Steam Rams

[Delta Force]

I decided to design a large steam ram equipped with heavy armor and high speed. I was thinking that it would be something like a design concept derived from the Battle of Lissa, where two Italian ironclads were sunk by ramming attacks by a much smaller Austrian fleet. Most of the experience of early ironclads was that those equipped with thick armor were unable to really harm each other except by ramming. The ship is also intended to be somewhat like the CSS Manassas in terms of armor layout, since sloped armor is quite effective at deflecting damage.

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1867
Armoured gunboat

Displacement:
   2,462 t light; 2,516 t standard; 2,724 t normal; 2,891 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   196.85 ft / 196.85 ft x 49.21 ft x 16.40 ft (normal load)
   60.00 m / 60.00 m x 15.00 m  x 5.00 m

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Ends:   Unarmoured
   Upper:   5.00" / 127 mm   196.85 ft / 60.00 m   7.39 ft / 2.25 m

   - Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 1 shaft, 3,073 ihp / 2,293 Kw = 14.00 kts
   Range 2,000nm at 8.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 375 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   188 - 245

Cost:
   £0.199 million / $0.796 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Armour: 910 tons, 33.4 %
      - Belts: 269 tons, 9.9 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 641 tons, 23.5 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 806 tons, 29.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 745 tons, 27.4 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 263 tons, 9.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     1,726 lbs / 783 Kg = 24.4 x 6 " / 152 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.48
   Metacentric height 3.4 ft / 1.0 m
   Roll period: 11.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 53 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.06

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.600
   Length to Beam Ratio: 4.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 14.03 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   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:      7.38 ft / 2.25 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   7.38 ft / 2.25 m
      - Mid (50 %):      7.38 ft / 2.25 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   7.38 ft / 2.25 m
      - Stern:      7.38 ft / 2.25 m
      - Average freeboard:   7.38 ft / 2.25 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 51.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 6,931 Square feet or 644 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 79 lbs/sq ft or 386 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.92
      - Longitudinal: 2.27
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped

[Carthaginian]

I think that the major difference is that the C.S.S. Manassas was a 375t vessel- this one is 8 times larger! She also has absolutely no armament, whereas C.S.S. Manassas carried a fairly respectable little gun for her size. Additionally, C.S.S. Manassas had only 1.5" armor on her sloped deck; your ship has a 5" armored deck.

The major similarity between the C.S.S. Manassas and your ships can be summed up in one statement:
Neither one is a very good design- neither is able to effectively catch or sink it's intended prey.


If you want a pure ram- you will have to keep this speed (or increase it) make the ship at least 75% smaller, make the ship 75% cheaper, and make it expendable.
If you want a full-sized ironclad ram, you need to make the armor more period-appropriate, keep the speed between 12-14 kts and put at least a minimum cannon armament on her.

[TexanCowboy]

You mean the "Battle of Brazos Island", don't you?  ;)

[Delta Force]

I was kind of stuck on how to set up the armament and simulate the armor on the ship. Given the nature of the design, turrets aren't really an option (they would make the ship a larger target than it is now), and broadside guns would be a tad unusual since the ship isn't intended to do a broadside. Obviously forward armament will be of use, but I wasn't too sure about broadside armament. Simulating the muzzleloaders has also proved a bit problematic, as it wants a 10 inch gun to fire a 450 pound shell. The historical USN loads give an error that the shell is too light.

As for the armor simulation, do you think that it is a good representation?

[Carthaginian]

Well... here are a few suggestions for your design"
1.) Use the 'Casemate' mount with a 'Forward - Limited Arc' field of fire for a stationary gun.
2.) Divide shell weight from SS by the actual weight, then determine the number of rounds in the magazine. Adjust up and down till you get the right 'actual' number based on the wight of the 'assumed' number.
3.) For ALL armor like this, I suggest Jefgte's excellent proposal for Protected Cruisers- use a 'main belt' that is 5'/1.5m tall to simulate the additional thickness of the sloped deck armor (belt + deck = slope armor).
4.) Unless you are going to build these ships small for use in rivers/lakes, I can only offer one piece of advice: DO NOT BUILD THEM! The U.S.N. built one 'proof of concept' ship like this... and it proved the concept was bad. ;)

