StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2010-01-03 09:49am**

^7 inch side turret armor which probably does not even resist 12inch shells, no armored deck preventing shells from slipping under the belt and weaponry in 2 quad turrets....
ouch.

Posted: **2010-01-03 09:56am**

If Ryan really wants a ship with two quad 18" guns, the Österreich design can do that, with far better protection, real deck armor and much higher survivablity. Oh, and real 18" guns.

Österreich, Germany Schlachtschiff laid down 1926

Displacement:
37.836 t light; 39.947 t standard; 41.402 t normal; 42.567 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(763,49 ft / 721,78 ft) x 118,11 ft x (36,09 / 36,83 ft)
(232,71 m / 220,00 m) x 36,00 m x (11,00 / 11,22 m)

Armament:
8 - 18,00" / 457 mm 45,0 cal guns - 2.940,86lbs / 1.333,95kg shells, 90 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1926 Model
2 x Quad mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
12 - 6,00" / 152 mm 39,0 cal guns - 102,99lbs / 46,72kg shells, 120 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1926 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 - 3,94" / 100,0 mm 39,0 cal guns - 29,10lbs / 13,20kg shells, 120 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1926 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
24 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm 38,0 cal guns - 1,85lbs / 0,84kg shells, 300 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
12 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
24 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm 20,0 cal guns - 0,22lbs / 0,10kg shells, 500 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
6 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 25.045 lbs / 11.360 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16,0" / 406 mm 352,00 ft / 107,29 m 18,00 ft / 5,49 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 75% of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2,70" / 69 mm 352,00 ft / 107,29 m 25,00 ft / 7,62 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 18,0" / 457 mm 10,0" / 254 mm 12,0" / 305 mm
2nd: 2,00" / 51 mm 1,00" / 25 mm 1,00" / 25 mm
3rd: 1,00" / 25 mm - -
4th: 1,00" / 25 mm - -
5th: 1,00" / 25 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck: 8,00" / 203 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 1,50" / 38 mm Quarter deck: 1,50" / 38 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 8,00" / 203 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 46.421 shp / 34.630 Kw = 22,00 kts
Range 5.000nm at 14,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.620 tons

Complement:
1.450 - 1.886

Cost:
£13,292 million / $53,168 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3.935 tons, 9,5%
Armour: 15.643 tons, 37,8%
- Belts: 4.746 tons, 11,5%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 879 tons, 2,1%
- Armament: 2.507 tons, 6,1%
- Armour Deck: 7.304 tons, 17,6%
- Conning Tower: 206 tons, 0,5%
Machinery: 1.486 tons, 3,6%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16.697 tons, 40,3%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3.566 tons, 8,6%
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0,2%
- Above deck: 75 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
66.905 lbs / 30.348 Kg = 22,9 x 18,0 " / 457 mm shells or 11,6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,29
Metacentric height 10,1 ft / 3,1 m
Roll period: 15,6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,51
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,51

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,471 / 0,475
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,11 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26,87 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 38 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 40,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 16,00%, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m, 20,34 ft / 6,20 m
- Forward deck: 34,00%, 20,34 ft / 6,20 m, 20,34 ft / 6,20 m
- Aft deck: 37,00%, 20,34 ft / 6,20 m, 20,34 ft / 6,20 m
- Quarter deck: 13,00%, 20,34 ft / 6,20 m, 20,34 ft / 6,20 m
- Average freeboard: 20,72 ft / 6,32 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74,9%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 147,9%
Waterplane Area: 55.351 Square feet or 5.142 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 236 lbs/sq ft or 1.152 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,93
- Longitudinal: 1,91
- 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
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

75 kt for three aircraft carried

Posted: **2010-01-03 10:03am**

I would propose this (revised) edition for Colombia's use:

Code: Select all

BNS Colombia, FSR of Brazil Battleship laid down 1925

Displacement:
	37,290 t light; 39,490 t standard; 41,501 t normal; 43,109 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
	747.21 ft / 732.00 ft x 106.00 ft x 32.00 ft (normal load)
	227.75 m / 223.11 m x 32.31 m  x 9.75 m

Armament:
      9 - 16.50" / 419 mm guns (3x3 guns), 2,246.06lbs / 1,018.80kg shells, 1925 Model
	  Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
	  on centreline ends, majority forward
      16 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (8x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1925 Model
	  Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
	  on side, all amidships
      8 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1925 Model
	  Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
	  on side, evenly spread
      16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1925 Model
	  Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts 
	  on side, evenly spread
      12 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (8 mounts), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1925 Model
	  Machine guns in deck mounts 
	  on side, evenly spread
	Weight of broadside 22,083 lbs / 10,016 kg
	Shells per gun, main battery: 110
	2 - 24.5" / 622.3 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:		Width (max)	Length (avg)		Height (avg)
	Main:	15.0" / 381 mm	385.00 ft / 117.35 m	16.00 ft / 4.88 m
	Ends:	0.50" / 13 mm	347.00 ft / 105.77 m	16.00 ft / 4.88 m
	  Main Belt covers 81 % of normal length
	  Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
		3.00" / 76 mm	732.00 ft / 223.11 m	27.00 ft / 8.23 m

