PDA

View Full Version : Battleship Model



Praxus
15 Jul 04,, 03:18
Whatcha think?

Confed999
15 Jul 04,, 03:35
Wild! What software? :cool:

Praxus
15 Jul 04,, 03:49
Houdini
http://www.sidefx.com/

My final plan is for it to have 256 VLS Cells, 20 18" Guns, 12 6" Guns, and 6 SeaRAM.

Confed999
15 Jul 04,, 04:09
My final plan is for it to have 256 VLS Cells, 20 18" Guns, 12 6" Guns, and 6 SeaRAM.
F**kin' A

Make sure I get to see it!

Praxus
15 Jul 04,, 04:11
In other words, it can provide more firepower then every single bomber on the planet and sustain it for a few days without resupply;)

Bill
15 Jul 04,, 16:36
The forward turret is too far forward, it would do structural damage to the hull.

You'll need to lose turret 1 or extend the forecastle by about 50 feet.

Looks cool though. :)

The Chap
30 Aug 04,, 02:21
The forward turret is too far forward, it would do structural damage to the hull.

You'll need to lose turret 1 or extend the forecastle by about 50 feet.

Looks cool though. :)

Love it. As for the forward turret I think that has to depend on the structural architecture. I'd like to keep it. Think she needs to have wider beam amidships and aft a la Yamamoto. Partialy unrelated to this: I have a porthole from the Haguro, nicely spider shattered by one of the torps that sent her to the bottom. Last surface action of WW2. :cool: Rule Britania etc. :tongue:

Dreadnought
06 Sep 05,, 16:54
Very nice. Had to look twice the forwards kind of reminded me of Rodney.Im working on my own I will post her when finished :)

sparten
10 Sep 05,, 14:37
Excellent Ship man.

No Rodney and Nelson will always be on top of my list of ugliset ships ever.

Dreadnought
12 Sep 05,, 20:16
I have to agree with you Rodney and Nelson IMO were two of the ugliest battleships i ever layed eyes on. They say Rodney and Nelson couldnt fire their guns dead on because it would have caused major damage to the decks ever heard of this?

sparten
14 Sep 05,, 09:01
I have to agree with you Rodney and Nelson IMO were two of the ugliest battleships i ever layed eyes on. They say Rodney and Nelson couldnt fire their guns dead on because it would have caused major damage to the decks ever heard of this?

Yes, this actually happened during the engagement with the Bismarck.

smilingassassin
15 Sep 05,, 03:15
Wow just stumbled upon this post now! Interesting pics allthough I agree with snipes the foremost turret is waaaay too far forward. IIRC Typically a BB's turret barbette takes up about 1/3rd of the beam in the area its sitting. In other words if a barbette is 10 feet accross, there will be another 10 feet of deck on either side for a total beam of approximately 30 feet.

Heres a website that has a program that allows you to design warships...

http://www.springsharp.com/

Praxus, I'm guessing with the specs you have for your BB already it would weigh about 75,000 tons, you'll find springsharp VERY usefull in making this design.

By the way the Wesworld link on the Springstyle page is a link to a simulation I participate in where several people have designed entire fleets and nations (fictional and historic).
My own fleet/nation is based onthe mythical island of Atlantis, emagine the battle of the Atlantic with an Island the size of France off the coast of Muaritainia.

Dreadnought
21 Sep 05,, 16:47
Yes, this actually happened during the engagement with the Bismarck.

Why would they (Britian) ever emplore two battleships with such a bad problem that could send them to the bottom IF they were hit in the forward decks after firing many salvos. If their own 16" guns weakened the deck from the get go what would the incoming salvos do to her? Grant it they would do everthing to not fire dead on but why not fix the problem before it started? Just thinking maybe they were "out of time" with the Biz and others sortying out there.

Something I found on a site:

In theory the "all-forward" design reduced the danger of an enemy "crossing the T" of the ship, since all the main guns could be brought to bear on forward targets. However, this advantage was offset by the awkward location of the third ("X") turret. For structural reasons it was mounted lower on deck than the second ("B"), which severely limited its forward field of fire. This was bad enough, but "X" could also not fire in the aft quarters without damaging the superstructure. (The (A structure that allows people or vehicles to cross an obstacle such as a river or canal or railway etc.) bridge was a particularly unpleasant place to be when firing on distant stern targets

sparten
22 Sep 05,, 05:27
In the RN they were called the "Cherry Tree" class, since they had been "cut down by Washington". (The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922)

Quite simply the original designs (the G-3 Battlecruiser) were cancelled after the treaty. The Brits were allowed to construct two more BB since they had no 16" gun mounts unlike Japan and the US.

So you have a ton of design compromises. To save weight armour is only in essential areas. All guns are kept forward so the can be served by a single magazine, again saving weight. This means they cannot fire dead on or even simultaneouly, (the crew ignored this during the Bismarck engagement). British boiler designs were not as good as the Americans, so the speed is reduced since you are forced to use smaller and less powerful boilers.

