Tumblehome design limitations

Discuss anything related to Shipbucket here.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
User avatar
heuhen
Posts: 9104
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!

Re: Tumblehome design limitations

#11 Post by heuhen »

yeah the ship would not be able to handle those 5 triple 22" guns, due to the weight of them, then the force of it when firing the guns.

I once drew a 5 triple 18" guns Battleship, but had to make it so huge, to be able to handle the weight of those turrets, that Yamato was looking like a dingy...
JSB
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm

Re: Tumblehome design limitations

#12 Post by JSB »

krases wrote:I need to make so many changes its not even funny. Preliminary armament is:

15 x 22" primary guns in triple turrets
18 x 10" secondary guns in twin turrets
74 x 5" tertiary dual purpose guns in single gun turrets
IMO I don't get why this mix of the guns,

Apart from the fact that its huge and overpowered (and still probably not much more defended from some threats like torpedoes/FitzX/Tallboy) (Remember that historically battleships need to at least try to be balanced ie guns and belt to the same thickness)

- why 15 x 22' I would save weight 15 guns is to many IMO 8-9-10 was the standard for most later BBs with a few designs for 12 max (or go bigger if you have weight/cash to spare)

- 18 x 10' not sure it gives you much, 10' guns are to big to fire fast and to slow to hurt big ships you should spend it on more faster firing 6'-8' or more main guns (not that you have to few anyway)

- 74 x 5' is a very powerful secondary (or 3rd) battery, my only concern would be that it cant fire well to the front or stern so I would rearrange them.

A few other ideas ?

- what about a fully automatic 6' gun ? USN 6"/47DP (15.2 cm) Mark 16 or RN 6"/50 (15.2 cm) QF Mark N5 style (as long as your building in later 40s/50s.

- fit a 3' automatic as well ? or 40mm/57mm if you don't have VT shells.

Hope I'm not taking this to seriously for your liking (and do show us when you have finished please it looks very nice).
Chuck ship art
Posts: 111
Joined: January 4th, 2012, 12:43 am
Location: Reno Nevada

Re: Tumblehome design limitations

#13 Post by Chuck ship art »

Your 22" gun look smaller that the 18" Guns. I think they would be much bigger. I think the scale of the ship would have to larger.
Western_1
Posts: 122
Joined: October 19th, 2014, 2:49 am

Re: Tumblehome design limitations

#14 Post by Western_1 »

Sumeragi wrote:Wow, if I could I would love to commission you for making a 3D model of a battleship.
Maybe at some point I will start taking commissions. Right now I am still learning and want to create at least one completed design before I start doing that. :)
heuhen wrote:yeah the ship would not be able to handle those 5 triple 22" guns, due to the weight of them, then the force of it when firing the guns.

I once drew a 5 triple 18" guns Battleship, but had to make it so huge, to be able to handle the weight of those turrets, that Yamato was looking like a dingy...
Right now my redesign includes greatly reducing the ships height above water and giving it a very wide width underwater. The original measurements were just so it could fit through the Panama Canal after the canal's cancelled pre-WW2 enlargement. Now I am going to include it in an AU I have been working on for some time in which it doesn't have to worry about such limitations.
JSB wrote: IMO I don't get why this mix of the guns,

Apart from the fact that its huge and overpowered (and still probably not much more defended from some threats like torpedoes/FitzX/Tallboy) (Remember that historically battleships need to at least try to be balanced ie guns and belt to the same thickness)

- why 15 x 22' I would save weight 15 guns is to many IMO 8-9-10 was the standard for most later BBs with a few designs for 12 max (or go bigger if you have weight/cash to spare)

- 18 x 10' not sure it gives you much, 10' guns are to big to fire fast and to slow to hurt big ships you should spend it on more faster firing 6'-8' or more main guns (not that you have to few anyway)

- 74 x 5' is a very powerful secondary (or 3rd) battery, my only concern would be that it cant fire well to the front or stern so I would rearrange them.

A few other ideas ?

- what about a fully automatic 6' gun ? USN 6"/47DP (15.2 cm) Mark 16 or RN 6"/50 (15.2 cm) QF Mark N5 style (as long as your building in later 40s/50s.

- fit a 3' automatic as well ? or 40mm/57mm if you don't have VT shells.

