Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 3  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Yasutomi
Post subject: Wenlock: AU 'Small Dreadnought'Posted: August 14th, 2011, 8:40 pm
Offline
Posts: 75
Joined: August 14th, 2011, 7:18 pm
[ img ]

Strictly speaking not my first attempt at a SB drawing, but one I would value some feedback on.

So what's it all about? The year is 1911 and the Samudran Federation, hitherto a modest naval power, is suddenly worried about the military expansion plans of its neighbours. Its leaders would like to obtain modern dreadnought battleships, for reasons of prestige as much as deterrence, although they know they can't really afford them. But at the same time, they want something more powerful and more seaworthy than a coastal defence ship. The solution is this 'half-sized' dreadnought: a 16,500 ton vessel mounting only six 13.5' guns, but with speed and protection comparable to contemporary battleships (I can supply more complete technical specifications if anybody is interested).

But I need some help! I'm especially looking for assistance in the following areas:

1. The Basic Design: I'm 80-90% happy with the overall impression but it doesn't hurt to get a second opinion. And there are a few aspects of the design that I'm less happy with- I won't say which as I would be interested to see if other people pick up on them!

2. The Rigging: Obviously there isn't any. I tried adding some lines from the fighting top to the bow and stern, but they just looked amateurish so I removed them. Now I've stared at picture after picture of real ships of the period, but because I'm not entirely sure I understand the purpose of all those lines, I'm finding it hard to work out what I need. So I'm really hoping someone here can help... :)

3. The Details: I refuse to add detailing just for sake of adding detailing and so have only included what I feel is needed for the ship to function. Have I missed anything important? I would definitely like to include searchlights but can't find all that many obvious places for them, given that topside space is going to be tight in an undersized ship like this.

Needless to say, any other constructive comments or tips would be greatly welcomed!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
HMS Sophia
Post subject: Re: Wenlock: AU 'Small Dreadnought'Posted: August 14th, 2011, 8:44 pm
Offline
Posts: 863
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 10:34 am
Cant see your pic ;)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Wenlock: AU 'Small Dreadnought'Posted: August 14th, 2011, 8:46 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7496
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
that is an really interesting design. during WW1, most ships had forwardfiring and/or broadsidefiring as the most important thing. yours seems to be focussing on firing over the stern..... is there an special reason for that?

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
HMS Sophia
Post subject: Re: Wenlock: AU 'Small Dreadnought'Posted: August 14th, 2011, 8:47 pm
Offline
Posts: 863
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 10:34 am
Your bow is very flat. I prefer a curve, but each to their own. (As is your aft or whatever its called)
Searchlights... the bask of your upper superstructure?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Yasutomi
Post subject: Re: Wenlock: AU 'Small Dreadnought'Posted: August 14th, 2011, 9:04 pm
Offline
Posts: 75
Joined: August 14th, 2011, 7:18 pm
acelanceloet wrote:
that is an really interesting design. during WW1, most ships had forwardfiring and/or broadsidefiring as the most important thing. yours seems to be focussing on firing over the stern..... is there an special reason for that?
Absolutely no tactical reason whatsoever! In fact, I consider that one of the principle flaws of the design. The arrangement was dictated purely by the need to fit three large turrets on a short hull- a superfiring turret forward would have increased excessive topweight or required a reduction in freeboard, neither of which is desirable from the point of view of seaworthiness. ;)
barnest2 wrote:
Your bow is very flat. I prefer a curve, but each to their own. (As is your aft or whatever its called)
Searchlights... the bask of your upper superstructure?
I take it you can see the image now! :D

With the bow, I wanted to get away from the usual ram and so adopted a straight stem. I'm not too bothered with that, but I do agree that the stern looks ugly and have been thinking about changing it.

