SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

[Raesene]

Code: Select all

CSS Ridículo, Columbian battle barge laid down 1920

Displacement:
	26 123 270 t light; 26 736 300 t standard; 27 242 740 t normal; 27 647 890 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
	(984.25 ft / 984.25 ft) x 984.25 ft x (984.25 / 998.89 ft)
	(300.00 m / 300.00 m) x 300.00 m  x (300.00 / 304.46 m)

Don't forget to hoist the signal "Resistance is futile"

More like, "PRAISE THE EMPEROR!"

Only if the ship has a lot of gargoyles as decoration

It won't capsize because you gave it a freeboard of 8m and a draught of 300m - Springsharp treats one as "this side up" and the other as "this side down".

[Thanas]

Could we please keep this thread on topic, which is serious designs for people who want feedback on them?

[Raesene]

A cruiser for the Tuscan Kingdom...

Laid down in Ancona in 1915, Arno (ex Giuseppe Garibaldi), was designed to be a station ship in the Italian Colonies, and will fulfill this task also under Tuscan colours.

Arno, Tuscan Kingdom cruiser laid down 1917, finished 1923

Displacement:
9.172 t light; 9.517 t standard; 10.223 t normal; 10.788 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
571,34 ft / 564,30 ft x 55,77 ft x 20,67 ft (normal load)
174,14 m / 172,00 m x 17,00 m x 6,30 m

Armament:
5 - 7,48" / 190 mm guns in single mounts, 209,28lbs / 94,93kg shells, 1917 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, majority forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
2 - 7,48" / 190 mm guns in single mounts, 209,28lbs / 94,93kg shells, 1917 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
4 - 4,02" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32,38lbs / 14,69kg shells, 1917 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1.594 lbs / 723 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 21,0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes, 2 - 21,0" / 533 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3,94" / 100 mm 366,80 ft / 111,80 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Ends: 1,97" / 50 mm 197,47 ft / 60,19 m 9,84 ft / 3,00 m
Main Belt covers 100% of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2,36" / 60 mm 1,18" / 30 mm -
2nd: 2,36" / 60 mm 1,18" / 30 mm -
3rd: 0,79" / 20 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1,18" / 30 mm, Conning tower: 1,18" / 30 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 101.299 shp / 75.569 Kw = 33,00 kts
Range 7.000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.271 tons

Complement:
507 - 660

Cost:
£1,833 million / $7,333 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 199 tons, 1,9%
Armour: 1.299 tons, 12,7%
- Belts: 734 tons, 7,2%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 73 tons, 0,7%
- Armour Deck: 480 tons, 4,7%
- Conning Tower: 12 tons, 0,1%
Machinery: 3.713 tons, 36,3%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3.811 tons, 37,3%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.051 tons, 10,3%
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 1,5%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
7.324 lbs / 3.322 Kg = 35,0 x 7,5 " / 190 mm shells or 1,0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,30
Metacentric height 3,3 ft / 1,0 m
Roll period: 12,8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 67 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,28
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,34

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,550
Length to Beam Ratio: 10,12 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,76 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 61 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26,25 ft / 8,00 m
- Forecastle (20%): 26,25 ft / 8,00 m
- Mid (50%): 26,25 ft / 8,00 m (19,69 ft / 6,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15%): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Stern: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Average freeboard: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 138,0%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 171,0%
Waterplane Area: 21.965 Square feet or 2.041 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 98%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 94 lbs/sq ft or 457 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,96
- Longitudinal: 2,28
- Overall: 1,05
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Miscancelleous weight for additional equipment and two seaplanes. Ramp is erected over a midships 19cm gun mount for trials. Experiments with catapults are planned and may require the removal of this mount.

An older design I found on my harddisk, it's in Springsharp v2. Guess what ship was its paragon

[Thanas]

Main belt does not cover magazines and machinery - that's a disaster waiting to happen.

[Raesene]

Main belt does not cover magazines and machinery - that's a disaster waiting to happen.

I noticed it, but ingnored it because it also said it covers 100% of normal length - and extending the belt in length and height didn't remove the comment (even when the belt was as long as the ship and 5m in height).
I'll try to rebuild it in springsharp 3 and see what happens there.

[Thanas]

You have to use the end armor setting for that. End armor starts at the main armor, so reduce its length and up its armor.

