Thoughts on this? The heavy armament is intended to be used for shore bombardment, in order to save the guns of the battleships from wear and tear. Also, this gun is intended to fire high explosive shells instead of armor piercing anyways.
Guns of Seneca, CSA Seagoing Monitor laid down 1920
Displacement:
10,479 t light; 11,396 t standard; 12,560 t normal; 13,490 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
393.70 ft / 393.70 ft x 75.46 ft x 26.90 ft (normal load)
120.00 m / 120.00 m x 23.00 m x 8.20 m
Armament:
2 - 18.00" / 457 mm guns in single mounts, 4,000.00lbs / 1,814.37kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 8,000 lbs / 3,629 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 255.00 ft / 77.72 m 8.25 ft / 2.51 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.00" / 25 mm 255.00 ft / 77.72 m 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 12,723 shp / 9,491 Kw = 18.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,094 tons
Complement:
593 - 771
Cost:
£2.461 million / $9.846 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 729 tons, 5.8 %
Armour: 3,911 tons, 31.1 %
- Belts: 939 tons, 7.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 156 tons, 1.2 %
- Armament: 759 tons, 6.0 %
- Armour Deck: 1,918 tons, 15.3 %
- Conning Tower: 140 tons, 1.1 %
Machinery: 445 tons, 3.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,894 tons, 39.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,081 tons, 16.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 4.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
17,638 lbs / 8,001 Kg = 6.0 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 3.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 3.8 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 16.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.82
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.50
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.22 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.84 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
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 (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Mid (50 %): 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Stern: 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Average freeboard: 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 98.3 %
Waterplane Area: 20,733 Square feet or 1,926 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 113 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 164 lbs/sq ft or 802 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 3.08
- Overall: 1.03
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
I think 18" is overkill for this mission, your 13.5" or 15" guns should be fine. Try something like HMS Abercrombie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abercrombie_class_monitor) as an example.
also for shore bombardment, she is drawing a little much to allow her to move in close for more accurate shooting
What the heck would he even need such a moniter for? What's he trying to collapse, the gates on the Dairen Canal? That's the only thing that would really need such a monster....and there are much cheaper ways to do it.
Quote from: snip on March 17, 2011, 04:31:03 PM
also for shore bombardment, she is drawing a little much to allow her to move in close for more accurate shooting
Fair enough, try these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_Ney_class_monitor) instead, only draw 10.5' of water.
What kind of draught is good? HMS Furious had 8 meters.
As for the size of the gun itself, it's intended to be used against sea fortifications. That, and the power of the shells is such that high accuracy is not really needed, since it can leave quite a large crater wherever it lands, and anything with enough draught to get close would be quite vulnerable to shore batteries, especially considering that such a ship would have to have very light armor.
Quote from: Delta Force on March 17, 2011, 06:19:02 PM
What kind of draught is good? HMS Furious had 8 meters.
As for the size of the gun itself, it's intended to be used against sea fortifications. That, and the power of the shells is such that high accuracy is not really needed, since it can leave quite a large crater wherever it lands, and anything with enough draught to get close would be quite vulnerable to shore batteries, especially considering that such a ship would have to have very light armor.
Draught depends on were you are looking for this to operate. Im not an expert on this sort of stuff, so I will leave that to people who know more then me. The reason why I say that it is to deep is because the RN had problems getting ships with BB sized draft in close for shore bombardment work off the Belgian coast in 1914. This lead to the monitors like the Abercrombie and Marshal Ney that have drafts less then half that of yours.
despite the power of a 18" shell, you still need to hit what you are aiming at. This in some cases requires getting close. In reality, like others have said, against fortifications a well placed 13.5" or 15" shell will be just a effective. You can get more of these guns onto a similar displacement, increasing the amount of damage that can be delt. Also against a harden position, a near miss is likely to do next to no damage, increasing the need for accuracy.
Quote from: Delta Force on March 17, 2011, 06:19:02 PM
What kind of draught is good? HMS Furious had 8 meters.
HMS Furious wasn't a monitor, she was an abortion of a battlecruiser, classified as a Large Light Cruiser.
Quote from: Sachmle on March 17, 2011, 07:00:15 PM
HMS Furious wasn't a monitor, she was an abortion of a battlecruiser
One of the better descriptions I have heard of the type.
Quote from: Delta Force on March 17, 2011, 06:19:02 PM
What kind of draught is good? HMS Furious had 8 meters.