By back of the upper superstructure, do you mean on the tripod mast? Because I was thinking about extending the lowermost platform in order to accommodate a searchlight. I suppose I could also have one on the top (not the fighting top, the platform above the lowermost windows)...would that be too high?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
HMS Sophia
Post subject: Re: Wenlock: AU 'Small Dreadnought'Posted: August 14th, 2011, 9:07 pm
Offline
Posts: 863
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 10:34 am
Yes I Can :D

I do mean there. Those platforms, one could easily hold a searchlight. Don't put it too high though.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Wenlock: AU 'Small Dreadnought'Posted: August 14th, 2011, 9:16 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Yasutomi wrote:
1. The Basic Design: I'm 80-90% happy with the overall impression but it doesn't hurt to get a second opinion. And there are a few aspects of the design that I'm less happy with- I won't say which as I would be interested to see if other people pick up on them!
It seems very blocky.

Yasutomi wrote:
2. The Rigging: Obviously there isn't any. I tried adding some lines from the fighting top to the bow and stern, but they just looked amateurish so I removed them. Now I've stared at picture after picture of real ships of the period, but because I'm not entirely sure I understand the purpose of all those lines, I'm finding it hard to work out what I need. So I'm really hoping someone here can help... :)
It's mostly radio aerials and a place to put signal flags.
Yasutomi wrote:
3. The Details: I refuse to add detailing just for sake of adding detailing and so have only included what I feel is needed for the ship to function. Have I missed anything important? I would definitely like to include searchlights but can't find all that many obvious places for them, given that topside space is going to be tight in an undersized ship like this.
Searchlights are an absolute must, since at the time they and starshells were the only means of conducting night combat.
As for detailing, there doesn't seem to be any way of entering the ship from deck level. You're also going to need ventilation points for the engine and accommodation spaces. A capstan on the quarterdeck wouldn't be a bad idea. Very useful when warping.
Some deck lockers for various equipment like damage control gear or even deck swaps wouldn't be out of place either. Drainage pipes from the platforms. Boat handling gear (dinghy booms, ladders etc)

Edit: I should also point out that getting the same speed as contemporary dreadnoughts isn't going to be easy, if possible at all. The natural speed for this hull is much lower than other contemporary dreadnoughts because its a whole lot shorter and you don't have anywhere near the same amount of space for engines and boilers.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Yasutomi
Post subject: Re: Wenlock: AU 'Small Dreadnought'Posted: August 14th, 2011, 10:10 pm
Offline
Posts: 75
Joined: August 14th, 2011, 7:18 pm
Thanks for all the help so far!
barnest2 wrote:
I do mean there. Those platforms, one could easily hold a searchlight. Don't put it too high though.
[ img ]

How about this? I've also added railings to the upper deck, which for some reason I neglected to do before.
Thiel wrote:
It seems very blocky.
The hull? The superstructure? Both? I suppose I'm less confident when it comes to building in curves!

I will see about altering the stern, at least though.
Quote:
It's mostly radio aerials and a place to put signal flags.
I'm not sure what sort of aerials would be needed back in 1911, though...
Quote:
Searchlights are an absolute must, since at the time they and starshells were the only means of conducting night combat.
Understood...will add them.
Quote:
As for detailing, there doesn't seem to be any way of entering the ship from deck level.
Actually there are three entry points...unfortunately I had to put the ships boats in front of them. Speaking of which, do I need both boats, or can I get away with just the rearmost?
Quote:
You're also going to need ventilation points for the engine and accommodation spaces.
On the deck, yes?
Quote:
A capstan on the quarterdeck wouldn't be a bad idea.
Okay...will add one.
Quote:
Some deck lockers for various equipment like damage control gear or even deck swaps wouldn't be out of place either. Drainage pipes from the platforms. Boat handling gear (dinghy booms, ladders etc)
Hmm...I think I see what you're getting at, but I'll have to play around and see if I'm right.
Quote:
Edit: I should also point out that getting the same speed as contemporary dreadnoughts isn't going to be easy, if possible at all. The natural speed for this hull is much lower than other contemporary dreadnoughts because its a whole lot shorter and you don't have anywhere near the same amount of space for engines and boilers.
That was my gut feeling too. But I calculated the design using Springsharp and apparently it does work... :?

Now the cynic that lives in me always wonders about the plausibility of programs like this, but as I lack the specialised expertise to judge whether the figures are accurate or not, I'm forced to accept them with a resigned shrug (at least until I have better information to go by). :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Wenlock: AU 'Small Dreadnought'Posted: August 14th, 2011, 10:57 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Yasutomi wrote:
Thiel wrote:
It seems very blocky.
The hull? The superstructure? Both? I suppose I'm less confident when it comes to building in curves!

