Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 7 of 18  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page « 15 6 7 8 918 »
Author Message
bezobrazov
Post subject: Re: Proposed 25,000 ton Battleships and BattlecruisersPosted: January 12th, 2015, 3:37 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3406
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:20 pm
Two things that stands out on the KM Graf Spee: The template states "1937". At that time any German design would not have (yet) shown the so-called "Atlantikbug" or Atlantic bow. It's be of the same pattern as the real 'pocket battleships'; fairly straight and with only minimal rise and flare. Also, it appears that the Admiral's bridge, midways up the tower is enclosed. The KM Gneisenau was, as our eminent friend Maomatic conclusively has shown, the very first Kriegsmarine large unit that received an enclosed top bridge, well ahead of her sister KM Scharnhorst (in 1939).

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Proposed 25,000 ton Battleships and BattlecruisersPosted: January 12th, 2015, 5:59 pm
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Think of the KM Graf Spee as the test-bed for the new items (including the 13.8") that would be fitted to the S&G at/after their completion. S&G would already be under construction when GS was completed in 1937, so trialling new systems for fitting to the later ships would make sense. The lessons learnt from the running of the earlier pocket battleships were incorporated into the next ship(s).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Proposed 25,000 ton Battleships and BattlecruisersPosted: January 12th, 2015, 11:22 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
OK my WIP of a not cheating ship.

What if a scrap yard found some old 12' turrets from pre WNT ships ? With a 12' limit they would not not be totally useless and they would be very cheap so here is my take on a light BC (very cheap and more a heavy cruiser killer so not what the admirals would like as a good use of treaty tonnage, but might be attractive for some of the smaller navy's of the world to claim they had a capital ship, RAN maybe as long as it didn't use RN tonnage ?)

[ img ]

None expensive capital ship CB laid down 1930

Displacement:
22,241 t light; 23,402 t standard; 25,316 t normal; 26,847 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(722.17 ft / 716.00 ft) x 80.00 ft (Bulges 90.00 ft) x (25.00 / 26.31 ft)
(220.12 m / 218.24 m) x 24.38 m (Bulges 27.43 m) x (7.62 / 8.02 m)

Armament:
8 - 12.00" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 871.37lbs / 395.24kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1903 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 raised mounts
8 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 31.00lbs / 14.06kg shells, 400 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1930 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 raised mounts
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 56.0 cal guns - 2.12lbs / 0.96kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1930 Model
4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 7,236 lbs / 3,282 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 97 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined -5.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
1.00" / 25 mm 500.00 ft / 152.40 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 70.00 ft / 21.34 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 4.00" / 102 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 3.00" / 76 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3.00" / 76 mm, Aft 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 135,368 shp / 100,985 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,445 tons

Complement:
1,003 - 1,304

Cost:
£8.436 million / $33.743 million - cost of old guns

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,292 tons, 5.1 %
- Guns: 1,292 tons, 5.1 %
Armour: 7,717 tons, 30.5 %
- Belts: 3,474 tons, 13.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 370 tons, 1.5 %
- Armament: 1,051 tons, 4.2 %
- Armour Deck: 2,710 tons, 10.7 %
- Conning Towers: 111 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 4,102 tons, 16.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,980 tons, 35.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,075 tons, 12.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.6 %
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
- Above deck: 50 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
37,414 lbs / 16,971 Kg = 43.3 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 5.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
Metacentric height 5.3 ft / 1.6 m
Roll period: 16.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 56 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.48
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.12

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / 0.554
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.96 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.92 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 35.00 ft / 10.67 m, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 24.07 ft / 7.34 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 179.8 %
Waterplane Area: 40,961 Square feet or 3,805 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 113 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 156 lbs/sq ft or 762 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.35
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

JSB


Last edited by JSB on January 13th, 2015, 10:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Proposed 25,000 ton Battleships and BattlecruisersPosted: January 12th, 2015, 11:57 pm
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Howdy JSB,

About the only thing I would change out is the single 40mm (about 4 years too early) with octuple 2 pdr, 1 either side of each of the funnels, which would be adequate for 1930-35. Rebuilt Renown only had 3 octuple mountings. The other thing I note from your Spring Sharp details is that you have bulges which are yet to be fitted. I take it there will be aircraft handling facilities between the funnels?

Otherwise it is a good start.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Sumeragi
Post subject: Re: Proposed 25,000 ton Battleships and BattlecruisersPosted: January 13th, 2015, 1:42 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 136
Joined: December 22nd, 2014, 10:38 am
I might try my hands on this, as both training and developing the large cruisers of my AU.

Thank you for the initiative, Krakatoa. You have always been a great inspiration for me.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Proposed 25,000 ton Battleships and BattlecruisersPosted: January 13th, 2015, 1:22 pm
Offline
Posts: 7206
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Nice additions.
The 13.8in Graf Spee and S&G would make some good sense I think. Especially in view of this scenario.
Can't wait to see how JSB's latest design shapes up.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Proposed 25,000 ton Battleships and BattlecruisersPosted: January 14th, 2015, 1:35 am
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
The Twins are not really in the timespan of this challenge, 1935-39. But I have taken Maomatic's beautiful drawing of Gneisenau in 1941 at Operation Berlin and made 4 changes. Replaced 3 lots of barrels from the 11" to the 13.8" (about 10 pixels longer and one pixel wider), and a twin 37mm on top of B turret (or Turret Bruno in German parlance). That is not worth adding my nick to.

I have included the Gneisenau as the Germans originally declared the ship(s) as 26,000 tons which eventually grew to just over 32,000 standard and 38,000 tons full load. Fitting the 13.8" in place of the 11" would add to the overall tonnage of the ship, just how much I would only be guessing at (300 tons?, 100 tons per turret).

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: Proposed 25,000 ton Battleships and BattlecruisersPosted: January 14th, 2015, 2:27 am
Offline
Posts: 3886
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: YouTube
Nice!

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rusel
Post subject: Re: Proposed 25,000 ton Battleships and BattlecruisersPosted: January 14th, 2015, 3:55 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 30th, 2011, 11:22 am
Location: Australia
Mmmm, S&G were very wet ships up front!
How much extra length would you need to compensate for that extra weight?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Proposed 25,000 ton Battleships and BattlecruisersPosted: January 14th, 2015, 5:43 am
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Work it out and tell me Rusel. (Less than 1% over the size of the hull at the full load line. Ammunition is only counted in full load calculation.)

I am looking at a few tons per gun for barrels, larger loading mechanisms, larger handling in the barbette, larger magazine for the almost double sized shell from 11" to 13.8".

The largest increase is the shells, taking 100 rounds per gun is 900 x 300kg = 270,000 kg.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 7 of 18  [ 173 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 15 6 7 8 918 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]