[Tanthalas]

so adjust up from OTL to as close as you can get, SS will let you use a 157 pound shell in a 10" ML gun the 10" parrot gun used a 300 pound shell so I dont see the problem.  this ship is admitedly a quick and dirty (aka its not very good just made for demonstration purposes) but it should give you some ideas maybe (and Jamie I prefer to use the upper belt as it will save us switching when we add skirts to our PCs)

I float Realy, Sunkistan Ram thingy laid down 1865

Displacement:
   1,446 t light; 1,490 t standard; 1,543 t normal; 1,585 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   150.00 ft / 150.00 ft x 50.00 ft x 12.00 ft (normal load)
   45.72 m / 45.72 m x 15.24 m  x 3.66 m

Armament:
      1 - 10.00" / 254 mm guns in single mounts, 157.00lbs / 71.21kg shells, 1865 Model
     Muzzle loading gun in casemate mount
     on centreline forward
   Weight of broadside 157 lbs / 71 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Ends:   3.00" / 76 mm     29.98 ft / 9.14 m   6.57 ft / 2.00 m
     50.02 ft / 15.25 m Unarmoured ends
   Upper:   3.00" / 76 mm   150.00 ft / 45.72 m   4.00 ft / 1.22 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   3.00" / 76 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 1,943 ihp / 1,450 Kw = 13.00 kts
   Range 300nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 95 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   123 - 160

Cost:
   £0.151 million / $0.604 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 39 tons, 2.5 %
   Armour: 412 tons, 26.7 %
      - Belts: 88 tons, 5.7 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 19 tons, 1.3 %
      - Armour Deck: 304 tons, 19.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 482 tons, 31.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 512 tons, 33.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 97 tons, 6.3 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     524 lbs / 238 Kg = 1.7 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
   Metacentric height 2.6 ft / 0.8 m
   Roll period: 13.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 49 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.48

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.600
   Length to Beam Ratio: 3.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 12.25 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 100
   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:      4.00 ft / 1.22 m
      - Forecastle (15 %):   4.00 ft / 1.22 m
      - Mid (50 %):      4.00 ft / 1.22 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   4.00 ft / 1.22 m
      - Stern:      4.00 ft / 1.22 m
      - Average freeboard:   4.00 ft / 1.22 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 120.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 34.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 5,485 Square feet or 510 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 86 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 81 lbs/sq ft or 393 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.03
      - Longitudinal: 1.94
      - Overall: 1.10
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
   Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

[Delta Force]

Well... here are a few suggestions for your design"
1.) Use the 'Casemate' mount with a 'Forward - Limited Arc' field of fire for a stationary gun.
2.) Divide shell weight from SS by the actual weight, then determine the number of rounds in the magazine. Adjust up and down till you get the right 'actual' number based on the wight of the 'assumed' number.
3.) For ALL armor like this, I suggest Jefgte's excellent proposal for Protected Cruisers- use a 'main belt' that is 5'/1.5m tall to simulate the additional thickness of the sloped deck armor (belt + deck = slope armor).
4.) Unless you are going to build these ships small for use in rivers/lakes, I can only offer one piece of advice: DO NOT BUILD THEM! The U.S.N. built one 'proof of concept' ship like this... and it proved the concept was bad. ;)

By the concept being proved bad, do you mean the armor layout, or do you mean the steam ram concept? I don't really intend to use the ship outside of the Mediterranean, Black Sea, and harbor defense areas (not sure if I want to keep Spain or go with Poland yet). Riverboats would play a role in defense in Eastern Europe, but I don't think that Spain has any major rivers that would be suitable for a monitor.

[Carthaginian]

By the concept being proved bad, do you mean the armor layout, or do you mean the steam ram concept? I don't really intend to use the ship outside of the Mediterranean, Black Sea, and harbor defense areas (not sure if I want to keep Spain or go with Poland yet). Riverboats would play a role in defense in Eastern Europe, but I don't think that Spain has any major rivers that would be suitable for a monitor.

