NationStates Jolt Archive

The wait is finally over, and Asmodeus Corsairs finally has a flagship for our navy. The Yamato class CS Leviathan has been completed after years of repair, restoration, and modernization work. The ship itself was found abandoned years ago on the rocks of an uncharted island, and it had three large torpedo holes in its starboard side. It was towed to our harbor, where it sat for decades. Only recently did we achieve our independence, and work began on the ship.

The Leviathan is a Yamato class, the largest battleships built by man. Ours has been modernized with newer electronics, electronically controlled guns, and even larger 20" cannons, delivering the most firepower ever to grace a battleship.

CLASS SPECIFICATIONS:

Length
862 feet 9in (263m)
Beam
121 feet 1in (36.9m)
Displacement, Standard
68,010 tons
Displacement, Full Load
approximately 75,000 tons
Complement
1,500 men


ARMOR

Belt
16.1in
Main Deck 9.1in
Lower Deck 7.9in
Main Turrets 25.6in
Secondary Turrets 7.6in
Conning Tower 19.7in

ARMAMENTS

Weapon Layout
9 x 20in guns 3 triple turrets
12 x 6.1in guns 4 triple turrets
12 x 5in dual purpose guns 6 double turrets
24 x 25mm MG
4 x 13.2mm MG

MACHINERY

Propulsion Unit
geared turbines, 12 boilers
Shaft
4 shafts
Max. Speed
27 knots
Range (without refueling)
7200nm at 16 knots

http://upl.mine.nu/uplfolders/upload4/LEVIATHAN.jpg
http://upl.mine.nu/uplfolders/upload4/yamato.jpg

We plan on modifying the ship further as we see fit, a major modification in the works is to fit it with missile launchers, mainly for AA purposes.

Spiffy boat. I want one... :?

They are quite nice boats. The two RL ones were sunk in WWII, but in both sinkings they were against impossible odds. The Yamato took ten torpedoes and 5 1,000lb bombs before sinking, and the Musashi took an even more impressive beating, when it was hit by some nineteen torpedoes and seventeen bombs in the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea. Musashi capsized and sank a full four hours after she received her last hit, and that amount of damage is completely unsurpassed by any other naval ship to date.

Nobody wants to comment on how awesome the ship is? :|

Fine then. :?

All guns and not missiles? That's pathetic! Missiles do more damage than guns (not to mention greater accuracy).

uhh i think your battle ship must have super armour cuz i dont think any ship in world war 2 took 19 torpedos and 17 bombs its hard to beleive not one of those torpedos or bombs hit the magazine blowing up the whole ship like the hood in ww2. i think after 17 bombs alone there wouldnt be much of a deck left on the battleship. and you say you guns are 20inches. well the yamamota were 18.1 inches and yet your ship ways almost the same as the yamamoto, if you were to add 20 inch guns on a battleship that would greatly change the weight of the battleship. And you mentioned you found it on an island and towed it back... i dont think you could tow anything that has taken all that damage... there wouldnt be a hull left on the battleship to keep it from sinking.

uhh i think your battle ship must have super armour cuz i dont think any ship in world war 2 took 19 torpedos and 17 bombs its hard to beleive not one of those torpedos or bombs hit the magazine blowing up the whole ship like the hood in ww2. i think after 17 bombs alone there wouldnt be much of a deck left on the battleship. and you say you guns are 20inches. well the yamamota were 18.1 inches and yet your ship ways almost the same as the yamamoto, if you were to add 20 inch guns on a battleship that would greatly change the weight of the battleship.

All guns and not missiles? That's pathetic! Missiles do more damage than guns (not to mention greater accuracy).

Like I said, this just got finished from our naval yard. We plan on adding missile systems later on, for now it will have to rely on the missiles for the rest of our fleet.

uhh i think your battle ship must have super armour cuz i dont think any ship in world war 2 took 19 torpedos and 17 bombs its hard to beleive not one of those torpedos or bombs hit the magazine blowing up the whole ship like the hood in ww2. i think after 17 bombs alone there wouldnt be much of a deck left on the battleship. and you say you guns are 20inches. well the yamamota were 18.1 inches and yet your ship ways almost the same as the yamamoto, if you were to add 20 inch guns on a battleship that would greatly change the weight of the battleship.

Ok genius, first things first.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-m/musashi.htm

That's the Musashi, Yamato class. That did take 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs, its all right there. Also, the Japanese planned on putting 20"s on future Yamatos, but they never did due to the loss of the war.

well i never knew that... but at which point after so many hits was the ship not in working condition you know wat i mean?

oo and the thing about the 20 inches i was saying if you put those on your ship it will increase the weight because that means you will most likley need bigger turrets to house the 20inches. OOC: do you play battlefield 1942 or is that just a picture you found?

