SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Create, read, or participate in text-based RPGs

Moderators: Thanas, Steve

User avatar
Steve
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9762
Joined: 2002-07-03 01:09pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Steve »

Actually, I'm now damned certain 18" wasn't practical in 1920.... or even later. Even Yamato was only 16".

Cut it down to 14" armor belt and raise laying year to 1923 and it'll work.
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia

American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.

DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Norade »

No, I won't cut armor. That is BS, I designed it, I can find source showing that the armor system I want will work, so no.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
User avatar
Steve
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9762
Joined: 2002-07-03 01:09pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Steve »

Okay, show me the evidence.
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia

American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.

DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Norade »

Easy, 14" plates could be made and done well as one piece. So making a slightly shorter 10" plate and then covering it with a larger harder 8" plate would be no issue. Both systems are a dual layered system of rivets and welds in order to work properly and while expensive and hard to make there is no reason it can't work.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Armor penetration is a matter of local stiffness, two plates bolted together would have much less resistance then the total thickness in a single plate. Not to mention all the extra bolt holes = weakness. Waste weight like that if you want but that does not give you an 18in belt effectiveness.

You can’t weld face hardened armor BTW, it would ruin the quality of the plates if you could get it to join at all, which would be extremely hard in the 1920s. More like nearly impossible as this is only when they’d only just started welding normal soft structural steel.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Thanas »

So we can't have 18inch armor?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Norade »

We can get to 14", what if I wanted to focus more on armor than guns?
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Sea Skimmer »

You can have 18in armor but quality would drop off significantly. When you look at dreadnought armor you usually only find protection that thick on the faceplates, barbettes and conning tower. In all three cases it would also be much thicker then the belt armor. The reason for this was that in all three applications you have inherent quality problems because of holes for gun ports, viewing ports and the curvature of the barbette. So designers used plates much thicker then would be otherwise required to make up for the know inherently loss of quality, and then went thicker still to make up for the lower quality of such thick plates. In some cases the quality problems became significant enough that the armor actually was in two layers, like the Iowa class turret faceplates, but one layer was thin. Two medium thickness plates bolted together aren’t specifically good for anything.

Two layers of armor with a significant air gap had certain advantages, for example a thick sloped armored deck behind a belt as found on Bismarck. But this also created major design constraints as the ship becomes very volume hungary; while the actual armor protected volume goes down. On paper if you had a 10in layer and then a fifteen foot gap and then an 8in layer almost nothing could get through.... but you wouldn't be armoring much of the ships citadel volume at that point either. By default you'd be accepting that every heavy shell that hits is gonna explode inside the ship and likely cause some flooding. The usual opinion was that an inclined internal armored belt make more sense at that point.

Quality problems reflected the fact that making face hardened armor is not fucking easy, it was a very protracted process with many heating and cooling cycles, the precision of which dropped off with increased plate thickness. Homogenous armor in contrast could pretty well be made as thick as you had rolling machines to make it with no loss in quality, but its only effective against APC projectiles at very high angles of obliquity. That’s why it was acceptable to be used for deck armor. Most cruiser armor was also homogenous because for a thin plate face hardening made little difference, and you can use homogenous armor as part of a ships structure. Face hardened armored belts didn’t rally contribute to strength, though they did help the structure remain stiff in hard seas.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Norade »

So then how about a 14" main plate with a super hard 4" plate inside.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Sea Skimmer »

The point of a battleship is to bring guns into action. If you don’t want a lot of guns, then you might want to consider saving tonnage and building more total ships. Numbers are more likely to decide battles much more so then individual unit quality because the side with more numbers has ships firing without opposition and more survivability in general. Even the best armored battleship might still be crippled by a hit on the steering gear for example, two ships require two lucky hits to disable ect…

But if you want to emphasis armor you can do a number of things besides having a very thick belt. You can make the belt taller for example, and inclined it to retain the same effective height as the older thick belt yet resistance, particularly at long range may actually be superior. The considerable majority of post WW1 battleships had angled belts. They may be internal or external though internal was more common because it didn’t make the deck armor so wide. You can also extend length to gain more protected volume and thus more reserve buoyancy. Latter this would also allow for machinery dispersal though no one had this in the 1920s yet.

