I've read in most cases that there is no problem with too much rigidity- Seppings mentioned the idea of flexibility being a myth in an 1815 paper. In general, the more rigid the ship construction, the stronger it was and the bigger ships could be built. While frames and structures of ships may bend or move, the joints and seams between outer planking/plating won't. The seams will either open up and leak (between planks) or be damaged or burst (riveted/welded plating) when bent too much. Just about any joint will be damaged when bending.
The kaiser Class Dreadnought, as well as several other contemporary capital ships featured similar gun turret arrangements, though not as radical as in the proposed design with the centerline turret in between them. For practical reasons the positioning of turrets in the midship part of the ship has to compete with several other internal systems, like powerplant and propulsion units for space. Putting three turrets there with their magazines (assuming you want ammunition as well) will eat up a large portion of internal space, so other systems will likely be either removed, or relocated elsewhere. For this reason alone the shipment of three gunturrets as shown in the midship part of the design will result in a very poor design with either no motive power bigger than that of a coast defense monitor, or no propulsion at all.
Second: The allocation of three turrets as shown will limit the effectiveness in terms of gunnery. The centerline turret has very restricted arcs of fire, due to the close proximity of the wing turrets, making it hardly worth existing at all. The Kaiser Class had a better arrangement as there was at least a limited window to put all ten main guns to bear on a target, without an obstructing centerline turret between them. Similarly the other contemporary dreadnoughts and battle cruisers featuring such echelon wing turrets also had similar arcs of fire for these wing turrets. None shipped a centerline turret in between these wingturrets, most likely for reasons mentioned earlier.
Second: The allocation of three turrets as shown will limit the effectiveness in terms of gunnery. The centerline turret has very restricted arcs of fire, due to the close proximity of the wing turrets, making it hardly worth existing at all. The Kaiser Class had a better arrangement as there was at least a limited window to put all ten main guns to bear on a target, without an obstructing centerline turret between them. Similarly the other contemporary dreadnoughts and battle cruisers featuring such echelon wing turrets also had similar arcs of fire for these wing turrets. None shipped a centerline turret in between these wingturrets, most likely for reasons mentioned earlier.
Stretch the hull long enough to have all 2 turrets inline. That gives you something more practical, with proper lines of fire. It will also avoid the blast wave efect from the center turret on the others. and the longer hull might make the ship faster (but it might also make it roll more...).
Why the off-centre line turrets?Interesting... This is my baseline model.
Your proportions are "slightly" off; but not by that much.
It's a holdover from the older Caio Duilio-class ironclads (1876) and ships following the layout like HMS Inflexible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Inflexible_(1876)#Main_guns
Lots of ironclads followed Benedetto Brin's armament layout, including the USS Maine and USS Texas. All featured narrow superstructures (at least forward of the guns) so both turrets could fire dead ahead in theory. This layout may have been related to the focus on ramming from the Battle of Lissa until the increasing power of the torpedo (1880's), so the forward fire can be seen as a way to support a ramming attack.
McPherson
Banned
1. The Americans had very little experience with building modern seagoing "battleships".
2. The Americans were reacting to this piece of junk. (RiaChuello)
It was built for Brazil by Samuda Brothers of London to the best theories of the day.
The German version built by A.G. Vulcan at about the same time was this piece of junk. (DingYuen)
Both debacles were accepted for service by their respective customers ~ 1885.
Compare with USS Texas.
Naval Construction and Armaments of Barrow of Furness of England designed that turkey. She was not accepted into service until 1892, a full six years after her order. She was a learning experience on what not to do. She wallowed, had a roll moment that was unbelievably bad and her engines were a nightmare. She was built at Norfolk naval shipyard with obsolete pattern Ericsson type hoists, slides and actual turrets as opposed to barbettes.
As one can see, compared to the other comedies afloat, the three above en echelon examples were about par for the course. HMS Collingwood (1887) became the pre-dreadnought pattern for most battleships of the Royal Navy and all of the American battleships built and accepted into service between 1895 to 1907.
By then the British, Americans and Japanese were tinkering with the ideas of Scott, Sims and Cuniberti. The Americans came up with this:
She is the USS South Carolina (1910), about 4 years after Dreadnought (1906) Note she has modernized AON and she is the first warship besides monitors and the botched Virginias to have successful superfiring guns in superimposed barbette mounts? Her hull form was too short and her engines (TSE type) were utter crap.
The lessons of 1898.