If you read my original post, I never said it survived that. It did manage to stay afloat for four hours after the last hit, which is still more than ANY naval ship in the world could accomplish.

do you plaay the game i mention cuz one of your pics is from battlefield 1942.

You spelt 'Guards' wrong...

All guns and not missiles? That's pathetic! Missiles do more damage than guns (not to mention greater accuracy).


OOC: Are you trying to tell me a shell from the USS Iowa does less damage then a Tomahawk missile?

IC:

Sir, will this ship pose a threat to us?
Hardly, our battleships weigh 40 000 tonnes more, and can take any ship on the high seas on.
Just checking.

True, it would increase the weight. But then again, this has been modernized so I'm sure the total weight would be somewhat lessened, I figured, hell, I'll just break it even. No, I dont play BF1942, that was just a good pic I found. :P

He's quite correct: the Americans had to pound the stuffing out of Musashi for hours before she turned turtle.

On the other hand, I do debate the ability to mount nine 20" guns on the same full load displacement as the original Yamoto without some serious cutbacks in other areas. The Japanese 18.1"/45 caliber gun weighed some 164 tons (when combined with the insanely thick amount of armor, an entire turret weighed more than most destroyers). By comparison, the Japanese 16.1"/45 gun only weighed about 100 tons, and the Japanese 14"/45 gun about 84.6 tons. Ergo, we have the 18.1" gun being about 1.64 times heavier than the 16.1", and the 16.1" being about 1.18 times heavier than the 14". Following that pattern, the 20.1" gun should be about 2.5 times as heavy as the 18.1", or a beastly 410 tons. Assuming the turret increased in weight in proportion to the guns themselves, each triple mount 20.1" gun would weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,250 tons, or about as much as a small light cruiser. Multiply that by three for 18,750 tons, and the subtract 7,500 (the original gun weight) and you've suddenly added 11,250 tons to the original displacement.

Now, that extra weight needs to be made up somewhere. Ammunition and fuel bunkerage, secondary and AA guns, armor: something has to be taken away.

You may be asking, what sort of naval guns does Iansisle use? Our front-line battleships, the Behemoth class uses 16"/45 triple turrets largely based on the British designs used by Nelson and Rodney. The Undauntable class battleship and Queen Jessica class battlecruiser use 14"/45 double turrets based on the KGV's superfiring mounts. We're currently looking into a design for a 35,000 ton battleship to fill in the strategic gap between the 30,000 ton, slow Undauntable and the 45,000 ton fast Behemoth. Such a ship would preferably be armed with 15"/42 guns, though many say that the 23,000 ton Stupendous class armored cruiser (armed with 12"/48 dual mounts) will fill the roll.

you've suddenly added 11,250 tons to the original displacement.

Now, that extra weight needs to be made up somewhere. Ammunition and fuel bunkerage, secondary and AA guns, armor: something has to be taken away.

Well, let's suppose that it carried slightly less ammo, not to mention less supplies, as the crew would be smaller in a modernized Yamato due to electronics. I think the ship could handle that.

Another instance involved the super-battleships Yamato and Musashi. The guns had been called “special 40-centimeter”, leading many Allied intelligence officers to believe the vessels used sixteen-inch guns. As it is known now, the main battery consisted of nine eighteen-inch guns.

My Montana Class Dreadnoughts have (12) 20" batteries. I don't think your Yamato is designed for better than what is specified. I don't want to reveal too much. Can post for basic specs, was a bear trying to find them. Last Montana Class BB building halted in 1951.

so soviet watever i cant spell the end sorry :( your saying your battleships way around 110,000 tons... were the hell do you get the metal for that aand let alone how much fuel that would take that must drain so much on your economey... and then after that you need a place to dock it.. ahahah i think its enefficient to have a ship that size when it could be taken out by missles from planes.

Another instance involved the super-battleships Yamato and Musashi. The guns had been called “special 40-centimeter”, leading many Allied intelligence officers to believe the vessels used sixteen-inch guns. As it is known now, the main battery consisted of nine eighteen-inch guns.

My Montana Class Dreadnoughts have (12) 20" batteries. I don't think your Yamato is designed for better than what is specified. I don't want to reveal too much. Can post for basic specs, was a bear trying to find them. Last Montana Class BB building halted in 1951.

I'll look for the source, but I did see on a site the the Japanese had a 20" gun Yamato in the works.

Haaregradia uses 420mm/52 calibre liquid propellant cannons on her vessels. These are able to fire all manner of shells, including GPS and laser guided shells, and rocket and scram-jet assisted versions of said shells.

so soviet watever i cant spell the end sorry :( your saying your battleships way around 110,000 tons... were the hell do you get the metal for that aand let alone how much fuel that would take that must drain so much on your economey... and then after that you need a place to dock it.. ahahah i think its enefficient to have a ship that size when it could be taken out by missles from planes.

