I've decided that I am probably going to play a large Poland, with the ruler being Germanic. Since the fleet is not really vital for anything except for guarding the coastline on internal seas, speed and range won't be a major issue, and ships will be designed more for firepower and survivability. Poland's German allies can handle the high seas. However, the navy will also be somewhat more progressive and innovative than the larger navies of the world, in order to increase prestige for the navy and defend against the Ottomans and the Russians. In addition to that, there will also be political interests in a strong, advanced navy, with the Kaiser and/or the Crown Prince having an interest in naval matters, and industry pushing for a fleet to protect busy coastal shipping and also provide a large market for iron and steel (which should be major interest, with Poland and Ukraine having lots of iron and coal).
This particular battleship is a prime example of the naval strategy, using Krupp breech loading artillery and all steel construction. It is likely to have been made in a German or Austrian shipyard, or at least drawn up with consultation by the leading designers of those nations.
Polish Battleship, Poland Battleship laid down 1875
Displacement:
10,262 t light; 10,764 t standard; 11,657 t normal; 12,372 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
340.00 ft / 340.00 ft x 80.00 ft x 25.00 ft (normal load)
103.63 m / 103.63 m x 24.38 m x 7.62 m
Armament:
4 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (2x2 guns), 720.00lbs / 326.59kg shells, 1875 Model
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turrets
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 10.00" / 254 mm guns in single mounts, 360.00lbs / 163.29kg shells, 1875 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side ends, evenly spread
8 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in any sea
Weight of broadside 5,760 lbs / 2,613 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 80
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 220.00 ft / 67.06 m 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 12.0" / 305 mm -
2nd: 7.50" / 191 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2.25" / 57 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 6,635 ihp / 4,950 Kw = 14.50 kts
Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,608 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
560 - 729
Cost:
£1.173 million / $4.692 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 722 tons, 6.2 %
Armour: 3,624 tons, 31.1 %
- Belts: 1,668 tons, 14.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 1,128 tons, 9.7 %
- Armour Deck: 828 tons, 7.1 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 1,479 tons, 12.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,436 tons, 38.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,396 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
8,543 lbs / 3,875 Kg = 12.8 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 1.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.39
Metacentric height 6.3 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 13.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.16
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.15
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.600
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.44 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
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: 8.25 ft / 2.51 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 8.25 ft / 2.51 m
- Mid (50 %): 8.25 ft / 2.51 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 8.25 ft / 2.51 m
- Stern: 8.25 ft / 2.51 m
- Average freeboard: 8.25 ft / 2.51 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 55.8 %
Waterplane Area: 19,894 Square feet or 1,848 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 94 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 177 lbs/sq ft or 862 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.03
- Longitudinal: 2.06
- Overall: 1.10
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
fine, I will bite...
Point one: Did the mods OK a switch to Poland? Can we get some conformation on this?
Point two: Good luck having those 10" guns fire in any sort of seaway. Hell, the waves generated from moving forward might be enough to swamp the casemates.
Point three: The decision was made to go with SS3, so the design will need to be converted. This might help, as you can now spesify calibers for your guns.
Point four: I think that Nobody would have to agree to the distribution of the Krupp breachloading technology.
Point five: The current rules call for Iron ships as the baseline. While there may be debate to lowering the composite strength penalty for older ships, as things stand right now, this ship would need to have a composite strength of 1.20. Cant storyline your way outside of the rules, no matter how much you want to.
Quote from: snip on August 05, 2011, 12:16:02 AM
fine, I will bite...
Point one: Did the mods OK a switch to Poland? Can we get some conformation on this?
Point two: Good luck having those 10" guns fire in any sort of seaway. Hell, the waves generated from moving forward might be enough to swamp the casemates.
Point three: The decision was made to go with SS3, so the design will need to be converted. This might help, as you can now spesify calibers for your guns.
Point four: I think that Nobody would have to agree to the distribution of the Krupp breachloading technology.
Point five: The current rules call for Iron ships as the baseline. While there may be debate to lowering the composite strength penalty for older ships, as things stand right now, this ship would need to have a composite strength of 1.20. Cant storyline your way outside of the rules, no matter how much you want to.
1. I'll have to ask an Admin to officially approve it. Another player was wondering if I wanted to switch to Poland, and the country would allow for a powerful coastal navy.
2. That is indeed a problem with the design, wanted to get some input on it overall though.
3. That will help me greatly since my larger artillery pieces having been coming in nearly twice the weight they should be, being counted as 45 caliber.
4. I shall ask.
5. I thought it might be possible to make a steel ship in 1875, since the French battleship Redoutable started to use a lot of steel in its design (1872) and the Royal Navy laid down some cruisers in 1875 with all steel construction.
odds are it will come out a 1.20 or better when you open it in SS3, better ask soon on the Nation as I think they are in the process of Finalizing the Map, Id advise placing the 10" guns at deck level but it wouldnt fit with what period germans would have come up with. You ought to consider like 4X11" and a cluster bunch of 9" if thats what your aiming for.
As to OTL analogs, she's in the time frame w/ HMS Devastation and the Russian Piotr Veliky. Both were built by nations that OTL would have much more $$, industry, design, and construction experience than Poland. Granted, this is not OTL, so some of that can be waved. However, you ship is larger and more heavily armed than either, and while you state speed is not important, it's faster too with nearly the range of Devastation. I'd recommend dropping the 10". Devastation had no secondary and Piotr Veliky had 4 6" guns. Both ran around 14kts. For a nation were speed and range aren't important, I'd drop speed to 12-13kts, and cut range to 1,500-2,000nm @ 8-9kts. Your deck seems thick to me since deck hits are nearly impossible, except from plunging fire from a land battery. Since you ship is built for protection not invasion, you could most likely thin it. All these things should help you drop weight. She could be shorter to most likely and definitely thinner.