Attachments
WCS Thunderbolt, Wyvern Fast Battleship laid down 1908
Displacement:
22,154 t light; 23,227 t standard; 29,498 t normal; 34,514 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(642.00 ft / 607.00 ft) x 88.00 ft x (32.00 / 36.48 ft)
(195.68 m / 185.01 m) x 26.82 m x (9.75 / 11.12 m)
Armament:
8 - 12.00" / 305 mm 45.0 cal guns - 871.37lbs / 395.24kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1908 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
1 raised mount
2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, aft evenly spread
1 raised mount aft
10 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 45.0 cal guns - 13.62lbs / 6.18kg shells, 250 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1908 Model
10 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 - 0.30" / 7.6 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.01lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1,000 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1908 Model
10 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 7,107 lbs / 3,224 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 18.0" / 457 mm, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m torpedoes - 0.985 t each, 3.938 t total
submerged bow & stern tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.5" / 318 mm 408.55 ft / 124.53 m 11.26 ft / 3.43 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 190.43 ft / 58.04 m 11.26 ft / 3.43 m
8.02 ft / 2.44 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 4.00" / 102 mm 392.55 ft / 119.65 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 104 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.00" / 51 mm 394.55 ft / 120.26 m 30.23 ft / 9.21 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 40.00 ft / 12.19 m
- Hull void:
2.00" / 51 mm 21.00 ft / 6.40 m 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 4.00" / 102 mm
Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2.00" / 51 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 12.00" / 305 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 40,430 shp / 30,161 Kw = 22.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 11,287 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
1,125 - 1,463
Cost:
£1.747 million / $6.990 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,415 tons, 4.8 %
- Guns: 1,407 tons, 4.8 %
- Weapons: 8 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 9,204 tons, 31.2 %
- Belts: 3,329 tons, 11.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 883 tons, 3.0 %
- Void: 33 tons, 0.1 %
- Armament: 1,813 tons, 6.1 %
- Armour Deck: 2,653 tons, 9.0 %
- Conning Towers: 494 tons, 1.7 %
Machinery: 2,246 tons, 7.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,939 tons, 30.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,344 tons, 24.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 1.2 %
- Hull below water: 70 tons
- Hull void weights: 70 tons
- Hull above water: 70 tons
- On freeboard deck: 70 tons
- Above deck: 70 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
67,285 lbs / 30,520 Kg = 77.9 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 16.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 4.8 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 16.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.93
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a ram bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.604 / 0.620
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.90 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.64 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Average freeboard: 28.32 ft / 8.63 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 103.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 185.9 %
Waterplane Area: 39,214 Square feet or 3,643 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 145 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 154 lbs/sq ft or 753 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.27
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
On the world of L-532, there were six great empires. The greatest of these was Wyvern which held a massive fleet and a spread out Empire, during the turn of the century Admiral Kortiz Fek saw his chance and as the rival empires built older style 16,000 ton battleships with 2 pairs of two gun turrets, Wyvern introduced a much larger class of battleships with almost 23 knot speed, 8 12 inch guns, heavy armor and decent torpedo protection. Announcing eight new battleships would be built, the rival empire of Goren would declare war through a surprise invasion of Wyvern trying to use weight of numbers to defeat their opponents. However, the Wyvern coastal fleet would protect the main battlefleet as it reformed. The lead ship of the planned class, originally called Devastation until the ancient 11,000 ton battleship Thunderbolt was sunk with all hands sinking the more powerful armored cruiser Spear and defending a convoy in the process causing the Admiralty to rename the new battleship after the heroic vessel.
After nearly a year and a half of war, Thunderbolt and her sister Leviathan would emerge fully fitted and with the rest of the fleet engage the Goren fleet and destroy 8 of the 14 battleships involved thanks to a mix of heavier firepower and the battlefleet being broken apart as aerial machines carrying torpedoes emerged and while hitting no battleship would break apart the battleline allowing their battleship comrades to defeat them in detail.
After 15 years of active service, Thunderbolt would become a training ship for the fleet and spend the next 10 years in that duty before being torpedoed in the second war with Goren. Barely surviving, she was put into reserve as debate on what to do with her began. However, the war ended and Grand Admiral Fek managed to save the Thunderbolt as a museum. Nowadays she and the first carrier (The former Armored cruiser General Luten) Pioneer in the port city of Grewon where she first touched the water.
Just an idea I had years ago, don't know if I'll ever do it. Feel free to use, just DM me beforehand.
@McPherson What was the reasoning behind designs like the Kearsarge-class and Virginia-class going with superposed turrets rather than superfiring turrets on separate barbettes? Was it a matter of keeping overall length and therefore weight down? Did the Kearsarge have the same problems Virginia did with the main battery firing cycle not giving enough "free time" for the superposed guns to be in action? The Virginia's design looks like it was trying to maximize end-on fire that could be provided with four intermediate turrets, especially compared to Connecticut's layout; the Virginia's two superposed turrets alone could theoretically match the intermediate broadside fire Connecticut would bring with four turrets.
This is basically just a slightly faster South Carolina, but 7,000 tons heavier. Is the extra cost really worth that?
Do you know of any other early dreadnoughts with this much bunkerage. Colliers of the time carried about this much. South Carolina carried about 2,400 tons of coal; Dreadnought carried 4,000 tons of coal and oil. Iowa could bunker almost 9,000 tons of fuel oil, but oil is much more dense than coal; when New York switched from coal to oil fire, its bunkerage increased from 2,800 tons to 5,200 tons.
