Polish Navy

[Delta Force]

I've not looked over the whole thing yet, but I offer this on 1st pass. You still have the main battery set up in 2x2 row twin mounts. 2 row mounts would be with 1 barrel over the other as apposed to side-by-side. To get this, just select twin instead of 2 row twin.

I'm still confused on the layout, are these supposed to be beam turrets or in "A" and "Y" positions?

They are arranged diagonally. Both turrets can fire fore and aft, and both turrets can fire in broadside. Obviously there will be some blast damage from doing so, but since in theory the layout is superior to having the turrets with an inline configuration it makes sense to include it on a ship that is intended to revive the frigate as a warship type using recent technological advances.

[Carthaginian]

Is that the way you intend this ship to look?
That turret ship is a bit more... well, WORSE than the alternative layouts.

NEITHER turret can fire both guns over the bow, NEITHER turret can fire over the stern, and NEITHER turret can fire very far off the beams without causing a lot of blast damage. This ship's design doesn't have a flaw... it IS a flaw. :(

[eltf177]

Probably something more like MAINE, with the beam turrets mounted on the port bow and right stern? Still, this means no full broadside.

Looking at this arrangement I don't see any way to get all four Main Battery guns firing in the same direction very well.

[Korpen]

I do not know how much it matter for the Poles, but more then 8-8,5m depth and a ship cannot use Öresund but is limited to Great belt to enter or leave the Baltic Sea.

Carthaginian: An in-echelon layout is not that bad idea, given the ranges battles are fought at there is much more frequent to engage an enemy at all quarters and not only broadside. Echelon mounting the guns also allows for a shorter citadel.

[Carthaginian]

Delta,
You have BOTH turrets in the same place- aft deck forward. That means that both the turrets are in the same general area on the deck, and the Chen Yuen is the ONLY one with that kind of layout. A ship like the Maine has one turret 'fore deck aft' and one turret 'aft deck forward' to indicate that the turrets are separated by a superstructure or something.

Korpen,
Yes, there are some advantages to this layout... but they are very much limited to the short citadel. Of course the short citadel is only an advantage if you create something long enough to assure that the ship's flotation remains intact as well as the magazines are protected.

[Korpen]

Delta,
You have BOTH turrets in the same place- aft deck forward. That means that both the turrets are in the same general area on the deck, and the Chen Yuen is the ONLY one with that kind of layout. A ship like the Maine has one turret 'fore deck aft' and one turret 'aft deck forward' to indicate that the turrets are separated by a superstructure or something.

Err... No.
HMS Inflexible had that concentrated layout, as had Caio Duilio and the Colossus class (and that is just from the top of my head). It is USS maine that is the odd one out.

Korpen,
Yes, there are some advantages to this layout... but they are very much limited to the short citadel. Of course the short citadel is only an advantage if you create something long enough to assure that the ship's flotation remains intact as well as the magazines are protected.

The main belt and citadel it to protect the ships ability to fight and move, the protected deck (and tight compartmentation) protects the ends from significant flooding. This is not the QF-gun era.

[Carthaginian]

Delta,
You have BOTH turrets in the same place- aft deck forward. That means that both the turrets are in the same general area on the deck, and the Chen Yuen is the ONLY one with that kind of layout. A ship like the Maine has one turret 'fore deck aft' and one turret 'aft deck forward' to indicate that the turrets are separated by a superstructure or something.

Err... No.
HMS Inflexible had that concentrated layout, as had Caio Duilio and the Colossus class (and that is just from the top of my head). It is USS maine that is the odd one out.

Korpen,
Yes, there are some advantages to this layout... but they are very much limited to the short citadel. Of course the short citadel is only an advantage if you create something long enough to assure that the ship's flotation remains intact as well as the magazines are protected.

The main belt and citadel it to protect the ships ability to fight and move, the protected deck (and tight compartmentation) protects the ends from significant flooding. This is not the QF-gun era.

Uhm... lets look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Inflexible_Diagrams_Brasseys_1888.jpg
Guns seperated by boiler rooms and the SS 'midbreak area.'
So the guns of Inflexible ARE NOT actually on the same deck- one is fore and one is aft of the midbreak.
Colossus was just a copy of this design, with similar layout.

