Commentary requested

[Valles]

I know that the protective scheme (100mm full hull above the waterline, 300+mm internal main belt) and internal compartmentalization is likely way over the top; I'm looking for input on how much so. Also, do the raised turrets count as such for Springsharp purposes, or are they low enough to be effectively deck level?

a - drive motors
b - magazines
c - generator rooms
d - low-pressure turbines
e - boiler rooms
f - electrical bus rooms
g - high-pressure turbines

[Borys]

Ahoj!
I don't mind the 4" coverage of the hull. That protects you from the umbiquitous 6" secondaries.

As to the internal belt - I simply don't like them. As to their use c.1912 in a quasi-earth, I will leave the comments to others.

I believe that the turrets are indeed superfiring=elevated in SS terms - at least two of them.
They are "above freeboard".

Borys

[Korpen]

I know that the protective scheme (100mm full hull above the waterline, 300+mm internal main belt) and internal compartmentalization is likely way over the top; I'm looking for input on how much so.

First of all i question the purpose of having an internal belt, after all, one of the primary functions of a belt is to protect the watertight integrity of the ship. Going by the positioning of the belt in the picture, it seems likely that the ship could be crippled without a shell ever reaching the vitals simply by shells flooding the hull outside the belt and the torpedo defence areas. At longer ranges there is also a risk of shells falling steeply enough to pass beneath the belt despite hitting at the waterline.

Also, do the raised turrets count as such for Springsharp purposes, or are they low enough to be effectively deck level?

Without doubt they are raised. In general my opinion is that if a gun is in a superfiring position, it should so be entered in Springsharp.
Exceptions might be possible, but I for one would like to see some very good motivations for it in those cases. Basically, if you want the capability, you pay the weight for it (imo). :)

[P3D]

Making those large holes in the weather deck makes weak points, requiring strengthening elsewhere. And even the deck lower is not continuous. Besides structurally weak (ver), it also makes the life of sailors more difficult when they try to move around.

The internal subdivision is yes, excessive.

[Sachmle]

Without sounding to much like a broken record.... B & X turret are certainly raised, even if A & Y are below main deck level (Which is, IMO, a bad idea. Water in MB + enemy ship = dead ship) Internal belt, not yet, and as Korpen pointed out, useless in this situation.

[Valles]

'In character', the lowered turrets are an effort to save weight on all of the barbettes while lowering center of gravity. If that doesn't affect the Springsharp then, oh well, I guess it didn't work quite as well as they'd hoped. Also, it lets me lower the superstructure a story or so, which fits better with the 'look' I'm trying for.

The depressions around them are, though this view doesn't really show it, equipped with a fairly impressive array of drainage chutes, hopefully enough to drain a completely filled one in the space of only a few seconds.

Would a kind of wooden or otherwise lightweight rotating 'weather cover' be possible?

And even the deck lower is not continuous. Besides structurally weak (ver), it also makes the life of sailors more difficult when they try to move around.

Um, yes the decks are continuous? Or at least it's no more blocked off than any warship's interior is going to be. The top deck does divide to either side of the depressions, and its headroom gets a little iffy, but otherwise it's uninterrupted...

Going with an internal main belt is intended to serve two purposes - first, it lets the outer hull serve as a decapping layer for incoming heavy shells, and second, it keeps the main belt safely out of sight and away from casual inspection by outsiders. Moving it outboard a bit would be quite possible, though.

Excessive subdivision of the engine spaces... well, how many compartments would be appropriate for what's intended as an extremely damage-resistant design? Should the bus rooms be next to the generators? Have I got the balance of turbines and boilers roughly right?

[Desertfox]

You could sim the other main turrets as "below freeboard".

[Valles]

Springsharp doesn't allow that with full turrets, alas.

Oh! And, any views on the slanting triple bottom? That was the part of the design that I was least certain about, personally.

[P3D]

Is that slanting triple bottom??? It leaves not enough volume for the machinery which must be placed atop it. Nevermind that without the weight of the engines deep in the ship might just capsize getting in the water on launch, even before the turrets are installed.

The weather deck has three huge 60' diameter hole and two smaller ones in it wherever there's a turret. It would require significant additional structural strengthening at those turrets.
The deck below is not continuous either, those steps at the turrets are a big NO in  engineering for stress-bearing structures. If you really insist, I might make an FEM model to prove myself but do not want to waste my time on it.

The only ship that was purposefully designed for decapping was the Littorio class. Shell hits would still flood the TDS, and can get to the magazines below the main belt. This is the biggest problem with internal belts. A hit that gets the outer belt at 20* angle of fall (some heavy projectile at ~18000y) at the waterline, with 16' TDS needs a belt extending 6.5' to catch the shell at 0* TA. At 30* TA the belt needs another foot. If you want to defend against underwater belt hits (say waves+light ship exposes some more) you have to extend belt even more (another 4-5' to count for everything including list) .

Also, repairing the ship would take longer.

And as it was expressed, the turrets are superfiring, so the SS must say so.

[Jefgte]

I globaly agree with all comments:

- Superfiring turrets for SS
- too much internal division
- deck discontinued is not good for mechanical resistance of the hull
- Internal belt difficult to repair
- You have not enough place for boilers, turbines & other engines with a "V" triple bottom.
...


Jef  ;)

[Valles]

Changes -

- Decapping layer removed; armor scheme clarified in end-view.
- Bottom structure altered
- Barbettes, trunking, conning tower 'grayed out' belowdecks to remove inaccurate impression of bulkheads.
- Turret wells altered to fit deck structure better; retained in this draft because I found the earlier versions with 'full height' turrets to be rather unattractive - too top-heavy for my eye.
- Engine compartmentation untouched pending clarification of proper levels for such

[Valles]

Revised internal arrangement.

*crickets chirp*

[Sachmle]

While I admittedly don't know much about how the internals of ships are layed out I would presume that all the turbines would be aft of the boilers and that the electrical bus rooms would be closer to the generators to limit voltage drop by shortening the wiring. I also think you'd have trouble getting all those boilers vented to the stacks, especially the ones farthest away and to the outside.

[Valles]

In an electric-motor design, I don't see any real reason why the turbines need to be aft of the boilers, as long as they're next to the generators. The widely seperated generators and bus rooms have been fixed in the latest draft - noted that the busses, f, are between the generators, c.

...and excuse me, I need to go kick myself. I'd put the boilers where they are in that draft because having them towards the ends would be even worse... but why have all the turbines in the same place? Be right back...

Right, next version!

[Sachmle]

I can't translate Russian, but here's a layout of engine machinery I found.

http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/5/Draw/09.jpg