I'm saying my battleship weighs close to the original, if not a little more. Taking into consideration that it would carry less main gun ammo, would require less crew and supplies, and therefore less lifeboats (not to mention I should prolly take the original catapult+plane system off, unnecessary), and the fact that modernized equipment would be lighter, thats not all that unreasonable. If you read the first post, the ship was found decades ago, and I restored it. I have funding for such from myself and allies. Finally, I do have the room to dock it, and I doubt this thing would get hit by planes when accompanied by my fleet. I'm not going to accept any more criticism from someone who can't even spell guard right.

so soviet watever i cant spell the end sorry :( your saying your battleships way around 110,000 tons... were the hell do you get the metal for that aand let alone how much fuel that would take that must drain so much on your economey... and then after that you need a place to dock it.. ahahah i think its enefficient to have a ship that size when it could be taken out by missles from planes.

To answer your questions:

Same place they get all the metal to build other vessels, obviously.

I was somewhat mistaken when quoting weights, I quoted for my large aircraft carrier.

My battlecruiser: 64 450 tons
battleship: 82 450 tons
dreadnought: 154 640 tons

What do I use for fuel? Good ole' uranium. It needs refueled every 4 years.

These ships have heavier armor then any battleship, ever, air attacks aren't much concern to them, additionally they carry some degree of protection. The battlecruisers always operate with an aviation cruiser or a marine landing fleet. The battleships have a small air arm. The dreadnoughts are also aircraft carriers and operate 72 aircraft.

They dock the same place any other large warship or cruise ship can dock.

Drain on the economy? Somewhat, but if we're ever attacked they'll prove their meddle yet again.

What do I use for fuel? Good ole' uranium. It needs refueled every 4 years.


Speaking of which, what do you think it would cost to have my Yamato converted to nuclear power? :)

tag-a-roma

Hmm...well, I suppose if you left home enough ammunition, people, food supplies, et al to equal roughly the Italian heavy cruiser Zara, almost the German pocket battleship Graf Spee, or 3,000 tons less than the British light cruisers Ajax and Achilles together, then yeah, it would be just about the same displacement.

As for the 12 20" gun mounting Montanas, I just don't even know what to say. They were designed with 12 American 16"/50 (which was probably the best battleship gun ever built, when considered pound for pound). I'd imagine that if you add that much weight to a ship, you'd not only have to worry about a maximum speed of 15 knots, but also the fact that a good sized wave would probably sink it.

In regards to nuclear power, I shudder to consider the costs...especially after one hugely expensive refit has been completed. With the funds you're sinking into this project, I could probably build half a dozen of my Behemoths.

In regards to nuclear power, I shudder to consider the costs...especially after one hugely expensive refit has been completed. With the funds you're sinking into this project, I could probably build half a dozen of my Behemoths.

This is to be the pride of my Navy's fleet, cost doesn't concern me too much. I might not have a hell of a lot for a military budget, but I could always pester my close allies to wire me some dough for it. :wink: Not to mention, I think nuclear power would make it cheaper to run, lighter, and give it better range.

Ah, I see that this is a good cause, my father nation, Barbarosea will wire you 250 Million to help your cause. If you wish to confirm this, teleagram him.

Ah, I see that this is a good cause, my father nation, Barbarosea will wire you 250 Million to help your cause. If you wish to confirm this, teleagram him.

Your generosity will not be forgotten. By the way, the ORIGINAL name I was going to use for this nation was Barbarossa. That was taken, so I tried Barbary Corsairs, but I forgot to change the drop-down back to anarchy, so I abandoned that one. Asmodeus is a Hebrew devil of sensuality and luxury, originally the creature of judgment. So basically I have Satanic pirates going on here. :P

Yes, mine was after the medieval leader Barbarossa. Also, I'm a dictator, so that sounds good.

-deleted by user-

In regards to nuclear power, I shudder to consider the costs...especially after one hugely expensive refit has been completed. With the funds you're sinking into this project, I could probably build half a dozen of my Behemoths.

This is to be the pride of my Navy's fleet, cost doesn't concern me too much. I might not have a hell of a lot for a military budget, but I could always pester my close allies to wire me some dough for it. :wink: Not to mention, I think nuclear power would make it cheaper to run, lighter, and give it better range.

Wrong.

Nuclear vessels are much heavier, and slightly more expensive to run.
They have a nearly unlimited range however. And they produce more power, meaning there is leftover for electro-magnetic catapaults and additional computer systems.

