Reconstruction thoughts

[Valles]

Bardiche, Maoria Battleship laid down 1906 (Engine 1902)

Displacement:
   26,319 t light; 27,814 t standard; 29,520 t normal; 30,885 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   708.47 ft / 705.38 ft x 98.43 ft x 22.97 ft (normal load)
   215.94 m / 215.00 m x 30.00 m  x 7.00 m

Armament:
      4 - 11.81" / 300 mm guns (2x2 guns), 823.82lbs / 373.68kg shells, 1906 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      6 - 11.81" / 300 mm guns in single mounts, 823.82lbs / 373.68kg shells, 1906 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on side, all amidships
      16 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1906 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side ends, evenly spread
     16 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
      16 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1906 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
   Weight of broadside 10,092 lbs / 4,578 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   11.8" / 300 mm   423.23 ft / 129.00 m   13.12 ft / 4.00 m
   Ends:   5.91" / 150 mm   282.12 ft / 85.99 m   13.12 ft / 4.00 m
   Upper:   3.94" / 100 mm   705.38 ft / 215.00 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
     Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   11.8" / 300 mm   5.91" / 150 mm      10.8" / 275 mm
   2nd:   11.8" / 300 mm   5.91" / 150 mm      10.8" / 275 mm
   3rd:   5.91" / 150 mm         -               -
   4th:   2.36" / 60 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.36" / 60 mm, Conning tower: 11.81" / 300 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, reciprocating cruising steam engines plus steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 19,898 ihp / 14,844 Kw = 18.00 kts
   Range 4,800nm at 11.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,071 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   1,125 - 1,463

Cost:
   £2.423 million / $9.692 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,261 tons, 4.3 %
   Armour: 10,045 tons, 34.0 %
      - Belts: 4,711 tons, 16.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 2,771 tons, 9.4 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,320 tons, 7.9 %
      - Conning Tower: 243 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 3,158 tons, 10.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,329 tons, 38.4 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,201 tons, 10.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 525 tons, 1.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     46,049 lbs / 20,888 Kg = 55.9 x 11.8 " / 300 mm shells or 4.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
   Metacentric height 6.8 ft / 2.1 m
   Roll period: 15.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.42
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.44

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has raised forecastle, raised quarterdeck
   Block coefficient: 0.648
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.17 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26.56 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 29 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 3.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 1.54 ft / 0.47 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      29.53 ft / 9.00 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   29.53 ft / 9.00 m (19.69 ft / 6.00 m aft of break)
      - Mid (50 %):      19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Quarterdeck (20 %):   29.53 ft / 9.00 m (19.69 ft / 6.00 m before break)
      - Stern:      29.53 ft / 9.00 m
      - Average freeboard:   23.62 ft / 7.20 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 70.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 176.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 53,088 Square feet or 4,932 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 160 lbs/sq ft or 780 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.11
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

250 tons assorted unplanned weights
25 tons long-range radio installation
250 tons fire control system and paraphenalia

Class of three:
Bardiche
Raging Heart
Reinforce

The above is the current layout of my Bardiche class battleships, the beating heart of the Maori battleline. For all their tonnage, they're massively inefficient, with a variety of serious flaws that are mostly to do with the fact that, at the time I designed them, I had no real clue what I was doing.

Naturally, given my own inability to forgive myself for any mistake, figuring out how to fix them has been an ongoing obsession.

The latest evolution of my thinking looks like this...

