Alternate warships of nations

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by zeppelinair, Sep 6, 2014.

  1. Driftless Incipient Geezer Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Location:
    Out in the Driftless Area
    Good point about the dimensions of the barbette, plus the historic teething troubles for the four gun turrets in general.
     
  2. Luminous Headwing Consulting

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Location:
    The Piedmont of the Appalachians
    If anything, I'd say the limit would be a situation like the Brooklyn class cruisers (or the Nelson and Rodney). I'd have to crunch the numbers, but I don't think it'd be worth it otherwise.

    For second generation, I'd expect something akin to this (just with a longer back section). Big picture, so spoiler.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. HMS Warspite Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Location:
    2nd star to the right and then straight on.
    Hi there Luninous,

    As I can recall, USS Alaska had no hangars at all, as it stowed the aircraft on the deck between the catapults, simmilar to battleships did at their stern, also lacking a hangar. Normal compelment of aircraft as designed was four, with two carried on th catapults and two stored on the deck. Sicne the aircraft were in the open, the danger of a hangarfire was not existant, though the aircraft were completely unprotected to the elements, as well as enmy fire. In active service the two completed ships did not carry more than two aircraft in reality.
     
  4. Luminous Headwing Consulting

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Location:
    The Piedmont of the Appalachians
    Hey there,

    That's the odd thing about it, as Alaska was built to the cruiser design overall, in many respects. It was a bit of a return to older designs, rather than that of the Brooklyn etc.

    As seen below, Alaska did maintain two hangers below the observation deck, at the rear of the forward superstructure. They're much easier to see when open than when closed.

    [​IMG]

    And, as quoted from Wikipedia

    There's quite a bit more reading that I'll need to do on the Alaskas themselves to see why there was a decision to return to the center aircraft hanger, although I imagine it might have been a limitation due to space and trying to keep them from bloating too much.
     
    Logan2879 likes this.
  5. HMS Warspite Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Location:
    2nd star to the right and then straight on.
    thx for the info, I could not locate this part, though quoted from another website. Alaska was not a ship with al lot of warservice, so I had to use limmited infoormation I had about it.
     
  6. Luminous Headwing Consulting

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Location:
    The Piedmont of the Appalachians
    It's fine. I knew there was a picture somewhere; just didn't have time to dig earlier. Of course, now the bigger question is why they went back to it.

    EDIT: Found it!

    In 1940, in connection with the Cleveland design, comparative studies of aircraft located amidships and after were ordered by the assistant secretary of the navy.

    BuAer considered it an advantage of the amidships location that the vessel could launch in heavier weather (due to increasing height of the catapults), and that the aircraft would be clear of the blast of the guns. However, on OTL ships, there was a lack of handling space for additional aircraft, so only a few could be stowed in hangers simultaneously.

    There were major problems that BuAer found: increased fire hazard from aircraft amidship. The heat of the stacks was also a problem that could damage doped fabric surfaces (on aircraft). The stack gases/incinerator exhaust were considered a fire hazard for aircraft, and all aircraft save two could be stowed at once (again, handling space).

    BuAer preferred catapults aft for increased hanger space (protecting all aircraft from rain/corrosive sea air), larger and better aircraft handling space (lower catapults make for easier launches), reduced fire hazard, and cross deck launching was possible.

    All that said, BuShips preferred amidships, as the back turrets could be lowered (up to a full deck) and the aft hanger space could be subdivided for survivability. (Large hanger spaces were close to the water line and very vulnerable to flooding, reducing the waterplane area of the ship by quite a bit). Also, BuShips argued that recovery of aircraft would be easier from the bridge.

    The General Board agreed with BuShips over BuAer, and that is what triggered the Alaska's design.

    As for my project, some of the limitations of BuAer have been addressed. There is plenty of space amidships for handling, and cross deck launches are possible. There also isn't the limitation on space. The AMCs are all aluminum construction, so they aren't bothered (The AS-2/AS-3 is fabric, I believe, so they are).
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  7. Some Bloke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Location:
    A small village in Arkhamshire.
    HMS Benbow

    The first of four planned cruisers intended to replace the Hawkins Class, the Benbow
    represented a departure from the County/Kindgom designs by switching to triple
    turrets for the main armament. Later documents show that this design was over
    the limits in terms of tonnage for cruiser partly due to the use of high pressure
    steam plants. Design work began in 1937, and the first four ships were formally
    ordered a year later. Benbow herself was laid down at the beginning of 1939
    and commissioned in early 1942. The Hawkins class remained in commissioning
    until the last of the initial order commissioned in mid 1943. A repeat order of four ships was made in 1940,
    but two of this order were cancelled.