And it's not very easy to convert a conventional design to a nuclear desgin and back and forth, it could only really be done as the vessel is being built.

And it's not very easy to convert a conventional design to a nuclear desgin and back and forth, it could only really be done as the vessel is being built.

Assuming its possibility though, how much do you think that would set me back?

And it's not very easy to convert a conventional design to a nuclear desgin and back and forth, it could only really be done as the vessel is being built.

Assuming its possibility though, how much do you think that would set me back?

The cost of the ship, basically.

And it's not very easy to convert a conventional design to a nuclear desgin and back and forth, it could only really be done as the vessel is being built.

Assuming its possibility though, how much do you think that would set me back?

The cost of the ship, basically.

Hm... I want to have this done, but that would be a bit outrageous. What if the reactor(s) were not a concern, and all that would be needed would be the conversion?

The thing with battle ships is that several destroyers should be able to destroy it with cruse missles outside its main gun's effectice range, which means it needs missles itself to actually return fire. Not only does this take up space but it makes the guns obsolete as the enemy dosen't have to comewithin cannon range and with their speed can make sure the battleship dosen't. This effectively makes battleships big, expensive cruse missle platforms with a bunch of near worthless big guns happening to be on it. But if someone has a origionial use for battle ships i may think of picking a couple up.

The thing with battle ships is that several destroyers should be able to destroy it with cruse missles outside its main gun's effectice range, which means it needs missles itself to actually return fire. Not only does this take up space but it makes the guns obsolete as the enemy dosen't have to comewithin cannon range and with their speed can make sure the battleship dosen't. This effectively makes battleships big, expensive cruse missle platforms with a bunch of near worthless big guns happening to be on it. But if someone has a origionial use for battle ships i may think of picking a couple up.

Well, while the missiles may have longer range, a battleship would never be out there on its own, a couple of destroyers are usually included in its escort. The guns are never really obsolete, they make excellent shore bombardment, and once they have an enemy vessel in their range you might as well forget that vessel was there. Besides, last I checked a single Tomahawk costs in excess of $1 million, while shells for a battleships main gun cost FAR less. Basically, I use battleships as the heart of my fleet. They are my main offensive weapons, surrounded by the escorting defensive ones.

The battleship is cooler lookin' than a destroyer. Who cares about anything else? :wink:

Well, at least MY battleship is... can't speak for that ugly HMS Hood, good thing the Bismarck put it out of its misery. :lol:

[OOC POST FOLLOWS]
It is possible. You have a much larger economy than did England, America, France, Italy, Germany, and Japan did at the beginning of WWI which is when the Washington Treaty was imposed limiting the size of battleships and the size of their main batteries

The Battleship arms race between Germany, France, England and the United States nearly "sunk" England before the Washington treaty came into play. During this period England was sinking 50% of her income into the construction of more super dreadnaughts.

If anyone disagrees, I can bring the weight of MY "Oblivion" battleships into the equation - They make Enterprise / Nimitz carriers look... Dimunitive. Sure, they may not pack the biggest guns, but they pack the incredible IV/380mm turrets - with a longer range, and higher accuracy than any of the other *REAL WORLD* you have mentioned in this thread. Like any ship, they are sinkable, but it will be highly difficult due to their excellent Counter Measure systems.

All I am saying here is:
Asmodeus Corsairs: Your "YAMATO" class Battleship is acceptable. Perhaps not to a smaller nation with the Role Playing Skills of a 12 year old - My 3 year old sister has better grammar than another certain participant in this discussion
Mordian Iron Gaurds: Find a happy place.
SilveryMinnow: Wikipedia (somewhere)
[/OOC POST ENDS]


IC:
The Mighty Military Leader of Axe Weilding Maniacs received a telegram, and as he read the telegram, his normally impassive face split into a huge smile. "It marches" he whispered to himself.
From: Commodore John Muller - Aboard the ship "Master" *OBLIVION* Battleship
To: Asmodeus Corsairs (Military Commander)
Subject: Congratulations
Congratulations on your impressive feat, in restoring one of the Renown *YAMATO* battleships to her former glory, and for pressing her into service as the Flagship of your modern fleet. Battleships give so much more room for that bottle of "Special" rum, no.
Regards.

Just how big IS the Oblivion? :P

I want one, and if you dont let me buy one i'll sulk....and cry :cry: :wink:

[OOC POST FOLLOWS]

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato

Quote:
The proposed super Yamato class, with 508 mm guns, was abandoned.



A great pity i can't find the information on Hitler's proposed battleships. They had 20" guns as well


Obviously Germany loosing WWII had a bearing on that.



http://pub57.ezboard.com/balltheworldsbattlecruisers
How much information do you want.
Got lots of gun nuts?


