Ideal battleship design
Re: Ideal battleship design
Now that I think about it, couldn't a "Modern BB" be more of a Battlecruiser? Less armor is required, unless of course you want missile protection too... Yeah, as long as you're spending the money I would add the armor. Only a fraction is needed to protect from the largest calibre these days, 5in, but for the more common missile, full armor might be smart for such a valuable ship. Any ideas on what the Montana, or an efficient, armor thickness would be?
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.
Re: Ideal battleship design
considering that a shipwreck ( ss-n-19 ) has a shaped charge warhead weighing close to half a ton armour is not going to cutt it . the extra weight would be better spent on defences . yeh it might be nice to bounce some silly little styx but if it can hit you then you have already made a big mistake . what really interests me is the possibility that the laser could become a suitable defence system
Re: Ideal battleship design
ok after some serious thought . the ideal bb designed for operations in the atlantic and mediterranean during ww2 .
considerations . in order of expected threat .
1. SUBMARINES
2. AIRCRAFT
3. Battleships
roles expected to be performed .
1. convoy escort
2. carrier escort
3. shore bombardement
4. Anti surface warfare operations.
In order to combat the various threats .
1. bulge and internal armour voids etc . also high cruisng speeds .
2. good medium range AA guns ( preferably with good HE shells ) good manuverability will add to this . increase vertical armour protection especially over the boilers and magazines . personally i like the Royal Navy twin 4.5 .
3. Mount medium velocity ( 800 m/s ) heavy calibre guns . with reliability being the key . this need for reliability creates some problems as the mountings i like the most also had the most problems . the older twin 15 inch guns (RN) were probably the most reliable . the best 16 inch gun i have found seems to be the 16 / 50 triple mount for the iowa. with 2 mounts you have wieght reduction and corresponding speed increases . 2 choices both front or 1 front 1 rear.
personally i like the idea of a both forward setup . with increased armour over the magazines . this also increases the number of possible medium aa positions .
Now for the roles expected .
1 and 2 have similar requirements . good sustained cruising speed ( over 20 kts ) and high max speed ( over 30 kts ) . They also require the ability to provide sufficent area aa and close in point aa . with the ability to mount extra twin 4.5 mounts i would go for 16 twin mounts setup in two clusters of 4 per side .each cluster has it's own directer . the close in aa protection can make use of the twin and quad 40 mm bofors . say 12 quad and 6 twin total .
an aircraft hangar in the ster superstructure and 4 or 5 seaplane scouts would also be good . a seaplane able to land and pick up downed pilots in the manner of the walrus would be good but performance was a little low.
3 . shore bombardement . this is were ease of replenishment is a good idea . i have never looked into how hard it ios to strike below a battleships ammunitioon but i'm sure it is a long and difficult task . maybe build a system to send main calibre guns to the magazines and powder to the powder room .
having a decent ammunition loadout also helps . 130 rds per gun is the standard iowa loadout i think . this represents 2.5 to 4 hrs on a gunline firing continuously so i see no reason to increase it . the scout planes would help this also . it would be nice to have float spitfires for gunnery spotting .
4. bb vs bb . speed manuverability and armour all play a hand here . the 16 inch guns will damage any concievable opponent at good ranges .
to provide the engine power i would use the Iowa engines . probably the best battleship powerplant produced .
The text below came from
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-003.htm
From Dr. Friedman's "US Battleships:"
All weights are in "long tons," that is, 2240 lb./ton. = 1018.18 kg.
Standard Displacement: 45,000 Tons
Design Displacement: 53,900 Tons
Design Full Load Displacement: 56,270 Tons
Note: "Design Displacement" is also known as "Trial Displacement." From that, I conclude that it includes 100% of fuel, stores and ammunition, as defined above.
In October 1943*:
55,950 Tons 162,277 SHP 29.3 knts.
In December 1943:
56,928 Tons 221,000 SHP 31.9 knts.
