Orange Capital Ships - Old Thread

[Guinness]

Didn't know what G3's BC was. Iowa is probably a slightly special case because of the Panama Canal, I'm guessing.

But at any rate, carry on. If there is no SHP limit on the 1916 engine tech, I've got some resimming to do :)

[Tanthalas]

There was a shaft HP limit before it was edited out after I left modding.

BCwise, G3 was around 0.59, Iowa around 0.62.

im still trying to figure out how to sim G3 LOL

[P3D]

The 30,000t Wraak ('Revenge') class. This would be the first Orange Battleship with superfiring turrets. No superfiring would save around 2000t. "Mixed" secondary armament - both casemates and mounts with hoist.

Armor scheme follows suit the existing battleships - thick vertical belt up to armored deck, and a 2" armored bulkhead behind. The 20 Torpedoes are including reloads - have a lot of hull space to play with.

Wraak, Orange Battleship type laid down 1912

Displacement:
   29,502 t light; 31,425 t standard; 33,894 t normal; 35,869 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   640.00 ft / 640.00 ft x 101.00 ft x 31.00 ft (normal load)
   195.07 m / 195.07 m x 30.78 m  x 9.45 m

Armament:
      8 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4x2 guns), 2,000.00lbs / 907.18kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (4x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      12 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on centreline, all forward
     12 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
      8 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1912 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      16 - 0.36" / 9.2 mm guns (8x2 guns), 0.02lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1912 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 18,268 lbs / 8,286 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 120
   20 - 20.0" / 508 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   410.00 ft / 124.97 m   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
   Ends:   6.00" / 152 mm   220.00 ft / 67.06 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
     10.00 ft / 3.05 m Unarmoured ends
   Upper:   6.00" / 152 mm   200.00 ft / 60.96 m   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
     Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      2.00" / 51 mm   410.00 ft / 124.97 m   38.00 ft / 11.58 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   15.0" / 381 mm   6.00" / 152 mm      14.0" / 356 mm
   2nd:   1.00" / 25 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      1.00" / 25 mm
   3rd:   4.00" / 102 mm         -         1.00" / 25 mm

   - Armour deck: 3.50" / 89 mm, Conning tower: 14.00" / 356 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 51,880 shp / 38,702 Kw = 23.00 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 4,444 tons

Complement:
   1,248 - 1,623

Cost:
   £2.978 million / $11.911 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,971 tons, 5.8 %
   Armour: 12,159 tons, 35.9 %
      - Belts: 4,576 tons, 13.5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,153 tons, 3.4 %
      - Armament: 3,075 tons, 9.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 3,038 tons, 9.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 316 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 2,069 tons, 6.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,884 tons, 38.0 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,391 tons, 13.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 420 tons, 1.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     41,194 lbs / 18,685 Kg = 24.4 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 6.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
   Metacentric height 6.2 ft / 1.9 m
   Roll period: 17.1 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.70
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.32

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.592
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.34 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 25.30 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
   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:      29.00 ft / 8.84 m
      - Forecastle (22 %):   22.00 ft / 6.71 m
      - Mid (40 %):      22.00 ft / 6.71 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
      - Stern:      14.00 ft / 4.27 m
      - Average freeboard:   19.62 ft / 5.98 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 94.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 137.1 %
   Waterplane Area: 46,924 Square feet or 4,359 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 200 lbs/sq ft or 978 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.95
      - Longitudinal: 1.46
      - 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

[Borys]

Something the KKK could build as well .... :)

[The Rock Doctor]

Looks fine.  I like the heavy secondary battery.

[Jefgte]

I like the heavy secondary battery.

Yes, Rocky but DDs don't like them very much  :D :D :D


Jef  ;)

[Tanthalas]

As I have stated before im not a huge fan of the 6" gun, I feal its just to heavy to be used as a QF mount.  Thats why I went 5" on all the ships I built for Italia, and my NS ships use 4" (I plan to develop or purchase a 5" gun for future projects)

[Guinness]

The CSA uses a similar in character justification for it's 5.5" gun (75 pound round vs 100 pound round).

