Orange mini Battleship design competition

[maddox]

There are a few things that influence seakeeping.

Freeboard as most influential
Draught
Block coefficient.

[Walter]

I wondered how you managed to make the ship that small Desertfox, but without torpedo bulkhead and only 3 inches of deck its not that surprising.

It's a Swiss design so with torpedoes you can turn that design into Swiss cheese. :)

Walter I obviously meant all 6" guns are 2nd and all 5" guns are 3rd battery ^^

Not according to Spring Sharp. *runs away* :D

Any suggestions how to increase seakeeping?

Pretty much that what Maddox said. Normally you can also mess around with the length (increase) and beam (decrease), but IIRC that only works when your speed is greater than the "'Natural speed' for length".

[Nobody]

Trying to combine a 1.2 seaboat rating with 1.1 stability, I ended up rather with a rather big ship although I already reduced ammunition supply to 120 shells per gun and sacrificed a tiny bit of speed.
I wanted to use Korpens design as a base (good seaboat and small) but it didn't really help.

Any Errors in this one? Ideas how to improve it or to make it smaller? Reducing range doesn't help much (10% less range saves only 300 tons). I would like to keep the thick armor though.


mini B5, Orange Battleship laid down 1916

Displacement:
   27.802 t light; 29.676 t standard; 31.976 t normal; 33.815 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   557,74 ft / 557,74 ft x 100,07 ft x 31,33 ft (normal load)
   170,00 m / 170,00 m x 30,50 m  x 9,55 m

Armament:
      8 - 16,00" / 406 mm guns (2x4 guns), 2.116,44lbs / 960,00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      4 - 6,00" / 152 mm guns (2x2 guns), 105,82lbs / 48,00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      8 - 6,00" / 152 mm guns (4x2 guns), 105,82lbs / 48,00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on side, all amidships
      6 - 3,00" / 76,2 mm guns in single mounts, 13,23lbs / 6,00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 18.281 lbs / 8.292 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13,8" / 350 mm   354,33 ft / 108,00 m   16,40 ft / 5,00 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 98% of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1,97" / 50 mm   354,33 ft / 108,00 m   34,45 ft / 10,50 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   15,0" / 380 mm   8,66" / 220 mm      14,2" / 360 mm
   2nd:   5,91" / 150 mm   3,94" / 100 mm      5,91" / 150 mm
   3rd:   5,91" / 150 mm   3,94" / 100 mm      5,91" / 150 mm

   - Armour deck: 3,94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 14,96" / 380 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 58.925 shp / 43.958 Kw = 23,50 kts
   Range 6.720nm at 15,00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 4.140 tons

Complement:
   1.195 - 1.554

Cost:
   £5,147 million / $20,588 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2.220 tons, 6,9%
   Armour: 10.691 tons, 33,4%
      - Belts: 3.594 tons, 11,2%
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 889 tons, 2,8%
      - Armament: 2.797 tons, 8,7%
      - Armour Deck: 3.086 tons, 9,6%
      - Conning Tower: 325 tons, 1,0%
   Machinery: 2.195 tons, 6,9%
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 12.244 tons, 38,3%
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4.174 tons, 13,1%
   Miscellaneous weights: 452 tons, 1,4%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     38.547 lbs / 17.485 Kg = 18,8 x 16,0 " / 406 mm shells or 6,2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
   Metacentric height 6,0 ft / 1,8 m
   Roll period: 17,2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 59 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,73
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,20

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0,640
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5,57 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23,62 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
   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:      26,25 ft / 8,00 m
      - Forecastle (20%):   22,31 ft / 6,80 m
      - Mid (60%):      19,69 ft / 6,00 m
      - Quarterdeck (15%):   19,69 ft / 6,00 m
      - Stern:      22,31 ft / 6,80 m
      - Average freeboard:   21,25 ft / 6,48 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96,1%
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 138,4%
   Waterplane Area: 42.363 Square feet or 3.936 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 96%
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 209 lbs/sq ft or 1.018 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,91
      - Longitudinal: 2,20
      - Overall: 1,00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[Desertfox]

I wondered how you managed to make the ship that small Desertfox, but without torpedo bulkhead and only 3 inches of deck its not that surprising.

Protection is overrated...

Besides Swiss ships are known to handle underwater damage really well. Constitution has taken, I think 5 torpedoes over her life, and Alliance fought (and won) a battle while returning home due to mine damage. That being said, a 16" belt is overkill, so by reducing that belt armor, deck armor can be improved and maybe a thin (thick ones are actually detrimental) torpedo bulkhead added. What does OR think are adequate guidelines as far as armor goes?

[Valles]

Protection is overrated...

I look forward to the day this gets tested.

A sixteen-inch thick belt is, I have been advised by the mods, not technologically practicable at this time in the game. A sixteen-foot deep one would line up very nicely to cover two complete decks, which I consider to be both perfectly reasonable and, in fact, rather wise.

The listed thicknesses of at least Maori torpedo defense systems are aggregate, not unitary - the system designed for Cross Mirage and her successors calls for three seperate 1" bulkheads, each behind its own system of air and fluid voids - and I confidently expect them to be considerably more than just three times as effective as a single 1" bulkhead.