Bardiche Assault, Maori Battleship laid down 1916

Displacement:
   35,209 t light; 37,597 t standard; 41,016 t normal; 43,752 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   717.23 ft / 705.38 ft x 111.55 ft x 27.23 ft (normal load)
   218.61 m / 215.00 m x 34.00 m  x 8.30 m

Armament:
      10 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (5x2 guns), 1,687.50lbs / 765.44kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
      16 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (8x2 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1916 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side ends, evenly spread
      4 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.31lbs / 0.59kg shells, 1916 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
   Weight of broadside 18,528 lbs / 8,404 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   15.0" / 380 mm   479.66 ft / 146.20 m   19.69 ft / 6.00 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 105 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      0.98" / 25 mm   479.66 ft / 146.20 m   26.61 ft / 8.11 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   15.0" / 380 mm   11.8" / 300 mm      15.0" / 380 mm
   2nd:   5.91" / 150 mm   3.94" / 100 mm      1.97" / 50 mm
   3rd:   0.98" / 25 mm   0.39" / 10 mm      0.39" / 10 mm

   - Armour deck: 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 14.96" / 380 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 35,357 shp / 26,376 Kw = 20.00 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 14.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 6,154 tons

Complement:
   1,440 - 1,873

Cost:
   £5.502 million / $22.007 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2,316 tons, 5.6 %
   Armour: 15,948 tons, 38.9 %
      - Belts: 6,155 tons, 15.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 465 tons, 1.1 %
      - Armament: 4,473 tons, 10.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 4,471 tons, 10.9 %
      - Conning Tower: 383 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 1,317 tons, 3.2 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,128 tons, 36.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,807 tons, 14.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 1.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     71,899 lbs / 32,613 Kg = 42.6 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 12.0 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.14
   Metacentric height 7.6 ft / 2.3 m
   Roll period: 17.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.51
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.29

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.670
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.32 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26.56 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 37 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      22.97 ft / 7.00 m
      - Forecastle (16 %):   19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Mid (50 %):      19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Quarterdeck (16 %):   19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Stern:      19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Average freeboard:   19.90 ft / 6.06 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 68.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 159.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 61,387 Square feet or 5,703 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 194 lbs/sq ft or 946 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.12
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily



2.6BP/$6.6 - Basic Reconstruction cost
1.3BP/$2.6 - New Engines
2.3BP/$4.6 - Armament replaced
15.9BP/$15.9 - Complete replacement and redesign of all armor, including addition of torpedo bulkhead
0.5BP/$0.5 - Fire control and other arrangements replaced

22.6BP/$31.2 - Grand total bill over 2 1/2 years.

An equivalent new ship would take four years and cost $35, so overall, the effort does actually pay for itself. Barely, granted, but given other factors, that's enough.

[Ithekro]

Is that sort  of reconstruction even physically possible?  Sure she was way over sized, but you'd need to cut new holes in the deck and lots of structure for those need barbettes, then figure out what to do with the remaining holes from all those single mounts on the side.

[Valles]

It would, I figure, amount to ripping much of the ship into its component parts, figuring out what you could keep and what would need to change, scrapping the parts that wouldn't work and building replacements, then reassembling the entire thing again. Not a matter of, 'open it up and lift this bit out', but of a multi-acre junkyard that's no longer recognizable as a ship, and two years later you have three senior engineers standing together wondering where that extra bolt goes.

In all honesty, I'm fixing these things come hell or high water, and be damned to the cost. The only question is when, and how long it'll take.

[maddox]

You have those 3 big 11.81 barbettes in each side.   Why not adding  tripple or even quad 150's there?  Makes the change a little less drastic.


As I see it, it's like retaining anchors and ships bell, and build a new ship around these.

[Tanthalas]

Jebus man and I thought my reconstruction projects were out there... I think you could do it, the only question I see is would it be worth it.  If you are dedicated to fixing them and this is the plan you want to go with I say do it, but make sure the Eng. types figure out where that last bolt goes.

[Valles]

You have those 3 big 11.81 barbettes in each side.   Why not adding  tripple or even quad 150's there?  Makes the change a little less drastic.

First, I don't have the 'any size barbettes' tech, so it'd be technically illegal.

Second, the 'reconstructed' layout is A-Q(R)S-X, so midships flank turrets would be fouling the arcs of 3/5ths of the main battery.

As I see it, it's like retaining anchors and ships bell, and build a new ship around these.