On the basis of the above trial data plus tests with models (both non-propelled and self-propelled), this was equated as follows:
53,900 Tons (Trial Displacement) 212,000 SHP 32.5 knts.
51,209 Tons (Light Ship) 225,000 SHP 34 knts.
During WWII, the Iowa's were considered good for 30.7 knts. under average conditions (foul bottom, moderate sea state).
Since the Iowa's power plant was designed for a 20% overload (254,000 SHP), a fully loaded Iowa could theoretically reach 33.5 knts., or a lightly loaded (51,000 tons) could reach 35.4 knts.
In October 1948, BuShips estimated that adding or subtracting 1,000 tons was equivalent to 0.25 knts. This is important, as it implies that an Iowa with only half its fuel (which seems to have been the European trial standard) would be 4500 tons lighter, which should imply a full knot faster.
Range:
Based upon the New Jersey's trial data, her fuel consumption was computed to be equivalent to 20,150 nm. @ 15 knts. and 4,830 nm. @ full power (212,000 SHP), which would be 30+ knts. You can see that doubling the speed quadruples the fuel consumption.
.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
i have used this passage as i am removing a full turret off a vessel that will be slightly shorter and lighter .
i expect similar performance due to the shorter and less efficent hull form .
This would give me a battleship with
6 16inch guns in two triple turrets
32 4.5 inch guns in 16 turrets
60 40 mm bofors ( 12 quad and 6 twin ) this number could be increased considerably. i do not belive the 20 mm were very effective so i would prefer more 40 mm .
displacement of around 50000 tons and an armour scheme slightly improved on the Iowa .
speed would be similar to an Iowa and theirfore improved on just about all other Battleships of the period.
The only ship i would fear in this ship is an Iowa or a Monty .
considerations . in order of expected threat .
1. SUBMARINES
2. AIRCRAFT
3. Battleships
roles expected to be performed .
1. convoy escort
2. carrier escort
3. shore bombardement
4. Anti surface warfare operations.
In order to combat the various threats .
1. bulge and internal armour voids etc . also high cruisng speeds .
2. good medium range AA guns ( preferably with good HE shells ) good manuverability will add to this . increase vertical armour protection especially over the boilers and magazines . personally i like the Royal Navy twin 4.5 .
3. Mount medium velocity ( 800 m/s ) heavy calibre guns . with reliability being the key . this need for reliability creates some problems as the mountings i like the most also had the most problems . the older twin 15 inch guns (RN) were probably the most reliable . the best 16 inch gun i have found seems to be the 16 / 50 triple mount for the iowa. with 2 mounts you have wieght reduction and corresponding speed increases . 2 choices both front or 1 front 1 rear.
personally i like the idea of a both forward setup . with increased armour over the magazines . this also increases the number of possible medium aa positions .
Now for the roles expected .
1 and 2 have similar requirements . good sustained cruising speed ( over 20 kts ) and high max speed ( over 30 kts ) . They also require the ability to provide sufficent area aa and close in point aa . with the ability to mount extra twin 4.5 mounts i would go for 16 twin mounts setup in two clusters of 4 per side .each cluster has it's own directer . the close in aa protection can make use of the twin and quad 40 mm bofors . say 12 quad and 6 twin total .
an aircraft hangar in the ster superstructure and 4 or 5 seaplane scouts would also be good . a seaplane able to land and pick up downed pilots in the manner of the walrus would be good but performance was a little low.
3 . shore bombardement . this is were ease of replenishment is a good idea . i have never looked into how hard it ios to strike below a battleships ammunitioon but i'm sure it is a long and difficult task . maybe build a system to send main calibre guns to the magazines and powder to the powder room .
having a decent ammunition loadout also helps . 130 rds per gun is the standard iowa loadout i think . this represents 2.5 to 4 hrs on a gunline firing continuously so i see no reason to increase it . the scout planes would help this also . it would be nice to have float spitfires for gunnery spotting .