More deck armor is also always good. You only had a 6in deck on that ship, which is just fine against some 16in gunfire, but more would be necessary for good protection against 18in fire or a 16in super heavy. At the Battle of Casablanca in 1943 USS Massachusetts dropped her first 2,700lb 16in superheavy hit right through the 150mm main deck and 40mm splinter deck of Jean Bart. The shell exploded in a 6in magazine, and had that magazine not been 100% empty of ammo the resulting detonation would have blown the stern off the ship and totally destroyed her. As it was it just caused some flooding. Notice the 50ft distance the shell could travel between being armed and detonation.

Image

As for 14in and then a 4in super hard plate, the super hard plate would just shatter and be worthless. A normal armor plate might add 1-2in of effective thickness, so about a 15-16in belt in real terms. I'd just use a 14-15in angled belt, which is what the British used on most of the alphabet soup 1920s designs that led to N3, G3 and then the Nelsons.

Optimal resistance for the weight in face hardened armor BTW came at around 12 inches. This was a major factor in the thin ass belts on US, German and Italian dreadnoughts in WW2. However this could only really be accepted because the WNT has so limited the deployment of heavier naval guns.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Norade »

PSS Mythological, Portugal Battleship laid down 1920

Displacement:
46,730 t light; 49,635 t standard; 52,172 t normal; 54,201 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(848.38 ft / 820.21 ft) x 101.71 ft (Bulges 108.27 ft) x (37.73 / 38.96 ft)
(258.59 m / 250.00 m) x 31.00 m (Bulges 33.00 m) x (11.50 / 11.87 m)

Armament:
9 - 16.00" / 406 mm 52.0 cal guns - 2,400.00lbs / 1,088.62kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
1 raised mount
1 x 3-gun mount on centreline, aft deck centre
12 - 6.00" / 152 mm 50.0 cal guns - 114.33lbs / 51.86kg shells, 250 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
6 x Triple mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 - 4.00" / 102 mm 50.0 cal guns - 33.88lbs / 15.37kg shells, 1,000 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model
6 x 2 row twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 23,379 lbs / 10,604 kg
4 - 24.5" / 622 mm, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m torpedoes - 1.328 t each, 5.310 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted centre rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 535.13 ft / 163.11 m 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
Ends: 3.00" / 76 mm 285.06 ft / 86.89 m 12.10 ft / 3.69 m
Upper: 3.00" / 76 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 7.50 ft / 2.29 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
6.00" / 152 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 33.94 ft / 10.34 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 18.0" / 457 mm 12.0" / 305 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
3rd: 1.50" / 38 mm 1.50" / 38 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 7.00" / 178 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 3.00" / 76 mm Quarter deck: 3.00" / 76 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 15.00" / 381 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 61,699 shp / 46,027 Kw = 23.00 kts
Range 4,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,567 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
1,725 - 2,243

Cost:
£10.054 million / $40.215 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 4,936 tons, 9.5 %
- Guns: 4,931 tons, 9.5 %
- Torpedoes: 5 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 21,600 tons, 41.4 %
- Belts: 6,533 tons, 12.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 3,708 tons, 7.1 %
- Armament: 4,342 tons, 8.3 %
- Armour Deck: 6,566 tons, 12.6 %
- Conning Tower: 451 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,373 tons, 4.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,740 tons, 34.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,442 tons, 10.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 80 tons, 0.2 %
- Hull below water: 80 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
86,867 lbs / 39,402 Kg = 42.4 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 18.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.07
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 18.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 76 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.98
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.58

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.545 / 0.548
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.58 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.64 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 37 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Aft deck: 30.00 %, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Quarter deck: 20.00 %, 22.97 ft / 7.00 m, 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Average freeboard: 25.36 ft / 7.73 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 69.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 145.4 %
Waterplane Area: 57,946 Square feet or 5,383 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 223 lbs/sq ft or 1,088 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.62
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
This better?
Last edited by Norade on 2009-11-06 10:25pm, edited 1 time in total.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
User avatar
Steve
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9762
Joined: 2002-07-03 01:09pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Steve »

*cough* End-fire only? So you crossing my T isn't such a bad proposition? :lol:

And I remember saying such a large ship could be laid after 1922. Not 1920.

Actually, the size of your secondary battery is kinda bad. I mean, the 6"ers aren't so bad but 4" guns for tertiary battery? That's the battery that would engage much lighter ships or even aircraft. Actually, a 1922 ship would probably instead of 47mm or 57mm for engaging aircraft.
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia

American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.

DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
User avatar
Steve
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9762
Joined: 2002-07-03 01:09pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Steve »

....16"/52 guns? Is this your "downgrade" from 18"?

Actually, by your own fluff, isn't Portugal a recovering power? Yet they have the funds to research a 16"/52, when only the US was even testing 16"/50 and was due to put them into the South Dakota (1) and Lexington-class?

Well, again, you can have them if the design is after 1922 and if you've had 16"/45 guns on at least one design prior, preferably 2.
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia

American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.

DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Steve wrote: Actually, the size of your secondary battery is kinda bad. I mean, the 6"ers aren't so bad but 4" guns for tertiary battery? That's the battery that would engage much lighter ships or even aircraft. Actually, a 1922 ship would probably instead of 47mm or 57mm for engaging aircraft.
4in guns are exactly what a 1920s ship should have for engaging aircraft. No one had 47 or 57mm anti aircraft weapons in the 1920s, in fact such heavy automatic weapons would not appear until after WW2 when jet aircraft had already made them obsolete. Really if we stuck to reality, no one would have more then a bare handful of automatic cannon on a 1925 ship, and the main air defence would be 3-5in single mounted heavy AA guns and machine guns only. As late as 1938 cruisers would commission with just four or even just two machine guns as the entire automatic weapons battery while a battleship might have eight.

The 16/52 is nothing unreasonable for 1920 or so, though the merits of heavy belt piercers like that are not necessarily an advantage. Depends how and who you fight.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Norade »

....16"/52 guns? Is this your "downgrade" from 18"?

Actually, by your own fluff, isn't Portugal a recovering power? Yet they have the funds to research a 16"/52, when only the US was even testing 16"/50 and was due to put them into the South Dakota (1) and Lexington-class?

Well, again, you can have them if the design is after 1922 and if you've had 16"/45 guns on at least one design prior, preferably 2.
It's my down grade from 18" armor, not 18" inch guns, and it had the same guns on it last time so please quit with the bitching already. Besides we've been over how quickly new gun designs have been made in reality already so please go stuff yourself on this one. As for the end only fire, that is just an issue of setting trim.
And I remember saying such a large ship could be laid after 1922. Not 1920.

Actually, the size of your secondary battery is kinda bad. I mean, the 6"ers aren't so bad but 4" guns for tertiary battery? That's the battery that would engage much lighter ships or even aircraft. Actually, a 1922 ship would probably instead of 47mm or 57mm for engaging aircraft.
On the issue of secondaries, it is an imperfect design. They haven't faced many aircraft at sea yet and have different ideas on what the battery should accomplish. In this case shredding combining with the 6" guns and shredding any DD's that get to close.

As for tonnage it is under the 50kt cap, and if you can show me the rule that says I can't have it in the wiki and official 'penultimate' rules edition, I'd be happy to change it. However this isn't the first time you've tried this on a design you had no reason to dislike, and we saw how that went so I'm not changing it.

Also thanks Skimmer, I really like your advice on ships. You've saved me from more than one bad design already and helped defend more than your share of good designs as well.

EDIT: So Skimmer, besides defending the secondaries what do you think of the design?
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

Sea Skimmer wrote:4in guns are exactly what a 1920s ship should have for engaging aircraft. No one had 47 or 57mm anti aircraft weapons in the 1920s, in fact such heavy automatic weapons would not appear until after WW2 when jet aircraft had already made them obsolete. Really if we stuck to reality, no one would have more then a bare handful of automatic cannon on a 1925 ship, and the main air defence would be 3-5in single mounted heavy AA guns and machine guns only. As late as 1938 cruisers would commission with just four or even just two machine guns as the entire automatic weapons battery while a battleship might have eight.
What sort of 4" gun might be good? I was thinking of a battery of 5"/38 but mainly designate them for anti-air.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Sea Skimmer »

The 5/38 was a compromise duel purpose gun. It is exactly split 13 calibers between the barrel length of the 5/25 anti aircraft gun and the 5/51 anti surface gun. For a dedicated AA weapon on a warship the 5in twenty five caliber barrel was fine, particularly with the crude predictor gear available in the 1920s which limit engagement ranges, not to mention the very limited performance of 1920s aircraft. I mean a 1925 bomber might not fly more then a 130mph, at which point the warships own 20-30knot speed is actually a significant portion of the aircraft's speed!