Asmodeus Corsairs - MSN me @ markoshark@hotmail.com

OOC:
IIRC the super Yamoto was actually intended to be significantly larger thatn the original.
Cclan Smoke jaguar has an interesting comparision table that gives details of how fitting bigger guns vastly reduces your number of main guns.


As to missiles vs guns: well an interesting debate but modern effective anti shipping missiles have a range of roughly 150km sure thats over 3 times the rnage of basic 16" shells but then again using sabots or extended range muntions those 16" guns get rnages over 180km (heck even the 155mm Advanced gun system can reach that rnage using ER rounds).

Also common ASMs would have a minimal effect on battleship armor, criuse missiles and the massive soviet systems would have a better impact but then would be hideously vunerable to CIWS fire.


OH and just to show how odd i actually am i use 12" ETCs on my battleship mainly along with ERGMs for that rather nice 200-250nm rnage

[OOC POST]
/me agrees with crookfur.

I don't suppose you could find us links for this information ;)

Well for the whole naval design type stuff this thread (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=94873&highlight=) is very interesting especaily towards the end but the opening posts have some very good info.

Hmm...well, I suppose if you left home enough ammunition, people, food supplies, et al to equal roughly the Italian heavy cruiser Zara, almost the German pocket battleship Graf Spee, or 3,000 tons less than the British light cruisers Ajax and Achilles together, then yeah, it would be just about the same displacement.

As for the 12 20" gun mounting Montanas, I just don't even know what to say. They were designed with 12 American 16"/50 (which was probably the best battleship gun ever built, when considered pound for pound). I'd imagine that if you add that much weight to a ship, you'd not only have to worry about a maximum speed of 15 knots, but also the fact that a good sized wave would probably sink it.

In regards to nuclear power, I shudder to consider the costs...especially after one hugely expensive refit has been completed. With the funds you're sinking into this project, I could probably build half a dozen of my Behemoths.

Consider the dimensions of the Yamato with 18" guns, compared to those of the Montana. Consider also the advances in metalurgy and engine technology. (4 Steam turbine engines, with 4 shafts.) Aircraft Carriers use 3. The German O class of comparible dimensions to the Montana Class

O class:Technical Data Explanations of data shteets
Completed:
Displacement:
Dimensions:
Propulsion:

Max. Speed:
Range:
Crew: never
28,900 / 35,400 ts
256 × 30 ×8.0 m
116,000 hp; 8 diesel engines and additional
60,000 SHP; 4 boilers; steam turbines
34 kts (27 kts with diesel engines)
14,000 nm @ 19 kts / 5,100 t oil
~ 1,950 http://homepages.fh-giessen.de/~hg6339/DataFrames.htm

Montana class dimensions, Displacement: 60,500. Length; 1,925’: Beam: 121’ 2”. Propulsion: 4 Turbines, 4 shafts; Speed 29 knots (BB67)http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/battlesh/

Why the bigger Battleships? Besides the obvious point that anyone who has been on the receiving end of mortar or artillery fire can appreciate the bang factor, but the purpose of the Battleship has always been for the Navy to place as many weapons as possible on a floating mobile platform.the 16" guns use shells that are 2,000 lbs. 155mm artillery shells are only 90lbs. 2000lb bombs are things that aircraft carry, in limited numbers. Range is 25 miles. 1,000 shells are carried by each BBG. And they only cost $500 each. Also has eight 5" guns, but those shells are only 90lbs. I believe they can be swapped out for the "newer" 5" weapons that use less crew.

Lets put the firepower in perspective, since thats the most important part. One battleship, in 24 hours, can deliver the same amount of ordnance weight that the aircraft from twelve (12) carriers can. If you reconfigure the Carriers to optimize attack aircraft and no fighters, it still comes out to a BB equaling 4.5 CVs. And 1 BB equals 15 DDGs in firepower.

The Armed Republic Of Nazguul wishes to congratulate and commend the Nation of Asmodeus Corsairs on the completion of this beautiful warship. In future, if this class of Naval craft comes up for sale, The Armed Republic Of Nazguul promises to buy an entire fleet of Corsairs Warships.

(I really appreciate this thread, and invite everyone to help clear the air on BB capabilities.)

The BB has eight (8) UAVs. So its not "blind" out there and can use those UAVs as NGOs (Arty Forward Observer). It has several inches of armor plating, so sea, land or air, even missile attacks is not a problem. After all, Kamikazes where the first precision guided munitions. There is a "extended round" program that can extend the 16" shell range to 100 miles. And there is some sort of "ram jet" round that can extend the range even further (1000 miles?). The extended range on a 5" round costs $50,000 and the weight drops from 90lbs to 19lbs. Some of you have legs that weigh more than 19lbs. (Iowa class Missouri.)