   - Gun armour:	Face (max)	Other gunhouse (avg)	Barbette/hoist (max)
	Main:	16.0" / 406 mm	12.0" / 305 mm		11.0" / 279 mm
	2nd:	1.50" / 38 mm	1.00" / 25 mm		1.00" / 25 mm
	3rd:	      -		      -			1.00" / 25 mm

   - Armour deck: 7.00" / 178 mm, Conning tower: 11.00" / 279 mm

Machinery:
	Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, 
	Geared drive, 3 shafts, 56,204 shp / 41,928 Kw = 23.00 kts
	Range 6,000nm at 15.00 kts
	Bunker at max displacement = 3,619 tons

Complement:
	1,453 - 1,889

Cost:
	£12.696 million / $50.783 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
	Armament: 2,760 tons, 6.7 %
	Armour: 16,952 tons, 40.8 %
	   - Belts: 4,304 tons, 10.4 %
	   - Torpedo bulkhead: 2,194 tons, 5.3 %
	   - Armament: 2,924 tons, 7.0 %
	   - Armour Deck: 7,247 tons, 17.5 %
	   - Conning Tower: 284 tons, 0.7 %
	Machinery: 1,825 tons, 4.4 %
	Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,552 tons, 37.5 %
	Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,211 tons, 10.1 %
	Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
	Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
	  57,387 lbs / 26,030 Kg = 25.5 x 16.5 " / 419 mm shells or 10.7 torpedoes
	Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
	Metacentric height 7.1 ft / 2.2 m
	Roll period: 16.7 seconds
	Steadiness	- As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
			- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.62
	Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.34

Hull form characteristics:
	Hull has raised forecastle
	Block coefficient: 0.585
	Length to Beam Ratio: 6.91 : 1
	'Natural speed' for length: 27.06 kts
	Power going to wave formation at top speed: 41 %
	Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
	Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
	Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
	Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
	   - Stem:		28.04 ft / 8.55 m
	   - Forecastle (18 %):	22.00 ft / 6.71 m (20.00 ft / 6.10 m aft of break)
	   - Mid (50 %):		17.85 ft / 5.44 m
	   - Quarterdeck (18 %):	17.85 ft / 5.44 m
	   - Stern:		17.85 ft / 5.44 m
	   - Average freeboard:	19.35 ft / 5.90 m
	Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
	Space	- Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81.7 %
		- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 134.9 %
	Waterplane Area: 55,958 Square feet or 5,199 Square metres
	Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97 %
	Structure weight / hull surface area: 206 lbs/sq ft or 1,003 Kg/sq metre
	Hull strength (Relative):
		- Cross-sectional: 0.98
		- Longitudinal: 1.27
		- 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

Please note the following:
1. Yes it has only 9 heavy guns, three less than my normal designs, however this is similar to the real world USS Iowa.
2. Notice that the beam and draught are both within Panamax limits, so Colombia will be able to send this ship through the Panama canal without serious trouble. Unlike any design with a beam above 106.
3. Armor is only 15" for the main belt, however that is about as thick as you can feasibly make armour without running into the point of diminishing returns. As for the height of the main belt don't forget that the upper section is basically unarmoured, the main armour belt can be a fair distance down the ship itself to give fuses time to explode before reaching it. Deck armour is also 7".
4. Range is fairly short, but adequate for defending the coasts and even intercepting enemy shipping.
5. Speed is marginally faster than that of the Mexican opposition, useful for positioning yourself in your zone of immunity.

Posted: **2010-01-03 10:07am**

The beam is not really a problem with my design, though. I can pretty much adjust it to 106 or below if I wish to.

Posted: **2010-01-03 12:54pm**

Thanas wrote:^7 inch side turret armor which probably does not even resist 12inch shells, no armored deck preventing shells from slipping under the belt and weaponry in 2 quad turrets....
ouch.

Ah you mean correct side turret armor as shown by the figures for Iowa and Montana?

As for deck armor I'd point that my design has an 8in thick deck as opposed to 7 for yours.The 1.5in you have put on forecastle and quarter deck varies from very little use or no use to dangerous. There is a reason all or nothing armor was being called that. And how exactly would shells slip under the belt to enter the citadel given the forward and aft bulkheads present there exactly to avoid that?

