Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 56 of 90  [ 900 posts ]  Go to page « 154 55 56 57 5890 »
Author Message
Carthaginian
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 20th, 2012, 6:21 pm
Offline
Posts: 587
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 7:25 pm
Location: Daphne, Alabama, C.S.A.
My GOD!!!!

:shock: No words, man... absolutely no words. :shock:
Just string "Yeah," "Uh," "Wow," and "Damn" together in any generally incoherent manner and that'll just about cover it.

I too would hate to see both of these ships sank. My suggestion is that one of them- I've never liked the name Superb[/b], so I'll pick her- is valiantly destroyed leading a Thermopylae-style defense of the British Isles, while the Conqueror and a very small task force undertakes the most vital mission the Royal Navy has ever had- the evacuation of the Royal Family to Canada.
Safely ensconced beneath the massive 10" thick armored deck and behind walls of 20" of steel, George VI and his family are evacuated from their final Royal Residence in the British Isles- a rented upstairs room in a pub in Donegal. They are taken across the Atlantic in a top secret operation involving the massive Conqueror and a small flotilla of destroyers, light cruisers, and two Vindictive class light carriers. In spite of the fact that she is hit by seven torpedoes, she manages to arrive in St. Johns a few days later. The vessel was hastily repaired and remained a continuously moving palace for the Royal Family, cruising the Gulf of St. Lawrence until the signing of the Peace.


EDIT: Stated Tonnage WILL NOT support this vessel. You're looking at AT LEAST 175,000 tons standard with the possibility of the vessel breaking 182,000 fully loaded! Additionally, the cost will be at least 77.35 million Pounds! That's just from a 'guesstimate' SS that doesn't have anything smaller than the 14" twins mounted!!!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 21st, 2012, 12:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Incredible :o I hate to detract from this stupendous effort, and I appreciate it could never be built in 'real life', but the one feature that just doesnt grok is the choice of mixed calibre major guns. All navies renounced this after the Dreadnought, one good reason being the difficulty in range finding the diferent calibres. Still, who cares? :P


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Satirius
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 21st, 2012, 3:11 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 230
Joined: September 8th, 2010, 11:26 pm
Location: Lawrenceville, NJ
A Fi 167 torpedoes the rudder on the superb, it gets cut down by smaller BBs

_________________
ALVAMA wrote:
I feel sorry for you, I agree you must have such terrible life, and no girl give you attention, The boys leaved because they were not having a safe feeling when beeing with you. Police never found you. Docters did suidice, because they where impressed you was not killed by birth :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eltf177
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 21st, 2012, 3:33 pm
Offline
Posts: 503
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 5:03 pm
I SS'd Superb last night. Note: The drawing shows a non-RN 3-screw layout. I had to go with 4 screws to have any chance of making speed and I had to guess at a lot of information. If Superb is redrawn please do a 4-screw layout...

******************

Superb, RN Super Battleship laid down 1939

Displacement:
128,057 t light; 133,377 t standard; 137,248 t normal; 140,345 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
1,195.35 ft / 1,180.00 ft x 120.00 ft (Bulges 140.00 ft) x 31.00 ft (normal load)
364.34 m / 359.66 m x 36.58 m (Bulges 42.67 m) x 9.45 m

Armament:
8 - 20.00" / 508 mm guns (4x2 guns), 4,000.00lbs / 1,814.37kg shells, 1939 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (8x2 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1939 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 5.25" / 133 mm guns (12x2 guns), 72.35lbs / 32.82kg shells, 1939 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
104 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (13x8 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1939 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 8 raised mounts
72 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (18x4 guns), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1939 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 55,896 lbs / 25,354 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 80

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 21.0" / 533 mm 550.00 ft / 167.64 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
Ends: 8.00" / 203 mm 200.00 ft / 60.96 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
430.00 ft / 131.06 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 12.0" / 305 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Main Belt covers 72 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3.00" / 76 mm 800.00 ft / 243.84 m 25.00 ft / 7.62 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 18.0" / 457 mm 12.0" / 305 mm 16.0" / 406 mm
2nd: 14.0" / 356 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
3rd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.50" / 38 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 8.00" / 203 mm, Conning tower: 16.00" / 406 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 282,692 shp / 210,888 Kw = 29.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,968 tons

