Ideal battleship design

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Ideal battleship design

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:45 pm

In the opinion of the forum members. Thinking in a Battleship (or Battlecruiser) for service in the Atlantic, 1941-1945, German or British or French or Italian or USA, which characteristics would it need to have in order to be an ideal BB or BC? Guns? Armour? Speed? Boilers or diesel? Radar? Etc.?
For example:
A KGV equivalent with 35+K ton displacement and 14" guns?
Or a Bismarck equivalent with 45+ K ton displacement and 15" guns?
Or a mix of them with Nelson´s 16" guns?
A completely new one, never seen before?
Or a Pacific Theatre equivalent: Yamato or Iowa equivalent?
An H-Class?
A Saint Anthony Class?

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Postby RF » Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:56 am

I would go for an enlarged Scharnhorst classe ship, with three triple turrets of 16 inch guns. Secondary armament also triple turret 16 cm guns, with two turrets on either flank plus a fifth turret forward of Ceaser turret in superfiring position to it. Tertiary battery of 5 inch guns for targeting aircraft and ships.

Speed - I would require diesel-electric drive, 3 shafts for max speed 32 knots.

Armour - I would be prepared to compromise on this so as to reach the 32 knots with diesel drive, probably the same level of protection as Scharnhorsts except possibly more armour protecting the magazines.

To save space for the guns I wouldn't bother with either aircraft catapults or with torpedo tubes. I would expect carriers to provide the planes and destroyer escorts for any required torpedo attacks.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Postby RF » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:00 am

Thinking about it my proposed ship is perhaps more like a smaller version of Yamato rather than an enlarged Scharnhorst - but I wouldn't want a ship as big as Yamato or any of the Hitlerian H-classe monsters.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Postby RF » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:03 am

Oh yes, I nearly forgot. I would insist that my ship can steer on propellers alone!
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Lutscha
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Postby Lutscha » Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:37 pm

How about this one from the Marinearchiv: http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/viewto ... ipprojects

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Postby RF » Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:42 pm

Lutscha wrote:How about this one from the Marinearchiv: http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/viewto ... ipprojects


Midship section too large, I like ships that only need one funnel.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:51 pm

If a Battleship is required then I must turn to the argument of a very big ship that can withstand heavy punishment and can be able to outgun her enemies.
I don´t like the H-Class, but not for her size or any ideological adversion but because they are not ideal. The H-Class with 8 x 16" guns is not a good option because the Iowas are more or less their match and, in every way, Yamatos outgun them. And if we are talking about a 120,000 ton 20" gunned H-Class then we better have a warp drive and photon torpedoes. Nope. Let´s have some BB that can be build...
My ideal ship is more or less a combination of Yamato+Iowa+Bismarck.
Let´s see:

1. 12 x 16" guns (4 triple turrets)
2. Armour: an upgrade of Bismarck´s but with more depth and lenght in their belt armour, stronger deck and turret armour.
3. No underwater torpedo tubes.
4. No diesel, nah, let´s have boilers with turbines
5. Four shafts in an arragement very similar to CVN Enterprise or Nimitz Class. She must be able to have some steering with her propellers.
6. Heavy, but very heavy, AA defense. Every space in her deck and superestructure MUST be filled with proper AA bateries. (let´s say, some sort of naval 88 mm?)
7. One funnel.
8. Catapults for... what? A couple of naval modified ME 109... That´s cool!
9. Very high and strong superestructure and redundant bridges.
10. It must be painted with Baltic Camo just because of the looks.

Displacement: around 65 to 70,000 tons.
Lenght: 885 ft. (270 meters)
Speed: 31 knots (that means 200,000 hp)

Well that´s it. Destroy it please... :negative:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Postby Dave Saxton » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:05 pm

I really like the USS Montana overall. I like it's protection scheme much better than Iowa/SoDak's, while offering superior protection to diving shell. I think 12- 16"/50's may be overkill though. I may like reducing the main battery to nine guns, if it would buy more speed.

I also like the later war HMS Lion designs at about 50,000 tons standard displacement. 16-inch guns, more extensive heavy armour, 30 knots, more GM, and more beam. Well balanced designs, IMHO. Some of these designs featured triple screws along with transom sterns, BTW.

Although, many consider the concept outdated, I still like protection schemes with heavy scarps inboard of main belts. Additionally, The German horizontal protection concept as to be used in the H-class, has a good chance of destroying shells it can't repulse. That's a built in fail safe, should extreme battle ranges become more viable. I may want to homolugate certian features of German and American protection philosophies.

I'm not sure of secondary armament. I think the use of multiple secondary batteries is not efficient design, and I feel that the actual German, and other ships with multiple secondaries, would have been better served by something like the 128mm the Luftwaffe developed, in twin turrets. On the other hand, sometimes multi-role weapons systems just don't do anything really well. In concept, a weapon designed to it's job without compromize, is always better. F16 or F111? The 5"/38 was to be replaced in the Montana by the 5"/54 for a reason.

I would probably like the following general features:

16-inch guns.
High velocity, high ROF, 5" guns
30 knots
Probably triple screws for space/weight efficency
Plenty of GM, off set by adequate beam. No Panama Canal consideration.
External belt.
70% + protected length
Primary IZ (vs 16-inch) out to 30km......

....Nuclear power.....well ideally.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:16 pm

Dave:

No Panama Canal consideration.
:ok:

....Nuclear power.....well ideally.
:clap: :clap:

I´ll love that propulsion system but don´t dare to put it in this thread.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:17 pm

Did the Germans had an equivalent for the Bofors?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Postby Dave Saxton » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:29 pm

The German Navy used the actual Bofors in some cases.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Postby marcelo_malara » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:32 pm

In fact they HAD the Bofors, known as 4cm FLAK 28.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Postby marcelo_malara » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:34 pm

Is really a choice of using diesels in such a ship? How was the supposed diesel powerplant for Scharnhorst composed?

User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Postby tommy303 » Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:01 am

Besides the 4cm Bofors, which adopted in 1944/45, the Kriegsmarine had the 3,7cm Flak 42--a modification of the Army/Luftwaffe 3,7cm Flak 36/38. This was an automatic gun with delayed recoil operation. A separate development, 3,7cm Flak 43, was also used. This was based on the gas operated 3cm MK 103 aircraft cannon and had the advantage of a greater rate of fire and less weight than the Bofors.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

Lutscha
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Postby Lutscha » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:57 am

RF wrote:
Lutscha wrote:How about this one from the Marinearchiv: http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/viewto ... ipprojects


Midship section too large, I like ships that only need one funnel.


Just take the version with 2 quads. ;) It´s the better one anyway.


Return to “Naval Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest