Proposed 25,000 ton Battleships and Battlecruisers

The design is from 1934, but the ship is "laid down" in 1936. The aft Chicago Piano can indeed be moved more forward. The original design is 3 knots faster and 10000 tons heavier, so yeah, the engineering layout works.

JSB wrote:

Looks very nice, a few Q if you don't mind.
- what date is it ? 34 or 36 ?
- would it be worth moving the stern 1.1' guns to get them free of blast ? and improve the 5' arcs ?
- is that 2 or one funnel ?

Re Krakatoa,
I agree but I would put that against the fact that Spring sharp doesn't factor in nationality and therefore different construction standards like welding or the massive use of STS steel that might save weight in return for more money.

JSB

an interesting point about springsharp here, JSB. to prove this point a bit, a little data from my reference listing:
- on ships build to destroyer standards, the hull weight is 35% of the displacement on average
- on US build ships build to these standars, 32% of the displacement is hull weight
- on comparable british build ships, this number is 45%

in that small comparision, we can see already the changes that are made in only one single number. I do not have enough data to show here for battleships, but I think similar 'nation based differences' will be found.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Yes I think you will find massive differences in what counts as what different weight categories as well as different construction standards and simply just how much you can load a ship up and still expect it to fight in the Med v North Atlantic.
not sure how to cope apart from checking v known baselines on real ships,
JSB

I personally use SpringSharp as a general measurement standard to see if I can get something remotely nearly realistic. Back when I was running Gwangmu (original, current) through SpringSharp, I noticed that it overestimated the main armament weight by over 2,000 tons when trying to replicate a 1938 US battleship design this was one of the inspirations. That 2,000 tons was enough for me to buff the armor of Gwangmu to Montana standards.

Sumeragi wrote:

That 2000t might have been bought at very high price in cash using lots of expensive welding and STS steel can your Korean Empire really afford it ? (remember that the USA was not only the richest county on earth its navy was displacement limited rather than cost limited).

Comparing battleship costs is also very hard (especially with different nations) I did find this quote on another BB forum.

Quote:

or example, the King George V class are alleged to cost £7,400,000 according to http://navalhistory.flixco.info/H/58285/8330/a0.htm and a contemporary newspaper describes KGV as costing £8 million in reporting the launch. I doubt if this includes the armament and KGV's armament is said to have costed £2,900,000 including all fire control instruments. Thus we have a total cost of £10.3 million or $49.44 million at the 1938 ratio of 4.8.
Bismarck may have costed RM. 196.8 million viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1169 or http://www.kbismarck.com/genedata.html. Using a 1939 2.5 RM to Dollar rate, this is $78,720,000.
Similarly, North Carolina and South Dakota classes cost about $77 million each (Iowas costed more than $100 million).
Finally, Yamato is quoted as costing 250,000,897 Yen by Wikipedia. Using the 3.47 Yen to the Dollar rate for 1937, this gives 72 million Dollars

Thus three KGVs against two Bismarcks would be a fair comparison (except that 2.5 RM to the Dollar may have been slightly artificial).Thus Bismarck against North Carolina is fair but it should be four Bismarcks against three Iowas.

JSB

JSB wrote:

It was 2,000 tons of only the armament. For some reason SpringSharp was estimating that ten Mark 6-class + twenty 5"/38 DPs weighed 4,229 tons while twelve Mark 6 + sixteen 5"/38 DPs was 5,148 tons. In reality, the US was looking at only 3,218 tons for twelve Mark 6 + sixteen 5"/38 DPs.

I think I can certainly cover 2,000 tons supposing "lesser" welding and steel, although there shouldn't be that much of a difference.

I not sure about your numbers from looking at Navweps weights.

Sumeragi wrote:

For some reason SpringSharp was estimating that ten Mark 6-class + twenty 5"/38 DPs weighed 4,229 tons while twelve Mark 6 + sixteen 5"/38 DPs was 5,148 tons.
In reality, the US was looking at only 3,218 tons for twelve Mark 6 + sixteen 5"/38 DPs.

Twelve Mark 6 = 4 x 3 guns (from navweps North Carolina (3) and South Dakota (3) Weight 1,403 - 1,437 tons (1,426 - 1,460 mt)) = 5704t

Sixteen 5"/38 DPs = 8 x twin (Mark 28 Mod 0: 156,295 lbs. (70,894 kg)) = 567.1t

Total = 6271t ? its even more than springsharp says ? rather than 3,218t ?

Not sure what I'm getting wrong ? do you have more details, thanks JSB

(As to springsharping weights its hard as I don't know accurately thickness's for protection, but I get (16'/5'),
Guns 1,375 / 45
mounts 2,644 / 139
Ar 2,110 /110
total 6,129 /294 = 6423t total close,ish and I think I may have added to much protection to the 16' guns and the 5/38 are a bit to light. )

The 16"/45 Mark 6 weigths 97 tons without the breach. Almost 2500 tons with the turret and 3 guns.

Aren't you including the turret weight also? 16"/45 caliber Mark 6 gun was a bit over 87.3 metric tons, so twelve of them would be 1,047.6 tons. This would become more with mounting, I suppose. But either way:

[ img ]

From Friedman's U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History, page 308.

I'm assuming that SpringSharp is looking at only the armaments when calculating armament weights.

I'm not sure how it breaks down the weights, think what's happing is that protection isn't counted on the mounts ?

Quote:

Protection = 10,845
Armament = 3218t

from my springsharping
Guns 1,375 / 45
mounts 2,644 / 139
total (with no protection) = 4203 t ? Not sure why its 1000t out

+25%.
Did the Americans use the protection to act as the structure of the mount and thus save weight ?

JSB

Shipbucket

Who is online