Battleship design study, Great Britain Battleship laid down 1909
Displacement:
23,511 t light; 24,366 t standard; 29,000 t normal; 32,707 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
620.00 ft / 620.00 ft x 100.00 ft x 27.70 ft (normal load)
188.98 m / 188.98 m x 30.48 m x 8.44 m
Armament:
6 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (2x3 guns), 864.00lbs / 391.90kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 6,048 lbs / 2,743 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 80
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 210.00 ft / 64.01 m 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
Main Belt covers 102 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.00" / 51 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 6.00" / 152 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 6.00" / 152 mm
- Armour deck: 3.50" / 89 mm, Conning tower: 14.00" / 356 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 66,369 shp / 49,511 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 7,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,341 tons
Complement:
1,110 - 1,444
Cost:
£1.880 million / $7.521 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 756 tons, 2.6 %
Armour: 10,395 tons, 35.8 %
- Belts: 4,794 tons, 16.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 789 tons, 2.7 %
- Armament: 1,616 tons, 5.6 %
- Armour Deck: 2,912 tons, 10.0 %
- Conning Tower: 285 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 3,017 tons, 10.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9,343 tons, 32.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,489 tons, 18.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
61,447 lbs / 27,872 Kg = 71.1 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 11.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.35
Metacentric height 8.5 ft / 2.6 m
Roll period: 14.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.41
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.591
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.20 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.90 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -2.00 ft / -0.61 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 22.16 ft / 6.75 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 67.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 169.8 %
Waterplane Area: 44,966 Square feet or 4,177 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 129 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 151 lbs/sq ft or 739 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.54
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
This is a forum for discussion of topics relating to the Dreadnought era, prior to the ascendency of naval aviation. We will be discussing history, ship design, and naval wargaming.
Monday, July 25, 2005
My friend Cliff had this concept for a lightly armed battleship
My friend Cliff liked exploring the fringes of warship design. One concept that he had was for a battleship armed with two triple 12in turrets and having relatively thick armor (in this case, 14in). I have an annotated pencil sketch for what I think may have been considered for construction starting in 1909. It could have been earlier, but I have my doubts. I don't have speed data, but with Springsharp, I found that we had underspecified the armor and had too low a freeboard. The design tends to be wet forward, according to Springsharp. This is the report:
No comments:
Post a Comment