HMS Devastation (1872) Dimensions: 307' x 62'3" x 26'8" Displacement: 9,330 tons std
Piotr Veliky (1877) Dimensions: 321'6" x 62'4" x 26'3" Displacement: 10,150 tons std
nah Sachmle the deck armor isnt all that bad 2-3" in the late 1870s is fairly common.
This ship is armed and armored like some Japanese battleships of 30 years later. She's a semi-dread monitor... a bit advanced, but an interesting concept.
Uh...
I don't think you should be designing for a fleet until you get approval to play the nation...
Also, seems a little too advanced....and by little, I mean 20 years.
If we are making ships that are pretty much solely for service in the Mediterranean and Adriatic (a coastal battleship), can we make them have somewhat lower hull strength than a conventional battleship? I have a hull strength of 1.10 already, just considering dropping the hull strength to shorten the ship and have it ride lower in the water. Here is the ship in question:
Polish Battleship, Poland Battleship laid down 1870
Displacement:
6,276 t light; 6,487 t standard; 6,819 t normal; 7,085 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(328.08 ft / 328.08 ft) x 52.49 ft x (21.65 / 22.36 ft)
(100.00 m / 100.00 m) x 16.00 m x (6.60 / 6.82 m)
Armament:
4 - 13.39" / 340 mm 20.0 cal guns - 881.85lbs / 400.00kg shells, 38 per gun
Muzzle loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1870 Model
2 x 2 row twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,527 lbs / 1,600 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.45" / 240 mm 213.25 ft / 65.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: 5.91" / 150 mm 114.83 ft / 35.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.0" / 280 mm 9.45" / 240 mm -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2.95" / 75 mm
Forecastle: 1.97" / 50 mm Quarter deck: 1.97" / 50 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 7.87" / 200 mm, Aft 7.87" / 200 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 2,483 ihp / 1,852 Kw = 12.00 kts
Range 2,000nm at 8.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 598 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
374 - 487
Cost:
£0.454 million / $1.816 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 333 tons, 4.9 %
- Guns: 333 tons, 4.9 %
Armour: 2,315 tons, 34.0 %
- Belts: 1,121 tons, 16.4 %
- Armament: 397 tons, 5.8 %
- Armour Deck: 675 tons, 9.9 %
- Conning Towers: 122 tons, 1.8 %
Machinery: 608 tons, 8.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,019 tons, 44.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 543 tons, 8.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
7,837 lbs / 3,555 Kg = 9.3 x 13.4 " / 340 mm shells or 2.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.22
Metacentric height 2.7 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 13.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.57
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.09
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.640 / 0.644
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 31 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 13.12 ft / 4.00 m, 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 9.84 ft / 3.00 m, 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 8.20 ft / 2.50 m, 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 8.20 ft / 2.50 m, 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Average freeboard: 9.04 ft / 2.76 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 49.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 57.1 %
Waterplane Area: 13,073 Square feet or 1,214 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 138 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 169 lbs/sq ft or 825 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.02
- Longitudinal: 2.03
- Overall: 1.10
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Cramped accommodation and workspace room
The ship is essentially an Italia class battleship crossed with a battlecruiser. The armament is not as great as on the Italias, but the ships carry armored cruiser levels of armor in exchange to enable protection against anything up to battleship guns. If it does face a battleship it can of course flee. Such qualitative advantages are required to enable the Polish navy to choose when it wants to fight, as the Baltic is crowded with many rivals and potential enemies, creating the potential for the navy to be greatly outnumbered. I am not as familiar with the 1880s period as I am with World War I, so input on the design is greatly appreciated.
Fast Battleship, Poland Battleship laid down 1875
Displacement:
12,115 t light; 12,541 t standard; 13,587 t normal; 14,425 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(393.70 ft / 393.70 ft) x 72.18 ft x (27.89 / 29.30 ft)
(120.00 m / 120.00 m) x 22.00 m x (8.50 / 8.93 m)
Armament:
4 - 11.02" / 280 mm 35.0 cal guns - 551.16lbs / 250.00kg shells, 60 per gun
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1875 Model
2 x 2 row twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
12 - 5.91" / 150 mm 35.0 cal guns - 88.18lbs / 40.00kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1875 Model
12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 - 3.94" / 100 mm 35.0 cal guns - 25.35lbs / 11.50kg shells, 180 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1875 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,364 lbs / 1,526 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.111 t each, 0.442 t total
submerged bow tubes
2nd Torpedoes
16 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.111 t each, 1.769 t total
submerged side tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 280 mm 255.91 ft / 78.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Ends: 5.91" / 150 mm 137.80 ft / 42.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Upper: 5.91" / 150 mm 255.91 ft / 78.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13.4" / 340 mm 9.45" / 240 mm -
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm - 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2.95" / 75 mm
Forecastle: 2.95" / 75 mm Quarter deck: 2.95" / 75 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 11.02" / 280 mm, Aft 11.02" / 280 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 15,561 ihp / 11,608 Kw = 18.01 kts
Range 2,100nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,884 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
629 - 818
Cost:
£1.112 million / $4.447 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 520 tons, 3.8 %
- Guns: 516 tons, 3.8 %
- Weapons: 4 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 3,667 tons, 27.0 %
- Belts: 1,837 tons, 13.5 %
- Armament: 415 tons, 3.1 %
- Armour Deck: 1,145 tons, 8.4 %
- Conning Towers: 270 tons, 2.0 %
Machinery: 3,470 tons, 25.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,458 tons, 32.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,472 tons, 10.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
9,645 lbs / 4,375 Kg = 18.6 x 11.0 " / 280 mm shells or 19.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.41
Metacentric height 5.6 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 12.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.20
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.28
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.600 / 0.606
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.45 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.84 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 13.12 ft / 4.00 m, 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 11.48 ft / 3.50 m, 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 11.48 ft / 3.50 m, 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
- Average freeboard: 12.32 ft / 3.76 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 74.7 %
Waterplane Area: 20,785 Square feet or 1,931 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 160 lbs/sq ft or 782 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.02
- Longitudinal: 2.06
- Overall: 1.10
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Cramped accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
IMO,
- 35.0 cal guns in 1875 is too much.