And another look:
http://www.cityofart.net/bship/rn_duilio_1881_armorplan.gif
Duilio is the same way- seperated by boiler rooms and the SS 'midbreak area.'
So, again, this is not in the same deck area- instead one set of guns is forward of the midbreak and another is aft.


And if the whole 'citadel' thing did not mean that watertight integrity must be preserved, then why was Colossus regarded as inferior to the Inflexible? I can tell you- because the Inflexible was praised for her citadel preserving sufficient reserve buoyancy to keep the ship afloat, while Colossus (in addition to having piss-poor maneuvering) did not have sufficient reserve buoyancy inside her citadel to preserve the ship's flotation.

To me the argument is pretty damn clear- one ship's design was regarded as superior... and the damn common sense of the matter is even clearer, so I am totally unconvinced of your 'unnecessary' remark. The safer things are, the more necessary they are.

[Delta Force]

The layout of the USS Maine is indeed what I was going for.

[Delta Force]

Here is the battleship companion to the 1876 frigate. It trades 2.5 knots of speed and four 6 inch guns for heavier armor and a smaller size.

1876 Battleship, Poland Battleship laid down 1876
Central citadel ship

Displacement:
   5,950 t light; 6,218 t standard; 6,841 t normal; 7,339 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (265.75 ft / 265.75 ft) x 59.06 ft x (25.43 / 26.95 ft)
   (81.00 m / 81.00 m) x 18.00 m  x (7.75 / 8.21 m)

Armament:
      4 - 11.02" / 280 mm 28.0 cal guns - 551.16lbs / 250.00kg shells, 60 per gun
     Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1876 Model
     2 x Twin mounts on sides forward
      8 - 5.91" / 150 mm 28.0 cal guns - 88.18lbs / 40.00kg shells, 120 per gun
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1876 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      8 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
      4 - 3.94" / 100 mm 28.0 cal guns - 24.80lbs / 11.25kg shells, 180 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1876 Model
     4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 3,009 lbs / 1,365 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   15.0" / 380 mm   172.24 ft / 52.50 m   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
   Ends:   4.92" / 125 mm     93.47 ft / 28.49 m   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
   Upper:   4.92" / 125 mm   170.60 ft / 52.00 m   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   15.0" / 380 mm   4.92" / 125 mm            -
   2nd:   2.95" / 75 mm         -         0.98" / 25 mm
   3rd:   0.98" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 1.57" / 40 mm
   Forecastle: 1.57" / 40 mm  Quarter deck: 1.57" / 40 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 4.92" / 125 mm, Aft 4.92" / 125 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 4,402 ihp / 3,284 Kw = 14.00 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,121 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   375 - 488

Cost:
   £0.493 million / $1.972 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 319 tons, 4.7 %
      - Guns: 319 tons, 4.7 %
   Armour: 2,233 tons, 32.6 %
      - Belts: 1,441 tons, 21.1 %
      - Armament: 378 tons, 5.5 %
      - Armour Deck: 337 tons, 4.9 %
      - Conning Towers: 76 tons, 1.1 %
   Machinery: 965 tons, 14.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,432 tons, 35.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 890 tons, 13.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 1 tons, 0.0 %
      - Hull below water: 1 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     7,585 lbs / 3,441 Kg = 14.3 x 11.0 " / 280 mm shells or 1.9 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.42
   Metacentric height 4.2 ft / 1.3 m
   Roll period: 12.1 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.41
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.71

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.600 / 0.607
   Length to Beam Ratio: 4.50 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 16.30 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 41
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -20.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  16.57 ft / 5.05 m,  13.29 ft / 4.05 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  13.29 ft / 4.05 m,  11.65 ft / 3.55 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  11.65 ft / 3.55 m,  11.65 ft / 3.55 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  11.65 ft / 3.55 m,  11.65 ft / 3.55 m
      - Average freeboard:      12.48 ft / 3.81 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 66.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 70.1 %
   Waterplane Area: 11,478 Square feet or 1,066 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 122 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 148 lbs/sq ft or 721 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.94
      - Longitudinal: 4.34
      - Overall: 1.10
   Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

