Mexican Battleship?

[Desertfox]

My first try at a pre-1890 warship. She is supposed to be a smaller version of the HMS Devastation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devastation_class_battleship


ARM Puebla, Mexico Battleship laid down 1870

Displacement:
   3,592 t light; 3,757 t standard; 4,374 t normal; 4,868 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   270.00 ft / 270.00 ft x 54.00 ft x 15.00 ft (normal load)
   82.30 m / 82.30 m x 16.46 m  x 4.57 m

Armament:
      4 - 10.00" / 254 mm guns in single mounts, 350.00lbs / 158.76kg shells, 1870 Model
     Muzzle loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turrets
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 1,400 lbs / 635 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   130.00 ft / 39.62 m   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
   Ends:   3.00" / 76 mm   140.00 ft / 42.67 m   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
     Main Belt covers 74 % of normal length
     Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm         -               -

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 3,663 ihp / 2,733 Kw = 14.00 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,111 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   268 - 349

Cost:
   £0.398 million / $1.594 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 175 tons, 4.0 %
   Armour: 649 tons, 14.8 %
      - Belts: 401 tons, 9.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 248 tons, 5.7 %
      - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 898 tons, 20.5 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,870 tons, 42.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 782 tons, 17.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     2,507 lbs / 1,137 Kg = 7.2 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.32
   Metacentric height 3.2 ft / 1.0 m
   Roll period: 12.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.13
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.72

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.700
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 16.43 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 71
   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:      7.00 ft / 2.13 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Mid (50 %):      5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Stern:      5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Average freeboard:   5.16 ft / 1.57 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96.8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 41.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 11,686 Square feet or 1,086 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 114 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 133 lbs/sq ft or 648 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.19
      - Longitudinal: 1.14
      - Overall: 1.16
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
   Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

[Tanthalas]

looks reasonable to me other than the whole belt length warning thing.  I went a bit of a DIferent route off the same base hull (then had to trash it when I tryed drawing it cause stuff flat out did not fit)

[Desertfox]

A smaller version, too small?

These are Gulf ships, hence the low freeboard and absence of sails. The Battle of Brazos Island (1865) would show the value of turret ships and the heavy losses there and general obsolesce of ships would require replacements in the form of these ships. In OTL Mexico went to GB for ships, so these ships would have been designed with British or at least European influence.


ARM Puebla, Mexico Battleship laid down 1870

Displacement:
   2,774 t light; 2,916 t standard; 3,214 t normal; 3,453 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   250.00 ft / 250.00 ft x 50.00 ft x 15.00 ft (normal load)
   76.20 m / 76.20 m x 15.24 m  x 4.57 m

Armament:
      4 - 10.00" / 254 mm guns in single mounts, 350.00lbs / 158.76kg shells, 1870 Model
     Muzzle loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turrets
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 1,400 lbs / 635 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   110.00 ft / 33.53 m   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
   Ends:   5.00" / 127 mm   140.00 ft / 42.67 m   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
   Upper:   1.00" / 25 mm     70.00 ft / 21.34 m   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
     Main Belt covers 68 % of normal length
     Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 1,218 ihp / 909 Kw = 11.00 kts
   Range 4,000nm at 7.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 536 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   213 - 277

Cost:
   £0.286 million / $1.144 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 175 tons, 5.4 %
   Armour: 847 tons, 26.4 %
      - Belts: 431 tons, 13.4 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 248 tons, 7.7 %
      - Armour Deck: 169 tons, 5.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 299 tons, 9.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,454 tons, 45.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 440 tons, 13.7 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     2,343 lbs / 1,063 Kg = 6.7 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 0.9 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
   Metacentric height 2.2 ft / 0.7 m
   Roll period: 14.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 56 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.78

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.600
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 15.81 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 34 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 71
   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:      7.00 ft / 2.13 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Mid (50 %):      5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Stern:      5.00 ft / 1.52 m
      - Average freeboard:   5.16 ft / 1.57 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 71.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 40.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 9,142 Square feet or 849 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 113 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 127 lbs/sq ft or 621 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.08
      - Longitudinal: 1.34
      - Overall: 1.10
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
   Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

[Tanthalas]

I might go with somthing even a bit larger than the big version, just to get rid of the belt warning.  I hate any nasty grams from springsharp

[TexanCowboy]

Looks good to me, although you do have spare weight left; you could extend the belt a little.

