Praxus

Whatcha think?

Attached Images

	ship.jpg (23.7 KB, 464 views)
	turret.jpg (46.2 KB, 460 views)
	recoil copy.jpg (47.7 KB, 459 views)

Confed999

Wild! What software?

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Praxus

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

F**kin' A

Make sure I get to see it!

Praxus

In other words, it can provide more firepower then every single bomber on the planet and sustain it for a few days without resupply

Anon

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

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. Rule Britania etc.

__________________
Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

Dreadnought

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

Excellent Ship man.

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

__________________
"Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

Dreadnought

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

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

smilingassassin

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.