[Delta Force]

The armored cruiser of the 1876 program:

1876 Armored Cruiser, Poland Armored Cruiser laid down 1876
Central citadel ship

Displacement:
   5,360 t light; 5,586 t standard; 6,172 t normal; 6,640 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (265.75 ft / 265.75 ft) x 59.06 ft x (22.96 / 24.39 ft)
   (81.00 m / 81.00 m) x 18.00 m  x (7.00 / 7.43 m)

Armament:
      4 - 9.45" / 240 mm 28.0 cal guns - 343.45lbs / 155.79kg shells, 60 per gun
     Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1876 Model
     2 x Twin mounts on sides forward
      8 - 5.91" / 150 mm 28.0 cal guns - 88.18lbs / 40.00kg shells, 120 per gun
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1876 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      8 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
      4 - 3.94" / 100 mm 28.0 cal guns - 24.80lbs / 11.25kg shells, 180 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1876 Model
     4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 2,179 lbs / 988 kg
      Main Torpedoes
      4 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.118 t each, 0.470 t total
   submerged bow tubes
      2nd Torpedoes
      16 - 14.2" / 360 mm, 14.44 ft / 4.40 m torpedoes - 0.118 t each, 1.882 t total
   submerged side tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   10.6" / 270 mm   172.24 ft / 52.50 m   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
   Ends:   4.92" / 125 mm     93.47 ft / 28.49 m   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
   Upper:   4.92" / 125 mm   170.60 ft / 52.00 m   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.6" / 270 mm   4.92" / 125 mm            -
   2nd:   2.95" / 75 mm         -         0.98" / 25 mm
   3rd:   0.98" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 1.57" / 40 mm
   Forecastle: 1.57" / 40 mm  Quarter deck: 1.57" / 40 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 4.92" / 125 mm, Aft 4.92" / 125 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 5,421 ihp / 4,044 Kw = 15.00 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,054 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   347 - 452

Cost:
   £0.457 million / $1.827 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 267 tons, 4.3 %
      - Guns: 262 tons, 4.3 %
      - Weapons: 5 tons, 0.1 %
   Armour: 1,814 tons, 29.4 %
      - Belts: 1,161 tons, 18.8 %
      - Armament: 245 tons, 4.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 337 tons, 5.5 %
      - Conning Towers: 71 tons, 1.2 %
   Machinery: 1,189 tons, 19.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,089 tons, 33.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 812 tons, 13.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 1 tons, 0.0 %
      - Hull below water: 1 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     6,032 lbs / 2,736 Kg = 18.1 x 9.4 " / 240 mm shells or 15.8 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.52
   Metacentric height 4.6 ft / 1.4 m
   Roll period: 11.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.27
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.55

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.599 / 0.607
   Length to Beam Ratio: 4.50 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 16.30 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -20.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  16.57 ft / 5.05 m,  13.29 ft / 4.05 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  13.29 ft / 4.05 m,  11.65 ft / 3.55 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  11.65 ft / 3.55 m,  11.65 ft / 3.55 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  11.65 ft / 3.55 m,  11.65 ft / 3.55 m
      - Average freeboard:      12.48 ft / 3.81 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81.8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 75.7 %
   Waterplane Area: 11,472 Square feet or 1,066 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 132 lbs/sq ft or 643 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 3.68
      - Overall: 1.10
   Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

[Korpen]

Here is the battleship companion to the 1876 frigate. It trades 2.5 knots of speed and four 6 inch guns for heavier armor and a smaller size.

1876 Battleship, Poland Battleship laid down 1876
Central citadel ship

You have an upper belt, then there is no need to include faceplates for the casemates, that is cake on cake. Secondly; what is the function of the upper and end belts? It looks like they are too thin to protect against pretty much anything.

[Tanthalas]

Here is the battleship companion to the 1876 frigate. It trades 2.5 knots of speed and four 6 inch guns for heavier armor and a smaller size.

1876 Battleship, Poland Battleship laid down 1876
Central citadel ship

You have an upper belt, then there is no need to include faceplates for the casemates, that is cake on cake. Secondly; what is the function of the upper and end belts? It looks like they are too thin to protect against pretty much anything.

