Design your BB for Pacific War...

[Redan]

US BB would have to be able to go through the Canal, don't forget.[:-] Make mine Iowa.

[anarchyintheuk]

What's a couple of extra weeks steaming time?

As to designing a WW2 BB for the pac war, a BB isn't a BB without pagoda masts. Fuso me.

[Akos Gergely]

Panama would have been widened to 140' in 1940 if no war.

[JeffroK]

Bismark in the Pacific, Dogmeat.
 
Its AA protection was woeful, to the point where a few Swordfish could get close enough to disable it.
 
Then it was scuttled.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

I love how Bismark fanbois always focus on the 'she was scuttled' bit. Ignoring the fact that big-B was cornered, essentially immobilized and turned into debris by the English Navy. It's akin to saying, "The Yamato wasn't sunk by US airplanes, it was destroyed by fire reaching her secondary ammo magazine.". Which are in both cases cop outs IMHO.

The Bismark is a good example of my argument that ships that get to 99% Sys damage and receive more should sink/scuttle. Whether she was scuttled or sank on her own, the Royal Navy turned her into a hulk. In game terms she was at 99% Sys damage with some severe fire damage too. Even if her flotation damage was not critical, the crew saw her as a write off and scuttled her. The game should do that too. One of the most frustrating aspects are ships that become invincible after taking 99% Sys damage.

Bill

[marky]

USS WISCONSIN

9 20 inch guns

500 AA guns

36 inch armor belt heavy armor topside, oplus room for 500 fighters!

[:D]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"One thing the US lacked were capital ship construction yards. I believe there were only two of them. "

There were several yards that built capital ships in the US during WW2 (in this list I am not including heavy cruisers, just battleships and CVs).

New York ShipBuilding Co
New York Navy Yard
Bethlehem Steel, Quincy, Mass
Philadelphia Navy Yard
Norfolk Navy Yard
Newport News ShipBuilding and Drydock Co


The California was built at Mare Island Navy Yard, but that wasn't in WW2.

The Kentucky was launched incomplete to make room for Essex carrier construction and the both the Illinois and the Montana class were delayed to a point where they were canceled. The Illinois was started in January 1945. The US did not have the ship yard capacity to run both the Essex and Iowa building programs at full capacity at the same time. It became apparent that the Essex program was more important, so the battleships took second priority in the queue.

Bill

[bradfordkay]

That's still more than two capitol ship construction yards. I never made any claim that the US had unlimited construction capability, just that there were substantially more than two yards capable of producing them.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

That's still more than two capitol ship construction yards. I never made any claim that the US had unlimited construction capability, just that there were substantially more than two yards capable of producing them.

Agreed. wdolson's statement was just silly. The US launched more Capital Ships during the War than the rest of the world combined..., which would have made those the two most efficient slipways in all of History.

[Akos Gergely]

I'm sorry but I'm with brad on this. The slipwasys weren't a limiting factor (just check Norman Friedman's CV book, the Essex chapter) on the other hand for the BBs heavy armour manufacturing and gun casting was the real bottleneck. The Kentucky was cancelled because it seemed it could not be completed until the end of the war due to delays in the above mentioned items, so there was no point in vacating a valuable slipway. The same is partly true for Illinois, but she was not even laid down in 1942.

According to Mr. Friedman, just as the Essex program started all major yards were expanding so they could easily take the required numbers with a bit of a management.

Also other than the yards listed by Brad there were quite a few other ones for cruiser and destroyer/sub production so these yards could concentrate on the larger ships.

[steveh11Matrix]

Okay, so the design brief is for a 1938 design, with room for expansion of AAA, and a reasonably long range for the Pacific Theatre

With apologies to Tarrantry fans, here's my newly updated Ste Catherine design:

9 x 15", 20 x 5", 30 knots max, 9600 miles @ 16 knots, 12" belt, 12" main turret face, 4" deck.

Length o/a 758', beam 100', draught 28'

No, she's not a wondership. That's because you can't design a wondership in 1938 on a 35,000 ton displacement. Even this one came out at 36,330 by the time I'd fiddled with it to make the composite strength, stability and seaworthiness good enough. The designers of that time had some serious constraints to work within, given what we know now.

So, you can tell me what to add: just also tell me what to subtract. Because, I assure you, there's not a lot of wiggle room, there.

Steve.


In 1938, I *think* only Japan had abrogated the Treaty.

Edit to say what I forgot: Above design done using Springsharp

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Agreed. wdolson's statement was just silly. The US launched more Capital Ships during the War than the rest of the world combined..., which would have made those the two most efficient slipways in all of History.

I stand corrected. I recalled reading somewhere that the battleships were canceled because of limits to capital ship construction capacity and I thought I recalled there were only 2 yards capable of building capital ships.

Bloody memory. I need more RAM!

Bill

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Agreed. wdolson's statement was just silly. The US launched more Capital Ships during the War than the rest of the world combined..., which would have made those the two most efficient slipways in all of History.

I stand corrected. I recalled reading somewhere that the battleships were canceled because of limits to capital ship construction capacity and I thought I recalled there were only 2 yards capable of building capital ships.

Bloody memory. I need more RAM!