Reduce to 28 is better.
- 16 submerged TT !!!
I think, too much for this new arm system.
Jef ;)
Quote from: Jefgte on September 13, 2011, 03:25:16 AM
IMO,
- 35.0 cal guns in 1875 is too much.
Reduce to 28 is better.
- 16 submerged TT !!!
I think, too much for this new arm system.
Jef ;)
28 is about just right, Im using 27.5 on my 1874 11" guns proly about the same on the 5.91"
Quote from: Jefgte on September 13, 2011, 03:25:16 AM
- 16 submerged TT !!!
I think, too much for this new arm system.
Jef ;)
I got the impression it was 4 submerged TT's with a total of 16 torpedoes. Or am I reading this wrong?
4 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.111 t each, 0.442 t total
submerged bow tubes
2nd Torpedoes
16 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.111 t each, 1.769 t total
submerged side tubes
Jef ;)
Well, 18 knots would be considered a good speed for a torpedo boat in this time period.
Most battleships would have speeds of more like 14 knots.
Reducing speed would allow for a far smaller ship with similar capabilities OR would allow for a somewhat smaller ship with greater capabilities.
Quote from: Jefgte on September 13, 2011, 09:04:06 AM
4 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.111 t each, 0.442 t total
submerged bow tubes
2nd Torpedoes
16 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.111 t each, 1.769 t total
submerged side tubes
Jef ;)
SS3.0b lists the total number of torpedoes, not tubes. Each torpedo weights 0.111t (which is WAY to light even for a 14" torp) for a total of 0.442 in the bow tube and 1.769 for the (proly) 4 side tubes (2 per side)
*looks at SS3b*
... so it does...
I would think that this would cause confusion to those who use SS2 a lot and now are going to use SS3 for N4. Best way to make it more clear is to edit the report to indicate the number of tubes that the ship has so it looks like this (if Sachmle's right about the tube layout)...
Quote4 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.111 t each, 0.442 t total
in 1 submerged bow tubes
2nd Torpedoes
16 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.111 t each, 1.769 t total
in 4 submerged side tubes
Quote from: Carthaginian on September 13, 2011, 10:27:13 AM
Well, 18 knots would be considered a good speed for a torpedo boat in this time period.
Most battleships would have speeds of more like 14 knots.
Reducing speed would allow for a far smaller ship with similar capabilities OR would allow for a somewhat smaller ship with greater capabilities.
I know that a general rule of thumb for the dreadnought era was that you had to have about three knots of a speed advantage over another ship before you would see any major benefits in maneuverability or an ability to flee if outmatched. I am not quite sure what kind of speed advantage would be needed in this era to create battlecruiser like advantages seeing as speeds and artillery ranges are much lower.
Quote from: Delta Force on September 13, 2011, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Carthaginian on September 13, 2011, 10:27:13 AM
Well, 18 knots would be considered a good speed for a torpedo boat in this time period.
Most battleships would have speeds of more like 14 knots.
Reducing speed would allow for a far smaller ship with similar capabilities OR would allow for a somewhat smaller ship with greater capabilities.
I know that a general rule of thumb for the dreadnought era was that you had to have about three knots of a speed advantage over another ship before you would see any major benefits in maneuverability or an ability to flee if outmatched. I am not quite sure what kind of speed advantage would be needed in this era to create battlecruiser like advantages seeing as speeds and artillery ranges are much lower.
I am pretty sure that the rule of thumb is not ~3 knot, but 10-15% more speed at least. So in the dreadnought era that is about three knots., but this early it means that 16kts is enough over a 14kts line.
Reducing the speed down to 16 knots allowed for a 3485 ton reduction in weight. I also decided to reclassify the ship as a frigate, as it is powerful enough to serve in the line of battle if needed, but is designed to work independently of the main fleet, similar to the old sailing frigates.
