Shipbucket

Hello guys and gals,

Just registered and am a bit new to the site so not all that familiar with how things work around here and if and/or where I can make requests.

If the answer to that question is a "YES!" then I'd like to challenge anyone willing to visualise the ship of which I'm posting the specifications below:

Here's a profile that the ship's based on to get you started.


Freeboard dimensions are under "Hull Form Characteristics"

Laid Down: 1915

Displacement:
23.515 t light; 25.521 t standard; 28.671 t normal; 31.190 t full load

Dimensions:
Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(626,64 ft / 626,64 ft) x 88,58 ft (Bulges 95,14 ft) x (29,53 / 31,76 ft)
(191,00 m / 191,00 m) x 27,00 m (Bulges 29,00 m) x (9,00 / 9,68 m)

Armament:
8 - 15,00" / 381 mm 45,0 cal guns - 1.701,89lbs / 771,96kg shells, 140 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1914 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, 2 in fwd and 2 in aft in superfiring positions

14 - 6,00" / 152 mm 38,0 cal guns - 102,52lbs / 46,50kg shells, 400 per gun
Breech loading guns in broadside mounts, 1910 Model
14 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread

12 - 3,00" / 76,2 mm 45,0 cal guns - 13,62lbs / 6,18kg shells, 600 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1915 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 15.214 lbs / 6.901 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11,8" / 300 mm 375,98 ft / 114,60 m 11,29 ft / 3,44 m
Ends: 4,72" / 120 mm 250,62 ft / 76,39 m 11,29 ft / 3,44 m
Upper: 11,8" / 300 mm 375,98 ft / 114,60 m 8,01 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers %92 of normal length
Main Belt inclined 7,00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1,77" / 45 mm 375,98 ft / 114,60 m 27,03 ft / 8,24 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 82,02 ft / 25,00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13,4" / 340 mm 7,87" / 200 mm 10,2" / 260 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 1,97" / 50 mm
Forecastle: 0,98" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 0,98" / 25 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 11,81" / 300 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 54.638 shp / 40.760 Kw = 23,98 kts
Range 11.604nm at 14,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5.669 tons

Complement:
1.101 - 1.432

Cost:
£3,560 million / $14,240 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2.449 tons, %8,5
- Guns: 2.449 tons, %8,5
Armour: 8.601 tons, %30,0
- Belts: 4.249 tons, %14,8
- Torpedo bulkhead: 666 tons, %2,3
- Armament: 2.159 tons, %7,5
- Armour Deck: 1.288 tons, %4,5
- Conning Tower: 238 tons, %0,8
Machinery: 2.070 tons, %7,2
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10.395 tons, %36,3
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5.155 tons, %18,0
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, %0,0

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
36.830 lbs / 16.706 Kg = 21,8 x 15,0 " / 381 mm shells or 6,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,06
Metacentric height 4,7 ft / 1,4 m
Roll period: 18,5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 74 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,90
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,26

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,570 / 0,576
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,59 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25,03 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: %25,00, 29,53 ft / 9,00 m, 22,54 ft / 6,87 m
- Forward deck: %35,00, 22,54 ft / 6,87 m, 22,54 ft / 6,87 m
- Aft deck: %25,00, 11,25 ft / 3,43 m, 11,25 ft / 3,43 m
- Quarter deck: %15,00, 11,25 ft / 3,43 m, 11,25 ft / 3,43 m
- Average freeboard: 18,72 ft / 5,71 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): %73,7
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): %121,8
Waterplane Area: 39.473 Square feet or 3.667 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): %113
Structure weight / hull surface area: 196 lbs/sq ft or 959 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,96
- Longitudinal: 1,53
- Overall: 1,00

Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

You can name the ship yourselves if you like.

All I ask is that you stay loyal to the specs and pay attention to the year of building and never use lattice/cage masts.

Thanks in advance. Can't wait to see what you guys will come up with.

I'm no mod, but I think you can probably ask for whatever you want! Don't be surprised or unhappy if nobody takes you up on it, though.

Why is that?
Do people mostly do their own thing here?

I thought it'd be a challenge you know. And a chance for me to see my designs visualised. A bit of collaboration.

I'll be happy if someone takes it on, but not unhappy if not.

Thanks for the thought though.

Basically because a well thought out and executed drawing takes a lot of effort to do.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Well, I didn't imagine otherwise.

Like I said; I'll leave this here and if someone bites kudos, if not, then it's not the end of the world.

I'm an engineer by trade, and I find the drawing aspect to be a reasonably fun adjunct to my own design process. You'll get different answers from different people.

It's not infrequent for folks to show up and be a little, uh, annoying about how they have expectations that others will do what we see as their work for them. Which I'm not saying is true of you, necessarily, but there's basically nobody here who doesn't draw their own stuff. That breeds a certain mindset.

I would say if you look up real ships from around those dates you will find ships that are already very close to your wants. Queen Elizabeth, Royal Sovereign, Baden.

You could try altering any of those drawings yourself to match your statistics. You might find a liking for drawing rather than just playing with toy programs. Note: none of those ships are built with bulges and I have no idea where you got that idea from, to have a brand new ship that required bulges from new.

As you might guess I hate Springsharp.

Oh I see. My thinking was that there might be someone out there who was in-between projects and perhaps would have find this (or others I might have come up with) interesting and took it on for their own.

I didn't expect it to be seen as "doing someone else's work for them" because I had no expectations or use for it. I see now that my naiveté stems from my ignorance about the whole thing/community.
It's no secret I've had quite a bit of inspiration from the Queen Elizabeth-class (Warspite to be exact). That was only my 3rd try at the program after discovering it and so I think I'll be influenced a lot by real designs until I truly understand the connection between all the variables (I still don't know what the heck is "beam between bulkheads", since it doesn't seem to act what I think it's supposed to act like).

I'm not going to lie I initially wanted to draw it myself. That's how I became aware of this site. I've had no idea there was such a large community that was active on a daily basis. Though as with almost anything, it didn't take me long to realise I was way over myself thinking there was a software or some sorts that was designed for this type of thing. Nope, you draw every little pixel yourself.
I thought this post/request as an in-between while I was learning how to draw for myself.

On the bulge thing; I actually originally designed it with none. But after much tweaking and deliberation I found increasing the beam underwater by two meters gave me the most cost effective way of gaining some stability.
I'm not sure what you mean by "brand new ships requiring bulges from new". The Royal Navy had started fitting torpedo bulges on all-new constructions in 1914. Later the Japanese and the Italians fitted them on new designs as well.

The bulges you are talking about are actually 'internal bulkheads', within the hull. External bulges really did not come into fashion till the rebuilding phase of battleships (like Warspite) from the mid-1930's. These were required because of all the top-weight added to the rebuilt ships required the greater stability added by the bulges. The Italian BB's rebuilt as you note are also internal systems. The Pugliese system was internal within the hull.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge-c ... protection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renown-cl ... ser#Armour

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ ... hip_Yamato

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogami-class_cruiser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hood

While it doesn't say on it's Wikipedia page the US Tenessee-class were also constructed with torpedo bulges.

On both the Pugliese and conventional anti-torpedo systems the main bulkhead is on the inside of the bulge.
I think you're confusing torpedo belts with torpedo bulges.