Iberian AC 10 year rebuild

[miketr]

Assumng that Iberia's AC's live out the war... they will be rebuilt down the line.  While not perfect designs I think these reconstructions will be worth it for secondary areas.   It boils down to all new engines that tripple the SHP, more deck armor, some extra casement armor plus support stuff such as radio's and modern FC.

Michael

Difference in displacements

1904 Base
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 642 tons, 5.1 %
   Armour: 3,561 tons, 28.0 %
      - Belts: 1,720 tons, 13.5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,122 tons, 8.8 %
      - Armour Deck: 602 tons, 4.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 117 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 1,657 tons, 13.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,432 tons, 34.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,416 tons, 19.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 2 tons, 0.0 %

1914 rebuild
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 642 tons, 4.2 %
   Armour: 4,345 tons, 28.3 %
      - Belts: 1,729 tons, 11.3 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,159 tons, 7.6 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,323 tons, 8.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 133 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 2,506 tons, 16.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,146 tons, 33.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,322 tons, 15.1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 369 tons, 2.4 %

Scrap old Engine Machinery, 4,432 tons = 664.8 tons

New Material between 1904 and 1914

Distribution of weights: 4,310 tons
   Armament: 0
   Armour:
      - Belts: 9 tons
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0
      - Armament: 0
      - Armour Deck: 721 tons,
      - Conning Tower: 0
   Machinery: 2,506 tons,
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 714 tons
   Miscellaneous weights: 367 tons

AC-1904, Iberia Armored Cruiser laid down 1904 (Engine 1912)

Displacement:
   13,007 t light; 13,778 t standard; 15,330 t normal; 16,571 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   560.00 ft / 560.00 ft x 61.00 ft (Bulges 67.00 ft) x 26.00 ft (normal load)
   170.69 m / 170.69 m x 18.59 m (Bulges 20.42 m)  x 7.92 m

Armament:
      4 - 9.84" / 250 mm guns (2x2 guns), 476.75lbs / 216.25kg shells, 1904 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      4 - 9.84" / 250 mm guns (2x2 guns), 476.75lbs / 216.25kg shells, 1904 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on side, all amidships
      12 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1904 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
      6 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1904 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
      6 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1904 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 5,136 lbs / 2,330 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   8.00" / 203 mm   331.50 ft / 101.04 m   9.14 ft / 2.79 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   178.48 ft / 54.40 m   9.14 ft / 2.79 m
     50.02 ft / 15.25 m Unarmoured ends
   Upper:   4.00" / 102 mm   331.50 ft / 101.04 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 91 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   8.00" / 203 mm      8.00" / 203 mm
   2nd:   10.0" / 254 mm   8.00" / 203 mm      8.00" / 203 mm
   3rd:   2.00" / 51 mm   2.00" / 51 mm            -
   4th:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -
   5th:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 10.00" / 254 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 60,000 shp / 44,760 Kw = 27.08 kts
   Range 13,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,792 tons (50% coal)

Complement:
   688 - 895

Cost:
   £1.345 million / $5.382 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 642 tons, 4.2 %
   Armour: 4,345 tons, 28.3 %
      - Belts: 1,729 tons, 11.3 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,159 tons, 7.6 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,323 tons, 8.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 133 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 2,506 tons, 16.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,146 tons, 33.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,322 tons, 15.1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 369 tons, 2.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     15,816 lbs / 7,174 Kg = 33.2 x 9.8 " / 250 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 2.8 ft / 0.9 m
   Roll period: 16.7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.62
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.550
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.36 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23.66 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
   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:      23.00 ft / 7.01 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Mid (50 %):      17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Stern:      16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Average freeboard:   17.43 ft / 5.31 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 88.6 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 102.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 23,840 Square feet or 2,215 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 103 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 130 lbs/sq ft or 634 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 1.40
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate

BB FC 250 tons, Large Radio 25 tons, four 21" torps and 8 reloads 24 tons and 70 tons construction reserve

[miketr]

A question... 700 tons (0.7 bp) looks like to account for the extra 50 feet of length and 6 feet of beam....   Let me check something real quick...

[miketr]

OK... if I keep the SHP of the 1904 base design the same... but put in the new beam and length....

I get the following...  About another 1500 tons of hull and fittings.  Also I just noticed that I had the machinery wrong from the old weight...  OK let me refigure

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 642 tons, 4.2 %
   Armour: 3,646 tons, 23.8 %
      - Belts: 1,729 tons, 11.3 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,122 tons, 7.3 %
      - Armour Deck: 662 tons, 4.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 133 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 1,667 tons, 10.9 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,679 tons, 43.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,694 tons, 17.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 2 tons, 0.0 %

[miketr]

Final Rebuild Cost

Old Hull
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,432 tons

Extra 50' and 3' bulges on each side
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,679 tons

= 2247 tons

      - Belts: 9 tons
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0
      - Armament: 0
      - Armour Deck: 721 tons,
      - Conning Tower: 0
   Machinery: 2,506 tons,
   Miscellaneous weights: 367 tons

= 5,850 tons

Scrap the old machinery, 1,657  = 248.55

= NET 5602 tons

Base Hull, 10301 tons light = $2.57 & 1.03 BP (25% cost of cash and 10% cost of BP of base ship)

Grand Total = $8.1 + 6.63 BP per ship (time to finish 1 year)

A question did I do the calculation correctly for cost?