[maddox]

Even now, making a case hardened plate with 16" thickness and controlled hardness is more than difficult.

[Nobody]

Even now, making a case hardened plate with 16" thickness and controlled hardness is more than difficult.

I don't think that this type of armor is still produced nowadays.

A sixteen-inch thick belt is, I have been advised by the mods, not technologically practicable at this time in the game. A sixteen-foot deep one would line up very nicely to cover two complete decks, which I consider to be both perfectly reasonable and, in fact, rather wise.

Really? I once read that the skill to produce thick face-hard armor was lost (at least in the USA) in the 1920s when no such plates were produced.
Also Pennsylvania-class (1913) had 18 inches of turret armor and the 1890 Weißenburg and Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm had a 16 inch face hardened belt.

Obviously I don't want my armor to be rated down because it's too thick, but a 350/14" belt was normal, 380 mm/15" as belt and more for smaller areas like turrets/barbettes shouldn't be a problem.

That being said, a 16" belt is overkill, so by reducing that belt armor, deck armor can be improved and maybe a thin (thick ones are actually detrimental) torpedo bulkhead added. What does OR think are adequate guidelines as far as armor goes?

Well the ship is too slow to run away so its armor has to be good. Also all-or-noting armor concept means there is no slooped deck behind the belt (only the torpedo bulkhead).
I would like to have a 4 to 5 m wide belt (depending on freeboard and speed) that is at least 350 mm/14" thick preferable more (I don't think your 16" are overkill).
Most designs hat 90+ mm of deck so far, does someone know whether this is enough to resist a 15" shell (eg French) at 25 km? If not, how much would be needed?
I would expect a torpedo bulkhead between 40 and 80 mm thick. 50 mm/2" should be sufficient though.

And of course I'm dreaming, there is now way to fit all that armor in a 23 knot hull with less than 30 kt ;) which is why I'm interested how others balance their designs.

EDIT
I just made some calculations against it's own guns (16"/40). A
16" belt would be save above 15 km
15" belt above 17 km
14" belt above 20 km

Any deck is save below 12 km because of flat trajectory and even a 4" deck would only be save below 16 km

In other word the immunity zone is zero which means I either made made a few mistakes, the gun is damn good or the armor really poor.

[maddox]

Even now, making a case hardened plate with 16" thickness and controlled hardness is more than difficult.

I don't think that this type of armor is still produced nowadays.

Not in armor version, but such castings are still made for petrochemical reactors that work on very high pressure and temperatures.
Also, trying to forge a 1.2m/4ft diameter axle for a 150 000 Kw steam turbine with the right homogenious metal structure is not easy, but it gets done.

The technology still is available, and with all modern tricks, it can be done, but it will be very expensive, and will take even more time to produce than historical armor plates- due more exacting messuring methodes and higher tolerances.

Funny actualy, it's a discusion I had with my uncle (the smart one of the family). His pov was, everything that could be done, can be done better now, even if it's not done for 80 years.

It's pretty simple, making enough 16" thick, surface hardened steel armorplates for a 1917 BB, can be done, but it will take a lot of $$$$ and time, more than our rules allow for.

I'm not one for more rules, but we could look at history, and with the thickest plates made for the super BB Yamato, and the tests done on them, we can conclude that quality control was problematic for improved KC armor plates over a certain thickness.  Maybe a restiction on Improved KC armor of 15"?

[Valles]

I considered pointing the greater thicknesses often chosen for turret faces out when I had my own discussion of the issue, but decided it wasn't worth the trouble and argument. Presumably what's doable for four or five 'once off' castings isn't as practical for the dozens of separate plates making up the main belt.

One of my earlier designs, from Cross Mirage's early incarnation as a graduated-armor ship, called for a 425mm belt - the mods were horrified when I PMed it to them, and handed back a hard-and-fast "No belt thicker than 381mm" ruling.

Irksome, but livable.

[miketr]

If you look at the USN standard BB's their main belt was the thickness it was because USA Armor industry couldn't roll armor any thicker at the time.

[P3D]

Some comments.

My designs on the 8x16" BB theme got to ~27k tons. 4" armor deck and such. Bit scary, SS2 would allow those 16"s be L50 long, the firepower of an Iowa on half the tonnage.

About FH armor.
Richie and Jane Babe had 430mm faceplates and 405mm barbettes.
The BB49 SoDak had 16-18" FH armor plates.
The US posttreaty BBs had upto 18" barbettes which were AFAIK face hardened, class B being used only on turret faceplate and CT. Montana would have had barbettes upto 21.3". Guess some of it already done before cancellation.
Besides the Yamatos where the Japanese apparently had not that much difficulty (hell, they DID made it) manufacturing extreme thick FH armor in great quantities.
The Soviets apparently managed to get up to 425mm thickness.
17-18" turrets for the G/N3 classes.

That's five nations. Apparently who wanted to, could make FH plates of essentially arbitrary thickness. Just figure out how to make very thick plates, face hardening is not that much dependent on plate thickness itself, being a surface process per definitionem.

