Instead of trying to build the bigger more capable ship I have wondered if sometimes the other direction might be better.
This excersize could be done with a variety of ships so I will just pick one.
Lets take and Iowa Class ship as the starting point.
If instead of 3x3 16 for the main battery we cut this down to 2x3 reducing its firepower. We now don't have to worry about building the superfiring turret
so we have weight up high. Next we reduce the secondaries and AA suite to roughly 2/3s of that of the Iowa Class.
The engines no longer need to be as powerful to maintain the same speed as in the original design so they can be reduced in size and less area needs to be
armored.
We now have a ship with the same level or protection, same speed, but less firepower. I am guessing everything does not get reduced proportionately. The main
battery turret that has been lost is also had more weight as it was elevated. I am guessing the conning tower didn't go down in size however.
Why would I want a ship with less firepower? I want more of them instead. Would this new version of the Iowa Class be able to be produced on a 3 for 2 basis.
If we got three reduced firepower Iowas for the price of two full power Iowas we don't lose any fleet firepower. If the resources needed to produce them
are at a less favorable exchange, can the fact that we still have more hulls be a benefit. I guess what I am asking is is bigger always the better way to go
in capital ship design?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 JonSidneyB |
Less of a Battleship rather than more. |
Lead | |
|
Registered Member
Posts: 2 (27-Feb-2008 12:03:00) |
|
||
|
splott |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 53 (27-Feb-2008 17:27:57) |
What you seem to suggest is a Super-Deutschland, and I think, considering the speed and armament, raider would be it's primary task. I just don't see
why the USN would need a raider. With the amount of AA intact, or even increased compared to Iowa, it may fill the role as carrier escort. However, until
proved wrong, I doubt that the price tag would be 2/3 of Iowa, rather 3/4 or even 5/6.
|
||
|
01001011 |
|||
|
Posts: 50 (27-Feb-2008 19:18:34) |
If cost is not an issue, a bigger battleship is cheaper and more powerful, ton for ton.
I simmed a ship earlier, that would fit your description. With hindshight, these smaller ships are adaquate for WW2 BB duties (carrier escorts, super cruisers). Moltke, DKM battlecruiser laid down 1935 Displacement: 30,595 t light; 32,092 t standard; 34,310 t normal; 36,084 t full load Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (781.96 ft / 757.87 ft) x 94.49 ft (Bulges 98.43 ft) x (30.84 / 32.12 ft) (238.34 m / 231.00 m) x 28.80 m (Bulges 30.00 m) x (9.40 / 9.79 m) Armament: 6 - 13.78" / 350 mm 54.5 cal guns - 1,543.24lbs / 700.00kg shells, 100 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model 2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread 6 - 5.91" / 150 mm 55.0 cal guns - 99.87lbs / 45.30kg shells, 180 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1928 Model 2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread 2 raised mounts 20 - 4.13" / 105 mm 65.0 cal guns - 35.27lbs / 16.00kg shells, 400 per gun Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1933 Model 10 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread 2 raised mounts 32 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm 83.0 cal guns - 1.63lbs / 0.74kg shells, 2,000 per gun Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1928 Model 16 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread 8 raised mounts 40 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 4,000 per gun Machine guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model 10 x 2 row quad mounts on side ends, majority aft 6 raised mounts - superfiring Weight of broadside 10,626 lbs / 4,820 kg Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 13.2" / 335 mm 454.72 ft / 138.60 m 17.06 ft / 5.20 m Ends: 0.79" / 20 mm 303.12 ft / 92.39 m 15.09 ft / 4.60 m Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length - Torpedo Bulkhead: 3.15" / 80 mm 454.72 ft / 138.60 m 21.00 ft / 6.40 m - Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 15.0" / 380 mm 7.48" / 190 mm 13.4" / 340 mm 2nd: 5.91" / 150 mm 2.17" / 55 mm 3.15" / 80 mm 3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - - 4th: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.16" / 4 mm - 5th: - 0.16" / 4 mm - - Armoured deck - single deck: 4.57" / 116 mm For and Aft decks Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 5.31" / 135 mm - Conning towers: Forward 4.72" / 120 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm Machinery: Diesel Internal combustion motors, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 132,488 shp / 98,836 Kw = 30.00 kts Range 7,300nm at 16.00 kts Bunker at max displacement = 3,992 tons Complement: 1,259 - 1,638 Cost: £14.026 million / $56.105 million Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 2,686 tons, 7.8 % Armour: 11,171 tons, 32.6 % - Belts: 4,493 tons, 13.1 % - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,113 tons, 3.2 % - Armament: 1,693 tons, 4.9 % - Armour Deck: 3,765 tons, 11.0 % - Conning Tower: 107 tons, 0.3 % Machinery: 3,764 tons, 11.0 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,280 tons, 32.9 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,715 tons, 10.8 % Miscellaneous weights: 1,695 tons, 4.9 % - Hull