End belt isnt to bad, but I totaly agree that the upper belt is to light to be anything but useless.

[Korpen]

Uhm... lets look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Inflexible_Diagrams_Brasseys_1888.jpg
Guns seperated by boiler rooms and the SS 'midbreak area.'
So the guns of Inflexible ARE NOT actually on the same deck- one is fore and one is aft of the midbreak.
Colossus was just a copy of this design, with similar layout.

SS3B is no different from earlier versions in that the midbreak point is something that is inserted by the designer. So in inflexible case both the gun turrets can be "aft deck forward" if the pint is set ahead of the first turret. As she is a flush-decker the practical impact is zero in any case. So your assumption that the midbreak point should be between the turrets are no better or worse then that it should be ahead or behind them.

And if the whole 'citadel' thing did not mean that watertight integrity must be preserved, then why was Colossus regarded as inferior to the Inflexible? I can tell you- because the Inflexible was praised for her citadel preserving sufficient reserve buoyancy to keep the ship afloat, while Colossus (in addition to having piss-poor maneuvering) did not have sufficient reserve buoyancy inside her citadel to preserve the ship's flotation.

Colossus was regarded as a less then ideal ship not because any innate failure as such, but due to changing perceptions as to what the ship would do.
Inflexible could also strongly be regarded as a failure, as she was largely obsolete by the time she was completed (she was also criticized by Reed among others for just the point you say she was praised for).

However that is not the point of contention here; neither ship did really have sufficient reserve buoyancy to fight with the ends completely flooded, but they were designed so that would not happen. The armoured deck protected the spaces below the waterline, and together with the very extensive subdivision watertight integrity was achieved without using of a thick armoured belt.

[Carthaginian]

However that is not the point of contention here; neither ship did really have sufficient reserve buoyancy to fight with the ends completely flooded, but they were designed so that would not happen. The armoured deck protected the spaces below the waterline, and together with the very extensive subdivision watertight integrity was achieved without using of a thick armoured belt.

Strange, Korpen- you seem to contradict every historic source on the matter- so forgive me if I go with their version of Inflexible over yours:
"Packed with innovations, Inflexible mounted larger guns than those of any previous British warship and had the thickest armour ever to be fitted to a Royal Navy ship. Controversially, she was designed so that if her un-armoured ends should be seriously damaged in action and become water-logged, the buoyancy of the armoured centre section of the ship would keep her afloat and upright."

Also, notice that the gentleman is specifying FORWARD and SIDE armament in the same location for his turrets. This literally places them side by side. If he wants them separated then he needs to put the midbreak between them PERIOD. As there is clearly a 'fore and aft' arrangement to every ship but the Chinese one I posted, this leads me to say his design is not exactly where he wants it to be.

You will never change my mind by argument, Korpen. I just don't see your opinions as going along with the information I'm reading.

[Korpen]

Strange, Korpen- you seem to contradict every historic source on the matter- so forgive me if I go with their version of Inflexible over yours:
"Packed with innovations, Inflexible mounted larger guns than those of any previous British warship and had the thickest armour ever to be fitted to a Royal Navy ship. Controversially, she was designed so that if her un-armoured ends should be seriously damaged in action and become water-logged, the buoyancy of the armoured centre section of the ship would keep her afloat and upright."

True but incomplete (also re-read what is said, as sometimes you read what people write like the Devil reads the bible). "Birth of the battleship" goes into length about the debate about Inflexible. And her ends were no un-armoured, they just did not have a armoured belt.

Also, notice that the gentleman is specifying FORWARD and SIDE armament in the same location for his turrets. This literally places them side by side. If he wants them separated then he needs to put the midbreak between them PERIOD. As there is clearly a 'fore and aft' arrangement to every ship but the Chinese one I posted, this leads me to say his design is not exactly where he wants it to be.

Here you are plain simply wrong.
The area indicated by SS is 25m long, hence the turrets can be anywhere along those 25m, and nothing say they must be in identical positions. Do not try and add assumptions about SS placement that SS itself does not have.

You will never change my mind by argument, Korpen.

Wow, you sound like when one is discussing religion with people from Sea anemone churches.