Posted: **2010-01-03 12:54pm**

Norseman wrote:I would propose this (revised) edition for Colombia's use:

<snip>

Please note the following:
1. Yes it has only 9 heavy guns, three less than my normal designs, however this is similar to the real world USS Iowa.
2. Notice that the beam and draught are both within Panamax limits, so Colombia will be able to send this ship through the Panama canal without serious trouble. Unlike any design with a beam above 106.
3. Armor is only 15" for the main belt, however that is about as thick as you can feasibly make armour without running into the point of diminishing returns. As for the height of the main belt don't forget that the upper section is basically unarmoured, the main armour belt can be a fair distance down the ship itself to give fuses time to explode before reaching it. Deck armour is also 7".
4. Range is fairly short, but adequate for defending the coasts and even intercepting enemy shipping.
5. Speed is marginally faster than that of the Mexican opposition, useful for positioning yourself in your zone of immunity.

So I went ahead and ran everything in to SS 3.03 for you and this would be the file it outputs:

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1925

Displacement:
36,796 t light; 39,491 t standard; 41,501 t normal; 43,109 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(747.21 ft / 732.00 ft) x 106.00 ft x (32.00 / 33.01 ft)
(227.75 m / 223.11 m) x 32.31 m x (9.75 / 10.06 m)

Armament:
9 - 16.50" / 419 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,246.07lbs / 1,018.80kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1925 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 45.0 cal guns - 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 600 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1925 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 150 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1925 Model
12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 22,051 lbs / 10,002 kg
Main Torpedoes
24 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 24.00 ft / 7.32 m torpedoes - 1.559 t each, 37.427 t total
submerged bow tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15.0" / 381 mm 385.00 ft / 117.35 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: 0.50" / 13 mm 347.00 ft / 105.77 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Main Belt covers 81 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
3.00" / 76 mm 732.00 ft / 223.11 m 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 98.00 ft / 29.87 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 12.0" / 305 mm 11.0" / 279 mm
2nd: 1.50" / 38 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: - - 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 7.00" / 178 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 11.00" / 279 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 56,205 shp / 41,929 Kw = 23.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,619 tons

Complement:
1,453 - 1,889

Cost:
£11.844 million / $47.377 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 4,458 tons, 10.7 %
- Guns: 4,383 tons, 10.6 %
- Weapons: 75 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 15,889 tons, 38.3 %
- Belts: 4,286 tons, 10.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,194 tons, 5.3 %
- Armament: 3,276 tons, 7.9 %
- Armour Deck: 5,850 tons, 14.1 %
- Conning Tower: 284 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 1,825 tons, 4.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,624 tons, 35.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,705 tons, 11.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
60,599 lbs / 27,487 Kg = 27.0 x 16.5 " / 419 mm shells or 9.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 6.9 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 16.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.74
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.34

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.585 / 0.589
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.91 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.06 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 41 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 18.00 %, 28.04 ft / 8.55 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 17.85 ft / 5.44 m
- Aft deck: 34.00 %, 17.85 ft / 5.44 m, 17.85 ft / 5.44 m
- Quarter deck: 18.00 %, 17.85 ft / 5.44 m, 17.85 ft / 5.44 m
- Average freeboard: 19.65 ft / 5.99 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 68.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 138.1 %
Waterplane Area: 55,959 Square feet or 5,199 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 218 lbs/sq ft or 1,064 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.35
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Anyway the kick in the pants is that its a 25kt+ ship so even if it were laid down Q4 1925 it wouldn't be ready for service until Q4 1928...at which point my 1925-series BC has already been roaming the ocean for a year. Sure this ship is competitive with my Santa Ana class (9x16.5" versus 12x16.54" main guns, 23 knots vs 22 knots, both have 15" belts and 7" decks, 3" versus 1"+4" TDS and 16/12/11 versus 18/11/14 gun armor) but that will be my 2nd best warship at the time.

Posted: **2010-01-03 01:09pm**

Lascaris wrote:
Thanas wrote:^7 inch side turret armor which probably does not even resist 12inch shells, no armored deck preventing shells from slipping under the belt and weaponry in 2 quad turrets....
ouch.
Ah you mean correct side turret armor as shown by the figures for Iowa and Montana?

And please present some figures how many yards that 7" side armor is going to give you against capital grade weaponry.

As for deck armor I'd point that my design has an 8in thick deck as opposed to 7 for yours.The 1.5in you have put on forecastle and quarter deck varies from very little use or no use to dangerous.

Actually, the latest version has 8 inches. As for the 1.5 inch fore and quarter deck Skimmer once commented iirc that it helped set off fuses that would otherwise enter the citadel from the front or back and then detonate inside.