Of course it might require new plants built. Say nations having at least 1BP (or whatever, even 0.5) finished in the previous 2 years, that'd cope with the new specifications.
Just check when the last investments were made :P. If long ago, tough luck, stick with 15" armor or less. Those old plants just cannot keep up with the specifications that people at the different Bureaus dream up, without any foundation in reality.

[ctwaterman]

The Heavy Face Hardened plates different from just normal steal could be made in thicker runs then shown.  The problem was one of Quality Control and Cost.   To make a 16" FH Plate for a Battle Ship one would have to build 4 or 5 plates for each plate accepted by the Ship Builders.  All the others would have taken all the time and effort to create and simply not meet standards or pass stress tests.

I understand the Japanese had a huge problem with this and the USN cancled the Montanas because they were having a great difficulty creating enought Armor Plate for the Iowa's, and Cruisers currently being built.  Of Course when you have 8 or 9 Battle Ships under construction at the Same Time well that could be a problem.

[Valles]

So, what, 75% wastage on BP spent on thicker plates?

I could live with that.

[maddox]

75% of time lost probably on armor rolling most likely , the metal is perfect scrap tough.

[Nobody]

For now I see no Problem with belt limited to 15"/381 mm if a bit more is allowed for limited areas (e.g. 16" for barbettes and 17 or 18 inch for turret faces and conning towers). You should add this to the rules then plus a tech which allows greater (unlimited?) thicknesses.


Anyway I had to decide (because I have to catch up and should finish my 1916 report). It's not exactly small but I came to the conclusion that being a little lager is worth it. So unless someone finds something that is wrong or bends the rules this is what Orange is building:

mini B7, Orange Battleship laid down 1916

Displacement:
   28.000 t light; 30.200 t standard; 32.814 t normal; 34.905 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   557,74 ft / 557,74 ft x 100,07 ft x 32,15 ft (normal load)
   170,00 m / 170,00 m x 30,50 m  x 9,80 m

Armament:
      8 - 16,00" / 406 mm guns (2x4 guns), 2.116,44lbs / 960,00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      4 - 6,00" / 152 mm guns (2x2 guns), 105,82lbs / 48,00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      8 - 6,00" / 152 mm guns (4x2 guns), 105,82lbs / 48,00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on side, all amidships
      6 - 3,00" / 76,2 mm guns in single mounts, 13,23lbs / 6,00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      4 - 0,40" / 10,2 mm guns in single mounts, 0,03lbs / 0,01kg shells, 1916 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 18.281 lbs / 8.292 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13,8" / 350 mm   346,46 ft / 105,60 m   15,75 ft / 4,80 m
      10° slooped
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 96% of normal length
     Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1,97" / 50 mm   346,46 ft / 105,60 m   34,45 ft / 10,50 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   15,7" / 400 mm   8,66" / 220 mm      15,0" / 380 mm
   2nd:   5,91" / 150 mm   3,94" / 100 mm      5,91" / 150 mm
   3rd:   5,91" / 150 mm   3,94" / 100 mm      5,91" / 150 mm

   - Armour deck: 4,13" / 105 mm, Conning tower: 14,96" / 380 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 59.803 shp / 44.613 Kw = 23,50 kts
   Range 7.590nm at 15,00 kts
      19400 @ 10 kn
      12900 @ 12 kn
      7590 @ 15 kn
      4730 @ 18 kn
      3070 @ 21 kn
      2690 @ 22 kn
      2355 @ 23 kn
      2255 @ full speed ~96 h ~nearly four days
   Bunker at max displacement = 4.705 tons

Complement:
   1.218 - 1.584

Cost:
   £5,166 million / $20,663 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2.220 tons, 6,8%
   Armour: 10.743 tons, 32,7%
      - Belts: 3.394 tons, 10,3%
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 869 tons, 2,6%
      - Armament: 2.910 tons, 8,9%
      - Armour Deck: 3.240 tons, 9,9%
      - Conning Tower: 330 tons, 1,0%
   Machinery: 2.228 tons, 6,8%
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 12.299 tons, 37,5%
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4.813 tons, 14,7%
   Miscellaneous weights: 510 tons, 1,6%
      250 t FC
       25 t Radio
       50 t twin "Radar"
       50 t crew comfort
      135 t Admiral staff quarters and command facilities

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     39.467 lbs / 17.902 Kg = 19,3 x 16,0 " / 406 mm shells or 6,2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
   Metacentric height 6,0 ft / 1,8 m
   Roll period: 17,2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 58 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,73
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,20

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0,640
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5,57 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23,62 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
   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:      26,25 ft / 8,00 m
      - Forecastle (22%):   22,31 ft / 6,80 m
      - Mid (60%):      20,01 ft / 6,10 m
      - Quarterdeck (15%):   20,01 ft / 6,10 m
      - Stern:      22,97 ft / 7,00 m
      - Average freeboard:   21,52 ft / 6,56 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95,6%
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 137,2%
   Waterplane Area: 42.364 Square feet or 3.936 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 98%
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 208 lbs/sq ft or 1.015 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,91
      - Longitudinal: 2,25
      - Overall: 1,00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily


Is the misc weight distribution ok?