Shipbucket

Just found this thread...very nice work! And here's hoping we've seen the last of the troll...

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

And a hearty "Aye Aye Sir".

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.

In early 1941 USS New Hampshire underwent another update/refit:

1941 Refit:
• Cage masts replaced with a tower masts and after superstructure.
• 2-Mk 19 AA GFCDs and Mk-34 GFCD placed in after superstructure.
• Mk-40 standby gun fire control director installed atop conning tower.
• 12-1.1” Quads installed. Fore and aft superstructures.
• Curtiss Seagulls now used as float planes.
• Boat farm removed, life rafts employed in their place.
• CXAM-1 installed on new mast replacing forward cage mast.

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.

So, um, here's a problem that just occurred to me.

Look at your front and rear views. Remember that these aren't 5/38 mounts, but 6/47 turrets.

Here's a pretty typical 6/47 triple of the era.


How does that fit? The whole large-diameter barbette can sit atop the armored deck, I think, with two decks of penetration below the weather deck. But where does the powder come from? The hoists are going to project directly into your TDS. It's not for nothing that the 155mm beam mounts on Yamato were as far inboard as they were.

I'm not calling the whole concept a non-starter, but I think those 6/47 triples have to move inboard. Consider the TDS depth of, say, Tennessee, and make sure the center of the barbette is at least a few feet inboard of that. And note this could have serious implications for your machinery spaces!! You might be forced into a turboelectric arrangement just to make everything fit.

If this were an ugly drawing of some stupid shit napkinwaffe, I'd just shrug and let this go. I hold excellent Shipbucketeers to a higher standard. This is way too beautiful a design to let a detail like this kill it. Let's figure out some internal arrangements that can work better.

Do you have access to Friedman's USN battleship design history book?

Erik,

All the while I was drawing the outboard 6" turrets I looked at the barbette and shook my head . . . something just didn't seem right . . . you found it! Now I have to fix it. Let me play with the overhead drawing and see what I can come up with for space. Tennessee is the model to work from, I agree.

I don't have Freeman's books . . . damn

As for turbo-electric . . . it's heavy, but I've always thought that it's advantages outweighed it's problems.

Thanks for the catch Erik.

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.

Erik,

I've moved the outboard turret inboard 12' and I beleive I have room below the armor belt to accomidate the 17' TDS of a Big Five Battleship.



What do you think? Well it work?

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.

Here is some info on the Tennessee Class TDS.

"As World War I progressed and ships began to experience underwater damage from mines and torpedoes, designers strove to create the most effective TDS possible. Across the Atlantic, where the US was still at peace, careful, conservative designers produced one of the structurally most sound torpedo defense systems ever devised, introducing it in the 1915 design for the Tennessee Class battleships.

The five-layer system took advantage of the reduced beam requirements of the turbo-electric drive system also planned for the Tennessee Class. This permitted the designers to give the system more all-important depth. The outermost and innermost layers were left void, with the three middle layers liquid-loaded. The novelty of the system lay in three thin, highly elastic armored bulkheads fitted between the four innermost layers.

Each bulkhead was carefully designed to provide maximum resistance to overpressure before tearing. The bulkheads were spaced so that once torn, a failed bulkhead would not impinge upon the next bulkhead inboard, permitting that structure in turn to provide maximum resistance, undamaged by the preceding structure. Similarly, the last armored bulkhead would not impinge on the holding bulkhead. The collective resistance of the three armored bulkheads and liquid layers stopped fragments before they could reach the unarmored holding bulkhead.

The system performed very well. The outer void space produced an initial sharp listing moment, but this was readily corrected by counterflooding corresponding outboard void spaces on the opposite side of the ship, a technique aptly demonstrated by the USS West Virginia (BB-48) at Pearl Harbor. The armored bulkheads performed as designed and the holding bulkhead remained intact when struck cleanly within the system by Japanese aerial torpedoes. USS California (BB-44) sank at Pearl Harbor due to her unprepared state; neither torpedo penetrated the TDS.

USS West Virginia sank due to the torpedoes striking her belt and punching it inward, causing flooding of the inboard compartments above the TDS on her third deck. Several torpedoes also opened the side shell above the belt, flooding the second deck, and one struck bodily above the belt. None of the torpedoes hit West Virginia’s TDS cleanly and it may have been breached by virtue of the inward-driven belt buckling the third deck that sealed the top of the TDS, and weakening or tearing away the upper foundations of the torpedo and holding bulkheads. This out-of-parameters situation came about due to the ship’s overloaded condition, scheduled to be corrected by blistering. In addition to the seven hits on the belt and one above it, one torpedo struck the rudder well outside the TDS.
"
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm

Here is a drawing to illustrate.

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... ateIII.jpg

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.

Indeed, that seems like it should fit fine. I'm not sure how much of a working circle is needed around the powder hoists, but I think you've probably given them at least as much space as they need.

Now the question is how much powder storage you need, and if your machinery will still fit at all! Isn't this fun?

Loads and loads of fun

I'm working on the new and fixed, if not improved, overhead. In the old version all guns could fire forward or aft giving you a full broadside all the way around. Now the 6" turrets are directly aligned fore and aft. I could super-impose them and raise the 5"/25s. I'll take a look at that arangment next.

Are we there yet

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.

Well, remember the previous state of the art to which you're comparing. Fore-and-aft turrets will still be a damned sight better than casemates!