Frigate, Poland Frigate laid down 1876
Displacement:
8,630 t light; 8,975 t standard; 9,741 t normal; 10,354 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(328.08 ft / 328.08 ft) x 65.62 ft x (26.39 / 27.76 ft)
(100.00 m / 100.00 m) x 20.00 m x (8.05 / 8.46 m)
Armament:
4 - 11.02" / 280 mm 28.0 cal guns - 545.38lbs / 247.38kg shells, 60 per gun
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1876 Model
2 x 2 row twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
12 - 5.91" / 150 mm 28.0 cal guns - 83.84lbs / 38.03kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1876 Model
12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 - 3.94" / 100 mm 28.0 cal guns - 24.85lbs / 11.27kg shells, 180 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1876 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,287 lbs / 1,491 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.118 t each, 0.470 t total
submerged bow tubes
2nd Torpedoes
16 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.118 t each, 1.882 t total
submerged side tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 280 mm 213.25 ft / 65.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Ends: 5.91" / 150 mm 114.83 ft / 35.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Upper: 5.91" / 150 mm 213.25 ft / 65.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13.4" / 340 mm 9.45" / 240 mm -
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm - 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 1.97" / 50 mm
Forecastle: 1.97" / 50 mm Quarter deck: 1.97" / 50 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 11.02" / 280 mm, Aft 11.02" / 280 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 9,760 ihp / 7,281 Kw = 16.58 kts
Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,379 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
489 - 637
Cost:
£0.761 million / $3.044 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 412 tons, 4.2 %
- Guns: 407 tons, 4.2 %
- Weapons: 5 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 2,761 tons, 28.3 %
- Belts: 1,551 tons, 15.9 %
- Armament: 415 tons, 4.3 %
- Armour Deck: 578 tons, 5.9 %
- Conning Towers: 217 tons, 2.2 %
Machinery: 2,140 tons, 22.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,317 tons, 34.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,111 tons, 11.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
7,810 lbs / 3,542 Kg = 14.8 x 11.0 " / 280 mm shells or 17.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.37
Metacentric height 4.6 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 12.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.31
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.34
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.600 / 0.606
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 13.12 ft / 4.00 m, 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 11.48 ft / 3.50 m, 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 11.48 ft / 3.50 m, 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
- Average freeboard: 12.32 ft / 3.76 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 72.7 %
Waterplane Area: 15,745 Square feet or 1,463 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 114 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 154 lbs/sq ft or 751 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 2.86
- Overall: 1.10
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Cramped accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Delta,
A MUCH better ship here... vastly improved over the original. This vessel is more in line with a ship that can be built in numbers for a fleet. However, it is not a ship to be built 'in addition to a battleline'- this is a battleline ship, pure and simple!!!
To make this a 'frigate' you will need to:
1.) further sacrifice some size- frigates must be built in fairly large numbers, and a 9,000 ton ship is a large one for this time period. You're wanting to build a fleet of ships like this for independent action, so you need several- and at nearly 10,000 tons, each ship eats up about 10% of your starting tonnage.
2.) sacrifice some armor - since speed is your primary goal, drop about 30mm more belt armor, maybe even 50mm? Reducing the armor will allow you to put more weight into speed at a given tonnage, or to decrease tonnage even further.
3.) drop some torpedo tubes - rapid flooding is a primary reason for the loss of predreadnought ships, and this ship will flood very fast with 20 ready-made holes for water to run in. Reduce the number of torpedo tubes to 4 per side (or even four overall) and you'll have a more survivable ship.
Quote from: Carthaginian on September 17, 2011, 07:34:57 AM
3.) drop some torpedo tubes - rapid flooding is a primary reason for the loss of predreadnought ships, and this ship will flood very fast with 20 ready-made holes for water to run in. Reduce the number of torpedo tubes to 4 per side (or even four overall) and you'll have a more survivable ship.
The torpedo thing was discussed earlier, SS3.0b lists total torpedoes, not total tubes. So, IMO, this is 4 fish in 1 bow tube, and 4 fish per beam tube, w/ 2 per side.
Quote2 x 2 row twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
Is not a "2 row" mount when the guns are placed one on top of the other rather then side-by-side?
Also, would you not gain more from the upper belt if you moved the secondary down to the battery deck were they would benefit from the protection? It would also reduce clutter on deck, making her a smaller target.
Quote from: Korpen on September 18, 2011, 02:58:12 AM
Quote2 x 2 row twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
Is not a "2 row" mount when the guns are placed one on top of the other rather then side-by-side?
Also, would you not gain more from the upper belt if you moved the secondary down to the battery deck were they would benefit from the protection? It would also reduce clutter on deck, making her a smaller target.
I put my secondaries at deck level because I was concerned that they would be unable to fire if casemated below deck. I am not as familar with the needs of ships in the Baltic region, so my secondaries may be higher than they need to be. If they are still useful below deck it would be a great way to make the ship be less visible and better able to sneak around.
Quote from: Delta Force on September 18, 2011, 03:59:40 AM
I put my secondaries at deck level because I was concerned that they would be unable to fire if casemated below deck. I am not as familar with the needs of ships in the Baltic region, so my secondaries may be higher than they need to be. If they are still useful below deck it would be a great way to make the ship be less visible and better able to sneak around.
Sneak?? A 10 000 ton is not sneaky, especially not in the shallow waters around the Baltic sea coasts. If the casemates are wet in high sea is a bit irrelevant as pretty much no ship in the period can fight effectively in high seas.
You could also consider cutting the range in half, as 3000nm is quite allot for the Baltic sea as I think you will never be more then 300nm from a own base unless you leave the Baltic, in which case you should consider adding a rigging to the ship.
You could also consider reducing her draft as the Riga gulf is quite shallow and there is a risk that she is restricted to the dredged channels in the Ibre strait for entry and exit.
A very strong Frigate...
For France, in 1880, this ship is classed in 2nd class Battleship.
Jef
im not even sure my "battleships" will be that big in 1877...
I have managed to further reduce the weight of the ship by reducing armor thickness across the ship. The total reduction in weight is 1,230 tons, and the ship only has to worry about hits from the heaviest guns. The main belt can protect against 10 inch shells at a range of around 1,350 yards, while the upper and end belts can protect against 6 inch shells from a range of around 1,250 yards. Draught is also quite low now, at only 7.75 meters. Battleships with draughts of 8.9 meters fought and operated in Riga Gulf during World War I, so the draught should not be any problem now.