Michael

[P3D]

Looks fine. Although the bulging won't help you much without armored bulkheads - splinters would be stopped only by the machinery.

[miketr]

Looks fine. Although the bulging won't help you much without armored bulkheads - splinters would be stopped only by the machinery.

With ww2 warheads... sure...  WW1 warheads I not worried.  Also how would you simulate that and I can't think of ww1 historic example that put armor on the bulges, the idea was for the warhead to waste itself on the bulge and the water barrier.

Michel

[P3D]

Looks fine. Although the bulging won't help you much without armored bulkheads - splinters would be stopped only by the machinery.

With ww2 warheads... sure...  WW1 warheads I not worried.  Also how would you simulate that and I can't think of ww1 historic example that put armor on the bulges, the idea was for the warhead to waste itself on the bulge and the water barrier.

Michel

Dunno. Germany for WWI warheads prescribed ~4m distance of the reinforced bulkhead from the hull side. You do not have any reinforcement here , and small holes would still flood whatever spaces you'd like to keep dry.

[miketr]

Looking at historic torpedo hits in WW1 the warheads just didn't have enough force to breach the hull after blowing the bulge.  The Bulge was blown open and the hull intact behind it from what I read.  Also even if you have leaks its far different than a direct hit against the hull.  30 foot hull vs. fist sized holes that the jumps can attempt to deal with.   

Its, VERY possible that the bulge I am using here doesn't provide enough depth, I don't know as I lack info on how big to make the bulge.  I went with increasing the beam by 10%. 

I am willing to make changes as long as we have a hard rule to use.

Michael 

[The Rock Doctor]

I think I'd skip bulges/torpedo bulkheads on a cruiser of this size.  What can you do with the class if you don't lengthen her, and don't add bulges?

[miketr]

If I put more powerful engines in the stability goes to hell, let alone seakeeping and steadiness.

Michael

[P3D]

Szent Istvan had 2.5m between the coal bunker bulkheads and the hull - the ship sunk,  it must be definitely deeper. No Revenge class got mined/torpedoes after fitted with bulges afaik.
So 3' won't have any meaningful effect besides improving stability.

The lengthened hull plays hell with the armored deck length too. And how do you thicken it - by adding another layer of armor, or replacing the old one?

You are paying 60% the BP of the original ships. Build a new fast ship for the cost of upgrading two existing ones.

[Sachmle]

Szent Istvan had 2.5m between the coal bunker bulkheads and the hull - the ship sunk,  it must be definitely deeper.

But one must remember, most of the crew was asleep when the attack started and she had one hell of a mess when it came to her watertight doors below decks. Combined w/ what I believe were some terrible shipbuilding faults caused by her being built in Fiume at Danubius (Which had never built anything larger then a destroyer prior to Szent Istvan) and it was a recipe for disaster. What was the distance between bulkheads on Barham?

[miketr]

Szent Istvan had 2.5m between the coal bunker bulkheads and the hull - the ship sunk,  it must be definitely deeper. No Revenge class got mined/torpedoes after fitted with bulges afaik.

No BB with a bulge got hit to my knoweldge, several cruisers and coastal monitors did though.   As to the AH BB... she sank because of poor quality control, she was noteworthy for the KuK as a bad ship.  HMS Audacious sank because of progressive flooding and SMS Lutzow the same.  Ships of this time period are going to have problems with underwater damage, I am going to try to improve the chances is all.

So 3' won't have any meaningful effect besides improving stability.

I am all ears for a number / rule to follow then.

The lengthened hull plays hell with the armored deck length too. And how do you thicken it - by adding another layer of armor, or replacing the old one?

Strap on armor, lots of examples of ships being rebuilt with extra deck armor being worked in.  The area of the bow thats being lengthened would get all new deck armor of course.  I am paying the difference between the two armor weight amounts and that 10% rebuild cost so I think it will be fine.  Its a major reconstruction of the ship.

You are paying 60% the BP of the original ships. Build a new fast ship for the cost of upgrading two existing ones.

If I had more BP's I would...  I need to make my four 250mm AC's more effective, the battle with Yuvaz has shown the problems they will have vs. newer and more heavily armored designs.  I have no choice.  I need numbers pure and simple.  Odds are I won't have the spare BP's to redo them till 1916 anyways but we will have to see.

Michael

[Sachmle]

No BB with a bulge got hit to my knoweldge, several cruisers and coastal monitors did though.

Well, Pennsylvania got torpedoed, and she had bulges, but she got hit in the stern, so it doesn't really count for this conversation.

As to the AH BB... she sank because of poor quality control, she was noteworthy for the KuK as a bad ship.

Michael

Correct, she was a terribly bad built ship of a terrible badly designed class of ships.

[miketr]

Saint Stephen was built in a new yard so the Hungarians could build BB's.  Internal politcs of A-H, Budapest wouldn't vote the money for the ships unless a Hungarian yard got some of the orders.  The minor detail that there wasn't one capable of building such a ship was ignored.  So you had a brand new yard attempting to go straight to a DN... The result had issues


Michael