[Raesene]

I tried to use end armour to prevent the incomplete armour protection, that had no effect; same when extending the main armour belt to 170m and increasing the belt height to 5m. Guess I'll have to live with it

now, Arno by Springsharp 3

Arno, Tuscan Kingdom cruiser laid down 1917

Displacement:
11.010 t light; 11.370 t standard; 12.153 t normal; 12.778 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(574,62 ft / 564,30 ft) x 62,34 ft x (21,33 / 22,20 ft)
(175,14 m / 172,00 m) x 19,00 m x (6,50 / 6,77 m)

Armament:
7 - 7,48" / 190 mm 45,0 cal guns - 198,42lbs / 90,00kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1917 Model
5 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
2 x Single mounts on sides amidships
3 - 3,94" / 100,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 30,77lbs / 13,96kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1917 Model
3 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1.481 lbs / 672 kg
8 - 23,6" / 600 mm, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m torpedoes - 2,072 t each, 16,577 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2,95" / 75 mm 426,51 ft / 130,00 m 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 116% of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces (line stays even for an armour belt 170m long and 5m high)

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,18" / 30 mm 426,51 ft / 130,00 m 19,78 ft / 6,03 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2,36" / 60 mm 1,18" / 30 mm 1,18" / 30 mm
2nd: 0,79" / 20 mm - -

- Protected deck - single deck: 1,57" / 40 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 1,18" / 30 mm Quarter deck: 1,18" / 30 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 1,57" / 40 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 115.998 shp / 86.535 Kw = 33,00 kts
Range 7.000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.408 tons

Complement:
578 - 752

Cost:
£2,043 million / $8,174 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 418 tons, 3,4%
- Guns: 401 tons, 3,3%
- Torpedoes: 17 tons, 0,1%
Armour: 1.765 tons, 14,5%
- Belts: 587 tons, 4,8%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 369 tons, 3,0%
- Armament: 93 tons, 0,8%
- Armour Deck: 699 tons, 5,7%
- Conning Tower: 18 tons, 0,1%
Machinery: 4.252 tons, 35,0%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4.480 tons, 36,9%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.142 tons, 9,4%
Miscellaneous weights: 95 tons, 0,8%
- Hull above water: 20 tons
- On freeboard deck: 50 tons
- Above deck: 25 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
10.742 lbs / 4.873 Kg = 51,3 x 7,5 " / 190 mm shells or 1,5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,23
Metacentric height 3,6 ft / 1,1 m
Roll period: 13,8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 63 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,40
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,26

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a straight bulbous bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,567 / 0,573
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,05 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,76 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00%, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m
- Forward deck: 40,00%, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m
- Aft deck: 25,00%, 22,97 ft / 7,00 m, 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Quarter deck: 15,00%, 22,97 ft / 7,00 m, 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Average freeboard: 24,93 ft / 7,60 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 183,2%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 202,0%
Waterplane Area: 24.944 Square feet or 2.317 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 106 lbs/sq ft or 520 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,97
- Longitudinal: 2,49
- Overall: 1,06
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather ea

Miscancelleous weight for additional equipment and two seaplanes. Ramp is erected over a midships 19cm gun mount for trials. Experiments with catapults are planned and may require the removal of this mount.

[Thanas]

I think that is Springsharp's way of telling you that with this inefficient hull, you cannot have 33 knots.

[Sea Skimmer]

Unless an enemy shell bypasses your armour belt fore or aft and enters a magazine.
You have to elongate the main armour belt if you don not add secondary armour.

Doesn’t work that way, battleships have traverse armor bulkheads to close off the ends of the citadel. Springsharp assumes these bulkheads are the same thickness as the main belt. On real ships fore and aft armor on the belt and deck was sometimes used to screen the traverse bulkheads so they could be thinner, but its primary purpose was to protect the ends of the hull from being broken up by high explosive shells, a consideration which became irrelevant in post Jutland construction when battle ranges would be extremely long and hits rare. If you get a warning in Springsharp that magazines and machinery are not protected, you need more length in the main armor belt to make it go away.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/1997 ... rofile.gif

You can clearly see the 260mm thick + 18mm backing plate forward traverse bulkhead on Dunkerque in this profile view. No other armor screens the bulkhead in this instance.

The only navies to persist with this incremental belt armoring after Jutland and the Washington Naval treaty were Germany and Italy, which produced some of the worst battleship designs you could dream up, and the USSR which completed nothing but produce designs nearly as bad and colossally bloated in displacement up to 80,000 tons for 9 x 16in guns. Some incremental fore and aft deck armor was retained as Thanas's ship has, to defend against high explosive bombs dropped by aircraft.