1876 Frigatev2, Poland Frigate laid down 1876
Displacement:
7,400 t light; 7,722 t standard; 8,423 t normal; 8,983 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(328.08 ft / 328.08 ft) x 59.06 ft x (25.43 / 26.81 ft)
(100.00 m / 100.00 m) x 18.00 m x (7.75 / 8.17 m)
Armament:
4 - 11.02" / 280 mm 28.0 cal guns - 551.16lbs / 250.00kg shells, 60 per gun
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1876 Model
2 x 2 row twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
12 - 5.91" / 150 mm 28.0 cal guns - 88.18lbs / 40.00kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1876 Model
12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
4 - 3.94" / 100 mm 28.0 cal guns - 24.80lbs / 11.25kg shells, 180 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1876 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,362 lbs / 1,525 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.118 t each, 0.470 t total
submerged bow tubes
2nd Torpedoes
16 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.118 t each, 1.882 t total
submerged side tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10.6" / 270 mm 203.41 ft / 62.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Ends: 4.92" / 125 mm 124.67 ft / 38.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Upper: 4.92" / 125 mm 203.41 ft / 62.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Main Belt covers 95 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.6" / 270 mm 4.92" / 125 mm -
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm - 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 1.57" / 40 mm
Forecastle: 1.57" / 40 mm Quarter deck: 1.57" / 40 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 4.92" / 125 mm, Aft 4.92" / 125 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 8,655 ihp / 6,457 Kw = 16.50 kts
Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,261 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
439 - 571
Cost:
£0.684 million / $2.736 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 412 tons, 4.9 %
- Guns: 407 tons, 4.8 %
- Weapons: 5 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 2,173 tons, 25.8 %
- Belts: 1,358 tons, 16.1 %
- Armament: 312 tons, 3.7 %
- Armour Deck: 416 tons, 4.9 %
- Conning Towers: 88 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 1,898 tons, 22.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,902 tons, 34.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,023 tons, 12.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 14 tons, 0.2 %
- Hull below water: 14 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
6,618 lbs / 3,002 Kg = 12.5 x 11.0 " / 280 mm shells or 14.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.40
Metacentric height 4.1 ft / 1.3 m
Roll period: 12.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.40
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.45
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.598 / 0.605
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.56 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 16.57 ft / 5.05 m, 13.29 ft / 4.05 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 13.29 ft / 4.05 m, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m
- Average freeboard: 12.48 ft / 3.81 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 93.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 73.8 %
Waterplane Area: 14,149 Square feet or 1,315 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 145 lbs/sq ft or 709 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 2.81
- Overall: 1.10
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Cramped accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
I've not looked over the whole thing yet, but I offer this on 1st pass. You still have the main battery set up in 2x2 row twin mounts. 2 row mounts would be with 1 barrel over the other as apposed to side-by-side. To get this, just select twin instead of 2 row twin.
Quote from: Sachmle on September 18, 2011, 11:21:50 PM
I've not looked over the whole thing yet, but I offer this on 1st pass. You still have the main battery set up in 2x2 row twin mounts. 2 row mounts would be with 1 barrel over the other as apposed to side-by-side. To get this, just select twin instead of 2 row twin.
I'm still confused on the layout, are these supposed to be beam turrets or in "A" and "Y" positions?
Quote from: eltf177 on September 19, 2011, 03:37:54 AM
Quote from: Sachmle on September 18, 2011, 11:21:50 PM
I've not looked over the whole thing yet, but I offer this on 1st pass. You still have the main battery set up in 2x2 row twin mounts. 2 row mounts would be with 1 barrel over the other as apposed to side-by-side. To get this, just select twin instead of 2 row twin.
I'm still confused on the layout, are these supposed to be beam turrets or in "A" and "Y" positions?
They are arranged diagonally. Both turrets can fire fore and aft, and both turrets can fire in broadside. Obviously there will be some blast damage from doing so, but since in theory the layout is superior to having the turrets with an inline configuration it makes sense to include it on a ship that is intended to revive the frigate as a warship type using recent technological advances.
(http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/ships/ships-china/china_chen_yuen_battleship-08590.jpg)
Is that the way you intend this ship to look?
That turret ship is a bit more... well, WORSE than the alternative layouts.
NEITHER turret can fire both guns over the bow, NEITHER turret can fire over the stern, and NEITHER turret can fire very far off the beams without causing a lot of blast damage. This ship's design doesn't have a flaw... it IS a flaw. :(
Probably something more like MAINE, with the beam turrets mounted on the port bow and right stern? Still, this means no full broadside.
Looking at this arrangement I don't see any way to get all four Main Battery guns firing in the same direction very well.
I do not know how much it matter for the Poles, but more then 8-8,5m depth and a ship cannot use Öresund but is limited to Great belt to enter or leave the Baltic Sea.
Carthaginian: An in-echelon layout is not that bad idea, given the ranges battles are fought at there is much more frequent to engage an enemy at all quarters and not only broadside. Echelon mounting the guns also allows for a shorter citadel.
Delta,
You have BOTH turrets in the same place- aft deck forward. That means that both the turrets are in the same general area on the deck, and the Chen Yuen is the ONLY one with that kind of layout. A ship like the Maine has one turret 'fore deck aft' and one turret 'aft deck forward' to indicate that the turrets are separated by a superstructure or something.
Korpen,
Yes, there are some advantages to this layout... but they are very much limited to the short citadel. Of course the short citadel is only an advantage if you create something long enough to assure that the ship's flotation remains intact as well as the magazines are protected.
Quote from: Carthaginian on September 21, 2011, 10:26:16 AM
Delta,
You have BOTH turrets in the same place- aft deck forward. That means that both the turrets are in the same general area on the deck, and the Chen Yuen is the ONLY one with that kind of layout. A ship like the Maine has one turret 'fore deck aft' and one turret 'aft deck forward' to indicate that the turrets are separated by a superstructure or something.
Err... No.
HMS Inflexible had that concentrated layout, as had Caio Duilio and the Colossus class (and that is just from the top of my head). It is USS maine that is the odd one out.
QuoteKorpen,
Yes, there are some advantages to this layout... but they are very much limited to the short citadel. Of course the short citadel is only an advantage if you create something long enough to assure that the ship's flotation remains intact as well as the magazines are protected.