As for the size of the gun itself, it's intended to be used against sea fortifications. That, and the power of the shells is such that high accuracy is not really needed, since it can leave quite a large crater wherever it lands, and anything with enough draught to get close would be quite vulnerable to shore batteries, especially considering that such a ship would have to have very light armor.
I've got a fairly extensive knowledge of the Gulf, so...if you want to operate there, I'd want to cut it down to at least 10-12 feet...maybe even lower.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on March 17, 2011, 07:19:29 PM
Quote from: Delta Force on March 17, 2011, 06:19:02 PM
What kind of draught is good? HMS Furious had 8 meters.
As for the size of the gun itself, it's intended to be used against sea fortifications. That, and the power of the shells is such that high accuracy is not really needed, since it can leave quite a large crater wherever it lands, and anything with enough draught to get close would be quite vulnerable to shore batteries, especially considering that such a ship would have to have very light armor.
I've got a fairly extensive knowledge of the Gulf, so...if you want to operate there, I'd want to cut it down to at least 10-12 feet...maybe even lower.
That sounds good. How would this do as a Pacific monitor though (that is what this design is intended for)? I made the ship large so that it could hold more fuel, have more seaworthiness, and carry more shells and armor. 8 knots top speed would doom a ship in the Ocean or force the fleet to go at a crawl, but isn't a liability in the Gulf region since distances are much smaller and the weather is better than the North Atlantic unless a hurricane rolls through.
The 4000 Lbs Shell is way way out of proportion.... the Japanese 18/45 was a mere 3200 Lbs. Your shell is 1100 Lbs heavier then the standard making it a super super super heavy Shell.
Charles
Quote from: ctwaterman on March 17, 2011, 08:32:36 PM
The 4000 Lbs Shell is way way out of proportion.... the Japanese 18/45 was a mere 3200 Lbs. Your shell is 1100 Lbs heavier then the standard making it a super super super heavy Shell.
Charles
While Furious fired shells of around that weight, the HE round could be up to 4,000 pounds:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_18-40_mk1.htm
Since the HE round is intended as the main shell, I figured going with that weight would be the most accurate.
QuoteHE 8crh - 3,320 lbs. (1,506 kg)
Plus rule here, unofficial as it may be since I can't seem to find it, was always 20% over SpringSharp default was the upper limit for "SuperHeavy" shells. The SS default for 18" is 2,916.00lbs, so the upper is 3499.2lbs (probably round up to 3,500lbs).
What caliber is the gun? 50?
Using our Tech Tree...
an 18/40 may be developed if you have the 1915 Gun Tech
an 18/45 may be developed using the 1921 Gun Tech
an 18/50 may be developed using the 1928 Gun Tech.
So its an 18/40
I agree that Instead of Putting 2x18" guns it would be better to put more 12"/12" or even 14" and 15" guns as even suppressing a Disapearing carriage gun would take more accuracy then out right blast power.
The Only Defensive installation I can think of that would require a APC Round of 18" to disable right now are the two Heavy Gun Batteries covering the Harbor at Djibouti [France] They have the Super Heavy Armor Option and are built into a Casement into the side of a mountain. Everything is bigger and more expensive in France.... ::)
For a 18"/40 gun, the shell would be ~94" long.
That's roughly 5.2 cal? I don't remember the exact rule of thumb but it would appear at first glance that there won't be enough rifling.
Quote from: Delta Force on March 17, 2011, 07:46:35 PM
That sounds good. How would this do as a Pacific monitor though (that is what this design is intended for)? I made the ship large so that it could hold more fuel, have more seaworthiness, and carry more shells and armor. 8 knots top speed would doom a ship in the Ocean or force the fleet to go at a crawl, but isn't a liability in the Gulf region since distances are much smaller and the weather is better than the North Atlantic unless a hurricane rolls through.
In all honesty, at this time period, I see the concept of the monitor to be restricted to rivers and other very sheltered bodies of water. These are ships that are mounting BB caliber guns, so why not make them into a proper BB? Chances are that they would get pressed into fighting BBs due to there armament, but in that fight I would take the BB, even a predread any day.I guess what my question is, what can this do that a BB built on the same tonnage cannot? Why do you need a dedicated shore bombardment ship for cross-ocean work when a BB could do the job and more?