While the shorter barrel means less velocity which is slightly detrimental to the fire control solution, it allowed for a gun which was very quick moving which was especially valuable should power be lost and force the gun crew to use manual working. It also meant more guns could be mounted in the same amount of deck space, which could often be as serious a constraint to the number of anti aircraft weapons mounted as top weight was. Course no real life ship in the 1920s was bristling with AA weapons, but they had no real reason to do so. In this game batteries should be heavier, but anyone with 100+ barrels is full of crap. No one EVER mounted that kind of massive battery in peacetime. The USN was ripping off guns in late 1945. The crews required are just way too huge, never mind the maintenance.

As for choice of 4in gun, the caliber would be higher in 25cal (inherently smaller caliber guns tend to be higher caliber, down to the point of an M16 rifle having a 91cal barrel even though it sure isn’t meant to pierce armor or down planes) but still not really high. The British (who never considered standardization important) had a whole pile of different decent designs you might use.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_Main.htm

If you want a quick an easy answer, use a 40 or 45cal barrel. A 1920s ship would almost certainly have single mounted guns without hoists, which would be replaced by twins latter on when the air threat increases.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22431
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Mr Bean »

Sea Skimmer wrote:The 5/38 was a compromise duel purpose gun. It is exactly split 13 calibers between the barrel length of the 5/25 anti aircraft gun and the 5/51 anti surface gun. For a dedicated AA weapon on a warship the 5in twenty five caliber barrel was fine, particularly with the crude predictor gear available in the 1920s which limit engagement ranges, not to mention the very limited performance of 1920s aircraft. I mean a 1925 bomber might not fly more then a 130mph, at which point the warships own 20-30knot speed is actually a significant portion of the aircraft's speed!
Try 99 Mph as the top speed of the best American bomber in existence in 1925(Entered service in 1920) the Martin MB-2 and according to what I've read the best "bomber" in existance at this time period for speed, maneuverability and pay load. In 1925 Fighter's were still setting "speed records" of 141 Mph so don't even think about torpedo carrying bombers kicking anything over 100 Mph. Fully loaded most bombers dropped to 85-92 mph so yes in naval engagements a stern chase the plane will be only moving 50-70 mph relative to the ship. So even these ultra heavies will have time for a decent amount of shells in the air. Torpedo bombing? Even worse.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... 0-1929.asp

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by K. A. Pital »

Junkers K.30 was closer to 130 mph like Skimmer said. 138-140 mph for prototype models of 1925.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Norade wrote: EDIT: So Skimmer, besides defending the secondaries what do you think of the design?
Needs more Barbette armor out of hand, those should be as thick as the belt as a minimal. Ideally thicker. You could gain weight for this by thinning down the torpedo bulkhead. 6in is more then you really need even to defend against the absurdly unlikely event of a diving shell hit that isn't a dud. Even mighty Yamato (which had way more protection against this then any other ship ever) had most of her anti diving shell bulkhead (it sucked against torpedoes, too ridged to handle blasts well) consist of only 100-80mm plates.

It’d also be worth it to play around with making the ship shorter but wider and see if that gives you any extra weight to play with (keep everything else the same to see how it changes). Longitudinal strength is way above cross sectional strength, and as this is a slow ship it doesn’t need that extra length to help it move. Natural hull speed is 28 knots, so going shorter should not significantly increase the required engine power.

Also am I correct in assuming you have coal firing so that you can use domestic coal supplies rather then importing oil? Oil firing would save a significant amount of weight and is way more practical in general. Coal firing really only persisted in very small escort ships after WW1. Oil just had too many advantages… and hey by the late 1920s you could even think about coal to oil conversion. Worth thinking about anyway, as annoying as blockades can be. Mixed oil/coal firing would be another option allowing for latter conversion to all oil. Not sure that will really save many tons though.

Mr Bean wrote:[ Try 99 Mph as the top speed of the best American bomber in existence in 1925(Entered service in 1920) the Martin MB-2 and according to what I've read the best "bomber" in existance at this time period for speed, maneuverability and pay load
Not really. After WW1 US combat aircraft development was crippled by a requirement by Congress that all design MUST use the existing V-12 Liberty engines because we had thousands of them leftover from the WW1mobilization. That includes the Martin MB-2. This requirement was only relaxed in the later 1920s, and the MB-2 was promptly redesigned with new engines that let it hit 132mph as the Curtiss built B-2 Condor with no other major changes. So assuming a 130mph threat is perfectly in line with reality.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

Question, is there an internet resource for the various armor technologies? I know Spring Sharp probably doesn't take too much into account, or maybe it does, but it would be handy.