Complement:
3,564 - 4,634

Cost:
£66.455 million / $265.818 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 6,987 tons, 5.1 %
Armour: 52,116 tons, 38.0 %
- Belts: 11,109 tons, 8.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,220 tons, 1.6 %
- Armament: 17,424 tons, 12.7 %
- Armour Deck: 20,446 tons, 14.9 %
- Conning Tower: 917 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 7,649 tons, 5.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 60,956 tons, 44.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 9,191 tons, 6.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
269,420 lbs / 122,207 Kg = 67.4 x 20.0 " / 508 mm shells or 46.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.14
Metacentric height 8.4 ft / 2.6 m
Roll period: 20.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 53 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.98
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.40

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.938
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.43 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.35 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 43 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 38
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
- Mid (50 %): 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
- Stern: 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
- Average freeboard: 38.00 ft / 11.58 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 68.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 280.6 %
Waterplane Area: 138,147 Square feet or 12,834 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 307 lbs/sq ft or 1,498 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.13
- Longitudinal: 0.97
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

************

She looks really good, except for one facet; the Block Coefficient. Gentlemen, we have a brick. Actually we have a cube. Except for that one number it works. Too much is being asked here, using 1945 or later engines would help (thought probably not enough); I'll give that a shot.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eltf177
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 21st, 2012, 3:38 pm
Offline
Posts: 503
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 5:03 pm
Keeping the same hull dimensions and armament I lowered the BC...

****************

Superb, RN Super Battleship laid down 1939

Displacement:
102,153 t light; 106,899 t standard; 108,569 t normal; 109,906 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
1,195.35 ft / 1,180.00 ft x 120.00 ft (Bulges 140.00 ft) x 31.00 ft (normal load)
364.34 m / 359.66 m x 36.58 m (Bulges 42.67 m) x 9.45 m

Armament:
8 - 20.00" / 508 mm guns (4x2 guns), 4,000.00lbs / 1,814.37kg shells, 1939 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (8x2 guns), 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 1939 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 5.25" / 133 mm guns (12x2 guns), 72.35lbs / 32.82kg shells, 1939 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
104 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (13x8 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1939 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 8 raised mounts
72 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (18x4 guns), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1939 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 55,896 lbs / 25,354 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 80

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 550.00 ft / 167.64 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
Ends: 6.00" / 152 mm 200.00 ft / 60.96 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
430.00 ft / 131.06 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Main Belt covers 72 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3.00" / 76 mm 800.00 ft / 243.84 m 25.00 ft / 7.62 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 12.0" / 305 mm 9.00" / 229 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
3rd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.50" / 38 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower: 15.00" / 381 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 134,326 shp / 100,207 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 5,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,008 tons

Complement:
2,989 - 3,887

Cost:
£57.910 million / $231.639 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 6,987 tons, 6.4 %
Armour: 39,274 tons, 36.2 %
- Belts: 8,192 tons, 7.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,220 tons, 2.0 %
- Armament: 15,053 tons, 13.9 %
- Armour Deck: 13,073 tons, 12.0 %
- Conning Tower: 735 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 3,634 tons, 3.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 51,907 tons, 47.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,417 tons, 5.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
212,551 lbs / 96,411 Kg = 53.1 x 20.0 " / 508 mm shells or 37.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 8.5 ft / 2.6 m
Roll period: 20.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 41 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.97
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.13

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.742
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.43 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.35 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 32 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 30
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
- Mid (50 %): 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
- Stern: 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
- Average freeboard: 38.00 ft / 11.58 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 71.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 285.2 %
Waterplane Area: 117,773 Square feet or 10,941 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 296 lbs/sq ft or 1,447 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.01
- Longitudinal: 0.99
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

*************

Armor was thinned everywhere. Speed dropped and I am not happy with a cruising speed of 10 knots. But BC dropped to ~0.75 which I can live with.

