get up to pressure. If you are cruising at 10knts and quickly wanted to get up to 25-30knts you simply couldn't because there isn't enough steam capacity. You'd need to run at about 80% capacity in order to have the steam to increase speed quickly. It does awful things for fuel economy but is useful for other things.

Well this isn't an area in which I have great depth of knowledge. I know that there was a limit to how fast you could bring speed up, as you had to get the steam to the point where water vapor would not be impacting the turbine blades. This is particularly a problem when first getting underway, no quick dash from harbor. However, it does not seem like standard practice cruise along with a full head of steam up. Perhaps that was the practice when expecting to go to general quarters ?

If it did, then the range given for a ship at 20knts would be the same given for 10 or 15 knots, yet we have all seen listing of multiple ranges for the same ship, diminishing with speed. Just as an example, once source lists the rebuilt Dullio at 4500nm at 13knts, 3000nm at 20knts and 1700 at 24knots. Being an Italian ship, I'm sure you have better sources A second example is from http://www.kbismarck.com/propulsioni.html :
9,280 nautical miles at 16 knots
8,900 nautical miles at 17 knots
8,525 nautical miles at 19 knots
6,640 nautical miles at 24 knots
4,500 nautical miles at 28 knots

Now, can you run slower? I am admittedly weak on this one, but I would think that would depend on your reduction gearing. In most vehicles there is an optimal speed for fuel economy, which you design the engine and gears to achieve. I would expect that the same may apply to ships, so a propulsion system designed for 20knots but run at 15 may not be as efficient as a system designed for 15 and run at 15. Occasionally you run into the phrase 'economical' cruising speed, which at least sounds like it supports the idea of one speed being more efficient than another.

Lastly, if you plan to spend the majority of your cruise time going slower than your cruise speed, then you are simply misstating the cruise speed. Shouldn't the ship be simmed as it is intended to be used?

It depends where you are cruising and the likelihood of attack. Around the British Isles, the KGVs tended to cruise at 20-24knts and keep up steam for full speed as it might be needed soonish. For a USN battleship making a transit from S.F. to Oahu the situation is rather different.

The ranges quoted for ships are usually theoretical ones rather than actual ones achieved. An example between the USN and RN is that the RN used steam turbogenerators for electrical power whilst the USN used diesel generators the consumption of which is rarely quoted alongside the steam consumption.

With regards to how to sim ranges, ~20knts is pretty standard for the RMI given the congested nature of the Med. and the need to get around places quickly. SS uses a proportional model for hull resistance that isn't really true in real life as ships can be designed with dead spots where the power increases very little but the speed shoots up a few knots.

Sorry to get back to this so late. Just got busy.

You make the valid point that the ranges are theoretical and do not include other considerations. Easily Granted.
You also note SS is not accurate here. These ship designs are at best theoretical, and for commonality we use a single design program, so everone is working with the same handicap and theoretical considerations.

Thinking about this, is the example of KGV's high speed dashes valid examples of cruising, or examples of a choice made in high threat areas in wartime? If the latter then it is not representative of 'cruise speed'. It seems 6,000nm at 14knts was the listed cruise and I would expect that far more of their service lifes were spent near that number than in excess of 20 knots.

Now I should point out that Bismarck is generally listed with a Cruise of 19knts, which would seem a good premise for others to follow. Indeed, you noted your RMI runs around at 20knts as well. I've made the same comment regarding some of your offerings I won't blindly insist you *cant* or its *not possible*- that would be silly. The limiter would be mechanical reliability, which wouldn't be an issue in the ranges we are talking.

Looking at Bismarck's ranges, the drop to 16 knots from 19 knots does not reduce extend range to the same degree increasing speed eats it, which I think supports my supposition that gearing your vessel for a higher cruise does not mean you can simply slow down for better fuel economy at will.

I am simply putting forward the idea that you are incurring additional costs over the lifetime of the vessel, while simultaneously making it more difficult to support in combat and making your fuel reserves less effective. When the fleet base is not linked by land to a refinery and oil source, this becomes more serious.

Does SS deal with cruising speed in any other way apart from making allowance for fuel? ie. does dropping from 20 to 16 and increasing the range do anything to machinery weight?

Cheers,

Not in SS2, but once SS3 is finished it could. IRG has been working on a new engine scale modeler for a while, and is pretty close from what I've gathered from other boards/posts/SS website, etc... It should effectively end they problem of having DDs w/ 60% of the weight taken up by machinery, and should have an effect on efficiency and fuel use. I hope.

Kirk, usually the arrangement was to have smaller cruising turbines in addition to the main ones. However you can simply adopt more complex gearing and get a smaller lighter turbine to spin faster putting out the same power. Its a complex area that can't be adequately solved using SS (or probably anything apart from historical units)