[Thanas]

That means my first design was okay? Oh Joy.

EDIT: Or do I still need the 60% total waterline covered?

[Sea Skimmer]

This Russian design from 1936 is a good example of what can be done. It shows a ship which has a heavy traverse bulkhead, 400mm thick on the upper decks, then 380mm lower when equal with the main belt, and then 250mm at the bottom of the hull when it is screened by the forward armor deck.

Forward it has a 100mm belt, along with a curved 75mm thick turtle deck. These features would be considered obsolete in the face of all or nothing armoring, but the poor USSR had the Italians as battleship design advisors.

That means my first design was okay? Oh Joy.

EDIT: Or do I still need the 60% total waterline covered?

As long as the program isn’t giving you a warning, your vitals are protected. As far as springsharp is considered fore and aft armor is irrelevant to the protection of vitals, though in real life it could be incorporated into a more complex protective system. Given the limitations of springsharp as of the current version you can’t really simulate those more complex system yet as they require too many different armor thicknesses.

More armored waterline length is always useful because it makes the ship harder to sink without penetrating hits, but like I told you through PMs Yamato was running around with only 55% of her waterline armored and still managed to have a retarded amount of reserve buoyancy inside the citadel. You basically have Yamato but 2 knots slower and with certain armor thinned out to reflect the fact that you also have 10,000 tons less to work with.

You can see in this profile how Yamato had a steeply sloped deck and then a steeply sloped traverse bulkhead to close off the end of her citadel.



You can see in this profile how Yamato had a steeply sloped deck and then a steeply sloped traverse bulkhead to close off the end of her citadel.




In this plan of the deck armor you can see how the traverse bulkheads was not only sloped but also angle inward off the centerline. This was a major weight saving feature. Spring sharp will assume the traverse bulkhead is sloped if the main belt is also sloped, but it will represent it was a straight line across the ships beam.

If anyone wants to see the armor plan of a post 1920 battleship, let me know and I probably have it. I also have certain examples of pre 1920 designs but not nearly so comprehensively.

[Norseman]

Does anyone have a list of the height of main armour belts? I mean seriously how high *should* they be? Is there a place where I can see armour layouts with proper measurements?

[Raesene]

My assumption was that Springsharp places the first main gun at the end of the forecastle and the last one at the beginning of the quarterdeck - and that that is the length it considers for its 'main belt too short'-warning (usually - I still don't know what I did wrong for my Hawk.. eh, Arno).

[Agent Sorchus]

Skimmer, what would the realistic weight set aside for a seaplane or is the common assumption in this thread of 25 tons good enough?

[Beowulf]

If your main belt is as long as your ship, and it still doesn't cover the machinery and magazines, your ship has too much stuff in it, and needs to be either made bigger, or the amount of stuff reduced.

[Sea Skimmer]

Pre Jutland incrementally armored dreadnoughts had main belts on average 8-13ft high, but of course they also had relatively thick and very extensive upper belts. For post Jutland all or nothing designs the main belt could be anything about 15ft to the very tall 23.5ft high achieved on the British King George V class. I forget how high Yamatos belt was before it tapered heavily. In any case the USN used 17.5ft as its standard height of a long time, I suggest using 18ft as a rule of thumb. That just about covered two deck heights.

Skimmer, what would the realistic weight set aside for a seaplane or is the common assumption in this thread of 25 tons good enough?

25 tons per plane is the rule of thumb determined by Rick Robinson, original creator of Springsharp many years ago. It’s supposed to cover the weight of a single seaplane, a catapult and basic aviation stores. Most battleships carried two or three planes, though certain ones like Yamato had as many as seven and others had only one.

Battleships could carry three basic types of aircraft, though not all navies used more then one type. The main type were observation planes, usually a two seater intended to spot the fall of shot for the battleships main battery. If you have only one or few aircraft they will be observation planes.

Then you have reconnaissance planes which are larger and often three seater. They are intended for long range scouting to find an enemy fleet and also conduct anti submarine patrols. Japan was the number one proponent of these large seaplanes, thus the reason for Yamato having so many aircraft.

The last type are fighters. Believe it or not it was common for battleships to carry at least one fighter in the 1920s and 30s, and even into WW2 the practice persisted. The fighter would normally be held in reserve until a battle line engagement occurred, when it would be launched to defend the observation plane, and shoot down those of the enemy.