One suggestion, drop the 4 superfiring 14-inch turrets. Doing that, thinning the belt to a more reasonable 16-18 inches and dropping speed to 26-27 knots (possibly with 1943 or later engines plus 4 screws) and I think we can get this design to work...


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 21st, 2012, 5:58 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Superb is certainly interesting. I've been playing around with a late-40s USN BB of the maximum size supportable by the period plans for a third set of Panama locks, also of 4x3 20". I derived a few scaling laws from USN triples of 12-16" and through the Japanese 18" (via a Nagato/Colorado adjustment factor); I came to the conclusion that the barbette diameter of such a 20"x3, with USN design practices, would come out to 119 pixels at Shipbucket scale (give or take). Assuming such a thing could be built at all, a prospect I find at least slightly dubious.

I do have a few nitpicks - the after main/secondary directors cannot see over the after main battery turrets, and the 5.25" battery seems quite weak compared to the 14" battery. I'd gladly trade half of the 14" turrets for a massively superior heavy-caliber DP battery.
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
Incredible :o I hate to detract from this stupendous effort, and I appreciate it could never be built in 'real life', but the one feature that just doesnt grok is the choice of mixed calibre major guns. All navies renounced this after the Dreadnought, one good reason being the difficulty in range finding the diferent calibres. Still, who cares? :P
On a ship that would massively outweigh most competitors, I think a reasonable argument can be made for it. I would expect the 20" battery to train and fire extremely slowly (1rpm seems optimistic), and gun tube life would be pretty lousy. It'd be very attractive to engage eg. torpedo-carrying heavy cruisers with the 14" battery rather than waste precious 20" ammunition and tube life.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
SrGopher
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 21st, 2012, 6:58 pm
Offline
Posts: 371
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 9:21 pm
I would go with a showdown off of the US or Canadian coast. As your timeline implies, the Kriegsmarine would be looking to pick battles father away from European shores, leaving the British fleet left to defend.

_________________
Worklist:
Puerto Oeste - AU - WWI-WWII


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ashley
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 21st, 2012, 7:04 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
Incredible :o I hate to detract from this stupendous effort, and I appreciate it could never be built in 'real life', but the one feature that just doesnt grok is the choice of mixed calibre major guns. All navies renounced this after the Dreadnought, one good reason being the difficulty in range finding the diferent calibres. Still, who cares? :P
Sorry, the 14"s are secondairies... first I think the rate of fire of the 20" would be 1-1.3 rpm, the 14"s get over 2 rpm. You wont blast a cruiser with 20" shells if a 14" will do the job as good. Economics... With 20" you blow holes in Yamatos. In my opinion the 14" was an adequate secondairy gun. Sure, best would have been a large calibre DP. But DPs end at around 5".

BTW. she has 4 screws, maybe it was not shown clearly enough.

Thanks for the springsharps, guys. I'm glad, the proposed data fits nearly.

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carthaginian
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 21st, 2012, 7:18 pm
Offline
Posts: 587
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 7:25 pm
Location: Daphne, Alabama, C.S.A.
eltf177 wrote:
Armor was thinned everywhere. Speed dropped and I am not happy with a cruising speed of 10 knots. But BC dropped to ~0.75 which I can live with.

One suggestion, drop the 4 superfiring 14-inch turrets. Doing that, thinning the belt to a more reasonable 16-18 inches and dropping speed to 26-27 knots (possibly with 1943 or later engines plus 4 screws) and I think we can get this design to work...
Uhm... 0.75 is intolerable. It's more like a river barge than a ship.
IIRC, about the highest battleship BC I could find in the USN was 0.67, and that was a Standard that had been bulged until it was almost as wide as it was long. :P Nope, if the BC isn't AT MOST 0.65, I wouldn't consider it a legitimate design... not even for a pre-dread.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 21st, 2012, 7:22 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Yeah, 0.6 was a lot more typical for a WW2 battleship.

Rethinking the secondary armament arguments, I think a strong case could be made for a wholesale shift to 6"/50 QF Mk V and the British 3"/70. Money is obviously no object...


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 56 of 90  [ 900 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 154 55 56 57 5890 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]