Posted: **2010-01-03 02:57pm**

Thanas wrote:
Lascaris wrote:
Thanas wrote:^7 inch side turret armor which probably does not even resist 12inch shells, no armored deck preventing shells from slipping under the belt and weaponry in 2 quad turrets....
ouch.
Ah you mean correct side turret armor as shown by the figures for Iowa and Montana?
And please present some figures how many yards that 7" side armor is going to give you against capital grade weaponry.

Oh it counts. Don't forget that figure is the average thickness of all but the front turret armor. Top will be somewhat thinner and sides somewhat thicker. So the answer is about as much as deck armor for plunging fire and less than the main side belt for a hit actually hitting the side or the back of the turret.

Now there are two questions to answer.

First why the actual ship designers did not bother with the ultrathick armor you postulate?
Second how likely is a direct hit on the side of the turret from a large calibre gun?

As for deck armor I'd point that my design has an 8in thick deck as opposed to 7 for yours.The 1.5in you have put on forecastle and quarter deck varies from very little use or no use to dangerous.
Actually, the latest version has 8 inches. As for the 1.5 inch fore and quarter deck Skimmer once commented iirc that it helped set off fuses that would otherwise enter the citadel from the front or back and then detonate inside.

So our difference is not in the lack of deck armor. It rather has to do with the desirability of a thin bunch of armor outside of the citadel. The citadel itself is closed to both ends by very thick bulkheads. In the case of Montana these were actually thicker than the main belts with 18in for the forward bulkhead. So what is the point in the deck armor outside the citadel? Potentially it might keep some light bombs or projectiles out of non vital ship areas but also will be detonating projectiles that would had otherwise failed for the most part to detonate.

Posted: **2010-01-03 06:51pm**

I think a large number of at least 450L45s (or a larger gun) is a requirement for any battleship I'll be buying, unless there's some reason why a smaller gun wouldn't hinder the ship's effectiveness.

Posted: **2010-01-03 07:43pm**

Spring Sharp seems to have lumped the top and side armor into the same figure, and I recall that in numerous fights, turrets had a habit of getting hit and not working. Unless some cynic figured it didn't matter, of which then I'm not sure what's the point of giving the turret thick enough armor.

Case in point would be the damage taken by the Kirishima at the Guadalcanal... http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/ ... alysis.pdf. THe Kirishima suffered 4 or so hits to the turrets from the USS Washington alone. Barbettes apparently get hits quite often. Though I recall for teh fight against Bismarck, some hits were taken on the top of the turrets. Considering the turret top is a fraction of the area of the deck of the ship, it shouldn't be a surprise anyhow.

Posted: **2010-01-03 09:16pm**

I'm also pretty sure the Scharnhorst got hit at least two times on the forward turret during the battle with Duke of York. Anyway from here:

Turret armor is constructed from a combination of Class A and Class B armor and STS plate. The faces of the turrets are 17 inches Class B armor over 2.5 inches STS plate. The side plates are 9.5 inches Class A armor on .75 inch STS plate. The back plates are 12 inches Class A armor and the turret roofs are 7.25 inches Class B armor.

Posted: **2010-01-04 09:05am**

Here is what Sea Skimmer wrote about deck armor and the reason for my having light foredeck and quarterdeck armor as well as thicker turret armor.

The quarterdeck almost always had some armor, in ordered to protect the shaft runs and the communications lines to the steering gear. Beyond that many latter AoN ships also had some light foredeck armor to prevent HE bombs from exploding deeply within the hull.

7in is more or less enough for turret tops, its thin for turret sides. At extreme target angles it will certainly stop heavy shells, but at favorable angles an 8in cruiser shell could go through from around 17,000 yards away and heavy shells from any range they can shoot. This is not good, particularly for a pre radar night action when enemy ships might not even be detected at greater distances. I prefer 10in minimal, 12in optimal and you’ll find 10in to be quite typical of real designs after WW1.

Ergo - your 7" average armor overall is not enough by far. 10inch average (8/7 inch top, 12inch side) seems better and most of my designs have a 12" average.

Especially as the German Navy viewed Night-fighting as an essential part of their doctrine.

I remember that a 1.5 inch quarter or foredeck would set off fuses and stop them from penetrating into the citadel from the front or so.
With traverse bulkheads, you go could either way. Some ships simply had a thick bulkhead that ran down to the bottom of the ship or very near the bottom, enough that a shell couldn’t dive under it and burst in a magazine. Other designs extended the bulkhead down only a deck or two, and then extended a patch of fairly thick deck armor forward to create a ‘shadow’ which likewise prevented a shell from diving under. In some cases this deck was then carried forward to the bow with progressively reduced thickness and deck height.