Well, I have a design for a fast battleship with six 18 inch guns:
CSA Battlecruiser, CSA Battlecruiser laid down 1920
Displacement:
40,263 t light; 43,216 t standard; 49,222 t normal; 54,027 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
872.70 ft / 872.70 ft x 105.32 ft (Bulges 115.16 ft) x 31.17 ft (normal load)
266.00 m / 266.00 m x 32.10 m (Bulges 35.10 m) x 9.50 m
Armament:
6 - 18.00" / 457 mm guns (3x2 guns), 3,500.00lbs / 1,587.57kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (8x2 guns), 75.00lbs / 34.02kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread
4 - 1.58" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 22,208 lbs / 10,073 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 158
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 580.00 ft / 176.78 m 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 102 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.00" / 25 mm 580.00 ft / 176.78 m 24.75 ft / 7.54 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 6.00" / 152 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
- Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 14.00" / 356 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 84,506 shp / 63,042 Kw = 25.30 kts
Range 26,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 10,811 tons
Complement:
1,652 - 2,148
Cost:
£8.983 million / $35.932 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,354 tons, 4.8 %
Armour: 14,636 tons, 29.7 %
- Belts: 5,666 tons, 11.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 531 tons, 1.1 %
- Armament: 3,288 tons, 6.7 %
- Armour Deck: 4,747 tons, 9.6 %
- Conning Tower: 405 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 2,955 tons, 6.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 19,917 tons, 40.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 8,960 tons, 18.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 0.8 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
83,292 lbs / 37,780 Kg = 28.6 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 12.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.19
Metacentric height 7.4 ft / 2.3 m
Roll period: 17.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.60
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.33
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.58 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.54 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 39 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 53
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.47 ft / 6.85 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22.47 ft / 6.85 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.47 ft / 6.85 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 22.47 ft / 6.85 m
- Stern: 22.47 ft / 6.85 m
- Average freeboard: 22.47 ft / 6.85 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 72.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 166.2 %
Waterplane Area: 64,142 Square feet or 5,959 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 124 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 218 lbs/sq ft or 1,063 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.08
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
It's a scary day when my next battleships are able to outrun a battlecruiser.
If you look in the Nassau boards, while I was there, I posted some nice designs for a fast battleship that you might be interested in.
And 18/40 will not get you much appreciable advantage over a 16/45 or a 15/50, IMHO. Yes the shell is bigger, but you lose a lot due to longer reloading time, slower firing, and with only being able to fit 6 guns, crappy spotting compared to an 8 gun 15-16" variety. Also, your paper thin TDS will do nothing to stop a torpedo, and will likely just add shrapnel to the explosion. Other than that, quite nice. I do recommend getting light displacement to an even value (40,250- 40,000- 40,500, etc) just for ease of bookkeeping. I also don't think the CSA has any type 4 slips/docks, thought one could be built at Hampton Roads/Newport News as it is a type 4 port. That is a lot of infrastructure though. You'd need a dry dock, or you'd not be able to repair/refit the ship, and those cost $27 and 4BP and would take ~2.5 years to build. SO if you started the dry dock in 2/19 (Last report was 1/19 by Carth) you could have it in 1/22. Then it takes 4.5yrs to build this thing, so it would be ready for trails in 2/26, with trails ending at the end of August 1926 and in service September 1926. IS this a valid design by then? Will BBs be 28kts by then? I think you'll find, as most of us did (why we did the Richmond Treaty) that 35,000t is about as big as you want to get until tech stabilizes in the 1930s. Until then, things change to much between lay down and in service.
CSA has a Type 4 DD at Charleston.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on March 18, 2011, 10:59:41 AM
CSA has a Type 4 DD at Charleston.
at Charleston Naval Station, South Carolina; Type 3 Harbor
- Charleston Navy Yard
Type 3 Drydocks - 2
Type 2 Drydocks - 2
Type 1 Drydocks - 1
Type 1 Slip - 1
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3927.0 (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3927.0)
Well, you see, it got done in 1918, and with all the chaos regarding Carth's return, it never got posted. You can look it up in the sim reports...
Quote from: TexanCowboy on March 18, 2011, 11:10:35 AM
Well, you see, it got done in 1918, and with all the chaos regarding Carth's return, it never got posted. You can look it up in the sim reports...
I did, the Port upgrade got completed, no one ever started the dry dock though.
Thoughts on this? It takes only a year to complete. I tried to make a design that could fit into a size 2 dock, but most of those designs ended up weighing around 7k to 8k tons, so I decided to just make the design larger to allow it to fit more guns. The same design can also fit two 16 or two 18 inch guns, or six 12 inch guns (although the CSA has no modern 12 inch guns).
