Shipbucket

As I noted, just playing around with the numbers for now. I need to know if I can fit in twelve 450 mm guns before I try ten. So far it seems like I'll have to reduce it to five twins.

Hi Sumeragi,

I think you'd have more luck with 3 x 3 x 450 rather than 5 x 2 x 450 - by the time they were making that sort of size main artillery I don't think they were using twins any more (certainly not if you're looking to the French for influence, they were on quads by this point, iirc...)

And yep, I'm aware that such a spec will basically end up Yamato-ish, I think unless you go massively over that you'll tend to settle around that sort of area.

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

That's where I'm on the fence. Japan barely managed to fit the 460 mm into a triple turret, and I believe France went with quad because they couldn't develop a 16 inch or make a triple turret for the guns. In this case, wouldn't double turrets be more sensible?

Current SpringSharp Draft

Huangti, ROCN Superbattleship laid down 1934

Displacement:
85,955 t light; 90,772 t standard; 95,229 t normal; 98,794 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(1,091.22 ft / 1,066.27 ft) x 144.36 ft x (36.09 / 37.20 ft)
(332.60 m / 325.00 m) x 44.00 m x (11.00 / 11.34 m)

Armament:
12 - 17.72" / 450 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,804.10lbs / 1,271.92kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
3 x Quad mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 5.98" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.07lbs / 49.02kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
4 x Triple mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 34,946 lbs / 15,851 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.9" / 327 mm 693.08 ft / 211.25 m 14.40 ft / 4.39 m
Ends: 5.98" / 152 mm 373.16 ft / 113.74 m 14.40 ft / 4.39 m
Upper: 6.69" / 170 mm 693.08 ft / 211.25 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
9.84" / 250 mm 693.08 ft / 211.25 m 34.02 ft / 10.37 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.9" / 430 mm 7.09" / 180 mm 15.9" / 405 mm
2nd: 3.94" / 100 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 5.12" / 130 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 6.69" / 170 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 1.97" / 50 mm Quarter deck: 1.97" / 50 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 13.39" / 340 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 233,193 shp / 173,962 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 8,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,022 tons

Complement:
2,709 - 3,523

Cost:
£35.372 million / $141.488 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 5,535 tons, 5.8 %
Armour: 34,918 tons, 36.7 %
- Belts: 8,282 tons, 8.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 8,587 tons, 9.0 %
- Armament: 5,245 tons, 5.5 %
- Armour Deck: 12,203 tons, 12.8 %
- Conning Tower: 601 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 6,709 tons, 7.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 38,294 tons, 40.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 9,274 tons, 9.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 0.5 %
- On freeboard deck: 500 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
182,605 lbs / 82,828 Kg = 65.7 x 17.7 " / 450 mm shells or 49.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.34
Metacentric height 14.6 ft / 4.5 m
Roll period: 15.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.36
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck ,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.600 / 0.604
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.39 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.65 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 10.37 ft / 3.16 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 36.09 ft / 11.00 m, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Forward deck: 40.00 %, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 24.28 ft / 7.40 m
- Aft deck: 25.00 %, 24.28 ft / 7.40 m, 24.28 ft / 7.40 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 24.67 ft / 7.52 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 64.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 197.0 %
Waterplane Area: 112,577 Square feet or 10,459 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 277 lbs/sq ft or 1,353 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.11
- Longitudinal: 0.97
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

I think this is good enough, after adding in some AA guns and whatnot.

One important question: What's the difference between a 4-gun mount and a quad mount in SpringSharp terms?

4-gun - as i recall, it's four gun with independent elevation.

Quad mount - all guns fixed to each other.

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!

Thanks.

One glaring issue: Was there any country in the world that could build four turbines capable of handling 230,000 shp total? Supposing 37,500 shp turbines (Richelieu's Parsons turbines), I guess we might need a total of 6. This would need Huangti would need 6 shafts, correct?

I will not comment on the economics of this AU but I will comment on the concept of "superbattleships".

Such things are a waste of investment. The only reason why the IJN planned the Yamato Class was because they knew they could not match the industrial power of the USA and so they were trying to build a class of battleships that would distract a lot of USN effort to sink them (effectively trying to counter a whole battleship division with one hull). They were a sign of industrial weakness rather than industrial strength. Arguably, had they stuck closer to the Washington Treaty limits and designed a 35-40,000 ton design they may have been able to complete more than 2 hulls before the war (I ignore Shinano as she was rebuilt into a carrier).

A 90,000ton ship absorbs a lot of materials and manpower and dockspace (you need to build slips and drydocks to accommodate such a beast) and when it used in action it'll cause a distraction but it will never win you a battle or result in a decisive victory. It is a white elephant and a show of weakness rather than strength. A real Chinese superpower facing the IJN would want more hulls than a couple of giant floating batteries.

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

Absolutely agree.

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!

Hi Sumeragi,

Re your point about twin mounts (though I see you've decided against them) part of the reason I'd be against 5 x 2 x 450 is as much due to the 5 as it is the 2 - I am not aware of any 5 turret arrangements of that era that even the designers themselves were particularly happy with - such arrangements normally involved either off-centerline turrets, which cause other structural and field of fire issues, or magazines, which have to be kept cool, next to boiler rooms or engine rooms, or both. So then you're down to 4 x 2 x 450, and a triple / quad (for brevity on my phone I'm not differentiating triple / 3-gun in comment) starts to look quite attractive under those circumstances, unless you are expecting to lose a turret.

Also agree about general impracticability of superheavy ships, though they are still fun to draw as an intellectual exercise.

Regards,
Ad

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Huangti and his brothers Fuhsi and Shennung are supposed to be white elephants, built as a payoff to the ROCN and national propaganda (I wouldn't go into AH politics here, but you might notice the propaganda part). The real core of ROCN is the submarine force, aiming at blockading Japan to starvation.

Sounds illogical? Politics is always illogical in one sense


Turret: After trying out various configurations, 3x4 worked out the best in keeping things balanced. I'll have ROCN bet on that it can overwhelm the enemy with its ultralong range and supporting ships before needing high rate of fire. Thus, the mechanical issues with a quad turret will be passed over as regrettable but necessary.


As mentioned above, turbine limitations seems to indicate I need to use six shafts. Any comments on this?