The main belt and citadel it to protect the ships ability to fight and move, the protected deck (and tight compartmentation) protects the ends from significant flooding. This is not the QF-gun era.
Quote from: Korpen on September 21, 2011, 10:43:50 AM
Quote from: Carthaginian on September 21, 2011, 10:26:16 AM
Delta,
You have BOTH turrets in the same place- aft deck forward. That means that both the turrets are in the same general area on the deck, and the Chen Yuen is the ONLY one with that kind of layout. A ship like the Maine has one turret 'fore deck aft' and one turret 'aft deck forward' to indicate that the turrets are separated by a superstructure or something.
Err... No.
HMS Inflexible had that concentrated layout, as had Caio Duilio and the Colossus class (and that is just from the top of my head). It is USS maine that is the odd one out.
QuoteKorpen,
Yes, there are some advantages to this layout... but they are very much limited to the short citadel. Of course the short citadel is only an advantage if you create something long enough to assure that the ship's flotation remains intact as well as the magazines are protected.
The main belt and citadel it to protect the ships ability to fight and move, the protected deck (and tight compartmentation) protects the ends from significant flooding. This is not the QF-gun era.
Uhm... lets look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Inflexible_Diagrams_Brasseys_1888.jpg
Guns seperated by boiler rooms and the SS 'midbreak area.'
So the guns of
Inflexible ARE NOT actually on the same deck- one is fore and one is aft of the midbreak.
Colossus was just a copy of this design, with similar layout.
And another look:
http://www.cityofart.net/bship/rn_duilio_1881_armorplan.gif
Duilio is the same way- seperated by boiler rooms and the SS 'midbreak area.'
So, again, this is not in the same deck area- instead one set of guns is forward of the midbreak and another is aft.
And if the whole 'citadel' thing did not mean that watertight integrity must be preserved, then why was
Colossus regarded as inferior to the
Inflexible? I can tell you- because the
Inflexible was praised for her citadel preserving sufficient reserve buoyancy to keep the ship afloat, while
Colossus (in addition to having piss-poor maneuvering) did not have sufficient reserve buoyancy inside her citadel to preserve the ship's flotation.
To me the argument is pretty damn clear- one ship's design was regarded as superior... and the damn common sense of the matter is even clearer, so I am totally unconvinced of your 'unnecessary' remark. The safer things are, the more necessary they are.
The layout of the USS Maine is indeed what I was going for.
Here is the battleship companion to the 1876 frigate. It trades 2.5 knots of speed and four 6 inch guns for heavier armor and a smaller size.
1876 Battleship, Poland Battleship laid down 1876
Central citadel ship
Displacement:
5,950 t light; 6,218 t standard; 6,841 t normal; 7,339 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(265.75 ft / 265.75 ft) x 59.06 ft x (25.43 / 26.95 ft)
(81.00 m / 81.00 m) x 18.00 m x (7.75 / 8.21 m)
Armament:
4 - 11.02" / 280 mm 28.0 cal guns - 551.16lbs / 250.00kg shells, 60 per gun
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1876 Model
2 x Twin mounts on sides forward
8 - 5.91" / 150 mm 28.0 cal guns - 88.18lbs / 40.00kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1876 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
4 - 3.94" / 100 mm 28.0 cal guns - 24.80lbs / 11.25kg shells, 180 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1876 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,009 lbs / 1,365 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15.0" / 380 mm 172.24 ft / 52.50 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Ends: 4.92" / 125 mm 93.47 ft / 28.49 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Upper: 4.92" / 125 mm 170.60 ft / 52.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.0" / 380 mm 4.92" / 125 mm -
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm - 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 1.57" / 40 mm
Forecastle: 1.57" / 40 mm Quarter deck: 1.57" / 40 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 4.92" / 125 mm, Aft 4.92" / 125 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 4,402 ihp / 3,284 Kw = 14.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,121 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
375 - 488
Cost:
£0.493 million / $1.972 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 319 tons, 4.7 %
- Guns: 319 tons, 4.7 %
Armour: 2,233 tons, 32.6 %
- Belts: 1,441 tons, 21.1 %
- Armament: 378 tons, 5.5 %
- Armour Deck: 337 tons, 4.9 %
- Conning Towers: 76 tons, 1.1 %
Machinery: 965 tons, 14.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,432 tons, 35.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 890 tons, 13.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1 tons, 0.0 %
- Hull below water: 1 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
7,585 lbs / 3,441 Kg = 14.3 x 11.0 " / 280 mm shells or 1.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.42
Metacentric height 4.2 ft / 1.3 m
Roll period: 12.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.41
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.71
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.600 / 0.607
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.30 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 41
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 16.57 ft / 5.05 m, 13.29 ft / 4.05 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 13.29 ft / 4.05 m, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m
- Average freeboard: 12.48 ft / 3.81 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 66.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 70.1 %
Waterplane Area: 11,478 Square feet or 1,066 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 122 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 148 lbs/sq ft or 721 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 4.34
- Overall: 1.10
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Cramped accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
The armored cruiser of the 1876 program:
1876 Armored Cruiser, Poland Armored Cruiser laid down 1876
Central citadel ship
Displacement:
5,360 t light; 5,586 t standard; 6,172 t normal; 6,640 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(265.75 ft / 265.75 ft) x 59.06 ft x (22.96 / 24.39 ft)
(81.00 m / 81.00 m) x 18.00 m x (7.00 / 7.43 m)
Armament:
4 - 9.45" / 240 mm 28.0 cal guns - 343.45lbs / 155.79kg shells, 60 per gun
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1876 Model
2 x Twin mounts on sides forward
8 - 5.91" / 150 mm 28.0 cal guns - 88.18lbs / 40.00kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1876 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
4 - 3.94" / 100 mm 28.0 cal guns - 24.80lbs / 11.25kg shells, 180 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1876 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 2,179 lbs / 988 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.118 t each, 0.470 t total
