Another blast from the past: CSA Oklahoma Class (1910)

[Guinness]

I decided to go ahead and illustrate the Oklahomas too, which was a challenge, as the hull is actually pretty small, and the arcs of fire of the main guns take up a lot of deck space.

While I was at it, I fixed the SS, which didn't originally use CSA weights for the secondary armament ammunition.


(Click for full-sized image)

CSS Oklahoma, CSA Battleship laid down 1910 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   18,500 t light; 19,650 t standard; 20,601 t normal; 21,362 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   500.00 ft / 500.00 ft x 90.00 ft x 24.50 ft (normal load)
   152.40 m / 152.40 m x 27.43 m  x 7.47 m

Armament:
      8 - 13.50" / 343 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,500.00lbs / 680.39kg shells, 1910 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
     Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
      10 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns in single mounts, 75.00lbs / 34.02kg shells, 1910 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all amidships
     10 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
      10 - 2.25" / 57.2 mm guns in single mounts, 6.00lbs / 2.72kg shells, 1910 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
      8 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1910 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      12 - 3.50" / 88.9 mm guns in single mounts, 20.00lbs / 9.07kg shells, 1910 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
     12 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
   Weight of broadside 13,054 lbs / 5,921 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   350.00 ft / 106.68 m   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   150.00 ft / 45.72 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Upper:   6.00" / 152 mm   200.00 ft / 60.96 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   4.00" / 102 mm      12.0" / 305 mm
   2nd:   6.00" / 152 mm   4.00" / 102 mm      4.00" / 102 mm
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -
   4th:   0.50" / 13 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.50" / 64 mm, Conning tower: 13.00" / 330 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 26,000 shp / 19,396 Kw = 20.18 kts
   Range 6,400nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,712 tons

Complement:
   859 - 1,117

Cost:
   £1.967 million / $7.868 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,374 tons, 6.7 %
   Armour: 7,749 tons, 37.6 %
      - Belts: 3,951 tons, 19.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,987 tons, 9.6 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,600 tons, 7.8 %
      - Conning Tower: 210 tons, 1.0 %
   Machinery: 1,182 tons, 5.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,743 tons, 37.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,101 tons, 10.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 452 tons, 2.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     26,117 lbs / 11,847 Kg = 21.2 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 3.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
   Metacentric height 4.9 ft / 1.5 m
   Roll period: 17.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.71
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.24

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.654
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.56 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22.36 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
   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:      25.00 ft / 7.62 m
      - Forecastle (15 %):   20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Mid (50 %):      20.00 ft / 6.10 m (12.00 ft / 3.66 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
      - Stern:      12.00 ft / 3.66 m
      - Average freeboard:   16.30 ft / 4.97 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 72.0 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 122.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 34,599 Square feet or 3,214 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 171 lbs/sq ft or 837 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.94
      - Longitudinal: 1.67
      - 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

Misc weight:
250t: Fire Control
25t: Long Range Marconi
10t: Short Range Marconi
50t: Flag Facilities
117t: Reserve

[Carthaginian]

Amazing work, Guinness... If only I could have done so well.

And yeah, everything was packed in very, very tightly. I had to get a lot of mileage out of that tonnage, and so the 'comfort zone' for the guys on the anti-TB guns suffered greatly. Major building programs often produce flawed product, and the fact that the Okies wound up so cramped on deck was the result here. Everything fits comfortably 'on paper'... but anyone in the military knows how well THAT works out!

[Guinness]

Their topsides probably aren't all that much more crowded than early German battlecruisers, or any APQX layout ship, really.

It was a challenge to find room for all the 6 pounders though. One of the reasons they were dropped from later designs (both IC and OOC).

I like out they came out though. You can clearly see why Confederate designers would have turned to a 3x3 turret layout in the next class. It has significant packaging advantages.

And I can also say I'm pleasantly surprised by how happy I am with the more RN style tripod foremast. Stack gasses in both masts are both still likely to be a problem, even with the clinker hoods on the stocks.

[mentat]

Going back to the original design (not the great drawing) - why was P selected to be rearward facing - this reduces the forward arcs on that turret and gives 3 of 4 turrets rearward facing - what kind of message is that intended to give? - let alone what the crew thought

Sorry if this query seems impolite (not my intention under any circumstances) - but I am puzzled .... 

[Guinness]

SS doesn't dictate that P face forward or rearward. I considered turning it around in the illustration, but decided to leave it facing rearward because I wanted to make sure I left enough room forward and aft of P's barbette for boiler rooms. The distance between P's barbette and Q's barbette is almost exactly the same as the distance from P's barbette and the downtube from the conning tower now. If I'd turned P around, the best way it worked was if I put it back to back with Q, leaving one large contiguous boiler space. Later Confederate designs have a similar large expanse of boiler and machinery, but I felt that a bad idea in this ship, which has no TDS. There was also the matter of where to put the mainmast. With P and Q back to back, the best place for it would have been between Q and X, leaving Q more wooded aft.

As far as arcs are concerned, I didn't publish the arc rendering for this ship, but I did do one, and P and Q both can fire 60 degrees forward of each beam. P's total firing arc is 240 degrees, Q's is 300 degrees. If I'd put P and Q back to back, I don't think P would have had any greater arc, because of the needs for superstructure and boats, the 6 pounder battery, etc.

As far as how the crew feels or what message this sends: an interesting question. Through the New Mexicos, having the majority of guns facing aft when stowed on CSA BBs was a common, even traditional arrangement. I'm sure the Colombians likely find some humor in it.

At any rate, as more recent designs show, the CSA's designers have embraced the A(B)(X)Y arrangement with glee, so the more idiosyncratic ships will one day be a memory. And at least they may look a little weird, but they aren't ugly, like French ships :)

[Carthaginian]

Mentat,
I originally drew the Okie. Guinness covered a lot of the reasons in his post; I'll elaborate...

P was selected to face to the rear to minimize the elevated part of the hull.
If P had faced rearward, then it would have necessitated 60'+ more hull at 20' above the waterline, and thus created a weaker overall hull. As it was drawn, P turret's placement allowed for a stronger hull and created a much more powerful vessel overall on a lighter hull.

Also, the placement was dictated by the boiler/engine room layout. This layout gave a more 'realistic' amount of room between the magazines for the equipment spaces. Placing P turret facing forward would have made that a bit more awkward (to my eyes, anyway) and thus the turrets are the way they are.

Finally, it just plain 'looked right' to do it that way- and the 'pleasing to the eye' factor did have a little to do with it. As it is, there is no difference in the firing arcs of a forward versus rear facing turret in that position, so I decided to go with what 'looked right.' For what it's worth, I did toy with a forward-facing P turret, but didn't like the look of it. Truthfully, I wanted Confederate BB's to maintain a 'strange' layout as long as it didn't interfere with their functionality- after all, what use is our own little world if we don't build our own ships? ;D

[mentat]

Lol - sorry guys - if I had realised yur tech. - boiler placement/lack of TDS complications and just how much thought and effort went into the arrangement I wouldn't have opened my trap - honest

(although I was beginning to wonder about her speed in reverse - only kidding  ;))

I imagine everyone is relieved at the shift to A (B) (X) Y  -  phew ........


On reflection and on a broader note - given Pre Dreads were overwhelmingly:   A     Y

Why did it take so long (apart from USS Michigan!) for Dreads to settle down       to A (B) (X) Y  ??

- the designers had no sense of anatomy??