Now, keeping in mind that for whatever reason, Springsharp will only work on my laptop computer, not this one, and that for whatever reason I have
difficulty in getting my laptop hooked up to the internet, how would you go about designing a broadside ironclad for about the 1860-70's era? The kind of
ship I have in mind would be like the USS Cumberland, with a mix of broadside cannon with one or two heavy guns in turrets mounted on deck.
Okay, first questions are in regarding to the armament. In the way of cannons, commonly back then they were rated as to the weight of the shell or cannoball
they fired. 12 pdr cannon would fire a 12 pound cannon-ball, 24 pdr cannon 24 lbs shell/ball, 48 pdr cannon 48 lb shell/ball, but what would be the typical
size of these guns? Also, what might be the typical size of a murder cannon (small deck railing mounted grapeshot cannon)? Also, how would you sim the
positioning of the mounts? The broadside guns which would be below deck level would be simmed as below deck, while the deck level turret guns would be at deck
level, but would you sim for casemate mounts, or perhaps simple open mounts?
Propulsion, should be pretty standard. I'm going for a big ship, so would I do two screws, or was one screw still standard for large ships in this time
period? Also, would 8 knots be asking too much of a large cruiser/battleship sized ironclad in this time period? And what about a typical range for a
oceangoing ironclad of the period, simmed speed and range?
Finally, armored protection. Would Springsharp adjust for the earlier less efficent armor plating, or would you need to do say like 8" of armor to
represent 16" of the older steel armor belts in use? Or would it be in reverse, saying 16" to represent 8" of armor?
And I think that's about all the questions I had in mind. I was looking/thinking of designing for a 5,000 ton - 10,000 ton sized vessel with 80 24lb
broadside cannon (40 to each side) with a forward 48lb twin turret and an aft 24lb twin turret.
Broadside Ironclad design questions
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Joshua Kintner |
Broadside Ironclad design questions |
Lead | |
|
Registered Member
Posts: 350 (29-Feb-2008 22:23:36) |
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3497 ( 1-Mar-2008 01:13:55) |
One obvious thing to do would be to see how the RN's Warrior and the French Gloire were armed, and I don't think that either had a significant number
of guns as small as 24 lb.
Springsharp uses armor thickness to determine its weight, and the density of iron and steel is fairly constant. Insofar as I know, Springsharp doesn't determine armor penetration or armor effectiveness. |
||
|
hoist40 |
|||
|
Posts: 984 ( 1-Mar-2008 02:48:21) |
I agree with EMC that any such ship would carry few if any 24 pounders. The Cumberland herself carried 32 pounders and 8 inch shell guns. By the 1860-70's era the US Navy standard broadside gun was the 9 inch Dahlgren with 11 inch Dahlgren / 100 pounder Parrot rifles as pivot guns. The 5.000 ton steam frigate USS Franklin had thirty six 9-inch Dahlgren, one 11-inch Dahlgren and four 100 pounder Parrot rifles. A 10,000 ton armored ship would probably carry 11 inch Dahlgren broadside guns and 15 inch Dahlgren or 150 pounder Parrot rifles |
||
|
Carthaginian |
|||
|
Posts: 28 ( 1-Mar-2008 18:19:43) |
Civil War Artillery
This gives the bore diameter and weights for virtually all Union and Confederate weapons of the ACW, and by virtue of that, also many of the foreign models that were imported by both parties for evaluation and use. There are about 100 different entries, giving both gun bore and projectile weight. Enjoy! |
||
|
Rick Robinson |
|||
|
Posts: 1683 ( 2-Mar-2008 07:53:32) |
As already said, it is not likely that an ironclad would carry anything as small as a 24 pdr. Maybe 42 pdrs, but I tend to think of broadside ironclads as
carrying 64 pdr smoothbores - that is very close to an 8 inch bore - and 8" or 10" shell guns. Turrets would generally be used for only very big
guns, and only a ship close to 10,000 tons is likely to carry both a broadside armament and a couple of turrets.
|
||
|
Carthaginian |
|||
|
Posts: 29 ( 2-Mar-2008 19:26:47) |
Minimum size for a 'capital' ship was 24-pounders, usually.
It wouldn't be unusual for a ship of this period to mount several of them (8-10) for firing on close targets. They were not, however, meant to be the main battery for a ship of such size. 64-pounders would be the bear minimum that an 1860's ironclad battleship would mount. By the 1860's, you'd be looking at a ship of about 40-48 guns for this tonnage; the HMS Minotaur class is, however, the only class of ship ever built to these monstrous proportions. They were 671'6" long, 89' in beam, drew 27' of water and carried about 800 men... making them physically the rough dimensions of a WWI dreadnought. They mounted an improbable 5 masts and 32,377 sq ft (3,008 m²) of sail, which produced a rather lumbering 7 knot cruising speed; on steam power they could make 14.5 knots due to their phenomenal length. They were originally designed to carry 40x68-pounder smoothbore muzzleloaders, but went into action with 4x9" MLR & 22x8" MLR (muzzleloading rifles) on the gundeck and one each 7" bow and stern chaser. She had a single shaft powered by a monstrous (for the time) 6700 SHP coal-fired engine. I can find no notes on range, but remember, this ship wasn't meant to be driven on steam for very long at all- only during battle and when becalmed. To make a 'guesstimate' on the range I would say this- she had neither refrigeration nor the ability to produce her own engine/drinking water so far as I can find. This would limit her endurance to whatever non-perishable items and water she could carry. I'd say perhaps 1500 n. mi. on steam, and maybe 2-3 months at sea before her provisions began to get low. 
These were the absolute maximum that sail warships ever reached. They were described as being large and unhandy, though good seaboats, due to their gigantic size. The ships of the Minotaur class served for about 25 years- largely due to their extreme building cost making them undesirable to remove from service- before being removed from sea duty in the early 1890's. All saw duty as accommodation or storage hulks- again, due to their size, they were desirable in this role- and HMS Agincourt (under the less-than-glamorous alias of C.109) actually survived as a coal barge at Sheerness until 1960. Had she survived just a few years more, the discovery of HMS Warrior and the resulting furor to save the world's first iron-hulled battleship might have spilled over to save the world's largest of the type as well, but she went to the breakers a bit too soon.
Last Edited By: Carthaginian
2-Mar-2008 19:34:03.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
- 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