submerged bow tubes
2nd Torpedoes
16 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.118 t each, 1.882 t total
submerged side tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10.6" / 270 mm 172.24 ft / 52.50 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Ends: 4.92" / 125 mm 93.47 ft / 28.49 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Upper: 4.92" / 125 mm 170.60 ft / 52.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.6" / 270 mm 4.92" / 125 mm -
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm - 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 1.57" / 40 mm
Forecastle: 1.57" / 40 mm Quarter deck: 1.57" / 40 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 4.92" / 125 mm, Aft 4.92" / 125 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 5,421 ihp / 4,044 Kw = 15.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,054 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
347 - 452
Cost:
£0.457 million / $1.827 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 267 tons, 4.3 %
- Guns: 262 tons, 4.3 %
- Weapons: 5 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 1,814 tons, 29.4 %
- Belts: 1,161 tons, 18.8 %
- Armament: 245 tons, 4.0 %
- Armour Deck: 337 tons, 5.5 %
- Conning Towers: 71 tons, 1.2 %
Machinery: 1,189 tons, 19.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,089 tons, 33.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 812 tons, 13.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1 tons, 0.0 %
- Hull below water: 1 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
6,032 lbs / 2,736 Kg = 18.1 x 9.4 " / 240 mm shells or 15.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.52
Metacentric height 4.6 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 11.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.27
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.55
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.599 / 0.607
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.30 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 16.57 ft / 5.05 m, 13.29 ft / 4.05 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 13.29 ft / 4.05 m, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m, 11.65 ft / 3.55 m
- Average freeboard: 12.48 ft / 3.81 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 75.7 %
Waterplane Area: 11,472 Square feet or 1,066 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 132 lbs/sq ft or 643 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 3.68
- Overall: 1.10
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Cramped accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
Quote from: Delta Force on September 22, 2011, 02:10:15 AM
Here is the battleship companion to the 1876 frigate. It trades 2.5 knots of speed and four 6 inch guns for heavier armor and a smaller size.
1876 Battleship, Poland Battleship laid down 1876
Central citadel ship
You have an upper belt, then there is no need to include faceplates for the casemates, that is cake on cake. Secondly; what is the function of the upper and end belts? It looks like they are too thin to protect against pretty much anything.
Quote from: Korpen on September 22, 2011, 02:40:08 AM
Quote from: Delta Force on September 22, 2011, 02:10:15 AM
Here is the battleship companion to the 1876 frigate. It trades 2.5 knots of speed and four 6 inch guns for heavier armor and a smaller size.
1876 Battleship, Poland Battleship laid down 1876
Central citadel ship
You have an upper belt, then there is no need to include faceplates for the casemates, that is cake on cake. Secondly; what is the function of the upper and end belts? It looks like they are too thin to protect against pretty much anything.
End belt isnt to bad, but I totaly agree that the upper belt is to light to be anything but useless.
Quote from: Carthaginian on September 21, 2011, 11:11:41 AM
Uhm... lets look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Inflexible_Diagrams_Brasseys_1888.jpg
Guns seperated by boiler rooms and the SS 'midbreak area.'
So the guns of Inflexible ARE NOT actually on the same deck- one is fore and one is aft of the midbreak.
Colossus was just a copy of this design, with similar layout.
SS3B is no different from earlier versions in that the midbreak point is something that is inserted by the designer. So in inflexible case both the gun turrets can be "aft deck forward" if the pint is set ahead of the first turret. As she is a flush-decker the practical impact is zero in any case. So your assumption that the midbreak point should be between the turrets are no better or worse then that it should be ahead or behind them.
QuoteAnd if the whole 'citadel' thing did not mean that watertight integrity must be preserved, then why was Colossus regarded as inferior to the Inflexible? I can tell you- because the Inflexible was praised for her citadel preserving sufficient reserve buoyancy to keep the ship afloat, while Colossus (in addition to having piss-poor maneuvering) did not have sufficient reserve buoyancy inside her citadel to preserve the ship's flotation.
Colossus was regarded as a less then ideal ship not because any innate failure as such, but due to changing perceptions as to what the ship would do.
Inflexible could also strongly be regarded as a failure, as she was largely obsolete by the time she was completed (she was also criticized by Reed among others for just the point you say she was praised for).
However that is not the point of contention here; neither ship did really have sufficient reserve buoyancy to fight with the ends completely flooded, but they were designed so that would not happen. The armoured deck protected the spaces below the waterline, and together with the very extensive subdivision watertight integrity was achieved without using of a thick armoured belt.
Quote from: Korpen on September 24, 2011, 02:16:02 AM
However that is not the point of contention here; neither ship did really have sufficient reserve buoyancy to fight with the ends completely flooded, but they were designed so that would not happen. The armoured deck protected the spaces below the waterline, and together with the very extensive subdivision watertight integrity was achieved without using of a thick armoured belt.
Strange, Korpen- you seem to contradict
every historic source on the matter- so forgive me if I go with their version of
Inflexible over yours:
"Packed with innovations, Inflexible mounted larger guns than those of any previous British warship and had the thickest armour ever to be fitted to a Royal Navy ship.
Controversially, she was designed so that if her un-armoured ends should be seriously damaged in action and become water-logged, the buoyancy of the armoured centre section of the ship would keep her afloat and upright."
Also, notice that the gentleman is specifying FORWARD and SIDE armament
in the same location for his turrets. This literally places them
side by side. If he wants them separated then he needs to put the midbreak between them PERIOD. As there is clearly a 'fore and aft' arrangement to every ship but the Chinese one I posted, this leads me to say his design is not exactly where he wants it to be.