Note - this shadow is what I am doing. 1.5/2 is the average, with the start of the shadow beinvery thick and then being reduced steadily.

The advantage of extending deck armor was that the weight was then not only protecting the magazines, it was also protecting some additional buoyancy.

In either case you could also still have thin armor on the main deck to initiate fuse action and keep out light bombs completely. But Springsharp really does not give you the ability to define what kind of system you want to use. For example it assumes traverse bulkheads are the same thickness as a main belt, so you can’t use deck armor to shield the bulkhead and allow it to be thinner.

Its worth considering that in fact, many battleship designs did NOT have a complete envelope of traverse armor on the ends, and simply terminated the traverse bulkhead before it reached the bottom of the hull and had little or no forward deck armor. The assumption being that firstly it was absurdly unlikely the enemy would ever score a bow on hit at very long range (at shorter ranges the shell would have to go through the water first to strike low on the bulkhead, not bloody likely), and secondly that even if they did the numerous normal deck and bulkhead layers the shell would need to pierce to strike to low in the ship would already initiate fuse action. The shell would only travel about 40 feet or so before it burst, and quite enough volume existed to allow the shell to travel that far, burst, and still not be able to put any fragments into the magazines. Pretty much the definition of calculated risk.

However on the other hand, a few communist era Russian battleship designs had thicker armor on a complete top to bottom traverse bulkhead then any other part of the ship! This was because the Russians expected end on fighting to be the norm in the Baltic, and particularly the narrow Gulf of Finland that led to Leningrad.

And as my Navy has to fight in the Baltic, I need this.

I think Nathan Okun (when commenting on the Bismarck armor scheme) also posted a bit about 1.5 deck armor forward being enough to remove the caps from most APC shells and preventing them from doing much damage. I'll see if I can find it somewhere.

Posted: **2010-01-04 11:26am**

Thanas wrote:Here is what Sea Skimmer wrote about deck armor and the reason for my having light foredeck and quarterdeck armor as well as thicker turret armor.

The quarterdeck almost always had some armor, in ordered to protect the shaft runs and the communications lines to the steering gear. Beyond that many latter AoN ships also had some light foredeck armor to prevent HE bombs from exploding deeply within the hull.

7in is more or less enough for turret tops, its thin for turret sides. At extreme target angles it will certainly stop heavy shells, but at favorable angles an 8in cruiser shell could go through from around 17,000 yards away and heavy shells from any range they can shoot. This is not good, particularly for a pre radar night action when enemy ships might not even be detected at greater distances. I prefer 10in minimal, 12in optimal and you’ll find 10in to be quite typical of real designs after WW1.
Ergo - your 7" average armor overall is not enough by far. 10inch average (8/7 inch top, 12inch side) seems better and most of my designs have a 12" average.

Especially as the German Navy viewed Night-fighting as an essential part of their doctrine.

No. 12in in unrealistically thick. IMO the armor should not exceed 10in for the best protected designs and be less for others. Post that the top armor covers and area comparable in size with sides and back if not more. So the average figure will be closer to that for the top than that for the sides. The turret armor for the South Dakotas is as follows: face 18" -sides 9" -back 5"-roof 5". Since they were laid down in 1920-21...

And as my Navy has to fight in the Baltic, I need this.

I think Nathan Okun (when commenting on the Bismarck armor scheme) also posted a bit about 1.5 deck armor forward being enough to remove the caps from most APC shells and preventing them from doing much damage. I'll see if I can find it somewhere.

As you say yourself The 1.5-2in armor can very well be omitted. I understand why planning for the Baltic you might want it in a ship but that's about it. A battleship without won't be inferior for that.

Posted: **2010-01-04 11:36am**

You know, I'd rather trust an expert like Sea Skimmer on what is necessary and what is not. Especially as the SoDak was certainly not built to resist 18" fire. And especially considering there might very well be night battles. In fact, your only answer to the problem of "cruiser fire can penetrate the turrets" seems to be "But original designs had this" which is not a real answer. For example, historical british designs also had a lightly armored citadel. Doesn't mean it is a good idea.

As you say yourself The 1.5-2in armor can very well be omitted. I understand why planning for the Baltic you might want it in a ship but that's about it. A battleship without won't be inferior for that.

The quarter deck armor cannot be omitted due to steering protection. The front deck armor might be omitted if you want to take such a calculated risk, I'd rather not. The weight is IMO well spent protecting the ship from HE bombs and the freak accident.

Posted: **2010-01-04 03:06pm**

You know, I'd rather trust an expert like Sea Skimmer on what is necessary and what is not. Especially as the SoDak was certainly not built to resist 18" fire.