An unarmored ram was a bad idea because it could not adequately carry the battle to the enemy.
It has to chase down an enemy of similar size and generally similar speed. This means that the ram relies almost exclusively on surprise. If there were no guns, then there was no way to negate the advantage of range- first you had to spot the ship being rammed, then get to it, then ram it. During this entire process, you are taking damage and the enemy is not- at least with some kind of weapon aboard (the largest your ship can handle) then you are not going to have a chance to cripple and catch your target.

It was a little different in the War Between the States, where most actions were fought in very tight spaces like rivers or small bays. Maneuver room was at a premium, shoals and bars trapped ships into very specific courses defenders could utilize as traps, and mine barrages were especially feared (even though they were only marginally effective). The ram comes into it's own here- as a defender, all these things come into play as resources for the ram to use To force the enemy into a position that is advantageous for ramming.

[Delta Force]

So, here is my revised design, which is smaller and armed with two 12 inch guns. With a single 12 inch gun it can become about 350 tons lighter.

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1867
Armoured gunboat

Displacement:
   1,979 t light; 2,063 t standard; 2,179 t normal; 2,273 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   196.85 ft / 196.85 ft x 39.37 ft x 16.40 ft (normal load)
   60.00 m / 60.00 m x 12.00 m  x 5.00 m

Armament:
      2 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns in single mounts, 600.00lbs / 272.16kg shells, 1867 Model
     Muzzle loading guns in casemate mounts
     on bow with limited arc
     Main guns limited to end-on fire
   Weight of broadside 1,200 lbs / 544 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 60

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Ends:   Unarmoured
   Upper:   3.50" / 89 mm   196.85 ft / 60.00 m   4.00 ft / 1.22 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   3.50" / 89 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 3.50" / 89 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 1 shaft, 2,762 ihp / 2,060 Kw = 14.23 kts
   Range 1,250nm at 8.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 210 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   159 - 207

Cost:
   £0.271 million / $1.085 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 141 tons, 6.5 %
   Armour: 518 tons, 23.7 %
      - Belts: 102 tons, 4.7 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 56 tons, 2.6 %
      - Armour Deck: 359 tons, 16.5 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 594 tons, 27.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 726 tons, 33.3 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 200 tons, 9.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     730 lbs / 331 Kg = 1.3 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.49
   Metacentric height 2.5 ft / 0.7 m
   Roll period: 10.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.24
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.600
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 14.03 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   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:      7.38 ft / 2.25 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   7.38 ft / 2.25 m
      - Mid (50 %):      7.38 ft / 2.25 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   7.38 ft / 2.25 m
      - Stern:      0.00 ft / 0.00 m
      - Average freeboard:   6.83 ft / 2.08 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 135.3 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 49.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 5,544 Square feet or 515 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 70 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 89 lbs/sq ft or 432 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.89
      - Longitudinal: 2.64
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor

[Sachmle]

So, here is my revised design, which is smaller and armed with two 12 inch guns. With a single 12 inch gun it can become about 350 tons lighter.

Then I'd go with the single. It's job isn't to shoot the enemy, it's to ram them. Lighter=cheaper and smaller, smaller sometimes = faster. Both are good for rams.

[Guinness]

I'd see the guns as a method to pry open the enemy after having engaged them with the ram. Smaller, lighter, faster firing guns would be better use for general defensive purposes.

[Delta Force]

Yeah, I would have a lot of room to work with for armaments if SS didn't automatically assume that all guns are 45 caliber. It's more like a 12 caliber.

[TexanCowboy]

Then use SS3. :P

[Delta Force]

Then use SS3. :P

If someone could explain all the features on it, I would. It has a lot of features that Springsharp 2 doesn't.

[Carthaginian]

I'd see the guns as a method to pry open the enemy after having engaged them with the ram. Smaller, lighter, faster firing guns would be better use for general defensive purposes.

Uhm... that was historically a big bust.
'Prying Open' is a poor plan- better to use guns to wound the target, then finish it with the ram... or at least use the guns to cover the ramming attack. The few successful ramming attacks followed something to that effect.