Also, how important are the upper and lower belts? To save on weight, typically now I just go with a thick and high main belt (at least 15" and 18ft high against a 16"/50 gun going by the latest design I posted up in a few pages back), but are the upper and lower belts essential? Otherwise, I'd opt for a higher main belt (probably 20ft in the next generation ship).
Last edited by Fingolfin_Noldor on 2009-11-07 01:12am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Norade »

Taking your suggestions into account her is what should be my final design.
PSS Mythological, Portugal Battleship laid down 1920

Displacement:
47,127 t light; 50,035 t standard; 52,326 t normal; 54,159 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(750.25 ft / 721.78 ft) x 118.11 ft (Bulges 121.39 ft) x (37.73 / 38.80 ft)
(228.68 m / 220.00 m) x 36.00 m (Bulges 37.00 m) x (11.50 / 11.83 m)

Armament:
9 - 16.00" / 406 mm 52.0 cal guns - 2,400.00lbs / 1,088.62kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
1 raised mount
1 x 3-gun mount on centreline, aft deck centre
12 - 6.00" / 152 mm 50.0 cal guns - 114.33lbs / 51.86kg shells, 250 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
6 x Triple mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 - 4.00" / 102 mm 50.0 cal guns - 33.88lbs / 15.37kg shells, 1,000 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model
6 x 2 row twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 23,379 lbs / 10,604 kg
4 - 24.5" / 622 mm, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m torpedoes - 1.328 t each, 5.310 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted centre rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 413.39 ft / 126.00 m 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
Ends: 5.00" / 127 mm 275.57 ft / 83.99 m 13.04 ft / 3.97 m
32.82 ft / 10.00 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 5.00" / 127 mm 413.39 ft / 126.00 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 88 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
4.00" / 102 mm 413.39 ft / 126.00 m 34.52 ft / 10.52 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 18.0" / 457 mm 12.0" / 305 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 7.00" / 178 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 4.00" / 102 mm Quarter deck: 4.00" / 102 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 15.00" / 381 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 64,818 shp / 48,354 Kw = 23.00 kts
Range 4,500nm at 16.50 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,125 tons

Complement:
1,729 - 2,248

Cost:
£10.051 million / $40.205 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 4,936 tons, 9.4 %
- Guns: 4,931 tons, 9.4 %
- Torpedoes: 5 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 22,083 tons, 42.2 %
- Belts: 7,690 tons, 14.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,112 tons, 4.0 %
- Armament: 4,805 tons, 9.2 %
- Armour Deck: 7,024 tons, 13.4 %
- Conning Tower: 452 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 2,266 tons, 4.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,761 tons, 33.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,200 tons, 9.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 80 tons, 0.2 %
- Hull below water: 80 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
91,613 lbs / 41,555 Kg = 44.7 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 18.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 7.5 ft / 2.3 m
Roll period: 18.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.89
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.85

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.554 / 0.558
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.95 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.87 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 43 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 31.17 ft / 9.50 m, 27.07 ft / 8.25 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 27.07 ft / 8.25 m, 27.07 ft / 8.25 m
- Aft deck: 30.00 %, 27.07 ft / 8.25 m, 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Quarter deck: 20.00 %, 24.61 ft / 7.50 m, 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Average freeboard: 26.53 ft / 8.09 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 66.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 153.2 %
Waterplane Area: 59,719 Square feet or 5,548 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 232 lbs/sq ft or 1,133 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.13
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
User avatar
Norade
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2424
Joined: 2005-09-23 11:33pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Norade »

For all of my ship designs see this Link.
School requires more work than I remember it taking...
Norseman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1666
Joined: 2004-07-02 10:20am

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Norseman »

Since I assume that my enemies would be aware of Brazilian designs I will venture to show my 1919 design here. For its time and for the Brazilian Navy it was fairly revolutionary, with All or Nothing armour, improved cruising speed and range, as well as a new main armament. They are however big, much bigger than previous models, indeed so big that some people wondered if they were worth it. They also have some weaknesses, barbette armour is a bit thinner than it really ought to be for one, the deck is also skimpier than I'd want. I might change that if you gentlemen think that issue is too awful.