Lastly, SEALs (ie Special Forces) can operate from BBs, since they can land helios on it (I think around three).

So if its a money issue, the Navy can take the money they want to spend on fitting cruise missiles on nuclear subs (couple billion). Or they can reduce the CV's by one. The Army can stand down a Artillery Regiment (32 tubes, 2000 men). The Marines can contribute another 2000 men as well. The Air Force can "donate" one B-52. Strip the Tomohawks off and use the extra room as a Command and Control ship.

(Acknowledgement to Shaka of Carthage,) http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/8-143.asp

Consider Now the Advances in Metallurgy in comparison with 1942... (cont)
Start with Gun life. 16"Guns were good for 350 rounds (approximate, will use construction of modern 5" guns, differences dimensional.)

Now consider what is between the exterior and the interior surfaces of the barrel-the steel itself. Looking at the profiles of guns old and new (fig. 5B7), it’s evident that although both taper from a wide breech end to a narrower muzzle, the taper is much more drastic in the older weapon. Superficially, this difference in silhouette may seem a small matter, but it is actually very important. It indicates the revolutionary developments in propellants and in metallurgy that differentiate the new from the old.

Consider what happens when the propellant in a gun is ignited. As it burns, it turns to hot gas under terrific pressure-up to 60,000 psi in small guns, up to 40,000 psi in larger guns. As the projectile moves along the bore toward the muzzle, the gas pressure goes down. It follows, then, that the chamber wall should be the thickest part of the gun barrel, with the taper from breech to muzzle reflecting the decreasing gas pressure behind the projectile.

The thinner barrel walls of modern guns are evidence not only of more effective propellants but also of improved metallurgy of the barrel. Before the ‘80’s of the last century, the surest way to make the barrel of a gun withstand more pressure was to make it thicker. But there were limits to this method. Then it was discovered that by prestressing, it was possible to make a gun barrel more resistant to internal pressure. The earliest method of applying this principle was to heat steel ring-shaped jackets, or hoops, to high temperatures, then slip them over the gun tube and allow them to cool. As the hoops cooled, they contracted, until at the end of the process they were squeezing the gun tube inside with a pressure of thousands of pounds per square inch. Guns so constructed are known as built-up guns, and are still made in sizes over 8-inch.

Larger guns (Missouri) are now capable of a higher rate of fire from main armament with sliding wedge breech.

Recoil systems. All present-day recoil systems for naval guns larger than 20-mm use hydraulic recoil brakes. A hydraulic recoil brake is a mechanism of the type commonly termed by engineers a “dashpot.” It has a piston and a cylinder which can move with respect one to the other. There is a liquid in the cylinder which can move from one side of the piston to the other, but its rate of movement is restricted or “throttled.”

More info on battery housings: http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/FC-ORDNANCE.html

On to Armor:

ELEMENTS USED IN IRON AND STEEL ARMOR & NAVAL CONSTRUCTION METALS:

. . . . . . . . IRON: Iron makes up much of the earth's mass, composing most of the center 4,000-mile-wide (6,437 km) core of the earth, and being quite plentiful at the surface. It is normally a black metal about a third of the way through the Periodic Table of the Elements (symbol Fe) in atomic number (26), in atomic size, and in atomic weight (55.847 times normal no-neutron Hydrogen using the standard that the isotope Oxygen-16 weighs exactly 16.00). Iron weighs about 0.283 lb/cubic inch (40.8 lb/square foot for a 1"-thick plate) or 7.833 grams/cubic cm (78.33 kg/square meter for a 1 cm-thick plate), though this varies somewhat with Carbon content and alloying element content in steel, wrought iron, and cast iron used in construction and armor--grey cast iron with about 4% Carbon, by weight, only weighs about 0.255 lb/cubic inch since Carbon is so light that the 4% Carbon takes up much more volume than the same weight of Iron (some Carbon is in the cementite part of pearlite and the rest is free Carbon). It is the bottom of the element transmutation process in stars, requiring energy be added to either break it apart to form lighter elements or to fuse it with any other element to make heavier elements--it is thus not radioactive. It is rather chemically active, especially with Oxygen (in rust and in red blood cells where it transports Oxygen to the living cells in our bodies) and Carbon, and changes its crystal structure from ferrite to austenite with temperature while staying solid, which allows it to form cementite and martensite and thus become the basis of almost all modern manufacuring and construction using metal, including modern shipbuilding, making it the most important metal to human civilization. It is reasonably strong and tough by itself, but can be made much more so because it can form various alloys with other elements to modify its properties significantly, in addition to and/or in conjunction with Carbon. It is normally not poisonous to come into contact with (though eating too much in food or vitamins can be dangerous), allowing it to be widely used in complete safety (unlike some other poisonous metals like Lead, Mercury, and Beryllium). Most steels and cast irons are over 90% Iron, by weight, though some special alloys, such as maraging steels, have very large percentages of other alloying elements.