I think OOC I agree though. The 6" gun was the world standard for cruisers and BB secondaries OTL largely because the Brits had adopted it in the Majestics and their other pre-dreads. There was, after all, considerable debate in Britain about 4" vs. 6" secondaries in Britain during the pre WW1 arms race. So in that respect, I think the 5" (particularly a high MV 5" like the US 5"/51) is the right compromise for capital ship anti-torpedo craft armament.

Cruisers may be another matter though. If the 6" cruiser is prevalent, then a 5" armed cruiser has to worry about being outranged by it's opponent. Truthfully, the US 5"/51 might have made a decent cruiser armament because of it's high MV in the age before fire control meant that engagements were likely to take place near maximum range, but once reliable FC was common, maybe not.

This seams (at least from my reading of Freidman) to be the reason that the US became so keen on 8" armed cruisers, despite their slow ROF.

So anyway, the point of this long winded rant is:

For Capital ship secondaries: you want the largest reliably quick firing gun you can mount, I think.

For Cruisers: you need a gun that can reach an an opponent you can't outrun at or beyond his maximum range. If this can be quick firing, all the better.

It's an interesting problem though.

[P3D]

Problem that the main advantage of the 5" comes only with proximity fuses (that's still 28 years away in Nverse), without that a smaller AA caliber (i.e. 3-4") + 6" secondaries is a much better combination.

The 5"/58" also sacrificed MV (anti-surface performance) for lighter mount and faster training (due to the lighter gun weight).

[Guinness]

P3D: true and true (though I'm pretty sure you mean the 5"/38).

I think that a longer 5" gun (like the historical US 5"/31) is superior to a 6" gun for anti-tb use because it has superior ROF while still throwing a large enough shell to do the job against an un-armored opponent. On top of that, the same ship can also ship more of them.

[P3D]

And you mean 5"/51 :P.

The other advantage of 6" is at distance. Longer range, higher terminal velocity, heavier shells, and the ROF advantage of 5" is less pronounced.
BTW the ROF advantage of the same era 5" vs 6" is like 33% higher vs. twice as heavy shells.

[Borys]

There should be a link to fascinating c. 1920 RN debates on 5,5" vs 6" guns.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=2434.0
Without parallel and unrelated appearance of weatherproof nmounts, the 5,5" could had been adopted as the gun for cruisers.

The KKK is developing a 75lbs gun, the 5,3"/135mm ...

Borys

[Guinness]

Just wanted to make sure you were paying attention :-)

Between a 5" gun and 6" gun, one gives up 50% projectile weight, but picks up 33% in ROF *per gun*. However, since you can mount more of them, you are getting a much higher ROF advantage per ship. For instance, if a hypothetical ship can mount 12 6" guns, firing at 6 rpm, that gives you 72 rpm total. Imagine the same ship could mount 18 5" guns (a number I think is probably about right). It could fire at 8 rpm 144 rpm total. That's twice the number of rounds per minute, higher likelyhood of hits at ranges both guns can reach, etc.

If the job is to kill a TB or a destroyer, I think the 5" gunned ship has the advantage.

Borys: I remember that link, but I think I read it when you (I think it was you) posted it on warships projects. It is well worth reading.

[P3D]

When your shell time-of-flight is larger than the loading time, then higher ROF starts losing advantages. Time-of-flight to 5000y is about 6s, 8000y is ~10s (6RPM). Shooting without spotting might not be the best idea, as you can not correct for he fall. AFAIK.

[Guinness]

True, but how much spotting by splashes are you going to be doing for a gun you are firing at less than 5 degrees elevation? Even at 8000 yds, the 5"/51 is shooting at 4.2 degrees elevation with a 7.2 degree angle of fall (all per navweaps). Seems to me that spotting might still be less important there than with main armament calibers, right?

More guns also means you can engage more targets at once, and still have coordinated fire, which still seems like an advantage to me.