Bill

[:D] [:D]

[Iridium]

Starting playing around with SpringSharp. Damn, it's a balancing act to get the right weapons , armor and speed out of a ship. I attempted to recreate the Yamato just to see if it'd assume some things correctly (which it did kinda). I consider most of the anomalies to either be my fault or subtleties of design that simply aren't in the program.

Here's a txt readout of my attempt:

[Nemo121]

I had a run-through with SpringSharp and decided to try for an improved Yamato class. I sacrificed some 6.1 inch turrets in return for more AAA fire in terms of 3.9inch and 40mm mounts and more armour than I've ever seen before.
 
With armour coverage as follows:
Main: 12 inch
Ends: 18 inch
Upper: 24 inch and
Torpedo Bulkheads of 24 inches this ship is calculated to require 34 x 18 inch shells or 31 torpedoes to sink. It is also a very stable gun platform. The only major problem is that it seems to be subject to hull strain in open seas even though it can handle bad seas easily. Go figure.
 
 
Shinano, Japan Battleship laid down 1939
Displacement:
59,822 t light; 63,418 t standard; 66,087 t normal; 68,222 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
900.00 ft / 900.00 ft x 120.00 ft x 33.00 ft (normal load)
274.32 m / 274.32 m x 36.58 m x 10.06 m
Armament:
9 - 18.00" / 457 mm guns (1x9 guns), 2,916.00lbs / 1,322.68kg shells, 1939 Model
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret
on centreline aft
24 - 3.90" / 99.1 mm guns (2x12 guns), 29.66lbs / 13.45kg shells, 1939 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
48 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (3x16 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1939 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 27,050 lbs / 12,269 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 585.00 ft / 178.31 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m
Ends: 18.0" / 457 mm 314.98 ft / 96.01 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m
Upper: 24.0" / 610 mm 585.00 ft / 178.31 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
24.0" / 610 mm 585.00 ft / 178.31 m 31.67 ft / 9.65 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm - -
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm - -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 118,016 shp / 88,040 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,804 tons
Complement:
2,060 - 2,679
Cost:
£31.308 million / $125.230 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,381 tons, 5.1 %
Armour: 31,979 tons, 48.4 %
- Belts: 11,582 tons, 17.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 16,452 tons, 24.9 %
- Armament: 3,946 tons, 6.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,193 tons, 4.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 21,268 tons, 32.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,265 tons, 9.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
98,708 lbs / 44,773 Kg = 33.9 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 31.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.35
Metacentric height 11.1 ft / 3.4 m
Roll period: 15.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.40
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.649
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 33.00 ft / 10.06 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Mid (50 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Stern: 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Average freeboard: 21.96 ft / 6.69 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 67.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 167.4 %
Waterplane Area: 86,235 Square feet or 8,011 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 193 lbs/sq ft or 944 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.83
- Longitudinal: 0.80
- Overall: 0.81
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Mike Scholl]

Few odd problems with your "design". Two foot thick armor for the Torpedo Bulkheads? If this is mounted on the outside of the bulges it's still going to shatter on impact due to the imcompressability of water...., and if on the inside of the bulge system it's way more than would be necessary to stop fragments and splinters. Just seems quite excessive. And why make the "ends" half again as thick as the main belt? And what about deck armor?

Not to mention that I don't think anyone ever successfully cast good armor plate much in excess of 16" (if that). It just looks as if your armor scheme is too much of a good thing,

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Few odd problems with your "design". Two foot thick armor for the Torpedo Bulkheads? If this is mounted on the outside of the bulges it's still going to shatter on impact due to the imcompressability of water...., and if on the inside of the bulge system it's way more than would be necessary to stop fragments and splinters. Just seems quite excessive. And why make the "ends" half again as thick as the main belt? And what about deck armor?

Not to mention that I don't think anyone ever successfully cast good armor plate much in excess of 16" (if that). It just looks as if your armor scheme is too much of a good thing,

I actually think the Japanese solved the problem with cementing unconventionally thick plates of steel. However, due to the time and or materials needed for the process it wasn't used. I also recall seeing something written about how Japan had actually produced the hardest piece of 6" thick armor in the world but it was test in the work. They were actually quite knowledgeable about production, they simply lacked strategic metals in quantity or the time needed for such endeavors.

EDIT: My specs are actually exactly what the Yamato was built by...for the most part. The bulkheads were fudged and the freeboard as well.

[Nemo121]

Mike,
 
I presume Upper = Deck. As to the Ends vs Main thing - probably got over-enthusiastic. As to torp bulkheads. Well,what I know about ship design can be written in really large letters on a really small page so this was just me fiddling around.
 
What I was surprised with was just how much armour I could actually get on the ship without cramping it. I managed to get about 48% of the ship's total displacement as armour which I think is pretty impressive.

[histgamer]

That program is interesting if you try to design WWI or pre WWI battleships because in a sense the program is to perfect. Pre WWI ships in specific the building of them was not as highly refined as you might think for such expencive warships outside of the USA (due to the tight budgets that congress put on the navy) ships were built with general specifications in mind but they were built as they were built and as construction progressed generally many changes were made to the designs so that most pre world war 1 battleships were not as good as they could have been.

[Nemo121]

I've been fiddling around with the programme some more and have found it very impressive so far. Now I am familiar with this as a warship design programme a simple tank design programme and BTTech programmes BUT is there an airplane design programme for propeller-driven planes?
 
I've always thought that would be a very interesting programme to try... So, does anyone know of one?