    The Benbows often served as flagships for cruiser forces, such as at the battle of Barents Sea in December
    1942. Having learned from the fate of the Mercia 3 years previously, Rear Admiral Burnett decided to breat off the
    engagement after the arrival of the German Pocket Battleship Luztow. The Heavy Cruiser Hipper had sustained
    heavy damage from the Benbow's guns and was finished off with torpedoes from the British destroyers.
     
    Logan2879 likes this.
  8. Lascaris Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Averof modernized in accordance with the proposals of the Webb naval mission with new boilers burning only oil, anti-torpedo defenses and additional deck armor on top of the new fire control and changes to artillery it received in OTL

    Averof, Greece Enter ship type laid down 1910 (Engine 1927)

    Displacement:
    9.539 t light; 10.005 t standard; 10.814 t normal; 11.461 t full load

    Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
    (467,77 ft / 426,50 ft) x 69,00 ft (Bulges 75,00 ft) x (24,00 / 25,16 ft)
    (142,58 m / 130,00 m) x 21,03 m (Bulges 22,86 m) x (7,32 / 7,67 m)

    Armament:
    4 - 9,20" / 234 mm 45,0 cal guns - 380,01lbs / 172,37kg shells, 100 per gun
    Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1910 Model
    2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
    8 - 7,50" / 191 mm 45,0 cal guns - 200,00lbs / 90,72kg shells, 150 per gun
    Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1910 Model
    2 x 2-gun mounts on sides, forward deck aft
    2 x 2-gun mounts on sides, aft deck forward
    8 - 3,00" / 76,2 mm 40,0 cal guns - 11,99lbs / 5,44kg shells, 300 per gun
    Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1910 Model
    8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
    4 - 3,00" / 76,2 mm 45,0 cal guns - 13,62lbs / 6,18kg shells, 300 per gun
    Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1910 Model
    4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
    6 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 1,96lbs / 0,89kg shells, 1.000 per gun
    Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1910 Model
    6 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
    Weight of broadside 3.282 lbs / 1.489 kg

    Armour:
    - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
    Main: 8,00" / 203 mm 277,23 ft / 84,50 m 9,97 ft / 3,04 m
    Ends: 3,16" / 80 mm 149,26 ft / 45,49 m 9,97 ft / 3,04 m
    Upper: 3,16" / 80 mm 277,23 ft / 84,50 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
    Main Belt covers 100% of normal length

    - Hull Bulges:
    1,00" / 25 mm 277,23 ft / 84,50 m 20,96 ft / 6,39 m

    - Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
    Main: 8,00" / 203 mm 6,00" / 152 mm 7,10" / 180 mm
    2nd: 6,90" / 175 mm 4,00" / 102 mm 6,00" / 152 mm
    3rd: 3,00" / 76 mm - -
    4th: - 1,00" / 25 mm -
    5th: 0,50" / 13 mm - -

    - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
    For and Aft decks: 3,00" / 76 mm

    - Conning towers: Forward 7,10" / 180 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

    Machinery:
    Oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
    Direct drive, 2 shafts, 34.162 ihp / 25.485 Kw = 24,00 kts
    Range 2.900nm at 17,50 kts
    Bunker at max displacement = 1.456 tons

    Complement:
    529 - 689

    Cost:
    £0,926 million / $3,703 million

    Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
    Armament: 949 tons, 8,8%
    - Guns: 949 tons, 8,8%
    Armour: 3.508 tons, 32,4%
    - Belts: 1.440 tons, 13,3%
    - Bulges: 215 tons, 2,0%
    - Armament: 892 tons, 8,2%
    - Armour Deck: 887 tons, 8,2%
    - Conning Tower: 75 tons, 0,7%
    Machinery: 1.959 tons, 18,1%
    Hull, fittings & equipment: 3.123 tons, 28,9%
    Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.275 tons, 11,8%
    Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0%

    Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
    Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
    12.879 lbs / 5.842 Kg = 33,1 x 9,2 " / 234 mm shells or 2,1 torpedoes
    Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,31
    Metacentric height 4,6 ft / 1,4 m
    Roll period: 14,6 seconds
    Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 53 %
    - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,26
    Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,06

    Hull form characteristics:
    Hull has a flush deck,
    a normal bow and a cruiser stern
    Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,493 / 0,498
    Length to Beam Ratio: 5,69 : 1
    'Natural speed' for length: 20,65 kts
    Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
    Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
    Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20,00 degrees
    Stern overhang: 33,00 ft / 10,06 m
    Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
    Fore end, Aft end
    - Forecastle: 20,00%, 22,72 ft / 6,93 m, 18,59 ft / 5,67 m
    - Forward deck: 30,00%, 18,59 ft / 5,67 m, 14,46 ft / 4,41 m
    - Aft deck: 35,00%, 14,46 ft / 4,41 m, 14,46 ft / 4,41 m
    - Quarter deck: 15,00%, 14,46 ft / 4,41 m, 14,46 ft / 4,41 m
    - Average freeboard: 16,24 ft / 4,95 m
    Ship tends to be wet forward