But Yamato was, and her turret sides were only 9.8" thick. I won't presume to argue with Sea Skimmer on this, but my line of thinking is that the turrets are most likely going to face toward enemy capital ships anyway even at night, so it is not necessary to make the gunhouse sides any thicker than they need to be to resist cruiser fire at ranges the secondary battery can effectively engage such adversaries (it appears that Yamato was built with this philosophy; her turret sides can resist 8" APC down to 9,000 yards, well within the range her secondaries can hole the belt or turret armor of just about any 8" gunned cruiser). If the gunhouse sides do take heavy caliber hits, it would almost certainly be at a highly oblique angle.

You might bring up capship night actions, but I'd think the Japanese would the last navy that would discount that possibility, and even when that did happen in Guadalcanal, poor Kirishima took over twenty hits from an opponent she did not realize was present until it opened fire, and of those, all the hits to her turrets landed on the barbettes, which present a far bigger target than the gunhouses.

Therefore, the turret sides don't need to be thick enough to resist acute-angle hits from capital ship fire, then that frees up weight to make the barbettes thicker (which in any case will receive direct heavy-caliber hits far, far more often than the gunhouse sides). While I wouldn't say there is no danger at all, a penetrating hit to the gunhouse is far less likely to send a flash down to the magazine then a penetrating hit lower down on the barbette, and if proper flashtight equipment and drills are in place, a burned out turret should not threaten the magazines. The British BCs that blew up at Jutland were lost to turret hits that flashed down to the magazines (but none were on the gunhouse sides to my knowledge), and would not have blown up from such hits had proper safety drills been observed.

Posted: **2010-01-04 06:12pm**

Yamato was also designed on such a tight margins that they thinned down the amount of wood on the deck to save tonnage. Barbette armor is very good, but it makes little sense to increase barbette protection levels to much more then the protection the belt and traverse bulkheads can provide. The weight of increasing turret sides won’t go all that far thickening up belt and barbette armor combined. Course in real life barbette armor also usually wasn’t a uniform thickness all the way around, and the aft traverse bulkhead was almost always thinner then the fore one, but Springsharp doesn’t let you play around like that. It would however be an easy way to save the tonnages you need for more turret armor with no reak sacrifices at all if you felt like doing some math by hand. Not everything has one right answer in warship design, or much else that involves design work.

Example of variable barbette thickness. The USN did this too, but as far as I can tell it only thinned the barbettes pointing aft. Other navies varied.

Posted: **2010-01-04 08:11pm**

Hrm, I see 1.5" is considered a good thickness for foredeck armor in terms of de-capping shells, but how much should the quarterdeck get in terms of protecting the steering mechanism and such?

Posted: **2010-01-04 09:19pm**

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-085.htm
It’s not a good thicknes; 1.5in would be marginal for decapping at 15in round with a poor quality cap, and not effective against 16in guns and up. Such a thin plate can only serve to initate fuse action and stop the very weakest of bombs plus strafing. For reliable decapping of 18in shells armor on the lines of 3.5in is required. Low and behold the only battleship ever built with a serious decapping system, Littorio, had a 70mm thick decapping plate ontop of her 280mm thick main belt with wooden spacer blocks. Most books and even diagrams though just list her as having 350mm though.

As for steering gear and shaft alley protection, real life designs are all over the place. On USS Iowa the protection given was actually a heavier then the main belt and deck over the magazines and machinery. The US had long range missions in mind, and very few overseas repair facilities. A mobility kill was almost as bad as the ship being blown up, and more likely to occur given high US ammo safety.

On other ships and more typically, little or no belt armor was used, but a thick turtle deck served the role that was usually at least 100mm thick on post WW1 designs. The British N3 however had 8in and then 6in armor aft for this purpose while G3 had 5in.

Then you had designs which didn’t really armor the shaft in any serious manner, Yamato was like this with armored limited to a 50mm main deck to keep out HE bombs only, though the steering gear still had a very thick armored box. No one was crazy enough not to armor the steering gear, though in some cases it was really only proof against cruiser caliber fire. The steering gear armor could be its own box, a box within the shaft alley armor, or the shaft alley armor could directly wrap around the area with no subdivision.

A major variance on the manner was usually if the ships design kept the steering gear below the waterline or if it protruded above it. If it was all below then it was very reasonable to only use a turtle deck or even just a flat deck. Additionally, some ships had relatively thin 150-200mm side armor on the steering gear, but this was much more effective then it sounded because often the ships stern shape was such that this armor could be highly sloped.

So like I said above, its all over the place. I'd suggest not less then a 100mm turtle deck though, and 200mm sides over the steering gear which I guess you can sim via the fore and aft belts. Ideally though the main belt would just run to nearly the stern with reduced height as on Iowa.

