A Swiss Lexington... cause everyone is doing one...

[Desertfox]

...and Lexington >>> Hood


And Tex, the Swiss ship would have 15x12" guns, 21" recoilless rifles, rocket propelled torpedoes, and 40 knot speed...


NSS Constitution, New Switzerland Battleship laid down 1921

Displacement:
   39,612 t light; 41,473 t standard; 45,034 t normal; 47,884 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   900.00 ft / 900.00 ft x 101.00 ft x 34.00 ft (normal load)
   274.32 m / 274.32 m x 30.78 m  x 10.36 m

Armament:
      8 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (4x2 guns), 2,048.00lbs / 928.96kg shells, 1921 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
     Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
      16 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (8x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1921 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
      20 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1921 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      4 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1921 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 18,752 lbs / 8,506 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 90

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   9.00" / 229 mm   700.00 ft / 213.36 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 120 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1.00" / 25 mm   700.00 ft / 213.36 m   24.00 ft / 7.32 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   7.00" / 178 mm      12.0" / 305 mm
   2nd:   2.00" / 51 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 7.00" / 178 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 209,715 shp / 156,447 Kw = 33.00 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 6,411 tons

Complement:
   1,545 - 2,009

Cost:
   £11.115 million / $44.458 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2,344 tons, 5.2 %
   Armour: 11,475 tons, 25.5 %
      - Belts: 3,087 tons, 6.9 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 622 tons, 1.4 %
      - Armament: 3,053 tons, 6.8 %
      - Armour Deck: 4,523 tons, 10.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 191 tons, 0.4 %
   Machinery: 7,222 tons, 16.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,221 tons, 40.5 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,423 tons, 12.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 0.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     46,938 lbs / 21,291 Kg = 22.9 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 5.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
   Metacentric height 6.3 ft / 1.9 m
   Roll period: 16.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.68
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.07

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.510
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.91 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 30.00 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
   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:      32.00 ft / 9.75 m
      - Forecastle (30 %):   25.00 ft / 7.62 m
      - Mid (50 %):      20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Stern:      20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Average freeboard:   22.84 ft / 6.96 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 114.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 157.6 %
   Waterplane Area: 61,121 Square feet or 5,678 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 203 lbs/sq ft or 993 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.04
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[Borys]

Ahoj!
I love it!
A wonderful target for the SMS Petoefi Sandor and SMS Wolfgang Goethe  :D
Borys

[Desertfox]

They can't catch it and would be shredded at long range...

[Borys]

Ahoj!
I agree on the speed.
As to shredding - I suppose neither side has an IZ - but I have twice the barrels :)
Borys

[Desertfox]

This sucker has more deck armor and bigger guns...

[Jefgte]

1 x 40.000t BC
=
2 x 20.000t aircraft carriers
or
20 x 2000t destroyers
or
40 x 1000t Submarines
or
40.000 "Minen"


...Just comparisons...


Jef ;)

[Desertfox]

Don't tempt me... Those destroyers look mighty tempting...

Actually she is just a design exercise, she won't actually be built.

[Delta Force]

One problem I see with the design is that it only has seven inches of armor for the conning tower. It has the weakest armor of any area of the ship, despite it being one of the most important.

That, and it is probably just personal preference, but having underwater protection in the form of a bulge, armor, or both is always something I take a look at since mines and torpedoes were more of a danger to ships in this era than shellfire (unless the shell blow something up).

[Desertfox]

The captains never really use the conning tower and its a very small target anyway.

If someone knows about torpedo damage, its me. 90% of my losses have come due to underwater damage. That said I don't believe in bulges or heavy torpedo bulkheads, rather in extensive subdivisions to contain the damage instead of trying to prevent it. The 1" TB simulates extensive subdivisions and not a dedicated torpedo defense system. My ships have turned out to be very resistant to underwater damage, and I have yet to lose a major ship to underwater damage.

[TexanCowboy]

Dude, nobody resists the Dora ship.

[Delta Force]

The captains never really use the conning tower and its a very small target anyway.

If someone knows about torpedo damage, its me. 90% of my losses have come due to underwater damage. That said I don't believe in bulges or heavy torpedo bulkheads, rather in extensive subdivisions to contain the damage instead of trying to prevent it. The 1" TB simulates extensive subdivisions and not a dedicated torpedo defense system. My ships have turned out to be very resistant to underwater damage, and I have yet to lose a major ship to underwater damage.

I take it that having 3 inches of armor in addition to a torpedo bulge is overkill then? That is what my current plans for my CSA battlecruisers has.

[Valles]

Lesseeeeeee...

Vs. Constitution, Cross Mirage would have an immune zone of about ten kilometers - from 9,000 to 18,000-odd meters. Vs Cross Mirage, Constitution has no immune zone. On top of this, CM has two more guns in her main battery and is a generation ahead in terms of fire control. Now, granted that there's no way on god's green earth a 20 knot ship is going to catch a 33 knot one that isn't playing along, but the Maori don't trade during wartime and deploy in combined fleet squadrons rather than singletons, so the best thing the battlecruiser would be able to do for her owner's war effort would be get traded overseas for something actually useful, like canned peas.

Note to self: thicker deck armor on next BB class.

[Borys]

Ahoj!

I take it that having 3 inches of armor in addition to a torpedo bulge is overkill then? That is what my current plans for my CSA battlecruisers has.

It is more than overkill.
It's shooting yourself in the foot :)
IMO TBS should be in the 1-2' range. The armoured plate in the TBS is there to slow down splinters from the ruptured hull and TBS compartments. Yet is must be deformable. Making it thicker will make it too stiff, leading to larger, heavier splinters making more holes in the bulkheads.

Borys

[Desertfox]

Plus most of the damage is caused by the water hammer effect, a thick TB will just magnify that effect across the entire ship.

The Maori can not raid effectively, the only way you can force me to fight is a direct assault on a Swiss property (of significance) and then I wouldn't be using my BC's... I have an alternative plan for that occasion...

[Kaiser Kirk]

The captains never really use the conning tower and its a very small target anyway.

If someone knows about torpedo damage, its me. 90% of my losses have come due to underwater damage. That said I don't believe in bulges or heavy torpedo bulkheads, rather in extensive subdivisions to contain the damage instead of trying to prevent it. The 1" TB simulates extensive subdivisions and not a dedicated torpedo defense system. My ships have turned out to be very resistant to underwater damage, and I have yet to lose a major ship to underwater damage.

I take it that having 3 inches of armor in addition to a torpedo bulge is overkill then? That is what my current plans for my CSA battlecruisers has.

Kinda.

I prefer @2" as that gives reasonable surety of catching all the splinters.

The Yamato had a 3" Torpedo bulkhead extending down from her belt. Folks tend to critique it as too stiff and inflexible and with a bad join.  It failed when it took a torpedo.  There is a brief discussion about 1/3 of the way down here : http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm

A litte off topic, generally we only show the holding bulkhead and really don't account for the weight of the partition bulkheads.
For one thing I don't think it is ever adequately documented in SS is how to sim the multiple partitions common in USN battleships. When you add a TDS to SS, it deducts the weight from ships structure, and just seems to add the armor- not the subdivision walls.  In USN ships these were a ductile armor steel 0.75" each.  So one could make a case for a 2" holding bulkhead and 2 partitions (to create 3 compartments) with a total thickness of 3.5".

edit : found it . SoDak's TDS system totaled  "3.75-4" (95-102 mm) of HTS at the anti-torpedo system's bottom edge in five widely spaced bulkheads of roughly equal thickness" per http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm. However, much of that was in 0.75" thick bulkheads, and he critiques the holding bulkhead as too thick for too long.