Dreadnought Alt

BCRenown, yes, I agree, everything is possible if you disregard history. But, in truth, I don't believe that's JSB:s intention here. And the fact is that, Fisher being Fisher, there were certain definite guidelines in the preparations for the new all-gun ship that he and his friend W. H. Gard dreamed up (though the latter was not ultimately responsible for the final design, that person was Phillip Watts.) during Fisher's tenure as C.-in-C. Mediterranean Fleet 1899-1902. - and Fisher, again being the strongly opinionated, almost bullyish and tempestuous personality he was, never really deviated from his absolute demands: 12in main battery, at the most 12-pounder secondaries, speed to match the latest protected and armored cruisers (20-21 knots) and armore equivalent to the designs of the King Edward VII-class pre-dreadnoughts.
Fisher appears to have loathed the casemate design, and in the Med. he often had the 6in secondary guns unshipped on his flagship, HMS Renown to lighten her up. Fisher believed in long-range gunnery duels, taking place at 6,000 - 12,000 yards. He had noticed that, at Tsushima, the Russians had opened up a very accurate 12in-gun fire at a range of 18,000 yards, but that the 8- and 6in guns on either side didn't do much good, but rather served to confuse the main turret gun layers. He also had noticed how the Russians had used small-calibre guns, such as the 3in-gun to repel Japanese torpedoboats, often with good effect (till sheer exhaustion or number got the better of the Russians!)
As for the 4.7in, I'd say no! This was a Vickers "foreign works" gun mount, only available in the Triumph-class second-class battleships, originally intended for Chile. You don't want to add confusion into the ammunition supply line...
And, as a general advice, and a rule I apply to myself: if I'd attempt something similar to what you're doing, JSB, I'd never go with the 20/20 hindsight. That'd be terribly unfair to the original designers and constructors.

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

Ok so I Have decided to split it and (maybe) make 2 one realistic and one ASB.

Quote:

I'd never go with the 20/20 hindsight. That'd be terribly unfair to the original designers and constructors.

I totaly agree but since we are annoying little bearded ones lets stamp on them shoulders

!

My ASB Dreadnought

[ img ]

After some springsharping I got the weight down quite a bit and she is now smaller (nearly 2kt ) and cheaper (well before all the expensive stuff in the masts

) best of all she if probably faster ( she is supposed to be 21Kn but she has 25,245 SHP v 23,000 SHP in the real ship and she is smaller so I think spring sharp is underestimating her speed ?)
Still has a broadside of 8 12inch and 4 forward and 12 x 4.7 is probably better v torpedo craft in my opinion

Dread2, GB BB laid down 1905

Displacement:
13,932 t light; 14,805 t standard; 16,200 t normal; 17,316 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(480.00 ft / 480.00 ft) x 72.00 ft x (27.00 / 28.53 ft)
(146.30 m / 146.30 m) x 21.95 m x (8.23 / 8.70 m)

Armament:
8 - 12.00" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 849.99lbs / 385.55kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1905 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
1 raised mount
8 - 4.70" / 119 mm 45.0 cal guns - 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 300 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1905 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 - 4.70" / 119 mm 45.0 cal guns - 52.36lbs / 23.75kg shells, 300 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1905 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
4 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 7,369 lbs / 3,343 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 336.00 ft / 102.41 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 143.98 ft / 43.89 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Upper: 4.00" / 102 mm 336.00 ft / 102.41 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
2.00" / 51 mm 336.00 ft / 102.41 m 25.48 ft / 7.77 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 62.00 ft / 18.90 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 11.0" / 279 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm - 4.00" / 102 mm
3rd: 3.00" / 76 mm - 4.00" / 102 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 0.75" / 19 mm Quarter deck: 0.75" / 19 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 11.00" / 279 mm, Aft 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 25,245 shp / 18,833 Kw = 21.00 kts
Range 6,600nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,512 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
717 - 933

Cost:
£1.473 million / $5.892 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,360 tons, 8.4 %
- Guns: 1,360 tons, 8.4 %
Armour: 5,793 tons, 35.8 %
- Belts: 2,254 tons, 13.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 634 tons, 3.9 %
- Armament: 1,441 tons, 8.9 %
- Armour Deck: 1,258 tons, 7.8 %
- Conning Towers: 207 tons, 1.3 %
Machinery: 2,104 tons, 13.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,326 tons, 26.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,268 tons, 14.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 2.2 %
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
- Above deck: 250 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
17,421 lbs / 7,902 Kg = 20.2 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.06
Metacentric height 3.4 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 16.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 64 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.90
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.28

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.608 / 0.615
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.91 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 15.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Forward deck: 20.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Aft deck: 50.00 %, 13.00 ft / 3.96 m, 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 13.00 ft / 3.96 m, 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Average freeboard: 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 94.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 107.2 %
Waterplane Area: 25,457 Square feet or 2,365 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 146 lbs/sq ft or 713 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.78
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Adequate accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Any opinions before I finish her off ? and then I will go think hard about a realistic one.
JSB

I think you should keep the hull and superstructure as close as possible to the original. What you have looks nothing like anything from real life.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Karle94 here. It appears that for every time I suggest, what I believe are sensible changes, you deviate more and more from the original concept. Ah well, I shan't waste my time and effort when I so clearly see it's not wanted. I've said my piece, and that'll suffice. Good luck to you, Sir!

please don’t stop I’m working on 2 versions (its just one is MUCH harder to do as it requires more thought and research ) you input is very knowledgeable and I do appreciate it.
Thanks JSB

not finished by any means but any coments welcome.
JSB

Edit :
I can't make up my mind about X/Y turret what do you think is best ?

1 less weight high up , but longer than 3 ?
2 will mean mixing turbines and magazines (bad for heating powder) but spaces out the turrets better.
3 more weight hight up but the shortest (and if we can superfire then better arcs as well).

All my 8 gun ships will probably be narrower than the real ship so they should be faster or have smaller engines (and better defended mags v torpedos ?).

Layout number two should be excluded as it increases the space for the magazine and therefore the armor belt. Number one seems reasonable, but only works when shooting a broadside. Number three is the most practical one, but is the most unlikely, no European nation built dreadnoughts with superfiring guns until 1909, I think. The USN had it from the very start. Maybe you should go for number three, seeing you already have superfiring guns forward. If you want the superstructure to be angled, perhaps the two decks should be angled at the same places. Why have that inward angle on the deck below the forward 3 inchers? As you have it now, the middle is either very wide compared to everything in front, or the front is very thin.

I'm thinking no.2 is most realistic. Although, like Karle says, more magazine space & armour belt is required, it would be most in keeping with ship design of the time.

_________________
[ img ]

Jabba's Worklist

3, if youre going to have superfiring turrets forward you might as well have it aft. It isnt accurate for the British in that time period but it is the best solution. Was Fisher opposed to superfiring turrets or did he just not think of the idea?

_________________
"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

The idea of superfiring turrets was regarded as so revolutionary and potentially hazardous, that few navies ventured to incorporate them into their first dreadnought-designs. The USN could do that, since they already had sufficient experience from the Kearsarge and Virginia-class BB:s. Fisher never expressed any particular opinions on the merits or dangers of the superfiring turret configuration. It is, however, in keeping with the rather cautious approach that the RN took, that they progressed in a piecemeal fashion, implementing the aft superfiring turret on the HMS Neptune in 1909.
I agree with Jabba about the most realistic option to chose from.
Also, I'd strongly recommend you to shift the fore (main-)mast slightly forward, and increase the length of the aft mast's struts. Also, please, please refer to the Victorian boat part-sheet for correct steam pinnaces etc!

Shipbucket

Who is online