4. bb vs bb . speed manuverability and armour all play a hand here . the 16 inch guns will damage any concievable opponent at good ranges .
to provide the engine power i would use the Iowa engines . probably the best battleship powerplant produced .
The text below came from
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-003.htm
From Dr. Friedman's "US Battleships:"
All weights are in "long tons," that is, 2240 lb./ton. = 1018.18 kg.
Standard Displacement: 45,000 Tons
Design Displacement: 53,900 Tons
Design Full Load Displacement: 56,270 Tons
Note: "Design Displacement" is also known as "Trial Displacement." From that, I conclude that it includes 100% of fuel, stores and ammunition, as defined above.
In October 1943*:
55,950 Tons 162,277 SHP 29.3 knts.
In December 1943:
56,928 Tons 221,000 SHP 31.9 knts.
On the basis of the above trial data plus tests with models (both non-propelled and self-propelled), this was equated as follows:
53,900 Tons (Trial Displacement) 212,000 SHP 32.5 knts.
51,209 Tons (Light Ship) 225,000 SHP 34 knts.
During WWII, the Iowa's were considered good for 30.7 knts. under average conditions (foul bottom, moderate sea state).
Since the Iowa's power plant was designed for a 20% overload (254,000 SHP), a fully loaded Iowa could theoretically reach 33.5 knts., or a lightly loaded (51,000 tons) could reach 35.4 knts.
In October 1948, BuShips estimated that adding or subtracting 1,000 tons was equivalent to 0.25 knts. This is important, as it implies that an Iowa with only half its fuel (which seems to have been the European trial standard) would be 4500 tons lighter, which should imply a full knot faster.
Range:
Based upon the New Jersey's trial data, her fuel consumption was computed to be equivalent to 20,150 nm. @ 15 knts. and 4,830 nm. @ full power (212,000 SHP), which would be 30+ knts. You can see that doubling the speed quadruples the fuel consumption.
.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
i have used this passage as i am removing a full turret off a vessel that will be slightly shorter and lighter .
i expect similar performance due to the shorter and less efficent hull form .
This would give me a battleship with
6 16inch guns in two triple turrets
32 4.5 inch guns in 16 turrets
60 40 mm bofors ( 12 quad and 6 twin ) this number could be increased considerably. i do not belive the 20 mm were very effective so i would prefer more 40 mm .
displacement of around 50000 tons and an armour scheme slightly improved on the Iowa .
speed would be similar to an Iowa and theirfore improved on just about all other Battleships of the period.
The only ship i would fear in this ship is an Iowa or a Monty .
Re: Ideal battleship design
Not a Yamato? Or anything coming from the rear?
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.
Re: Ideal battleship design
So did I, but in fact the vast majority of the 26 planes claimed by SD at Santa Cruz were shot down with the 20mm Oerlikons and late in the war the kills of the US BB's were about evenly distributed between the 5", 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikons. It all depends on how and against what you use it.als_pug wrote:... i do not belive the 20 mm were very effective so i would prefer more 40 mm ...
The Bofors lacked rate of fire and firing duration (small ammo clips), so the 20mm Oerlikons were quite useful. I think the largest belt fed guns with a high rate of fire were about 30mm in size and, since I'd also like to have a single calibre small calibre AAA, I'd go for this.
Re: Ideal battleship design
I seam to recall there being a fair amount of doubt in regards to SoDak's claims last time they were brought up as well. That ship did not have a reputation of being shy to claim credit for things.
Re: Ideal battleship design
I'd be interested in knowing were you got your percentages of kills.JtD wrote: The Bofors lacked rate of fire and firing duration (small ammo clips), so the 20mm Oerlikons were quite useful.