Realistically, you would be eschewing the end belts for upper belts; no quick-fire guns around yet; so there's not too much to fear from a "swiss-cheesing" there.

EDIT: Yes; the Battle of Brazos Island will show the superiosity of the turret ship; the lone one was the only thing that saved the Mexican fleet from true annilation (although that was due somewhat to the Mexican admirals incompetence, and Grand Admiral Venier's extreme competence). The routes that the Texan and Mexican fleets will take in response to this, however, will be radically different.

[Desertfox]

I did forget the 50 tons misc weight for "improved communications and flags facilities"...

I'm curious as to how your navy will look like. The Mexican one will be mainly big monitors and small torpedo boats, at least one the Gulf side, bunch of big armored frigates on the Pacific side.

[TexanCowboy]

Still...working on that, to tell the truth. I'm thinking somewhat like the Austrian Navy on steroids, to tell the truth (OTL, not Sam's). I'd tell you more, but I don't know how much starting tonnage we get.

[Tanthalas]

that tends to be a problem we all have LOL, I have some great ideas but I have no idea how Viable they are without knowing what tonage (or dollar ammount) im going to have at my disposal.

[Carthaginian]

A 5' high belt that dowan't even cover the vitals?
You sure that the Mexicans didn't ask the WW Filipinos for help?

[Walter]

If this is supposed to be a smaller version of HMS Devastation, then the main guns need to be raised.

[Korpen]

If this is supposed to be a smaller version of HMS Devastation, then the main guns need to be raised.

No, she did not have raised guns. She did however have a low forecastle, and a low quaterdack.

[Walter]

That's not the way he simmed it. As it is now, the freeboard indicates that it is very much like Reed's original Breastwork Monitor design of HMS Devastation and not the Barnaby modified version with low forecastle and a low quaterdeck as you indicated. So either he needs to raise the freeboard of that middle section for the Barnaby version or he needs to raise the main guns for the Reed version if it is going to be a proper representation of a smaller version of the HMS Devastation design (either one of them). :)

[Carthaginian]

If this is supposed to be a smaller version of HMS Devastation, then the main guns need to be raised.

No, she did not have raised guns. She did however have a low forecastle, and a low quaterdack.

Yes... actually she did.
The Devastation's main deck was the lower deck, and the citadel was built atop it one deck higher. DF is simming something similar to the first Dreadnought, or perhaps more accurately one of the early US Battle Monitors.

[Korpen]

If this is supposed to be a smaller version of HMS Devastation, then the main guns need to be raised.

No, she did not have raised guns. She did however have a low forecastle, and a low quaterdack.

Yes... actually she did.
The Devastation's main deck was the lower deck, and the citadel was built atop it one deck higher.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/HMS_Devastation_(1871).jpg
It is quite clear both on that picture, as well on the drawing, that the turrets are not raised above the freeboard. However the freeboard rises for the midship portion.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Devastation_class_diagrams_Brasseys_1888.jpg

[Carthaginian]

Uhm... how can the 'freeboard rise' when there are two separate decks?
PLEASE read the very definition of 'Breastwork Monitor' which CLEARLY states that the citadel and turrets are part of the superstructure rather than the hull, Korpen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastwork_monitor

Reed proposed to overcome this risk by the addition of an armoured breastwork. This was an armoured superstructure of moderate height (7 feet (2.1 m) in HMVS Cerberus), centrally placed on the ship and containing within its armoured circumference the gun turrets, bridge, funnels and all other upper deck appurtenances needed to operate the ship.

Also, contained in the article on the Devastation- from which you posted the pictures- is contained a statement that will tell you that you are looking at the picture a bit wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devastation_class_battleship

The loss of HMS Captain in 1870 led to concerns about the stability of turret ships, and a committee was set up to determine whether HMS Devastation would be safe. One effect of this was to extend the armoured breastwork with unarmoured structure to the sides of the ship and carried aft to improve the stability at large angles of heel. This greatly improved the crew comfort by adding extra accommodation and especially latrines, but since it was not armoured would have been riddled in a battle reducing the stability of the vessel.

Both of these passages clearly state that the vessel's upper works are superstructure and that the guns are on the superstructure- and thus that the guns are raised rather than the fo'c'sle and stern being lowered. The entire upper works is a superstructure built upon a raft-type hull.