[Agent Sorchus]

Code: Select all

Junayd, Sudanese Light Cruiser laid down 1920

Displacement:
	4,455 t light; 4,620 t standard; 5,280 t normal; 5,808 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
	(490.00 ft / 486.83 ft) x 47.00 ft x (14.50 / 15.65 ft)
	(149.35 m / 148.38 m) x 14.33 m  x (4.42 / 4.77 m)

Armament:
      5 - 6.50" / 165 mm 45.0 cal guns - 138.48lbs / 62.81kg shells, 150 per gun
	  Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
	  5 x Single mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
		2 raised mounts - superfiring
      2 - 2.00" / 50.8 mm 45.0 cal guns - 4.03lbs / 1.83kg shells, 150 per gun
	  Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model
	  2 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck centre
      4 - 0.75" / 19.1 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.21lbs / 0.10kg shells, 2,100 per gun
	  Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model
	  4 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 701 lbs / 318 kg
      Main Torpedoes
      12 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m torpedoes - 0.707 t each, 8.489 t total
	In 4 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
      Mines
      6 - 750.00 lbs / 340.19 kg mines - 2.009 t total
	in Above water - Stern racks/rails
      Main DC/AS Mortars
      20 - 250.00 lbs / 113.40 kg Depth Charges - 2.232 t total
	in Stern depth charge racks

Armour:
   - Belts:		Width (max)	Length (avg)		Height (avg)
	Main:	3.00" / 76 mm	316.44 ft / 96.45 m	8.23 ft / 2.51 m
	Ends:	1.00" / 25 mm	170.37 ft / 51.93 m	8.23 ft / 2.51 m
	Upper:	1.00" / 25 mm	316.44 ft / 96.45 m	8.00 ft / 2.44 m
	  Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
	  Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

   - Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
		0.10" / 3 mm	316.44 ft / 96.45 m	13.36 ft / 4.07 m
	Beam between torpedo bulkheads 47.00 ft / 14.33 m

   - Gun armour:	Face (max)	Other gunhouse (avg)	Barbette/hoist (max)
	Main:	1.00" / 25 mm	      -			1.00" / 25 mm

   - Armoured deck - single deck:
	For and Aft decks: 1.25" / 32 mm
	Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm  Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 0.56" / 14 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
	Diesel Internal combustion motors, 
	Geared drive, 2 shafts, 42,974 shp / 32,059 Kw = 29.09 kts
	Range 1,999nm at 24.00 kts
	Bunker at max displacement = 1,187 tons

Complement:
	309 - 402

Cost:
	£1.021 million / $4.086 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
	Armament: 214 tons, 4.1 %
	   - Guns: 198 tons, 3.8 %
	   - Weapons: 16 tons, 0.3 %
	Armour: 902 tons, 17.1 %
	   - Belts: 476 tons, 9.0 %
	   - Torpedo bulkhead: 16 tons, 0.3 %
	   - Armament: 48 tons, 0.9 %
	   - Armour Deck: 359 tons, 6.8 %
	   - Conning Tower: 4 tons, 0.1 %
	Machinery: 1,503 tons, 28.5 %
	Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,837 tons, 34.8 %
	Fuel, ammunition & stores: 825 tons, 15.6 %
	Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
	Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
	  5,785 lbs / 2,624 Kg = 42.1 x 6.5 " / 165 mm shells or 2.1 torpedoes
	Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
	Metacentric height 1.6 ft / 0.5 m
	Roll period: 15.5 seconds
	Steadiness	- As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 84 %
			- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.60
	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): 0.557 / 0.568
	Length to Beam Ratio: 10.36 : 1
	'Natural speed' for length: 22.06 kts
	Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
	Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 79
	Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
	Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
	Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
				Fore end,	 Aft end
	   - Forecastle:	20.00 %,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m
	   - Forward deck:	25.00 %,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m
	   - Aft deck:	37.00 %,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m
	   - Quarter deck:	18.00 %,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m,  16.00 ft / 4.88 m
	   - Average freeboard:		16.16 ft / 4.93 m
	Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
	Space	- Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 104.3 %
		- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 156.5 %
	Waterplane Area: 16,073 Square feet or 1,493 Square metres
	Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
	Structure weight / hull surface area: 77 lbs/sq ft or 378 Kg/sq metre
	Hull strength (Relative):
		- Cross-sectional: 0.98
		- Longitudinal: 1.19
		- Overall: 1.00
	Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
	Excellent accommodation and workspace room
	Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Revision to my original, has no problems that plagued it originally. Though it does lack a seaplane that the original had. It is also more expensive.

