Alternative Dreadnought

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (delcyros) — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:40:05 GMT

Thanks hoist40 for Your quick reply on the machinery issues and P3D for Your comments on the ship.

I had to choose the hullform for weight distributional reasons. This is not simmed in Springsharp but the weight distribution would become a major factor in such a compact design. I used to plot a graph of the design and harolds excel spreadshet in order to achieve a structurally sound proposal. The max. lift coincides with the area where most weight (the the amidship center and wing...

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (hoist40) — Fri, 02 May 2008 01:04:54 GMT

P3D says

The torpedoes are not behind the main belt, is that intentional?

That's where American BB's had them, just in front of the forward turret, did other countries do it differently?

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (P3D) — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:07:30 GMT

Delcyros,

That's a nice budget battleship. A bit unconventional hull form, fuller in the aft, and finer fore. The torpedoes are not behind the main belt, is that intentional?

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (hoist40) — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:05:30 GMT

Is there a significant difference in machinery spaces reserved for the turbines / trip exp. machines of USS DELAWARE (trip. exp. eng.) and USS NORTH DAKOTA (Curtiss-Turbines), respectively?

No, the enginerooms were the same size for both ships, 44 foot long 50.50 foot wide. Its only when they used Parsons turbines on the Utah class that they increased to 60 foot long

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (delcyros) — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:38:59 GMT

Is there a significant difference in machinery spaces reserved for the turbines / trip exp. machines of USS DELAWARE (trip. exp. eng.) and USS NORTH DAKOTA (Curtiss-Turbines), respectively? From the drawings it doesn´t appear to be, correct me, if I am wrong. IJN AKI and IJN SATSUMA would be helpful for this question, too.

The following SS model is my finalized proposal for a slow Dreadnought using 1904 engine date to reflect Dreadnoughts historical machinery weights.
The...

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (WarshipAdmin) — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:30:57 GMT

I think the point about the turbines being difficult to package is relevant there, can you fit the engine/ boiler rooms between B&C barbettes ? Might that not have been one of the biggets drivers towards longer hulls - same braodside for 25% fewer turrets, better speed for a given power, etc.

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (Joshua Kintner) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:45:56 GMT

Ship Dimension comparison:

453.8x79.6x26 feet King Edward VII
452.5x80.5x25 feet South Carolina

So working with a 0.9 foot discrepancy in beam, a South Carolina type would be able to fit within the dimensions of a King Edward VII class. And the South Carolina is rated for eighteen knots, which fits in with the speed of the current pre-dreadnought battleline. Does anyone want to take a crack at a British-ized version of the South Carolina class, with 4 twin turrets...

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:41:29 GMT

I was talking to the other fellow Dave.

But have you read the Lambert book as well? I have noted a tendency on your part to clutch at the merest fragmentary shred on a website as conclusive proof of an idea you like, while well researched scholarly works by respected naval historians are dismissed out of hand. If you have read the Massie book then you must at least be aware of the changes in the estimates 1904-1908, the actions on overseas bases and warships stations and the...

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (hoist40) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:41:23 GMT

One problem you are going to have is that Parsons turbines are longer then equivalent reciprocating engines so superfiring designs are going to be even more congested then the South Carolina class. Maybe a three turret design with some 6 inch casemates? Sort of an intermediate between Dreadnought and the PD's

The South Carolina class with reciprocating had 16,500 hp engines in a 44 foot long and 50 foot wide enginerooms

The Delaware class reciprocating or Curtis...

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (Dave Bender) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:59:15 GMT

Yes. And I disagree that there was a direct connection between military requirements and military construction in either Britain or Germany. The admirals just wanted to expand their naval kingdoms.

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:39:38 GMT

'I hardly know anything about the political situation."

Have you read Massies "Dreadnought"? or even better Lamberts "Sir John Fishers Naval Revolution"?

The political situation was intergral to the whole design process, and the subsequent years programmes.

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (Dave Bender) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:40:18 GMT

All the nations mentioned have been neutralized via diplomacy. Which does not mean they will remain friendly forever. However Britain can afford to take a break from building cruiser killers for a couple years. That will save some money in the short term.

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (PMN1) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:31:30 GMT

Got this form Warship Projects a while back

From Anatomy of the Ship Battleship Dreadnought by John Roberts, among other designs of the time

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (delcyros) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:08:51 GMT

P3D wrote:

Delcyros:
The BB is a nice one, although protection is a clear step backward, and 5 turrets cannot fit on a small ship, on the centerline. But politicians would be thrilled with such an impressive an relatively cheap battleship.

Why did you choose 1904 engine year?
The battlecruiser version would not have similar dimensional restrictions. There are larger docks around, and some...

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (Red Admiral) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:45:32 GMT

Something similar to Narbeth's 1905 design with conventional 4x2 arrangement. Springsharp might say it'll fit onto this hull but I'd be pretty sure that it's lying.

laid down 1905

Displacement:
15,312 t light; 15,990 t standard; 17,318 t normal; 18,381 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(457.00 ft / 454.00 ft) x 79.00 ft x (26.00 / 27.35 ft)
(139.29 m / 138.38 m) x...

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (P3D) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:17:07 GMT

NG:

I hardly know anything about the political situation. I was wondering how the Dreadnought could have been built to make more sense. The ship historically was a one-off design for almost three years, too fast for the existing battleline but not fast enough to take on armored cruisers. Due to your objections the Lord Nelson can get built, it won't have much effect. I could introduce an earlier delta, so that the ships would be Lord Nelson replacements instead.

...

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (Joshua Kintner) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:31:46 GMT

After battles in the Admiralty, Sir John Fisher reluctantly agrees to postpone the construction of the all-big-gun armored cruisers that would have become the Invincible class. The Lorn Nelson class won't be build. Instead, a class of four turbine-powered all-big-gun battleships is to be laid down in 1905. As the availability of docks is a concern, these ships should be only slightly larger than the previus KE-VII class - 453'8" x 79'6" x 26'....

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (delcyros) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:10:16 GMT

I am not really sure what exactly is required here. In accordance with the suggestions of Archer Jones and Keogh (The Dreadnought - Revolution: Another Perspective) I bring up two main proposals. The "slow" Dreadnought, which is slow enough to allow the later Pre-Dreads to remain in the battleline and the all big gun armoured cruiser to remain in their scouting task. The designs may not look that impressive technically but strategically, politically and financially, they do make...

Re: Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:06:14 GMT

Quick comments..

Your battlefleet is already dominant or dominant to the power of two.

You have a massive armoured cruiser problem, as the US, France, Japan, Russia etc are building huge numbers of first class cruisers with 10 and even 12in guns. Meeting these ships on a numbers basis under a two power standard is problematic.

Under the Imperial Defence act of 1889 and later you have huge numbers of second and third class cruisers completed in the...

Alternative Dreadnought

feeds@yuku.com (P3D) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:23:11 GMT

After battles in the Admiralty, Sir John Fisher reluctantly agrees to postpone the construction of the all-big-gun armored cruisers that would have become the Invincible class. The Lorn Nelson class won't be build. Instead, a class of four turbine-powered all-big-gun battleships is to be laid down in 1905. As the availability of docks is a concern, these ships should be only slightly larger than the previus KE-VII class - 453'8" x 79'6" x 26'. Squeezing the ship into...