All in all you get a very inferior ship. IMO, Brits designs went down after the QE's and did not really get going again until Vanguard. By then of course the BB's were....

smilingassassin
23 Sep 05,, 07:30
In regaurds to Nelsons all forward design the layout not only allowed to cut down the number of magazines but shortened the armored citadel's length which saved further weight. Rodney could take on any enemy BB save the Yamato's and be expected to dish out quite a bit of punishment and take a significant beating in the process but fare better than most other preveous designs.


All in all you get a very inferior ship. IMO, Brits designs went down after the QE's and did not really get going again until Vanguard. By then of course the BB's were....

IMO the KGV's were given a bad rap due to their teething problems related to their quad 14" turrets. This is nothing new for a BB, the Nelson class had their own teething problems with their triples but reguardless they were more powerfull then the Japanese Nagato's and U.S. Colorado's dispite having the lighter shells. The Nagato's were dreadfully armored when the nelsons came out and the Colorado's were slower.

The RN didn't have the same luxury of being able to refit/rebuild their ships as the U.S.

The Rodney did a good number on the Bismarck which dispite having her rudder damaged was still a potent threat. The biggest mistake the Brits did in reguards to penetrating Bismarcks armor was close the range which led to more hits to the upperworks above the main armor belt. Dispite this the progressive flooding was enough to doom her and the hits above the armor took out the guns and more importantly the senior crew. IIRC Rodney scored hits on her third salvo and her shells ravaged Bismarcks armored conning tower which was 340mm (roughly 13.2") thick cutting a deep gouge into the forward end.

The engagement with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen Vs. Hood and Prince of Wales was not as lop sided as everyone thinks a 2xBB vs 1xBB/1xCA engagement would be and the surprizing outcome could be partially chalked up to good old fasioned luck for the germans. Hood never should have been in the battle with her current armor scheme and Ironically took a hit in her most vulnerable spot.

Prince of wales clearly didn't have enough time to finnish her work-up cruise and still had builders aboard taking care of all the post build problems, this obviously led to her poor performance and dispite that fact she still got three nasty hits in on Bismarck. The Brits also did not use their cruisers to add to the shell volume being thrown at the Germans in the first engagement.


British boiler designs were not as good as the Americans, so the speed is reduced since you are forced to use smaller and less powerful boilers.

The U.S introduced high pressure steam concept, which raised North carolina's projected SHP output from 115,000 shp for 27 knots to 121,000 shp for her 28 knots. The downside is that this inovation was added late in the NC's design process so her turbines couldn't reap the full benifits of the power output.

The G-3's were far better than anything the rest of the world had to offer at the time, one shudders at the original Lexington class armor scheme in her BC guise despite their potent 16" guns, she made Hood look tough. The brits however should have stuck with their excellent 15"/42 gun rather than developing the new 16"/45 and 14'/45 guns. The KGV's would have been very potent with 3x3 15" guns.

sparten
23 Sep 05,, 13:38
The G-3's were far better than anything the rest of the world had to offer at the time, one shudders at the original Lexington class armor scheme in her BC guise despite their potent 16" guns, she made Hood look tough. The brits however should have stuck with their excellent 15"/42 gun rather than developing the new 16"/45 and 14'/45 guns. The KGV's would have been very potent with 3x3 15" guns.

I don't doubt that. However the fact that the Nelsons were built under Treaty limits caused several design compromises which severely affected her performance. Not being able to fire dead on is a very big disadvantage. IMO, the Brits should have insisted that they be able to not only build 2 16" gunboats, but build them outside Treaty limits.


The Rodney did a good number on the Bismarck which dispite having her rudder damaged was still a potent threat.

The instructions the engineers gave regarding the effect of simultaneou firung and firing dead on were ignored by the crew in the Bismarck engagement. They did almost as much damage to the Rodney as to the Bismarck.


The brits however should have stuck with their excellent 15"/42 gun rather than developing the new 16"/45 and 14'/45 guns. The KGV's would have been very potent with 3x3 15" guns.

Hmmm... no doubt the 15'/42 was an excellent weapon, but the 16'/45 was poorly designed. In theory that should have been the weapon of choice. The 14"/45 seems to have been influenced mainly by the British desire to have as many guns as possible on a ship.

Dreadnought
23 Sep 05,, 20:34
Another interesting tip about the Bizmark.. Never knew this.. She had push button steering :eek:

Quoted: From article Bizmarks Final Battle.
Bismarck was equipped with push button steering, as were all German warships of this period. The helmsman would hold both hands on to a bar and with the palms of his hands press down on switches to turn port (left hand) or starboard (right hand). With the din of battle and the necessity to read the rudder indicator to determine his rudder positions, undoubtedly the helmsman, Quartermaster Hans Hansen of Bismarck, was hard pressed to make the maneuvers ordered by Captain Lindemann during those crucial moments when she was under torpedo attack. Modern German warships have abandoned this concept as part of a human factors evaluation.