Code: Select all

Acre, FSR of Brazil Battleship laid down 1919

Displacement:
	40,237 t light; 42,781 t standard; 46,179 t normal; 48,897 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
	747.21 ft / 732.00 ft x 115.00 ft x 32.00 ft (normal load)
	227.75 m / 223.11 m x 35.05 m  x 9.75 m

Armament:
      12 - 16.50" / 419 mm guns (4x3 guns), 2,246.06lbs / 1,018.80kg shells, 1918 Model
	  Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
	  on centreline ends, evenly spread
      16 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (8x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1906 Model
	  Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
	  on side, all amidships
      8 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1919 Model
	  Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
	  on side, evenly spread
      16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1919 Model
	  Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts 
	  on side, evenly spread
      12 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (8 mounts), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1919 Model
	  Machine guns in deck mounts 
	  on side, evenly spread
	Weight of broadside 28,821 lbs / 13,073 kg
	Shells per gun, main battery: 100
	2 - 24.5" / 622.3 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:		Width (max)	Length (avg)		Height (avg)
	Main:	13.5" / 343 mm	455.00 ft / 138.68 m	16.00 ft / 4.88 m
	Ends:	1.00" / 25 mm	277.00 ft / 84.43 m	16.00 ft / 4.88 m
	  Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
		3.00" / 76 mm	732.00 ft / 223.11 m	30.00 ft / 9.14 m

   - Gun armour:	Face (max)	Other gunhouse (avg)	Barbette/hoist (max)
	Main:	14.0" / 356 mm	9.00" / 229 mm		11.0" / 279 mm
	2nd:	1.50" / 38 mm	1.00" / 25 mm		1.00" / 25 mm
	3rd:	      -		      -			1.00" / 25 mm

   - Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 11.00" / 279 mm

Machinery:
	Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, 
	Geared drive, 3 shafts, 77,177 shp / 57,574 Kw = 24.48 kts
	Range 9,000nm at 15.00 kts
	Bunker at max displacement = 6,116 tons

Complement:
	1,574 - 2,047

Cost:
	£10.512 million / $42.049 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
	Armament: 3,603 tons, 7.8 %
	Armour: 16,405 tons, 35.5 %
	   - Belts: 4,513 tons, 9.8 %
	   - Torpedo bulkhead: 2,438 tons, 5.3 %
	   - Armament: 3,454 tons, 7.5 %
	   - Armour Deck: 5,695 tons, 12.3 %
	   - Conning Tower: 305 tons, 0.7 %
	Machinery: 2,741 tons, 5.9 %
	Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,489 tons, 37.9 %
	Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,942 tons, 12.9 %
	Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
	Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
	  52,591 lbs / 23,855 Kg = 23.4 x 16.5 " / 419 mm shells or 9.4 torpedoes
	Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
	Metacentric height 8.2 ft / 2.5 m
	Roll period: 16.9 seconds
	Steadiness	- As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
			- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.61
	Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
	Hull has raised forecastle
	Block coefficient: 0.600
	Length to Beam Ratio: 6.37 : 1
	'Natural speed' for length: 27.06 kts
	Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
	Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
	Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
	Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
	Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
	   - Stem:		28.04 ft / 8.55 m
	   - Forecastle (18 %):	22.00 ft / 6.71 m (20.00 ft / 6.10 m aft of break)
	   - Mid (50 %):		17.85 ft / 5.44 m
	   - Quarterdeck (18 %):	17.85 ft / 5.44 m
	   - Stern:		17.85 ft / 5.44 m
	   - Average freeboard:	19.35 ft / 5.90 m
	Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
	Space	- Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.4 %
		- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 137.0 %
	Waterplane Area: 61,568 Square feet or 5,720 Square metres
	Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 91 %
	Structure weight / hull surface area: 217 lbs/sq ft or 1,061 Kg/sq metre
	Hull strength (Relative):
		- Cross-sectional: 0.96
		- Longitudinal: 1.22
		- Overall: 0.98
	Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
	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
	Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Norseman's Fics the SD archive of my fics.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Post by Thanas »

Norade wrote:It's my down grade from 18" armor, not 18" inch guns, and it had the same guns on it last time so please quit with the bitching already. Besides we've been over how quickly new gun designs have been made in reality already so please go stuff yourself on this one. As for the end only fire, that is just an issue of setting trim.
I would love to see your design with the trim adjusted.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Post Reply