The Bofors had a very high rate of fire and I've never before this seen any complaint about loaders being able to keep up with it. I believe the clips could be inserted before it finished firing the previous one, and it was water cooled so sustained rate of fire was very good. Is this your opinion or do you have a reference for this?
20mm was a good revenge weapon. It had a relatively short range so it's kills were usually against planes that had already attacked the ship. It was considered a "morale" weapon against Kamikazes ... it gave the gunners something to do instead of just curling up in a ball with fear. In fact, the 40mm wasn't powerful enough and I believe the Kamikaze was the chief reason for the switch back to 3" AA at the end of the war.
Re: Ideal battleship design
If I had remembered the source I would have named it. Sorry.
The Bofors managed to maintain about 150rpm per gun. That's not very good. A good 30mm cannon could do about 300rpm with 500g projectiles for about the same output as the Bofors. The Oerlikon had about the same rof as a good 30mm gun (none of which were used as AAA to my knowledge), but used a much lighter projectile. I'm basing my thoughts on the German Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 103 aircraft cannon.
WRT larger calibre guns and kamikaze - it's like I said, it depends on how and against what you use it. Kamikazes required one hit kills. That is a bit different from other situations, where a damaged aircraft could be allowed to go down two hours later. In particular Japanese planes were vulnerable to minor damage that resulted in a total loss after some time.
The Bofors managed to maintain about 150rpm per gun. That's not very good. A good 30mm cannon could do about 300rpm with 500g projectiles for about the same output as the Bofors. The Oerlikon had about the same rof as a good 30mm gun (none of which were used as AAA to my knowledge), but used a much lighter projectile. I'm basing my thoughts on the German Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 103 aircraft cannon.
WRT larger calibre guns and kamikaze - it's like I said, it depends on how and against what you use it. Kamikazes required one hit kills. That is a bit different from other situations, where a damaged aircraft could be allowed to go down two hours later. In particular Japanese planes were vulnerable to minor damage that resulted in a total loss after some time.
-
yellowtail3
- Senior Member
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Ideal battleship design
Oh, that's easy: just shift colors and go to sea in the North Carolina. Or on of the South Dakotas. If you want to go a little faster, one of the Iowas.Karl Heidenreich wrote:In the opinion of the forum members. Thinking in a Battleship (or Battlecruiser) for service in the Atlantic, 1941-1945, German or British or French or Italian or USA, which characteristics would it need to have in order to be an ideal BB or BC? Guns? Armour? Speed? Boilers or diesel? Radar? Etc.?
Virtues? Long legs (endurance), reliable power plants, good armor, excellent fire control, great main battery guns, even better AA armament. What's not to like?
Shift Colors... underway.
Re: Ideal battleship design
The naval 3,7cm Flak M43 was essentially the Mk103 developed for AA use and using the more powerful 3,7cm round.The Oerlikon had about the same rof as a good 30mm gun (none of which were used as AAA to my knowledge), but used a much lighter projectile. I'm basing my thoughts on the German Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 103 aircraft cannon.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
Re: Ideal battleship design
We talking WWII era ideal design? I thought for awhile it was modern. Okay then. As many 5in DP's as possible to cram into the midsection. One row ontop of another if possible.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.
-
Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Ideal battleship design
According to the expert opinion of Friedman and/or Raven & Roberts as with Garzke and Dulin and even Okun the issue is far more complicated than that. Both Treaty designs, North Carolina and South Dakota, as discussed in the thread about Bismarck and her contemporaries present a series of characteristics that made them undesirable to be "ideal". The resulting analysis goes further with the Iowa Class in several aspects that have been mentioned in those threads that contains the quotes and information required.
Oh, that's easy: just shift colors and go to sea in the North Carolina. Or on of the South Dakotas. If you want to go a little faster, one of the Iowas.
Virtues? Long legs (endurance), reliable power plants, good armor, excellent fire control, great main battery guns, even better AA armament. What's not to like?
As for me I´m tending to believe that the space arrayed armor scheme of the Bismarck Class present several advantages of the AoN schemes of the mentioned vessels. But so far I´m still gathering information which is the reason that for the time being I stopped cold from writting in the Bismarck and her Contemporaries threads.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
-
yellowtail3
- Senior Member
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
- Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Ideal battleship design
Well... I'll have to look at that thread. But I think the criterion I mention - Long legs (endurance), reliable power plants, good armor, excellent fire control, great main battery guns, even better AA armament - pretty much cover an 'ideal battleship'Karl Heidenreich wrote:According to the expert opinion of Friedman and/or Raven & Roberts as with Garzke and Dulin and even Okun the issue is far more complicated than that. Both Treaty designs, North Carolina and South Dakota, as discussed in the thread about Bismarck and her contemporaries present a series of characteristics that made them undesirable to be "ideal". The resulting analysis goes further with the Iowa Class in several aspects that have been mentioned in those threads that contains the quotes and information required.
you'll get a kick out of this - I'm watching Sink the Bismarck! on AMC as I post this. It's rainy outside, so I'm not hunting until tomorrow. Prinz Eugun just got loose, and a dinged Bismarck is on the run. Boy, this movie has a nasty view of Admiral Lutjens...
Shift Colors... underway.
-
Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Ideal battleship design
yellowtail3:
About Lutjens in that movie you are right that it´s despiction is biased considering that the least nazi in that ship could have been him... also considering that the guy that was NOT looking for a promotion or glory was Lutjens. Neither was he as agressive as shown: he even failed to give the order to fire upon Hood in real life.
About the thread of the Bismarck and her contemporaries I would like to recommend the posts from the last three months which I do believe contains good information and good positions from the different views of the discussion. There are other threads, specially in Naval Weapons which are truly good with very rich comments from experts.
My position, as you know, favors the space array armor scheme and Bismarck´s ballistics but I´m in the process of evaluating with new books about, precisely, USN fast battleships.
Best regards,
Yellowtail: I do like that movie, nevertheless it´s historical mistakes but it works just fine. Of course, if you see the DS battle the contenders are in the wrong side: Bismarck firing to starboard and Hood to port!
you'll get a kick out of this - I'm watching Sink the Bismarck! on AMC as I post this. It's rainy outside, so I'm not hunting until tomorrow. Prinz Eugun just got loose, and a dinged Bismarck is on the run. Boy, this movie has a nasty view of Admiral Lutjens...
About Lutjens in that movie you are right that it´s despiction is biased considering that the least nazi in that ship could have been him... also considering that the guy that was NOT looking for a promotion or glory was Lutjens. Neither was he as agressive as shown: he even failed to give the order to fire upon Hood in real life.
About the thread of the Bismarck and her contemporaries I would like to recommend the posts from the last three months which I do believe contains good information and good positions from the different views of the discussion. There are other threads, specially in Naval Weapons which are truly good with very rich comments from experts.
My position, as you know, favors the space array armor scheme and Bismarck´s ballistics but I´m in the process of evaluating with new books about, precisely, USN fast battleships.
Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Re: Ideal battleship design
Garzke and Dulin clearly consider the SoDaks as the best of the treaty ships, just read page 96 of their American BB volume.Karl Heidenreich wrote:According to the expert opinion of Friedman and/or Raven & Roberts as with Garzke and Dulin and even Okun the issue is far more complicated than that. Both Treaty designs, North Carolina and South Dakota, as discussed in the thread about Bismarck and her contemporaries present a series of characteristics that made them undesirable to be "ideal". The resulting analysis goes further with the Iowa Class in several aspects that have been mentioned in those threads that contains the quotes and information required.
As for me I´m tending to believe that the space arrayed armor scheme of the Bismarck Class present several advantages of the AoN schemes of the mentioned vessels. But so far I´m still gathering information which is the reason that for the time being I stopped cold from writting in the Bismarck and her Contemporaries threads.