You will never change my mind by argument, Korpen. I just don't see your opinions as going along with the information I'm reading.
Quote from: Carthaginian on September 24, 2011, 10:23:27 AM
Strange, Korpen- you seem to contradict every historic source on the matter- so forgive me if I go with their version of Inflexible over yours:
"Packed with innovations, Inflexible mounted larger guns than those of any previous British warship and had the thickest armour ever to be fitted to a Royal Navy ship. Controversially, she was designed so that if her un-armoured ends should be seriously damaged in action and become water-logged, the buoyancy of the armoured centre section of the ship would keep her afloat and upright."
True but incomplete (also re-read what is said, as sometimes you read what people write like the Devil reads the bible). "Birth of the battleship" goes into length about the debate about Inflexible. And her ends were no un-armoured, they just did not have a armoured belt.
QuoteAlso, notice that the gentleman is specifying FORWARD and SIDE armament in the same location for his turrets. This literally places them side by side. If he wants them separated then he needs to put the midbreak between them PERIOD. As there is clearly a 'fore and aft' arrangement to every ship but the Chinese one I posted, this leads me to say his design is not exactly where he wants it to be.
Here you are plain simply wrong.
The area indicated by SS is 25m long, hence the turrets can be anywhere along those 25m, and nothing say they must be in identical positions. Do not try and add assumptions about SS placement that SS itself does not have.
QuoteYou will never change my mind by argument, Korpen.
Wow, you sound like when one is discussing religion with people from Sea anemone churches.
Quote from: Korpen on September 24, 2011, 12:07:44 PM
True but incomplete (also re-read what is said, as sometimes you read what people write like the Devil reads the bible). "Birth of the battleship" goes into length about the debate about Inflexible. And her ends were no un-armoured, they just did not have a armoured belt.
Tow-may-tow, tah-mah-toe... same thing in the long run- and the same terminology used by hundreds of writes besides myself, Korpen. Go complain to them if you have an issue with the semantics; I just repeat the evidence correlated by experts- I will admit that I am not an expert in naval engineering.
I also know that you are not either... we're both just enthusiasts who read the same thing differently.
Quote from: Korpen on September 24, 2011, 12:07:44 PM
Here you are plain simply wrong.
The area indicated by SS is 25m long, hence the turrets can be anywhere along those 25m, and nothing say they must be in identical positions. Do not try and add assumptions about SS placement that SS itself does not have.
Uhm... SS assumes they will be placed ON THE SIDES, FORWARD OF THE MIDBREAK.
Please look
AGAIN at the drawing I posted. This vessel shows EXACTLY that layout... and he says this is not what he's going for. He then indicates the vessels I posted afterwards- vessels which clearly do NOT have that layout.
Quote from: Korpen on September 24, 2011, 12:07:44 PM
QuoteYou will never change my mind by argument, Korpen.
Wow, you sound like when one is discussing religion with people from Sea anemone churches.
When you spend all day trying to keep idiot doctors (who like to forget they are on call and go out drinking) from killing your patients, you get really good at arguing. ;) It's a professional skill.
Arguing about religion is something I really do precious little of... I've never seen a religion that explained anything better than mine, so there's little to argue about. 8)
Mater.
Quote from: Carthaginian on September 24, 2011, 10:25:59 PM
Tow-may-tow, tah-mah-toe... same thing in the long run- and the same terminology used by hundreds of writes besides myself, Korpen. Go complain to them if you have an issue with the semantics; I just repeat the evidence correlated by experts- I will admit that I am not an expert in naval engineering.
I have no problem with sources, but it is a problem when you use limited explanations in sources to give a slanted and limited picture of the subject.
QuoteUhm... SS assumes they will be placed ON THE SIDES, FORWARD OF THE MIDBREAK.
On a flush-deck ship "midbreak" can be anywhere, and no one can say one is more correct then the other.
Exactly which picture are you referring to (as a bunch have been posted)?
QuoteWhen you spend all day trying to keep idiot doctors (who like to forget they are on call and go out drinking) from killing your patients, you get really good at arguing. It's a professional skill.
If that is so, how come you can do it, as you are not exactly good at it?
Quote from: Korpen on September 26, 2011, 01:46:22 PM
On a flush-deck ship "midbreak" can be anywhere, and no one can say one is more correct then the other.
Korpen:
There is only ONE midbreak on a ship. As the midbreak on
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE SHIPS POSTED BY DELTA is positioned EXACTLY AT THE 50% mark, then we know exactly where the fucking thing is. It's not ANYWHERE...
it's precisely at the exact spot where it is.
Technobabble
that away, if you can.
Now, working from THAT, we have a VERY CLEAR picture of how the ship looks-
both the turrets are on the side ON THE FORE HALF OF THE SHIP. They are NOT placed like the turrets on the
Inflexible, the
Duilio or the
Colossus- they are placed like the guns on the
Chen Yuen, with both guns forward of the halfway point of the ship, of the sides of the forward deck.
If you were looking at the Springsharps instead of trying to argue me into a corner, then you'd be a lot better off... arguing without a clear picture is a bad thing.
Quote from: Korpen on September 26, 2011, 01:46:22 PMExactly which picture are you referring to (as a bunch have been posted)?
Just read- I have no time for your inattentiveness.
Quote from: Korpen on September 26, 2011, 01:46:22 PMIf that is so, how come you can do it, as you are not exactly good at it?
How come you insist that guns can be anywhere they want to in relation to the midbreak, when in reality, they are placed in a static spot? And how come you say the midbreak can be anywhere it wants to be, when it is a fixed point on the ship?
Damn, Korpen- did you even LOOK at the Springsharps before arguing?