Guns of Seneca, CSA Littoral Bombardment Ship laid down 1920
Displacement:
12,000 t light; 12,558 t standard; 13,016 t normal; 13,383 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
459.32 ft / 459.32 ft x 120.87 ft x 11.98 ft (normal load)
140.00 m / 140.00 m x 36.84 m x 3.65 m
Armament:
4 - 13.50" / 343 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1,500.00lbs / 680.39kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 4.85" / 123 mm guns (4x2 guns), 55.00lbs / 24.95kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 6,440 lbs / 2,921 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 82
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 330.00 ft / 100.58 m 8.25 ft / 2.51 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 111 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 6.00" / 152 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 1,040 shp / 776 Kw = 8.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 8.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 825 tons
Complement:
609 - 792
Cost:
£2.339 million / $9.357 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 672 tons, 5.2 %
Armour: 3,496 tons, 26.9 %
- Belts: 987 tons, 7.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 884 tons, 6.8 %
- Armour Deck: 1,625 tons, 12.5 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 36 tons, 0.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,420 tons, 57.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,016 tons, 7.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 375 tons, 2.9 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
45,324 lbs / 20,559 Kg = 36.8 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 7.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.47
Metacentric height 12.9 ft / 3.9 m
Roll period: 14.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.12
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.07
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.685
Length to Beam Ratio: 3.80 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.43 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 11 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 65
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 15.75 ft / 4.80 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 15.75 ft / 4.80 m
- Mid (50 %): 15.75 ft / 4.80 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15.75 ft / 4.80 m
- Stern: 15.75 ft / 4.80 m
- Average freeboard: 15.75 ft / 4.80 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 43.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 216.3 %
Waterplane Area: 43,913 Square feet or 4,080 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 140 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 157 lbs/sq ft or 767 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.60
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
I still question the need for such a ship, mainly when the CSA has several early Dreadnaughts that displace only a bit more than this and have 2 more guns, faster, and better armored. Why do you need a dedicated bombardment ships when a BB can do that same job and much more on a similar displacement?
This ship has a draught of 12 feet (compared to 22 feet for older battleships), so it can get much closer to shore for precision fire. That said, I might delete one of the turrets in order to add in provision for troop carriage, to make it something of a troop landing ship. That would allow it to take more advantage of its draught and perform another role for the fleet.
Completion time is 9 Months + Tonnage/1000
On the concept:
You have a valid point on the draft issue. However IMO, sending something this big very close into a beach creates one heck of an shell magnet for land-based guns. With this ships (and the other designs presented) questionably thin armor, I don't think it would last to long under heavy fire from battleship caliber guns to get into optimum range for destroying those positions. Also the speed of 8-18knts makes it possible for almost any warship to force a confrontation, which could be done in places with not a lot of room to maneuver due to these ships being so large, making torpedo even more dangerous. With no torpedo bulkhead, this ship could find itself in trouble very fast. In all honesty, I think that close-support ships need to be small and expendable above all else. I think there is a reason why BBs were the typical shore bombardment ships in OTL, and not big-gun ships tailor made for the roll. While tactically it may seem like a good idea (and this is an asset that I'm sure the boots hitting the beach would love), its to big of an asset to risk when it is looked at in a logistical or strategic manor. Whats cheaper and takes less time, relining guns or replacing one or two of these? How much more could two "conventional" multi-roll ships (raiders, Heavy cruisers ect.) on the same tonnage change the strategic picture?
On the design itself:
Few little issues that I see with the design. First:
QuoteLength to Beam Ratio: 3.80 : 1
Little to small. From my understanding, 5:1 is about as low as you can get. Someone with more experience may correct me on this. Second:
QuoteHull, fittings & equipment: 7,420 tons, 57.0 %
This means that 57% of the displacement has nothing to do with armor, guns, or speed. By comparison, most of the BBs that I have seen have about 35-40% for this category, and I have seen one example around 30%. It should be possible to get much more bang-for-the-buck out of this hull.
DF,
look at this one
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=5326.0
Jef
also, this might be more in the vien of what you are trying to get.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3016.msg33900#msg33900 (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3016.msg33900#msg33900)
Quote from: snip on March 20, 2011, 10:53:37 AM
also, this might be more in the vien of what you are trying to get.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3016.msg33900#msg33900 (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3016.msg33900#msg33900)
Or this
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=96.msg28972#msg28972 (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=96.msg28972#msg28972)
How could I simulate ballast tanks that can be used to reduce draught further (assuming that clamshell doors would be possible with forward firing 13.5 inch guns without causing blast damage and other issues)? Looking on Wikipedia, the LSTs were able to go right up to the beach while having a draught of 4.6 meters in the rear (and 1.2 in the front), so it seems that 4.6 meters/15 feet is a good limit for anything right up to actually beaching.