Hope I'm not taking this to seriously for your liking (and do show us when you have finished please it looks very nice).
Nah, its all good advice. AA guns are just on hold for technical reasons. I will wait until I am in Rhino 3D to add those, as Sketchup would make my computer explode trying to add too many of those.

As for bigger guns, I am likely going to go bigger with the ship hull to accommodate the 22" guns. As for the 10" guns, good point. Based on looking at some gun fire rates, even dropping from 10" to 9" quadruples fire rate. So what I think I will do is add triple 6" turrets. Not automatics, as this ship is more of a 20's-30's era ship.

I will also up the 5" guns to 6" guns in single gun turrets. The single gun turrets will be dual purpose, the triple gun turrets will not. I will then likely have a re-armed variant with its triple gun replaced with double 6" automatics and 6" automatics for its single turrets. All dual purpose as part of an anti-air re-armament.

As for assumed AA armament, I am thinking a mix of .50 cal, 30mm (similar to the MK 103 germany used) and 57mm guns. I will likely skip on the 3" guns if I am going to have a ton of 5" DP guns and later 6" DP guns.
acelanceloet
Posts: 7512
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands

Re: Tumblehome design limitations

#15 Post by acelanceloet »

keep in mind that the battleships build around 1920-30's were about the maximum size ships could be build at the time. that was in part due to the docks and harbours of the time, but structural concerns are an issue as well. material strengths and construction methods have come a long way since then, and civilian ships have grown a lot, but even keeping that in mind there are reasons why aircraft carriers have stuck to their current size, not that much bigger then yamato was.
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
JSB
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm

Re: Tumblehome design limitations

#16 Post by JSB »

For a 20's-30's era ship. (IMO)
As for bigger guns, I am likely going to go bigger with the ship hull to accommodate the 22" guns. As for the 10" guns, good point. Based on looking at some gun fire rates, even dropping from 10" to 9" quadruples fire rate. So what I think I will do is add triple 6" turrets. Not automatics, as this ship is more of a 20's-30's era ship.
I would have 8-12 big guns 22' or something (not sure bigger is actually worth anything really what are you shooting at ?)
Then add 8' guns to kill CAs/Cls (you could go for 6' but see below and 8' are probably better to kill CAs/CLs especially as you will have lots of them anyway)
I will also up the 5" guns to 6" guns in single gun turrets. The single gun turrets will be dual purpose, the triple gun turrets will not. I will then likely have a re-armed variant with its triple gun replaced with double 6" automatics and 6" automatics for its single turrets. All dual purpose as part of an anti-air re-armament.
Personally NO you cant get a DP 6' in 20-30s (without bending the rules shells are just to heavy to move by hand and 'robotics' to immature) the first DP 6' are 1945+ and they are huge you cant refit them into old singles (or even really new twins into old triples) I would keep 5'/38 or 4.5' or just go with AA guns 3'/4'/105mm as you have 8' guns to kill any surface threat ?
As for assumed AA armament, I am thinking a mix of .50 cal, 30mm (similar to the MK 103 germany used) and 57mm guns.
Very wide mix !
.5 is ok for time period but near useless (at least later on), 30mm MK 103 is a 1940s gun and the 57mm are 1950s+ guns (but very good) and why would you bother with the .5 if you have 30mm/57mm apart from 2 to shoot at smugglers (and this is not a patrol ship !) its just a waste of crew.
I will likely skip on the 3" guns if I am going to have a ton of 5" DP guns and later 6" DP guns.
Sorry if I don't understand but doesn't this conflict with the high up ? IE 6' then 6' ?
Western_1
Posts: 122
Joined: October 19th, 2014, 2:49 am

Re: Tumblehome design limitations

#17 Post by Western_1 »

acelanceloet wrote:keep in mind that the battleships build around 1920-30's were about the maximum size ships could be build at the time. that was in part due to the docks and harbours of the time, but structural concerns are an issue as well. material strengths and construction methods have come a long way since then, and civilian ships have grown a lot, but even keeping that in mind there are reasons why aircraft carriers have stuck to their current size, not that much bigger then yamato was.
When I decided to convert this project from a real world scenario to my AU scenario, I gained he ability to be more loose with how technology flowed. In my AU, Seaplanes are more dominant, there is no event similar to the Russo-Japanese war, architecture is more 'extreme' and some technologies are more mature or less mature compared to our world (with a good 20 year period of wiggle room compared to our world).