Not just the bell, but yes, somewhat. Given the kinds of notions polynesian religion seems to have about the 'spirits of objects', I suspect that this is actually a more in-character action than it first appears, but I'll be the first to admit that the real driving factor is my own neuroses.

Jebus man and I thought my reconstruction projects were out there... I think you could do it, the only question I see is would it be worth it.  If you are dedicated to fixing them and this is the plan you want to go with I say do it, but make sure the Eng. types figure out where that last bolt goes.

Mmm. My goals are to get a some kind of real return on these things, beyond the bad joke of their scrap 'value', and to end up with a real front-line battleship. If that boils down to a forty-percent BP discount on what's effectively a new battleship, so be it.

[P3D]

The only thing common in the two designs is the waterline length. You proposed reconstruction would be the like the USN did with the monitors. You can keep neither the nameplate or the ship bell as you change everything on the ship. Like at least half the original frames and plating that you cannot really reuse in the new one. Most probably there's nothing you could keep from the old hull in the new ship.
I.e. you have a scrap value of 3.9BP and your true cost is then 31BP.

[Ithekro]

So basically stripping it down to her hull frame and more or less starting over from that.

[P3D]

So basically stripping it down to her hull frame keel and more or less starting over from that.

FIFY (fixed it for you)

[Valles]

The only thing common in the two designs is the waterline length. You proposed reconstruction would be the like the USN did with the monitors. You can keep neither the nameplate or the ship bell as you change everything on the ship. Like at least half the original frames and plating that you cannot really reuse in the new one. Most probably there's nothing you could keep from the old hull in the new ship.
I.e. you have a scrap value of 3.9BP and your true cost is then 31BP.

If the mods choose to enforce such a thing, perhaps.

But that is the only situation under which I'll produce so much wasteful trash.

[Nobody]

Main problem I see is that you're changing the beam significantly (+4 m/13.3%, 30 -> 34 m) and the draft by 1.3 m/18.6% (7 -> 8.3 m) but keep the freeboard (6 m) the same. I don't think you can call this a reconstruction. Especially the beam change doesn't seem plausible to me. Combined with the "internal" changes you're very much building an entirely new ship.

[Valles]

You have a point about the freeboard, at least. Will need to fix that sometime other than 3:40am. The draft-change is calculated according to total hull girder height, IE, 6m+7m=13m*0.1=1.3m.

The difference in beam is, essentially, a case of designing 'torpedo bulges' so that they end up so integrated into the ship's structure that they are, strengthwise, part of the hull. The torpedo bulkheads, for instance, run along the line of the original hull surface, which makes the entire system fairly vulnerable as such things go. A legacy of the original design, so to speak.

[Jefgte]

That's really big reconstruction, bigger than Kongo & Cavour class

Really too expensive for 1906 BBs !!!

You could simply change the guns & increase from 305 to 320.
&/or install 6xT2x275 (2 superfiring) in side distribution...thats all.

IMO, Use the BPs in new ships is a better choice.


Jef

[Walter]

A sane government would shoot the guy(s) who would come up with a wasteful plan like that for treason! :D

Are there any real life examples where a ship's beam is so radically altered (without using bulges) as this?

[Guinness]

Certainly adding what amounts to a second hull outside the first one will result in hull weights *alot* heavier than the brand new conventional hull SS2 simmed. That alone ought to make this thing untenable.

SS2 bulges would be ok, but widening the beam is probably not. You will also want to try to preserve the overall hull depth, meaning if she gets deeper, you'll want to lower "freeboard" a bit. Still, in that scenario, we can't accurately capture the fact that the main belt will now sit deeper in the water.

I'd have to agree: this concept is something that goes beyond a reconstruction to... something else. Maybe the approach is to list the components (by weight) you want to reuse, and then total up the scrap value of the rest, subtracting those weights from the cost of a brand new ship. This may give a better representation of the real costs involved.