    Ship space, strength and comments:
    Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 86,2%
    - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 108,1%
    Waterplane Area: 19.484 Square feet or 1.810 Square metres
    Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 103%
    Structure weight / hull surface area: 124 lbs/sq ft or 607 Kg/sq metre
    Hull strength (Relative):
    - Cross-sectional: 0,92
    - Longitudinal: 2,08
    - Overall: 1,00
    Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
    Adequate accommodation and workspace room
     
    eltf177 and Luminous like this.
  9. jsb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    I like but I think - Overall: 1,00 on a rebuild sim is unrealistic as its assuming the ships was designed that way from the start I think you need to build in a significant % of wasted weight due to the inefficiency of a rebuild unless you are willing to spend an unrealistic amount fixing it.

    I think the best way to do a rebuild sim needs to show the original sim and then hand rebuild it trying to balance the weights taken off and added as additions in bold to show working?
     
    eltf177 and Luminous like this.
  10. Jim Smitty Lost in my mind

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Location:
    Florida
    Did I go to light on displacement on this class?

    49,500 tons displace, oil fired boilers, turbine driven, 29.5 knots, 8 x 18/48s in twin turrets (Superfiring), 8 x 5.25/50s in twin turrets, 24 x 2 pdr AA Cannons in quad mounts
     
  11. Not James Stockdale Not Unto Us, O Lord

    Joined:
    May 3, 2016
    This is a quick battleship Springsharp. I used US 18" guns, Iowa turret armor, and citadel armor fairly close to a KGV. I could bring the ship down to 3" of deck armor and 10" of belt armor to get the weight under control, but then the ship is vulnerable to heavy cruisers at long range.

    Almirante Brown, Argentine battleship laid down 1935 (Engine 1936)

    Displacement:
    49,438 t light; 52,365 t standard; 56,668 t normal; 60,110 t full load

    Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
    (872.04 ft / 860.00 ft) x 125.00 ft x (30.00 / 31.51 ft)
    (265.80 m / 262.13 m) x 38.10 m x (9.14 / 9.60 m)

    Armament:
    8 - 18.00" / 457 mm 48.0 cal guns - 2,900.01lbs / 1,315.42kg shells, 125 per gun
    Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
    4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
    2 raised mounts - superfiring
    8 - 5.25" / 133 mm 50.0 cal guns - 80.01lbs / 36.29kg shells, 400 per gun
    Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1935 Model
    4 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
    24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 2.01lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1,500 per gun
    Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1923 Model
    6 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
    Weight of broadside 23,888 lbs / 10,836 kg

    Armour:
    - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
    Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 559.00 ft / 170.38 m 13.42 ft / 4.09 m
    Ends: 2.00" / 51 mm 300.98 ft / 91.74 m 13.42 ft / 4.09 m
    Upper: 3.00" / 76 mm 559.00 ft / 170.38 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
    Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

    - Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
    1.50" / 38 mm 559.00 ft / 170.38 m 28.57 ft / 8.71 m
    Beam between torpedo bulkheads 105.00 ft / 32.00 m

    - Hull void:
    1.00" / 25 mm 559.00 ft / 170.38 m 28.57 ft / 8.71 m

    - Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
    Main: 20.0" / 508 mm 12.0" / 305 mm 18.0" / 457 mm
    2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

    - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
    For and Aft decks: 6.00" / 152 mm
    Forecastle: 4.00" / 102 mm Quarter deck: 4.00" / 102 mm

    - Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 8.00" / 203 mm

    Machinery:
    Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
    Geared drive, 4 shafts, 172,724 shp / 128,852 Kw = 29.50 kts
    Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
    Bunker at max displacement = 7,745 tons

    Complement:
    1,836 - 2,387

    Cost:
    £24.967 million / $99.866 million

    Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
    Armament: 4,185 tons, 7.4 %
    - Guns: 4,185 tons, 7.4 %
    Armour: 22,196 tons, 39.2 %
    - Belts: 5,429 tons, 9.6 %
    - Torpedo bulkhead: 886 tons, 1.6 %
    - Void: 591 tons, 1.0 %
    - Armament: 6,287 tons, 11.1 %
    - Armour Deck: 8,367 tons, 14.8 %
    - Conning Towers: 636 tons, 1.1 %
    Machinery: 4,846 tons, 8.6 %
    Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,211 tons, 32.1 %
    Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,230 tons, 12.8 %
    Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

    Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
    Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
    71,233 lbs / 32,311 Kg = 24.4 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 11.8 torpedoes
    Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
    Metacentric height 9.4 ft / 2.9 m
    Roll period: 17.1 seconds
    Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 58 %
    - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.57
    Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.16

    Hull form characteristics:
    Hull has a flush deck,
    a normal bow and a cruiser stern
    Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.615 / 0.621
    Length to Beam Ratio: 6.88 : 1
    'Natural speed' for length: 29.33 kts
    Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
    Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
    Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
    Stern overhang: 4.00 ft / 1.22 m
    Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
    Fore end, Aft end
    - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
    - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
    - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
    - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m, 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
    - Average freeboard: 26.86 ft / 8.19 m
    Ship tends to be wet forward

    Ship space, strength and comments:
    Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81.5 %
    - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 218.9 %
    Waterplane Area: 79,731 Square feet or 7,407 Square metres
    Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
    Structure weight / hull surface area: 184 lbs/sq ft or 901 Kg/sq metre
    Hull strength (Relative):
    - Cross-sectional: 0.76
    - Longitudinal: 0.92
    - Overall: 0.77
    Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
    Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
    Excellent accommodation and workspace room
     
    eltf177 likes this.
  12. Eternity Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Location:
    Somewhere in North Shore City, New Zealand
    Realistically if you want 18" guns you need a 60-70k ship if you want it armoured against the same.
     
    eltf177 likes this.
  13. eltf177 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    This is NOT good, especially for a battleship....
     
    James Ricker and jsb like this.
  14. Lascaris Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Perhaps but I'm not entirely certain you need to get to such excess. Springstyle and after that Springsharp were for the most part using weight to calculate hull strength as opposed to volume so for your standard reconstruction sticking to 1 indicates the weights you took off roughly equal the ones added (usually in the form of deck armor). Then there is the matter of bulges, these would be usually part of any reconstruction in the 1920s-30s but by definition you've just altered your ships available displacement when adding them. Where potential inefficiencies would hide? Armor for one, the length of your belt if fine tuned in the original design puts limits on how much power you can add and the engines themselves, for example Averof above has new boilers but no turbines...
     
  15. Peg Leg Pom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    The Invincible class armoured cruiser the Germans thought Britain was building was armed with 4 x 2 9.2" guns and had a speed of around 25 knots. You could make the argument that it would have been a much more balanced design and if kept out of fights with capital ships a better design.
     
  16. jsb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Why do you really want balanced when its 1/2 way from BB to AC/CL? The advantage of a 12" ship is it should destroy the old ACs why would you want a fair fight?
     
  17. James Ricker Jim Sox Kicked

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Location:
    Boston Massachusetts
    If you incorporate the armor belt into the ship's main structure (Japanese Cruisers) or build the hull out of armor quality steel (American Battleships) that flaw could be lessened.But it would be very expensive. Best to just drop a turret.
     
  18. AlanJWhite frequent reader, occasional poster, never author

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Location:
    Buckinghamshire, UK
    4-6 x 9.2 + a lot of guns in the 6" -8 " range was already a common battery for British ACs in OTL 1906.
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Edinburgh-class_cruiser and contemporaries
    Though the speed was only around 23 knots.


    What the Germans thought was that the British were going for a bit more speed
    and probably a balance that favoured the bigger gun

    In response they built Blucher
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Blücher

    I tend to agree that it would have served the RN better to have applied the same principles to ACs as they did to BBs
    i.e. all big gun and turbine engines

    As well as a Dreadnought battleship they might have produced a "Dauntless" class cruiser with:

    • 8 x9.2 (especially if Elswick E patterns in high angle turrets as later used for Glatton)
    • only an anti torpedo boat secondary (but a bit heavier ?? 3" 17lb?)
    • 26+ knot i.e > contemporary CL speed

    Because the Dauntless cruiser as above would be a better cruiser killer (whether Blucher or Dresden class)
    (and a peg leg pom implied clearly not up to mixing with capital ships)

    The late war Hawkins class was designed almost to that spec.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017 at 5:01 PM
  19. jsb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    15,592 long tons Blucher v 17,250 Invincible that's about 10% more displacement (and therefore cost as cost was closely linked to weight) for a massive decisive advantage in fire power. I think the 12" ship is far more worthwhile unless you are stupid but then you might as well be stupid with ACs like OTL 1st cruiser squadron.
     
  20. ramtank2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Faster QE?
    10 15" 5 twins Iron duke layout
    geared steam turbines and small tube boilers, longer hull finer lines 90,000shp = 26 Knots
    35000 tons standard

    1 for flagship 3 BC squadron
    1 for flagship 2 BC squadron

    8 more to give 5 BS Grand Fleet, 2 4 ship Divisions

    No R's built
     
    Scotty and Logan2879 like this.