Shipbucket

What would a world without cheery trees be like ?
First I assume that everybody would run out of cash and or will power after a few ships, I assume RN only builds 4 ? G3s / IJN builds the two Kaga-class battleships, and two Amagi-class battlecruisers ? USN builds 4 South Dakota 2 Lexington ? (is that a reasonable mix ?) but bye 1935 people will be starting to look at a new class of ships.
So GB starts to lay down what will become the KGV class due to the giants around nobody will build less that 16inch and very big !

My very WIP would anybody like to give any suggestions ?



1935 G3 batch 2, GB No WNT BC (well fast BB laid down 1935

Displacement:
54,275 t light; 57,866 t standard; 61,188 t normal; 63,844 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(900.00 ft / 890.00 ft) x 125.00 ft x (35.00 / 36.15 ft)
(274.32 m / 271.27 m) x 38.10 m x (10.67 / 11.02 m)

Armament:
9 - 16.00" / 406 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,375.00lbs / 1,077.28kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
3 x Triple mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
1 raised mount
24 - 4.50" / 114 mm 45.0 cal guns - 45.95lbs / 20.84kg shells, 500 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1935 Model
10 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
4 raised mounts
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
1 raised mount - superfiring
64 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1.97lbs / 0.89kg shells, 4,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1935 Model
6 x 2 row octuple mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
2 x 2 row octuple mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 22,604 lbs / 10,253 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 510.00 ft / 155.45 m 20.51 ft / 6.25 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 200.00 ft / 60.96 m 6.00 ft / 1.83 m
180.00 ft / 54.86 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 88 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined -18.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
4.00" / 102 mm 700.00 ft / 213.36 m 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 80.00 ft / 24.38 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 12.0" / 305 mm 16.0" / 406 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 3.00" / 76 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 7.00" / 178 mm
Forecastle: 0.50" / 13 mm Quarter deck: 4.00" / 102 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 1.00" / 25 mm, Aft 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 159,563 shp / 119,034 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 7,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,978 tons

Complement:
1,944 - 2,528

Cost:
£22.300 million / $89.202 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,320 tons, 5.4 %
- Guns: 3,320 tons, 5.4 %
Armour: 23,654 tons, 38.7 %
- Belts: 6,647 tons, 10.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 3,108 tons, 5.1 %
- Armament: 4,590 tons, 7.5 %
- Armour Deck: 9,242 tons, 15.1 %
- Conning Towers: 67 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 4,533 tons, 7.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 22,367 tons, 36.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,913 tons, 11.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 0.7 %
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
- Above deck: 300 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
116,357 lbs / 52,779 Kg = 56.8 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 25.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.26
Metacentric height 10.6 ft / 3.2 m
Roll period: 16.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 61 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.40
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / 0.556
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.12 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.81 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
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 %, 33.00 ft / 10.06 m, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 27.00 ft / 8.23 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Average freeboard: 23.58 ft / 7.19 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 177.3 %
Waterplane Area: 80,831 Square feet or 7,509 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 121 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 222 lbs/sq ft or 1,084 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.20
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

It's an interesting idea, your super firing gun looks far too low to the roof of the turret below it though in my opinion. The lower turrets too look a little too close together as well, quads? I would imagine the RN would space them out as there was still fear that a single hit near close turrets like this would take the ships entire main armament out of service.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Indeed, an interesting idea. Be good to see how this shapes up.

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

Personally I like Nelsons and g3s (does that make me weird ? ) but since in real life the RN didn’t like nelson by 1935-7, I have to think that they might not like the G3 (but maybe they didn’t like nelson due to it reminding them of what they might have had without WNT ? ). So I have gone for a mixed ABX rather than ABC or ABQ.

My WIP no detail as yet just put it up to ask if you agree (or not !) with the basics ie guns (3x3 16ich 12x2 4.5s and 8X8 40mm) and directors (G3 looks like it used new very big ones that might have been upgraded and reused if they had been built) I have used 6 secondary HACS for my 4.5s, what do 40mm use ? I have added a cat with a hanger farward for a few spares as all 1935 BB's have them.
Thanks JSB

Yes. Yes that does.

Personally I like the more traditional layout of the second design better but that doesn't mean you couldn't make your first layout work if you spaced the turrets out a little differently and changed the heights. There is an argument to made that the RN would have continued in that direction if the g3s had proven successful.

Keep it up I love alternate designs from this period (damn that Washington Naval Treaty). I plan on drawing a follow up fast BB design to the SoDaks as an American response to the g3s and IJN fast BBs. I just need to find the time, but new drawings like this one and Karle94's keep wetting my appetite.

_________________
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom

my ABC very front heavy G3+, I think this would be a good bb to hunt down bismark or italians but I will admit that it might not be so good at parking in windy conditions or keeping no11 happy with the peace time fuel bill.
JSB

I have updated (above) my G3 follow on.
A few q's

1) should I add more 40mm's I have 8x8 but I have room for 6 more on the big flat superstructure?
2) internal or external belt (ie g3 or KVG or Iowa ) and all the arguments of what is better (and more importantly should I have portholes) ? (I have 14inch at 18deg in my springsharp)
3) should I put railing all the way down the side (where it may block the 4.5's )?
4) boats in the stern ? (never used for real by the RN but harks back to some fisher drawings ?)
5) how should I finish her off (and make her a bit more interesting, she’s has just a bit to much grey ?)

Thanks JSB

1. I think you have an appropriate amount of AA for a 1935 design, I would reduce the amount of superstructure amidships and maybe use that as the boat deck or put the hanger and catapult there. The superstructure just looks too big to me, especially amidships. Personally I would reduce the entire superstructure by one deck at a minimum.
2. I'd go with an external belt, its easier to repair, but may cause slightly more drag. 18 degrees is a lot, Hood only had 12, the more its angled the shorter it is. portholes look good forward adn aft of the belt
3. I would have a full railing, maybe check the other british ships with 4.5" guns on the main sight and see what they have.
4. boats on the stern where the crane is makes sense
5. you could consider adding some medium sized guns like 6 or 8 inchers. the 4.5 is a good AA gun but it would be underpowered against the big axis destroyers and Nelson, G-3 and N-3 all had at least a 6" secondary.

_________________
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom

I wholly agree with Syzmo's erudite analysis, except that I'd cut the amidships superstructure down with two decks. As for the 4.5" auto turrets, I wonder, did they even exist as early as 1935? If so, why then wasn't Warspite given them? No, I'd suggest following Syzmo's advice about the 6" Nelson-style secondary armament. Makes a whole better sense!

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

A very nice effort, and yes, I tend to agree with the above, give her 6" secondaries (like on HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney), and for AA give her 6 single 4.7" (also from the Rodney and Nelson).
I would also cut down the superstructure amidships, as it is now, it's more fitting on an ocean liner than a battleship.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"