1. The Americans had very little experience with building modern seagoing "battleships".
2. The Americans were reacting to this piece of junk. (RiaChuello)
View attachment 533675
It was built for Brazil by Samuda Brothers of London to the best theories of the day.
The German version built by A.G. Vulcan at about the same time was this piece of junk. (DingYuen)
View attachment 533682
Both debacles were accepted for service by their respective customers ~ 1885.
Compare with USS Texas.
View attachment 533688
Naval Construction and Armaments of Barrow of Furness of England designed that turkey. She was not accepted into service until 1892, a full six years after her order. She was a learning experience on what not to do. She wallowed, had a roll moment that was unbelievably bad and her engines were a nightmare. She was built at Norfolk naval shipyard with obsolete pattern Ericsson type hoists, slides and actual turrets as opposed to barbettes.
As one can see, compared to the other comedies afloat, the three above en echelon examples were about par for the course. HMS Collingwood (1887) became the pre-dreadnought pattern for most battleships of the Royal Navy and all of the American battleships built and accepted into service between 1895 to 1907.
By then the British, Americans and Japanese were tinkering with the ideas of Scott, Sims and Cuniberti. The Americans came up with this:
View attachment 533696
She is the USS South Carolina (1910), about 4 years after Dreadnought (1906) Note she has modernized AON and she is the first warship besides monitors and the botched Virginias to have successful superfiring guns in superimposed barbette mounts? Her hull form was too short and her engines (TSE type) were utter crap.
The lessons of 1898.
What's the difference between a Barbette and a turret?
RamscoopRaider
Donor
A barbette in the naval meaning, is a circular segment of armor used to protect a gun that fires over the barbette. A turret is a rotating armored structure that contains a gun that fires from within, early naval turrets were mounted straight to the deck of a ship, but in the 1880's they started mounting them on barbettes, which proved to be lighter and more effective as it reduced the rotating mass
My understanding is that it was to increase broadside firepower while reducing weight. They made the ships very topheavy and were both complicated and fragile. They were not a success and no one else tried copying them.
I'm thinking that if Virginia copied them from Kearsarge, they must not have been too much trouble on Kearsarge or they wouldn't have been copied. The six ships or the Illinois and Maine classes dispensed with intermediate batteries entirely, but the Indiana class prior to Kearsarge and the Connecticut class after Virginia had a much more conventional intermediate battery arrangement.
McPherson
Banned
USS Indiana after bulging.
The American congress mandated a displacement limit and a mission limit. The USN was forced to comply with USS Kearsage. As she was the fifth US battleship design and a cotinuation of the previous Indianas, it being Texas, Indiana Masachussetts, Oregon and Iowa in sequence, but as the design of Iowa was a hiccup in the middle of that sequence and she preceded the Kearsage class, I can only speculate what the idiots (Philip Hitchborn) that the lessons learned from the displacement debacle on the Indianas was this superposed turret arrangement was to retain broadside fire and keep the belt above the actual waterline. The Congress more or less forced the compromise on the shipwrights by restricting the tonnage. The Fix for the Indianas would have mandated a 14,000 tonne displacement to make the ships work with an Indiana type layout. (See photos)
Same explanation for the Virginias, another failed attempt to maintain the broadside and to keep displacement down and preserve freeboard.
Will address.
The barbette is the turn platform atop of and the accompanying armored inside the hull frame that encases the hoist machinery and handling compartments between the magazines and the guns. The guns in their slides and pits are properly part of the barbette. The GUNHOUSE is the above the turn platform protective shelter, either armored or weather that protects the guns atop the barbette.
A turret is a complete rotating fighting compartment that contains the guns and ammunition handling machinery above the deck. It is in the modern nomenclature a "scrapeoff" as it can be removed from the deck and it will not extrude downward into the ship's vitals.
The point of the class being so large is two fold, the first is for sea keeping as the seas on the planet where shes expected to fight are much more violent. The Second reason for largeness is to be able to answer distant calls for assistance, overcome any opposition in that area and be able to steam back as the status of a base may be in question. Plus survive a number of underwater explosions
As to the range, I was much younger then and inspired by Robert Conroys 1901 so I figured all that extra coal would make a great shield (ignoring the dangers of a coal dust buildup) and make sure she wouldn't run out anytime soon (which she isn't).
I stand by my decision to make her a larger ship than South Carolina (which was limited by Congress) but the coal bunkerage is a fair point.
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
-Turning circle and metacentric height are awful.
-Boilers and steam engines? That is a shallow and short propulsion train inside that hull to cram in an estimated 5,600 kW.
-Forward casemate guns are unworkable in any swell.
-How is it supposed to torpedo anything?
I suspect the British reacted to the French or Russians and realized the stupidity too late
Honestly. Move the secondaries up and Id be fine with the Thunderchild. She's a better ship than Texas and Maine, plus when push comes to shove, she's faster as well.