. . . . . . . . VANADIUM: Vanadium is a hardening alloy element in steel that is much stronger in its effects than either Chromium or Molybdenum (see above). Resists "metal fatigue" from repeated loading below the nominal yield strength, which can cause the metal to gradually stretch out of shape ("creep"), so it is widely used in springs in small amounts. It is also used in small amounts in some very-high-strength steels, but not in any modern U.S. Navy HY-type construction steels. Only naval armor use, to my knowledge, was 0.1-0.14% in post-1930 U.S. Navy Class "B" homogeneous armor plates under 7" thick made by Bethlehem, which also were the only U.S. Navy armor plates that used Molybdenum (see above) in amounts similar to British and German armors (0.3-0.4%) and which contained the lowest amount of Carbon, 0.18-0.2%, of any Chromium-Nickel-Steel naval armor. Very expensive. Vanadium (symbol V) is three numbers below Iron in the Periodic Table of the elements, with an atomic number of 23 and an atomic weight of 50.942. Vanadium's density is 0.198 lb/cubic inch (5.487 grams/cubic cm).

http://www.combinedfleet.com/metalprp.htm

(There is a material that is stronger and lighter than Vanadium being used for Penetrator bombs, but do your own research.)
Quick comparison for Armor weight in BattleTanks similar dimensions; Modern M-1(2)Abrams Tank Weight: 68.7 Tons: King Tiger: 70 tons.
No disagreement I think about which vehicle has the better armor. 8)

[OOC POST]
(Yamato class battleship - 1942 odd, didnt' have a helipad ;))



Calling all BIGGER GUN nuts....
Where to find more info ;)



I believe Hitler's plan was the Z ship. Not sure about that

The Armed Republic Of Nazguul wishes to congratulate and commend the Nation of Asmodeus Corsairs on the completion of this beautiful warship. In future, if this class of Naval craft comes up for sale, The Armed Republic Of Nazguul promises to buy an entire fleet of Corsairs Warships.

Look for me in a month or so. I have two allies pledging their support to a renovated Yamato class production. :D

We surely will. Until then, best wishes on the new project.

Heres a site dedicated to the Yamato.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm

Bismarck.

http://www.kbismarck.com/

IOWA class:

http://www.bb62museum.org/stats.html

http://www.bb62museum.org/images/nj-1.jpg
We're out of Ammo! Gonna have to Ram 'Em!

[OOC POST]
(Yamato class battleship - 1942 odd, didnt' have a helipad ;))



Calling all BIGGER GUN nuts....
Where to find more info ;)



I believe Hitler's plan was the Z ship. Not sure about that

Already posted, it was the "H" ship, then the "O" after the Bismarck. The German "Z" ship was like a P.T. boat. The German Forces used these to sink 4 allied transports while they were simulating an invasion of Norway. (Got too close to France.)
http://kbismarck.com/models/model103.jpg
Toy Boat!

...AND! Digging around for Info, I found complete stats and number of Manufactured MONTANA CLASS BB's, for me to know and you to find out.

http://www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana-art1.jpg
My Baby. :wink:

Meh, Montana class was just a stretch Iowa. :roll: I'll stick with the Yamatos, their complete stubbornness against capsizing is unparalleled.

STRETCH IOWA! How can you say that just look at it!

http://www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana-model2.jpg
Full on Frontal. Oh Yeah.

http://www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana-model1.jpg
and check out that AFT! Whoo Hoo!

http://www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana-model3.jpg
You may be too young to look at this.

H-CLASS, 1943<26>

Displacement:(tons)(1)
Design: 109,246 (111,000 metric)
Full Load: 118,104 (120,000 metric)
Length:
Waterline: 1,082'
Beam: 157'6"
Draft:
Design: 39'5"
Full Load: 42'
Armament:
Main Battery: 8 20-inch (508mm) guns 4 x 2
Secondary: as "H-42"
Anti-Aircraft: as "H-42" except, 40 20mm
Armor: as "H-42"
Propulsion: as "H-42"
Speed:
Maximum & Overload: 31 knots
Range: as "H-42"

(1) Battleships and Battle Cruisers, 1905-1970; lists the
displacements as 111,000 and 120,000 Long Tons.