[Norade]

Here is what I plan to make into my flagship. I think she will do well in the age of 18" guns that is sure to come.

EDIT: See below.

[Norade]

Just noticed my main guns were so under armored it was sad. I had to bump up displacement and cut armor to make it work, so here is the new design.

Ship stats cut to reduce clutter.

[Thanas]

I am not sure if this ship will do much. I mean, you tried to outdo my design, but IMO failed a bit in your goals.

For once, your main guns are not protected against heavy-cruiser fire. Your main armor deck is also very bad, not being able to prevent plunging fire. Your survivability is half of my design. Your torpedo bulkhead is a whole 20% worse and your ship can only take half the torpedoes my can.

Your seaboat qualities are worse.

Your gun armor is the worst part of them all - less armored than my 30.000 ton Battleship, not being able to be protected against heavy cruiser fire. EDIT - see you changed that.

The worst part however are your Diesel engines. Yes, they save a lot of weight (which is why you get 31 knots) but read this bit from skimmer:

The H-39 class however marked a return to diesel power to support commerce raiding. It would have been purely powered by a new model of diesel which reduced the weight penalty. However while a Panzerschiffe had two diesels each geared to one shaft, to power a ship as large as H-39 several diesels had to be geared together onto each shaft, which was bound to cause reliability problems. As the first pair of H-39s was canceled upon outbreak of war and broken up on the slip the revival of diesel power was cut short. All that was done was to start work on the destroyer Z51 which was a prototype diesel to be powered by six diesels of 12,600hp each. Absurdly FOUR were geared onto the center shaft, with two wing shafts powered by one each for crusing. Z51 was never completed. Four of the new engines were built but never tested for lack of fuel (this was all late war, clearly a case of protecting designers from the eastern front). Detail design work was also done on the Spankreuzer program, which was to be a large class of 5,000 ton scout cruisers with six 15cm guns apiece and a combined diesel-steam plant. Foreign navies also looked at diesel engines strongly for capital ships but were defeated on this manner by three main factors. The first was simply that no one had as good of big diesel engines as the Germans did, though the US was close. The second factor was that since a diesel engine cannot start under load, unlike a steam turbine which doesn’t give a damn, you need a cluching/torque converter system or else a diesel-electric plant to use one at all. The former was seen was too complicated (no surprise only Germany did it) while the latter is very heavy and with the technology of the time largely defeats the point of using the diesel. The last factor was that of maintenance access. Diesel engines require periodic replacement of pistons and piston rings. In the engine room of a battleship, you have very little clearance above the engine before you hit the main armor deck. That means replacing a cylinder will almost certainly require cutting through that armor deck to lift the piston out. For the Germans this was not a big deal as it might be because the obsolete armor layouts used didn’t provide any really thick layers. Panzerschiffe had only a light cruiser scale of armor with a 50mm deck, while even the bloated H-39 only had a 100mm main deck. This made it reasonable to make provisions for removing certain plates. Other nations usually went for greater thicknesses and would have had greater problems. In fact the most serious proposal for a diesel powered battleship outside of Germany was for Yamato no less. The Japanese wanted her to have two diesel shafts and two steam shafts. However she also had an epic 200mm thick main deck that would essentially be impossible to cut, they would have had to rip out enough of the ship to lift off a complete deck plate which would take weeks or months. Japan even went so far as to build a submarine tender to test the planned diesel engines, and ultimately liked diesels enough to power a large number of auxiliaries with them. But Yamato was redesigned to be purely steam powered as the last minute. Its worth noting that if steam turbines take internal damage they can be nearly impossible to repair, but they are extreme resistance to any kind of damage occurring and do not require regular internal repairs. The turbine blades should last the life of the ship, and it’s almost unheard of for steam turbines to be replaced. That’s why everyone uses gas turbines today, which are more compact and can be lifted out of the ship through the air intakes.

So IMO everyone who uses Diesel engines just begs for the ship to be scrapped after the first year of heavy duty.

[Norade]

Thanks Thanas, I did build my boat to compete with yours though I wouldn't like to have to fight you as I'm willing to be you'd have a few more allies than I would at this stage.

Anyway, here's her new design:

Snipped ship design to reduce clutter.

[Thanas]

Thanks Thanas, I did build my boat to compete with yours though I wouldn't like to have to fight you as I'm willing to be you'd have a few more allies than I would at this stage.

Anyway, here's her new design:

Well, this is almost a direct copy of my design, right down to main armament, ship length etc. I am not so sure how I feel about that.

However:

- your torpedoes are just begging for disaster, especially the deck tubes.
- your gun side armor is still too weak. 12 inch is supposed to be ideal.
- Your displacement is vastly over limit. I mean, mine is about 590t over the limit, yours is over 1313t over the limit.
- Your range is pretty much unsuitable to ocean cruises. I can count on a steady supply chain of Islands, you cannot. Ergo, you need longer range.
- 4500nm is just begging for trouble. At high speed, your ship needs 4x as much fuel as on cruising speed. You can do the math.

[Norade]

Actually, doing the math, Lisbon to French Guiana is only 3,100nm, so I'd have range to spare if I needed a burst of speed and I have a few islands that I'd plan on making into resupply depots for moving more forces near Africa.

As for the design, I don't honestly know anything about torpedoes and will likely drop them from such a large design.

As for hull form, if being 5m longer and 3m narrower with a shallower draft is being the same shape, and having a gun format that is proven to work is directly copying then I don't know what chance others will have at building a large ship. My guns were also shorter in length to give them less recoil.

Now the weight was an issue so I dropped displacement and made a few changes. She now has better armored turrets than your design along with longer caliber barrels to throw a harder shot, it has good steadiness and recoil at a worse sea boat rating, and can cruise 5,200nm at 16kts so she could conceivably make a round trip between Lisbon and South America at a slower pace.

PSS Orgulho Invencível, Portuguese Battleship laid down 1924 (Engine 1925)

Displacement:
54,278 t light; 56,996 t standard; 59,884 t normal; 62,194 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(902.23 ft / 902.23 ft) x 118.11 ft x (36.09 / 37.18 ft)
(275.00 m / 275.00 m) x 36.00 m x (11.00 / 11.33 m)

Armament:
9 - 18.00" / 457 mm 48.0 cal guns - 3,054.05lbs / 1,385.30kg shells, 90 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1924 Model
2 x Triple mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
1 raised mount
1 x Triple mount on centreline, aft deck centre
12 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.92lbs / 49.41kg shells, 140 per gun
Quick firing guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1924 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.27lbs / 14.64kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1924 Model
4 x 4 row quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
48 - 0.30" / 7.7 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.01lbs / 0.01kg shells, 3,000 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1924 Model
12 x 4 row quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 29,311 lbs / 13,295 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 18.0" / 457 mm 650.00 ft / 198.12 m 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 111 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
3.00" / 76 mm 600.00 ft / 182.88 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 18.0" / 457 mm 14.0" / 356 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck: 8.00" / 203 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 3.00" / 76 mm Quarter deck: 3.00" / 76 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 15.00" / 381 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 89,668 shp / 66,892 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 5,200nm at 17.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,198 tons

Complement:
1,913 - 2,488

Cost:
£16.036 million / $64.142 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 4,929 tons, 8.2 %
Armour: 24,214 tons, 40.4 %
- Belts: 8,752 tons, 14.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 999 tons, 1.7 %
- Armament: 4,208 tons, 7.0 %
- Armour Deck: 9,761 tons, 16.3 %
- Conning Tower: 495 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 2,911 tons, 4.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 22,174 tons, 37.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,606 tons, 9.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.1 %
- On freeboard deck: 50 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
85,539 lbs / 38,800 Kg = 29.3 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 14.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.03
Metacentric height 6.8 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 19.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.73
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.14

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a ram bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.545 / 0.549
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.64 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.04 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 38 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 63
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Average freeboard: 19.08 ft / 5.82 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 71.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 140.2 %
Waterplane Area: 74,022 Square feet or 6,877 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 239 lbs/sq ft or 1,167 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.07
- 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

[Thanas]

Hmm. Unless I am mistaken cruising speed is also the maximum range for the ship, when the engines are geared for maximum efficiency.

Still, this design is far better than your first attempt.

I still prefer mine due to the better seaboat, better survivability, but still good.

[Norade]

Ah, well then it couldn't make that trip, but still has excess range.

Yeah, mine might win in calmer seas and your would be at advantage in worse seas. It's a trade off in design goals.