below water: 1,425 tons - Hull above water: 85 tons - On freeboard deck: 85 tons - Above deck: 100 tons Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 49,198 lbs / 22,316 Kg = 37.6 x 13.8 " / 350 mm shells or 7.6 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.25 Metacentric height 6.9 ft / 2.1 m Roll period: 15.8 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.40 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20 Hull form characteristics: Hull has rise forward of midbreak, a straight bulbous bow and a round stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.522 / 0.527 Length to Beam Ratio: 7.70 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 27.53 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees Stern overhang: 5.91 ft / 1.80 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 23.00 %, 31.50 ft / 9.60 m, 24.61 ft / 7.50 m - Forward deck: 29.00 %, 24.61 ft / 7.50 m, 24.61 ft / 7.50 m - Aft deck: 31.00 %, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m - Quarter deck: 17.00 %, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m, 17.39 ft / 5.30 m - Average freeboard: 21.78 ft / 6.64 m Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 90.9 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 153.8 % Waterplane Area: 48,687 Square feet or 4,523 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 176 lbs/sq ft or 858 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.97 - Longitudinal: 1.27 - 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 Main belt thickness Inner plate: 11.02" / 280 mm @ vertical Decapping plate: 2.17" / 55 mm @ vertical Deck armour thickness Over engineering spaces: 5.31" / 135 mm (central 75%, 80% of length) Over magazines: 5.91" / 150 mm TB bounding plate: 1.97" / 50 mm Additional weight for diesel engine: 1,342 tons = 26.0 shp / ton |
||
|
ViribusUnitis |
|||
|
Posts: 447 (27-Feb-2008 20:20:04) |
Regarding the downsized Iowas, I'm not sure that you'd save a lot. If you want to keep the speed, you'd need nearly the same length/width, and the
latter won't decrease so much if you keep the machinery the close to the same (your torpedo defenses might be better as you get more space between hull and
the bulkhead). In the end, you might end up with a ship with lots of deck space (where you can mount 40 and 20 mm AA guns).
|
||
|
JonSidneyB |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 5 (27-Feb-2008 20:42:15) |
I was not thinking of a raider at all but fleet ships.
Here is why I thought this. I see lots of one on one comparisons but most engagements are not one on one but are groups of various sizes and compostions. I would think he who has the best mix has the advantage over who might have the single best ship at the expense of others. I understand that the super firing turret is the most troublesome as it contributes more the top heaviness, requires more material, is more work to build its area, is more problamatic about protection. If we eliminate the superfireing turret we will have less firepower but perhaps a better functioning ship. This loss of firepower I was wondering could be made up in slightly more ships. Perhaps it cannot. More equally armored ships that are slightly smaller does have a couple of advantages. It is a slightly smaller target. It should be also almost as tough to put out of action. Lets say you have 3 ships with 6 16/50 guns in 2 turrets vs 2 ships with 9 16/50 turrets. The armor and speed are the same. The units firepower is also the same. When a ship is lost and you have the smaller ships you lose 1/3 of your units firepower, the other side looses 1/2. With 3 ships you may have to divide your fire on one of your ships or leave one of the ships unengages at least in the first portion of the conflict. |
||
|
JonSidneyB |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 7 (27-Feb-2008 21:09:28) |
Wouldn't the engine requirement also drop. You have lost the weight of the heaviest turret? Doesn't the higher turret also require more lower weight to
add stability due to its contribution to top heaviness? Well, it looks like there might not be the ability to field that many more ships by taking this
approach.
|
||
|
splott |
3 ships with 6 guns in 2 turrets vs 2 ships with 9 guns | ||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 56 (27-Feb-2008 22:34:52) |
But with that logic it would be better to build 9 ships with 1 gun. Even if that's stretching it to far for being useful but you could argue instead that
instead of 3 super deutschland you build 4 super Sverige and save the cost of 2 guns. If you lose one of those you would only lose 1/4 of the units fire power.
I still doubt it would be cheaper. The only advantage 4x4 gun have over 2x9 guns would be that the enemy has to split there focus on more targets.
|
||
|
borys68 |
|||
|
Posts: 2435 (27-Feb-2008 22:41:49) |
Ahoj!
You would get the most savings buy cutting the 33 knot speed requeriment. Take the USN South Dakota, make it a little bit bigger - 37/38K tonnes standard. Borys |
||
|
JonSidneyB |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 9 (28-Feb-2008 11:25:14) |
I don't think the 9 ships with 1 gun follows my line of thinking. I was thinking getting rid of only the superfiring turret as it contributed the most
weight and make up for this loss in fire power with more ships. The 2 low mounted turrets seems to be more efficient than the high turret.
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