I will see about altering the stern, at least though.
All of it really, but mostly the hull.
Yasutomi wrote:
Quote:
It's mostly radio aerials and a place to put signal flags.
I'm not sure what sort of aerials would be needed back in 1911, though...
RedHorse's BB-26 South Carolina is a good example of a period aerial outfit, despite the fact it's mounted on those hideous cage masts.
Yasutomi wrote:
Quote:
As for detailing, there doesn't seem to be any way of entering the ship from deck level.
Actually there are three entry points...unfortunately I had to put the ships boats in front of them.
I'm not sure that's enough really. You'll have hundreds of people moving back and forth and more acutely, you'll be moving hundreds of tons of coal through there. I'd at the very least ad a hatch on the quarter deck.
Yasutomi wrote:
Speaking of which, do I need both boats, or can I get away with just the rearmost?
You'll need them. Especially if these ships are going to serve as flagships. A lot of the time they'll be the only way of getting people ashore.
Yasutomi wrote:
Quote:
You're also going to need ventilation points for the engine and accommodation spaces.
On the deck, yes?
Yes.
Yasutomi wrote:
Quote:
Edit: I should also point out that getting the same speed as contemporary dreadnoughts isn't going to be easy, if possible at all. The natural speed for this hull is much lower than other contemporary dreadnoughts because its a whole lot shorter and you don't have anywhere near the same amount of space for engines and boilers.
That was my gut feeling too. But I calculated the design using Springsharp and apparently it does work... :?

Now the cynic that lives in me always wonders about the plausibility of programs like this, but as I lack the specialised expertise to judge whether the figures are accurate or not, I'm forced to accept them with a resigned shrug (at least until I have better information to go by). :)
Try posting the SS report.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Yasutomi
Post subject: Re: Wenlock: AU 'Small Dreadnought'Posted: August 14th, 2011, 11:17 pm
Offline
Posts: 75
Joined: August 14th, 2011, 7:18 pm
Here's the SS report:
Quote:
Wenlock, Wenlock & Mandeville Battleship laid down 1911

Displacement:
15,471 t light; 16,502 t standard; 17,213 t normal; 17,781 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(450.00 ft / 450.00 ft) x 90.00 ft x (25.00 / 25.67 ft)
(137.16 m / 137.16 m) x 27.43 m x (7.62 / 7.83 m)

Armament:
6 - 13.50" / 343 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,230.19lbs / 558.00kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1911 Model
3 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority aft
2 raised mounts - superfiring
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
8 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1911 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
Weight of broadside 8,245 lbs / 3,740 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 252.00 ft / 76.81 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 197.98 ft / 60.34 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Upper: 4.00" / 102 mm 252.00 ft / 76.81 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Main Belt covers 86 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.50" / 38 mm 252.00 ft / 76.81 m 22.95 ft / 7.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 8.00" / 203 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 3.00" / 76 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 27,891 shp / 20,807 Kw = 21.00 kts
Range 5,500nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,279 tons (25% coal)

Complement:
750 - 976

Cost:
£1.439 million / $5.757 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,697 tons, 9.9 %
Armour: 6,092 tons, 35.4 %
- Belts: 2,551 tons, 14.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 321 tons, 1.9 %
- Armament: 1,675 tons, 9.7 %
- Armour Deck: 1,373 tons, 8.0 %
- Conning Tower: 172 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 1,158 tons, 6.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,524 tons, 37.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,742 tons, 10.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
31,639 lbs / 14,351 Kg = 25.7 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 5.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.23
Metacentric height 6.2 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 15.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 56 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.63
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.40

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.595 / 0.598
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.21 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 40
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: 29.00 %, 24.00 ft / 7.32 m, 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Forward deck: 41.00 %, 24.00 ft / 7.32 m, 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Aft deck: 15.00 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Average freeboard: 21.60 ft / 6.58 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 80.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 163.7 %
Waterplane Area: 29,483 Square feet or 2,739 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 179 lbs/sq ft or 872 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.89
- Longitudinal: 2.87
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 3  [ 25 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]