Can you imagine having to stay calm at the helm of the Bizmark holding on to a round bar and squeezing with your palms to steer while reading rudder positioning via overhead gauge all the while under shell and torpedo attack and someone shouting orders at you. Talk abot sweaty palms...lol

smilingassassin
25 Sep 05,, 03:54
I don't doubt that. However the fact that the Nelsons were built under Treaty limits caused several design compromises which severely affected her performance. Not being able to fire dead on is a very big disadvantage.

Overall the Nelsons weren't perfect but when compaired to their closest counterparts of the day they faired well. Flaws can be found in any warship. When dealing with the Washington Treaty ships one has to balance out the desired atributes, dispite cheating on the treaty the Bismarcks had their own serious flaws.

Again the brits closed on the Bismarck which resulted in the straight trajectory of the shells, which did little against the low belt of Bismarck, most shells striking the portion above the belt. The killer for Bismarck was that this low belt meant a greater risk of progressive flooding. That and the fact that the main guns were taken out rather quickly meant she was doomed early, the controversial scuttling issue is a moot point in my veiw, even if she wasn't scuttled she would have sunk eventually due to the level of damage she recieved.

She had no guns no, command structure and damage control was pointless with two virtually unscathed BB's and their escorts circling like sharks.

sparten
25 Sep 05,, 04:49
even if she wasn't scuttled she would have sunk eventually due to the level of damage she recieved.

The Brits would hava captured her, and displayed her in Southhampton. Can you even imagine that?


Overall the Nelsons weren't perfect but when compaired to their closest counterparts of the day they faired well. Flaws can be found in any warship. When dealing with the Washington Treaty ships one has to balance out the desired atributes

No doubt sir, but again my point, the Brits should have insisted on a BB class unhampered bt the treaty .Or done an italian job and lied outright about the displacement of the BB. ;)

smilingassassin
26 Sep 05,, 08:30
The Brits would hava captured her, and displayed her in Southhampton. Can you even imagine that?

I doubt she would have survived the tow, and German U-boats were a significant threat so I doubt they would even bother. Still it would be quite a sight to see the Bismarck tied up to a peir shot all to hell.




No doubt sir, but again my point, the Brits should have insisted on a BB class unhampered bt the treaty .Or done an italian job and lied outright about the displacement of the BB. ;)

They could have done like the Americans and listed their weight as "initial design displacement" and not as the actual final product, which could come out overweight. I think they should have simply developed a triple turret for the 15"/42 rather than fall pray to the 16" gun envy game. Emagine the Nelsons with acurate 15" guns, a more conventional layout and a tad bit more speed.

The problem with the British calibers was they were all smaller than the various treatys (Washington and London) allowed. Instead of the 16", 8" and 6" the Brits had the 15"/42, 7.5" of the Hawkins class CA and a new 5.5" mount on the Hood.

Dreadnought
26 Sep 05,, 13:00
I dont think the Germans would have let her come under tow. They would definately have had one of their own subs send her to the bottom before this would happen if she wasnt skuttled or sunk due to the Brits. Imagin the propaganda war and we all know Germany used this tool very well. If the English captured their pride and joy and then brought her back and tied her up for display. Hitler would have been infuriated and stopped at nothing until she was sunk. I would bet had this happened she would have been torpedoed at her moorings just like Gunther Prein did to the Royal Oak at Scapa Flow. And if not then they would have definately sunk her during the Blitz just in spite.
Also keep in mind it was not a common practice to capture an enemies capital ship and tow it back for keeping they would rather send it to the bottom knowing they would never have to deal with it again or for the Germans send her to the bottom so the Brits wouldnt get her. It was probably the furthest from the Brits mind they in no doubt wanted revenge for Germany sending Hood to the bottom earlier in the battle.

sparten
26 Sep 05,, 14:30
Imagine,

Churchill visits Bismarck, The Royal Couple inspect her damaged turrets, commonwealth boy scouts on a field trip to Bismarck.

Capital Ships were a countrys pride and joy. They did not surrender. One hell of a propaganda coup.

smilingassassin
27 Sep 05,, 10:15
Yes it would be, but the germans still had three more BB's along with two pocket battleships and two CA's threatening British merchant shiping so it was easier to just sink her and move on with the war. Sinking her was the next best thing propaganda wise. Bismarcks sinking ultimately effected the Germans use of their remaining BB's, in that none dared to sortie into the Atlantic again.

Its a good thing Hitler started the war when he did, otherwise we would have seen some "H" class (8x16") and some O/P/Q class BC's (6x15") along with a likely refit that would give the scharnhorsts 15" guns and the completion of the CV Graf zeppilin and possibly a sister ship.