Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Third Locks Scheme BB's
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6309		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Western_1 [ October 18th, 2015, 5:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Third Locks Scheme BB's
So in the late 1930's the US was building a new set of locks for the Panama canal. These locks were substantially larger than the old locks, but were cancelled when the war started. I went ahead and took the liberty of designing a hull that would replicate what was trying to be done with the Tillman battleships. Namely, designing a ship that was as large as feasible to fit through the 1930's era Panama canal locks post expansion.

From wikipedia:
Quote:
The new locks would add a single traffic lane to the canal, with each chamber being 1,200 ft (365.76 m) long, 140 ft (42.67 m) wide, and 45 ft (13.72 m) deep.
The thing to notice right away is that the new locks would not be very deep relative to their length. They also wouldn't be that wide relatively speaking, but the ship would be long as hell. I was nervous about adding armaments to the ship, so if anyone has an input on that front I would like to hear it.

Also, feel free to manipulate my hull in any way you like. I wasn't really going to go ahead with my own design, so much as I wanted to hear what sort of designs might come out of such a proposal. Assume some senator made the same requests that were made by Senator Tillman of the Navy. Maybe there was a legitimate concern with making some new battleship designs to utilize the third locks or maybe some senators nephew in the naval engineering board needed something to do.

[ img ]
Author:  heuhen [ October 18th, 2015, 6:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Third Locks Scheme BB's
[ img ]
Author:  Krakatoa [ October 18th, 2015, 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Third Locks Scheme BB's
If I was going to do a design for 30's in a large BB, you could update the New Hampshire design David did with an expansion to 12x18" and a new bridge area similar to the North Carolina/Washington.

[ img ]
Author:  JSB [ October 18th, 2015, 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Third Locks Scheme BB's
If we are talking about the late 30s would a 'Improved' South Dakota class (sorry should have said SD 39 clsss BB57) not be more likely than any Tillman or 18" ships ?
With the new size could you not end up building a fast Montana ?

And regarding the depth could you not pump out and unload to very near 'light' weight to save depth ?

Edit, add in what SD class I was thinking of, I was assuming that the OTL NC class get build close to OTL due to no wanting to breach the treaty's early on in design process.
Author:  Karle94 [ October 18th, 2015, 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Third Locks Scheme BB's
Late 20s to early 30s is going to be an updated SoDak. Late 30s is going to be more similar to the early designs of the North Carolina.
Author:  Western_1 [ October 19th, 2015, 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Third Locks Scheme BB's
Another neat ship for the third locks:

[ img ]
Author:  Western_1 [ October 20th, 2015, 2:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Third Locks Scheme BB's
This is obviously not a historical design, but I felt it worth posting. I think that, sadly, it is too wide when I saw some other images of this beast.

[ img ]
Author:  heuhen [ October 20th, 2015, 4:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Third Locks Scheme BB's
krases wrote:
This is obviously not a historical design, but I felt it worth posting. I think that, sadly, it is too wide when I saw some other images of this beast.

[ img ]
Congratulation with finding one of youtube worst drawings ever.... no more stupid drawing.... and I have seen a version of this one that are more... ehhh weird!
Author:  Western_1 [ October 21st, 2015, 5:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Third Locks Scheme BB's
Youtube worst drawing? What are you talking about? Why is it 'stupid'? Thats not very respectful of other peoples work. -_-
Author:  heuhen [ October 21st, 2015, 2:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Third Locks Scheme BB's
krases wrote:
Youtube worst drawing? What are you talking about? Why is it 'stupid'? Thats not very respectful of other peoples work. -_-
writing error from my side, it should be the internett not YouTube.


I don't care about respect to people that draw a ship and say that work, when it don't. We have an very large section in the Alternative universe section where we posted all drawings we could find on the internett that are so stupid, that it doesn't make sense at all. 90% of them come from the NationState forum... We or some of us her in Shipbucket have an reputation for almost kill any drawings that are to stupid to be described. 8-)


For example this Battleship there are several things that are wrong:
- Main gun turret is bigger than what they are needed to be, but that is just minor nitpick.
- Mk-41 VLS is placed to high up, VLS are very heavy and will make the ship top heavy. They will also interfere with the superstructure around it.
- Radars place in funny places.
- to many radars that do the same. we have SPY-1 and several other radar that do just the same as the SPY-1
- the Spy-1 is placed to high.
- not directors for the missiles.
- superstructure designed to heavy and large.
- the funnel are not big enough for the engine/boiler.
- and so many more.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/