For example, here is a giant bridge I have been working on. Or a cross section anyway.

Image


JSB wrote:For a 20's-30's era ship. (IMO)
As for bigger guns, I am likely going to go bigger with the ship hull to accommodate the 22" guns. As for the 10" guns, good point. Based on looking at some gun fire rates, even dropping from 10" to 9" quadruples fire rate. So what I think I will do is add triple 6" turrets. Not automatics, as this ship is more of a 20's-30's era ship.
I would have 8-12 big guns 22' or something (not sure bigger is actually worth anything really what are you shooting at ?)
Then add 8' guns to kill CAs/Cls (you could go for 6' but see below and 8' are probably better to kill CAs/CLs especially as you will have lots of them anyway)
I will also up the 5" guns to 6" guns in single gun turrets. The single gun turrets will be dual purpose, the triple gun turrets will not. I will then likely have a re-armed variant with its triple gun replaced with double 6" automatics and 6" automatics for its single turrets. All dual purpose as part of an anti-air re-armament.
Personally NO you cant get a DP 6' in 20-30s (without bending the rules shells are just to heavy to move by hand and 'robotics' to immature) the first DP 6' are 1945+ and they are huge you cant refit them into old singles (or even really new twins into old triples) I would keep 5'/38 or 4.5' or just go with AA guns 3'/4'/105mm as you have 8' guns to kill any surface threat ?
As for assumed AA armament, I am thinking a mix of .50 cal, 30mm (similar to the MK 103 germany used) and 57mm guns.
Very wide mix !
.5 is ok for time period but near useless (at least later on), 30mm MK 103 is a 1940s gun and the 57mm are 1950s+ guns (but very good) and why would you bother with the .5 if you have 30mm/57mm apart from 2 to shoot at smugglers (and this is not a patrol ship !) its just a waste of crew.
I will likely skip on the 3" guns if I am going to have a ton of 5" DP guns and later 6" DP guns.
Sorry if I don't understand but doesn't this conflict with the high up ? IE 6' then 6' ?
I just like the fire rate of the 6" guns. I feel like I might go for larger numbers of 6" guns (triple instead of double turrets) and use that quantity to make up for the lack of 8" guns.

The DP 6" guns come later after a refit/re-armament. the 5" DP guns get replaced with 6" after the re-armament 15-20 years down the line. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

As for AA armament, I will definitely keep the .50cals but over the ships lifetime those will likely get gradually replaced save for a handful on the main command tower. As for the 30mm guns, instead of being based on the MK103, lets base them on the MK101. The 57mm's are a challenge. I want something that is rapid fire and above 45mm.
JSB
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm

Re: Tumblehome design limitations

#18 Post by JSB »

krases wrote: The 57mm's are a challenge. I want something that is rapid fire and above 45mm.
Yes with hindsight shooting Torpedo bombers before the drop is a very nice idea ! But like 6' DP you are look at 1950s technology....
Western_1
Posts: 122
Joined: October 19th, 2014, 2:49 am

Re: Tumblehome design limitations

#19 Post by Western_1 »

JSB wrote:
krases wrote: The 57mm's are a challenge. I want something that is rapid fire and above 45mm.
Yes with hindsight shooting Torpedo bombers before the drop is a very nice idea ! But like 6' DP you are look at 1950s technology....
Yeah thats why the 6" DP is going to wait until a re-fit during the ships lifetime. Until then its going to be 5" DP guns.
Western_1
Posts: 122
Joined: October 19th, 2014, 2:49 am

Re: Tumblehome design limitations

#20 Post by Western_1 »

Ok I have a new batch of questions:

First, looking at the QF 4.5" guns in their unique turrets, I have to as 'why?' Whats up with those flat topped turrets? I like them and I might include them in my design as they can be more streamlined with the hull. I will likely have to make them larger, possible single barrel 8" single purpose guns that are later adapted into dual 6" DP guns. Larger guns, but fewer of them.

Secondly, why do some ships have two decks like the Fuso? Is that just to facilitate casement turrets? My ship won't have casement turrets in the traditional sense but having a second deck to facilitate a more 'vertical' AA arrangement interests me.
Post Reply