Posted: **2010-01-04 09:39pm**

Argh... And I thought 1-2" deck for the fore and aft was more than enough. Back to the drawing board I guess, and 67,000tonne 30kt 18"/45 guns here I come!

55ktonnes is really tight to have a 3" fore and aft deck though.. ugh... what with trying to increase the height of the bulge armor to 30ft as it is.

Posted: **2010-01-04 10:31pm**

Well you don’t actually have to have bow armor like that, its just one method of protection you could use. But now you all see why Yamato to go to 71,000 tons with only 9 x 18in guns and STILL have reason to want even more tonnage for protection, while with a lighter scale of armoring the same speed and guns would work fine on 15,000 tons less. All or nothing armoring is a tricky thing, because its dependent on just what you consider vital.

Posted: **2010-01-05 12:45am**

Lascaris wrote:No. 12in in unrealistically thick. IMO the armor should not exceed 10in for the best protected designs and be less for others. Post that the top armor covers and area comparable in size with sides and back if not more. So the average figure will be closer to that for the top than that for the sides. The turret armor for the South Dakotas is as follows: face 18" -sides 9" -back 5"-roof 5". Since they were laid down in 1920-21...

Well going with some other US designs:
North Carolina
face plates 16"
sides 9.8"
back plates 11.8"
roof plates 7"

Nevada:
face plates 18"
sides 11"
back plates 10"
roof plates 4.5"

South Dakota (BB-57)
face plates 18"
sides 9.5"
back plates 12"
roof plates 7.25"

I'm trying to dig more out of Friedman and Gratke/Dulin but the South Dakota (BB-49) appears to be an abnormality in its side and back plate armor.

Posted: **2010-01-05 03:40am**

Thickness of the rear plate was set primarily by one consideration, how much rear weight was needed to balance out the turret. You can find quite a few battleships with thicker rear plates then side plates because of this. In some cases the rear plating was also thicker because it contained a cut out for an escape hatch which weakened the plates overall resistance. The USN however usually put the escape hatch on the bottom overhang of the turret, forcing a taller and heavier barbette on non superfiring mounts.

Posted: **2010-01-05 11:10am**

Well, I went back and did some serious retooling, while... bulging the ship so much I think it might be butt ugly, and here's the result...

Justinian, Byzantine Empire Battleship laid down 1926

Displacement:
52,189 t light; 55,032 t standard; 58,766 t normal; 61,754 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(818.12 ft / 800.52 ft) x 88.58 ft (Bulges 114.83 ft) x (36.09 / 37.99 ft)
(249.36 m / 244.00 m) x 27.00 m (Bulges 35.00 m) x (11.00 / 11.58 m)

Armament:
9 - 18.00" / 457 mm 45.0 cal guns - 3,000.01lbs / 1,360.78kg shells, 90 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1926 Model
3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm 38.0 cal guns - 59.33lbs / 26.91kg shells, 400 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1926 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
40 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 56.0 cal guns - 2.12lbs / 0.96kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
10 x Twin mounts on side ends, majority aft
4 raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 70.0 cal guns - 0.26lbs / 0.12kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
10 x Quad mounts on side ends, majority aft
16 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm 12.0 cal guns - 0.04lbs / 0.02kg shells, 4,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
16 x 4-gun mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
Weight of broadside 28,045 lbs / 12,721 kg
Main Torpedoes
30 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m torpedoes - 1.918 t each, 57.549 t total
In 6 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes
2nd Torpedoes
30 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m torpedoes - 1.918 t each, 57.549 t total
below water reloads

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 455.00 ft / 138.68 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 87 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 19.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
4.00" / 102 mm 520.00 ft / 158.50 m 35.00 ft / 10.67 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 64.00 ft / 19.51 m

- Hull Bulges:
1.00" / 25 mm 520.00 ft / 158.50 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 26.0" / 660 mm 12.0" / 305 mm 19.0" / 483 mm
2nd: 2.50" / 64 mm 2.50" / 64 mm 2.50" / 64 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
5th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 8.00" / 203 mm
Forecastle: 3.50" / 89 mm Quarter deck: 3.50" / 89 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 15.00" / 381 mm, Aft 3.50" / 89 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 126,271 shp / 94,198 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,721 tons

