Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 4 of 5  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Syzmo
Post subject: Re: US Fast Battleship Scheme C 1918Posted: March 29th, 2014, 11:03 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 285
Joined: August 13th, 2011, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore MD
Not sure if this design is much better, in fact I loose a lot of stuff that previously was grafted to the funnels.

[ img ]

_________________
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: US Fast Battleship Scheme C 1918Posted: March 29th, 2014, 11:44 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2105
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
You could put liferafts on the turrets. You could also remove the two foremost casemates, and put liferafts there.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Syzmo
Post subject: Re: US Fast Battleship Scheme C 1918Posted: March 30th, 2014, 2:35 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 285
Joined: August 13th, 2011, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore MD
I don't mean to overload this post with new drawings before the previous ones are finished but I had a rare Saturday off. .

USS Kearsarge CC-7 is what this design might have looked like if it were used as a starting point for a new class of capitol ships which were laid down shortly after the Japanese learned that America was spying on their diplomatic messages, causing the talks in Washington to be halted in 1922. She is a fast scout with more guns and better armor than the Lexington as well as a hanger for scout planes. By removing the ends off the belt I was able to drop several thousnads tons off the displacement so this ship is about the same as a Lexington.

Kearsarge, United States Battlecruiser laid down 1922

Displacement:
44,113 t light; 46,275 t standard; 48,000 t normal; 49,380 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
925.24 ft / 900.00 ft x 106.00 ft (Bulges 108.00 ft) x 32.00 ft (normal load)
282.01 m / 274.32 m x 32.31 m (Bulges 32.92 m) x 9.75 m

Armament:
10 - 16.00" / 406 mm guns (4 mounts), 2,048.00lbs / 928.96kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
14 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
6 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1922 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 21,436 lbs / 9,723 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 550.00 ft / 167.64 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
2.00" / 51 mm 550.00 ft / 167.64 m 24.00 ft / 7.32 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 9.00" / 229 mm 12.0" / 305 mm

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 16.00" / 406 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 154,183 shp / 115,021 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,104 tons

Complement:
1,620 - 2,107

Cost:
£12.346 million / $49.385 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,680 tons, 5.6 %
Armour: 16,160 tons, 33.7 %
- Belts: 4,520 tons, 9.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 977 tons, 2.0 %
- Armament: 4,106 tons, 8.6 %
- Armour Deck: 6,102 tons, 12.7 %
- Conning Tower: 455 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 5,230 tons, 10.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 19,894 tons, 41.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,887 tons, 8.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
59,120 lbs / 26,816 Kg = 28.9 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 8.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 7.2 ft / 2.2 m
Roll period: 17.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.57
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.30

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.540
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.33 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 40
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 34.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forecastle (60 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Mid (60 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Quarterdeck (40 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Stern: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 24.20 ft / 7.38 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 155.1 %
Waterplane Area: 65,966 Square feet or 6,128 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 211 lbs/sq ft or 1,031 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.00
- Longitudinal: 1.03
- 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

[ img ]

_________________
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
maomatic
Post subject: Re: US Fast Battleship Scheme C 1918Posted: March 30th, 2014, 10:44 am
Offline
Posts: 493
Joined: February 20th, 2014, 7:46 pm
Location: Germany
Great work!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charwhick
Post subject: Re: US Fast Battleship Scheme C 1918Posted: April 4th, 2014, 7:14 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 1:28 am
Great work, but I have a hard time seeing a 50,000t ship carrying 10x16" guns as a scout...

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: US Fast Battleship Scheme C 1918Posted: April 4th, 2014, 1:42 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2105
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
They did start the construction on six 45,000 ton ships with 8x16"50 Mark 2 purely for scouting. So why not up the ante with something bigger and more resilient? His scout has twice the armor of the Lex. Which fits a battleship more than a battlecruiser. I would call it a waste if used only for scouting. What can this and the Lex do, that the Omaha can`t do? Wouldn`t an improved Omaha be better for scouting? If it gets caught by superior forces, it`d be less of a waste.


Last edited by Karle94 on April 4th, 2014, 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Syzmo
Post subject: Re: US Fast Battleship Scheme C 1918Posted: April 4th, 2014, 2:04 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 285
Joined: August 13th, 2011, 4:03 am
Location: Baltimore MD
Now that you mention it I would like to design a better Omaha...

_________________
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." Thomas Edward Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BrockPaine
Post subject: Re: US Fast Battleship Scheme C 1918Posted: April 8th, 2014, 10:59 pm
Offline
Posts: 248
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 1:20 pm
Karle94 wrote:
What can this and the Lex do, that the Omaha can`t do? Wouldn`t an improved Omaha be better for scouting? If it gets caught by superior forces, it`d be less of a waste.
Make more speed in heavy sea conditions.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
eltf177
Post subject: Re: US Fast Battleship Scheme C 1918Posted: April 9th, 2014, 9:36 am
Offline
Posts: 503
Joined: July 29th, 2010, 5:03 pm
Karle94 wrote:
What can this and the Lex do, that the Omaha can`t do? Wouldn`t an improved Omaha be better for scouting? If it gets caught by superior forces, it`d be less of a waste.
It can also fight for the information it needs if necessary, as well as back up the battleline.

But you're right, it's a _lot_ more expensive!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: US Fast Battleship Scheme C 1918Posted: April 9th, 2014, 5:40 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
It might also make a better radio platform, back in the Bad Old Days. More range at speed, too.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 4 of 5  [ 41 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]