Shipbucket
http://shipbucket.com/forums/

Dreadnoughtization succes
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=6955		 Page 2 of 6
Author:  Krakatoa [ May 25th, 2016, 8:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Dreadnoughtization succes
For the Sunnyland the first thing I notice is you have 275,000shp to fit between the 'B' barbette and the 'X' barbette, then you are going to exhaust that power through that one little stack where you might need 3 or 4 of that size. To push 82,500 tons at 32 knots might take a bit more than 275,000shp. You have another bad mix of armament, the 203mm are a complete waste of time, space and tonnage.

Trying for too much. By the time that monster is built, the aircraft carrier is already King. You could have built two of the Midway Class CV's which would sink your ship before you ever saw them. Thinking of huge battleships finished the moment the aircraft carrier shows what it can do. Even the Japanese did not bother finishing the Shinano as a battleship but converted it to an aircraft carrier.



The SKC/34 11" is the gun on the Scharnhorst not the gun on your ship.

this is your gun = http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-40_skc04.htm

[ img ]
Author:  Keisser [ May 25th, 2016, 8:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Dreadnoughtization succes
Krakatoa wrote:
For the Sunnyland the first thing I notice is you have 275,000shp to fit between the 'B' barbette and the 'X' barbette, then you are going to exhaust that power through that one little stack where you might need 3 or 4 of that size. To push 82,500 tons at 32 knots might take a bit more than 275,000shp. You have another bad mix of armament, the 203mm are a complete waste of time, space and tonnage.
Understood! I would add more exhausting tubes. About the machinery, I dont know hou to relocate it.
Krakatoa wrote:
Trying for too much. By the time that monster is built, the aircraft carrier is already King. You could have built two of the Midway Class CV's which would sink your ship before you ever saw them. Thinking of huge battleships finished the moment the aircraft carrier shows what it can do. Even the Japanese did not bother finishing the Shinano as a battleship but converted it to an aircraft carrier.
Yep. We may also remember a defeat of British "Z" group (sinking of the Repule and Prince of Wales by Japanese planes). But in order to avoid misunderstanding, I need to explane our universe's shipbuilding nuances wider. What shall I do to get a permission for creation a topic in "AU designs"?
Krakatoa wrote:
The SKC/34 11" is the gun on the Scharnhorst not the gun on your ship.
this is your gun = http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-40_skc04.htm
Oh, my mistake.
Krakatoa wrote:
[ img ]
Thanks!
Author:  heuhen [ May 25th, 2016, 9:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Dreadnoughtization succes
Krakatoa wrote:
The 11" are not big enough to damage ships of similar size or most smaller battleships either. Anything with 10" of armour would feel comfortable facing a ship with 11" guns. A ship with 8x14" guns, 12x5.9", 4x3.4"AA, 14" belt armour and 3.9" deck would be far superior to what you have now.
Wikipedia says that 28 cm SKC/34 penetrates a 20" armour at 8 km distance, I used this information.[/quote]

- the 28CM SKC/34 (the guns on Scharnhorst) Is way more modern guns than, those guns you want on you'r ships.
- When engaging an Battleship, they often tend to engage on an long range.... more than 8 km range. Battleships and Dreadnoughts tend to be able to fire at a 20 km range or more and deal more damage. Just a perfect "lucky" shoot from an 15" guns is more than enough to destroy any other ships (For example HMS Hood)
- Dreadnought and Battleships during that era, was all about how got the biggest guns that could deal most damage, but also be able to withstand the biggest guns an enemy might have.
Author:  Keisser [ May 26th, 2016, 3:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Dreadnoughtization succes
Okay then, now I made a new dreadnought, trying to take into account criticism of my earlier designs... I made this one. Now with those boats! :D
[ img ]
HISMS Miugi. SprinSharp says:
Displacement: 30 122 t standard; 33 645 t normal; 36 463 t full load
Length: 175 m (waterline), beam 28 m.
Armament: 5x2 305 mm/50 cal guns; 16 152 mm/45 cal guns; 8x2 76 mm/60 cal dual purpoise guns; 4x3 25 mm AA guns and twin 127 mm dual purpoise gun.
Weight of broadside: ~5 t
Armour: 305 mm main belt, 203 mm ends, 127 mm upper, 152 mm bulge, 127 mm torpedo bulkheads, 381-508 mm main guns, 254 mm conning towers, 40 mm deck.
Machinery: coal/oil fired boilers, steam turbines, direct drive, 2 shafts, 64 329 ihp = 24,00 kts
Range: 9 500nm at 14,00 kts
Bunker: 6 341 tons (65% coal)
Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship: 66x305 mm shells or 10,4 torpedoes
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.
Author:  erik_t [ May 26th, 2016, 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Dreadnoughtization succes
The lone secondary mount on the stern does not make a great deal of sense to me.
Author:  BB1987 [ May 26th, 2016, 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Dreadnoughtization succes
All the anti-air armament is a bit of a mix between 1910s, 1930s and 1940s Japanese mounts.
Personally I'd land both the lone 127mm gun at the stern and the shielded 76mm ones, replacing them al with the high-angle 76mm guns seen on the conning tower. The 25mm machine guns are also a mid-to-late 30s weapons, I'd replace them too with twin or single 13mm ones or even single 40mm

Most Japanese guns are available on this sheet:
http://i.imgur.com/0YFUpr8.png

Lastly, above the forward conning tower it appears you have a type-91 main gun director with a 3,5m rangefinder fitted on top of it. That fit would not work like that, morover, the Type 91 was a mid-to-late 30s system too, I'd just ditch that while keeping the 3,5m rangefinder
Author:  bezobrazov [ May 26th, 2016, 10:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Dreadnoughtization succes
You write it has four shafts. But your drawing only shows two... I would strongly like to adjoin other esteemed bucketeers in their advice to you and also like to urge you to be more detailed oriented. It's often in the details that you either fail or succeed.
Author:  Keisser [ May 27th, 2016, 3:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Dreadnoughtization succes
Okay, thanks for your opinion, I'll work on it.
Author:  Keisser [ May 27th, 2016, 3:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Dreadnoughtization succes
bezobrazov wrote:
You write it has four shafts. But your drawing only shows two...
Corrected.
Author:  apdsmith [ May 27th, 2016, 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Dreadnoughtization succes
Hi Keisser,

I think the issue is that your design shows only two shafts. Everything I'm aware of from that sort of time would require four shafts to move a ship of that size.

Regards,
Adam

Edit: English, apparently I don't speak it...
Page 2 of 6 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/