Complement:
1,886 - 2,453

Cost:
£17.078 million / $68.312 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 5,366 tons, 9.1 %
- Guns: 5,179 tons, 8.8 %
- Weapons: 187 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 23,323 tons, 39.7 %
- Belts: 6,257 tons, 10.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,694 tons, 4.6 %
- Bulges: 385 tons, 0.7 %
- Armament: 6,035 tons, 10.3 %
- Armour Deck: 7,350 tons, 12.5 %
- Conning Towers: 602 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 4,042 tons, 6.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 19,328 tons, 32.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,578 tons, 11.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 130 tons, 0.2 %
- Hull above water: 30 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
76,608 lbs / 34,749 Kg = 26.3 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 10.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.02
Metacentric height 4.4 ft / 1.3 m
Roll period: 23.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.91
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.620 / 0.619
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.97 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.82 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 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 %, 37.73 ft / 11.50 m, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 21.98 ft / 6.70 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 21.98 ft / 6.70 m, 22.31 ft / 6.80 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 22.31 ft / 6.80 m, 28.54 ft / 8.70 m
- Average freeboard: 24.97 ft / 7.61 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 86.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 126.0 %
Waterplane Area: 55,094 Square feet or 5,118 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 105 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 239 lbs/sq ft or 1,167 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.34
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Personally, I think there might be some serious flaws to the TDS, especially regarding the fact that it doesn't cover the entire length of the ship...

EDIT: After some serious retweaking, here's the result:

Justinian, Byzantine Empire Battleship laid down 1926

Displacement:
52,189 t light; 55,032 t standard; 58,766 t normal; 61,754 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(818.12 ft / 800.52 ft) x 86.94 ft (Bulges 114.83 ft) x (36.09 / 38.02 ft)
(249.36 m / 244.00 m) x 26.50 m (Bulges 35.00 m) x (11.00 / 11.59 m)

Armament:
9 - 18.00" / 457 mm 45.0 cal guns - 3,000.01lbs / 1,360.78kg shells, 90 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1926 Model
3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm 38.0 cal guns - 59.33lbs / 26.91kg shells, 400 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1926 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
40 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 56.0 cal guns - 2.12lbs / 0.96kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
10 x Twin mounts on side ends, majority aft
4 raised mounts - superfiring
40 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 70.0 cal guns - 0.26lbs / 0.12kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
10 x Quad mounts on side ends, majority aft
16 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm 12.0 cal guns - 0.04lbs / 0.02kg shells, 4,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
16 x 4-gun mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
Weight of broadside 28,045 lbs / 12,721 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 455.00 ft / 138.68 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 87 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 19.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
4.00" / 102 mm 620.00 ft / 188.98 m 35.00 ft / 10.67 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 64.00 ft / 19.51 m

- Hull Bulges:
1.00" / 25 mm 620.00 ft / 188.98 m 25.00 ft / 7.62 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 26.0" / 660 mm 10.6" / 269 mm 19.0" / 483 mm
2nd: 2.50" / 64 mm 2.50" / 64 mm 2.50" / 64 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
5th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 8.00" / 203 mm
Forecastle: 3.50" / 89 mm Quarter deck: 3.50" / 89 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 15.00" / 381 mm, Aft 3.50" / 89 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 126,271 shp / 94,198 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,721 tons

Complement:
1,886 - 2,453

Cost:
£17.078 million / $68.312 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 5,179 tons, 8.8 %
- Guns: 5,179 tons, 8.8 %
Armour: 23,703 tons, 40.3 %
- Belts: 6,241 tons, 10.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 3,212 tons, 5.5 %
- Bulges: 574 tons, 1.0 %
- Armament: 5,860 tons, 10.0 %
- Armour Deck: 7,214 tons, 12.3 %
- Conning Towers: 602 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 4,042 tons, 6.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 19,135 tons, 32.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,578 tons, 11.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 130 tons, 0.2 %
- Hull above water: 30 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
76,566 lbs / 34,730 Kg = 26.3 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 15.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.03
Metacentric height 4.3 ft / 1.3 m
Roll period: 23.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 73 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.90
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.620 / 0.618
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.97 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.82 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 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 %, 37.73 ft / 11.50 m, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 21.98 ft / 6.70 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 21.98 ft / 6.70 m, 22.31 ft / 6.80 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 22.31 ft / 6.80 m, 28.54 ft / 8.70 m
- Average freeboard: 24.97 ft / 7.61 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 124.3 %
Waterplane Area: 54,073 Square feet or 5,024 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 105 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 238 lbs/sq ft or 1,163 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.35
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Posted: **2010-01-05 11:41am**

Question: How does Spring Sharp handle Armored Decks ? What does Single and multiple decks mean here? Multiple as in, one decap deck and then the single chunk beneath?

Posted: **2010-01-05 12:13pm**

Yeah a single deck means all the armor is in one big thickness. Multipul decks means its broken up into two or three. Decapping is not very relevant with deck armor, because deck armor is not face hardened so a shell doesn’t have much need for a cap to avoid damaging its pointy end, but a thin upper deck could initiate fuse action on shells and bombs and make them likely to burst before they could penetrate a lower deck. In general one thick deck is better against shellfire, multiple decks against bombs.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread