Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 57 of 90  [ 900 posts ]  Go to page « 155 56 57 58 5990 »
Author Message
eltf177
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 21st, 2012, 11:00 pm
Offline
Posts: 503
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 5:03 pm
Carthaginian wrote:
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.
Agreed, I just accepted the 0.75 for this individual design. The wing turrets are going to force a higher BC whether or not you want it. I would like a lower BC but I simply can't see that happening with this design...


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Carthaginian
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 22nd, 2012, 6:23 am
Offline
Posts: 587
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 7:25 pm
Location: Daphne, Alabama, C.S.A.
Not a higher BC- it will force a larger beam, but not necessarily a higher BC.
The mere monstrous size of this vessel would allow for a 200' beam that would provide adequate space for the wing turrets. It would be as tight as the 9.2" turrets on the last of the British pre-dreads... but possible.

0.75 BC is too great for any warship; and it's doable on 0.65- though mine was rough. I'll resim it Monday.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Bombhead
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 22nd, 2012, 10:51 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2299
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 7:41 pm
Wow Ashley what can I say,Superb by name Superb by nature.I can see the merits of useing the 14" to deal with cruisers.My only comment would be the multiple pompoms.By this time they were old hat and would maybe have been replaced with 40mm bofors as in Vanguard.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ashley
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 23rd, 2012, 6:15 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
I will come up with her sistership HMS Conqueror, she will be fitted with 1946' tech.

BTW. monstrous? She is not monstrous. Look at Lexingtons at design, they are nearly as long. Look at H44, they are comparable. Ok, she is a little bit fat... :D

_________________
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]
Ashley
Post subject: Ultradreadnought HMS Conqueror 1946Posted: January 24th, 2012, 7:48 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
The second ship of the Superb-class was HMS Conqueror. Even there were a few weeks between the commissionings of Superb and Conqueror Conqueror was fitted with directors and aa-guns one generation further. [ img ]

_________________
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]
eltf177
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 24th, 2012, 10:44 am
Offline
Posts: 503
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 5:03 pm
The original design resimmed with a 180-' beam (200' with bulges)...

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

Superb, RN Super Battleship laid down 1939

Displacement:
136,565 t light; 142,062 t standard; 146,111 t normal; 149,350 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
1,195.35 ft / 1,180.00 ft x 180.00 ft (Bulges 200.00 ft) x 31.00 ft (normal load)
364.34 m / 359.66 m x 54.86 m (Bulges 60.96 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: 18.0" / 457 mm 500.00 ft / 152.40 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
Ends: 8.00" / 203 mm 200.00 ft / 60.96 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
480.00 ft / 146.30 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 65 % 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 12.0" / 305 mm 16.0" / 406 mm
2nd: 12.0" / 305 mm 9.00" / 229 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, 224,055 shp / 167,145 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,288 tons

Complement:
3,736 - 4,857

Cost:
£66.895 million / $267.580 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 6,987 tons, 4.8 %
Armour: 55,410 tons, 37.9 %
- Belts: 9,970 tons, 6.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,220 tons, 1.5 %
- Armament: 17,090 tons, 11.7 %
- Armour Deck: 25,173 tons, 17.2 %
- Conning Tower: 956 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 6,062 tons, 4.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 67,757 tons, 46.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 9,546 tons, 6.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
371,071 lbs / 168,315 Kg = 92.8 x 20.0 " / 508 mm shells or 96.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.27
Metacentric height 18.6 ft / 5.7 m
Roll period: 19.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 66 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.32
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.32

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.699
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.90 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.35 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 38 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
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): 56.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 329.5 %
Waterplane Area: 170,091 Square feet or 15,802 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 118 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 312 lbs/sq ft or 1,522 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.06
- 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

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

The first problem was the warning "too much power for number of shafts", thus the reduction in speed to 27 knots (I could resim the design with 5 shafts if you're interested). Even then BC was high, I removed the upper belt and thinned the main belt (although I did raise both main and end belts in compensation) plus slightly thinned turret armor. I still ended up with a BC of 0.7 which I can't see being reduced much further given the stats we have. I'm still thinking that 1943 or 1945 engines will help somewhat, I'll try that modification and see what happens...


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 24th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Offline
Posts: 3910
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: YouTube
Very nice work...a Nelson-style bridge structure combined with Vanguard-esque funnels. I like it!

'Rides out heavy weather easily'...yeah, I bet...not too many waves could shake a monster like that! :D

-Matt

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 24th, 2012, 3:20 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
How come Britain is stuck with plain real life weaponry when Germany gets lol guns and Spess Mehreens?
You've put them in the same position as the Germans so they should be busy building their own brand of V weapons themselves.
And it's not as if they didn't have the expertise. After all, they'd been experimenting with remote controlled aerial torpedoes since the early twenties.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ashley
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 24th, 2012, 5:41 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
Thiel wrote:
And it's not as if they didn't have the expertise. After all, they'd been experimenting with remote controlled aerial torpedoes since the early twenties.
You make me have another mad idea. An Aphrodite-equipped battlecruiser. :twisted:

_________________
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]
Ashley
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: January 24th, 2012, 5:47 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
emperor_andreas wrote:
Very nice work...a Nelson-style bridge structure combined with Vanguard-esque funnels. I like it!

'Rides out heavy weather easily'...yeah, I bet...not too many waves could shake a monster like that! :D

-Matt
You are very near to it. The source was an old drawing of mine, a Nelson-class, 1.5 times larger than SB-scale. I made the drawing shipbucketish (was much more work than drawing a new one), lenghtened the hull, rearranged the arms, replaced some with KGV-equipment, that's it. Oh, Conquereor was fitted with Vanguard-stuff.

_________________
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]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 57 of 90  [ 900 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 155 56 57 58 5990 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


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


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