Further increases in torpedo protection characterized the final
design effort, H-44. Naval architects felt the torpedo to be
the dominate threat to a capital ship and took unprecedented
steps to proof the ship against this weapon. These added
measures would have rendered the ship able to withstand repeated
hits even from the expected allied torpedoes with larger
warheads. It probably would have required repeated hits,
similar to those that sank YAMATO and MUSASHI, to cripple H-
44.<27>

The added threat by non-contact explosions close aboard were
addressed by deepening the innerbottom structure. This action
was taken in light of the mine damage done to TIRPITZ by British
midget submarines on 22 September 1943 as she lay at anchor in
Altenfjord, Norway.

Considerations were made to further thicken the deck armor to
add protection against bombs, but these plans changed when
TIRPITZ was sunk in a RAF bombing raid. She capsized at anchor
in Tromso Fjord, on 12 November 1944 when struck by three 12,000
lb. "Earthquake" bombs filled with 5,600 lb of Torpex (one was a
dud).<28> Designers realized it was hopeless to defend against
bombs of this size and all work to improve the "H" class deck
armor ended.


i found it.

Didn't have the Phalanx CIWS, either. (Come closer little plane.)

Indeed, a great pity.


I think we have succeded in hi-jacking a thread :/




Our bad.

I'm not sure what started Silver Minnow's picture spamming spree (really, the Montana wasn't that pretty a ship at all...which actually leads me to a tangent. I don't know how anyone could consider Hood ugly...to me, she was one of the prettiest vessels ever build. You want an ugly capital ship, then look no farther than Nelson, South Dakota, or Richelieu...but again, that's neither here nor there.)

On the other hand, it seems the Germans needed 100,000+ tons just to mount 8 20" guns. I wonder how everyone else is mounting 9-12 on 70,000ish tons?

It wasn't the size of the guns. It was the rediculous amount of armour.

While 13" maximum deck is certainly much more than typical, the 15" maximum belt? Hardly impressive - roughly the same as the 35,000 ton King George V, and much less than the Yamoto. I don't believe that even such thick armor over the vital parts of the deck would really add the 40-50,000 tons we're talking about here. Anyways, after what happened to Tirpitz, most of the extra deck armor was canceled.

Another reason was of course the length of the ship. And Hitler's obsession for BIGGER GUNS,, and BIGGER SHIPS!

That's certainly true. Still, I think the great amount of weight required by 20" guns hasn't been truly portrayed by that 70,000 ton, 925', 12x20" gun-sporting Montana :lol:

As I don't think this post has been nearly offensive or controversial enough, I'll throw out that I think the Hood was a better-looking ship than the Iowas. ;)

I can say that because its frame is almost identical to the Iowa's, with a bit extra in the front and rear. I'll post the pic later.

Yeah well, pretty doesn't count for much in a Sea Battle. The Hood was vunerable to long range fire, and the Bismarck proved that with one shot. The Yamato's fire control stunk for its weapons, and it was unable to even put out the fires on itself during its sinking.

I don't think anyone is even reading my links.

The Montana weighed in at; Full Load 70,965 tons to be exact. 40' draft.

The Hood's deck armor was vulnerable at long range? Dear God, what a revelation! I don't think ANYONE'S ever made that point before! Anyhow, had Holland led his line with Prince of Wales instead of Hood, or had he not approached in such a way where 4 of his 15" guns and 4 of his 14" guns could not see the enemy, or had the Germans not been so lucky in their shooting (such as hitting Prince of Wales' bridge with one of their first salvos) the Denmark Strait may have been very different. Anyhow, modern research shows a second possible design flaw on Hood: he torpedo stores. It's theorized that a fire started by 8" fire from Prince Eugen cooked off a torpedo (which had no business being on a capital ship), causing the Hood to explode as she was straddled by a salvo from Bismarck.

I don't think you're reading your links. The Yamato had the best optical fire control sensor in the world: really, it was more the Japanese 18.1"/45 gun that let Yamoto down. At best, the 18 incher could be considered strictly mediocre. I also didn't need your links to know that the Montana weighed in at 70,000 ish tons full load - what I'm saying is that IF YOU CHANGE THE WEAPONS, YOU CHANGE THE DISPLACEMENT!

The American 16"/50 triple turret (which, along with the British 15"/42 double turret, was probably one of the best battleship guns ever invented...as I've said several times) is much lighter than the Japanese 18.1"/45, one of the reasons why Montana was able to carry 12 guns to Yamoto's 9, despite similar displacements and armor arrangements. Thus, we can assume that the American 16"/50 triple mount was about 75% the weight of the Japanese 18.1"/45 triple mount, or 1875 tons - 7500 tons for four of them. Four triple 20" guns, as hypothesized earlier, would set you back 25000 tons. Simple subtraction shows us that 25000-7500 = 17500. In other words, you can't make a 12x20" gun Montana without adding 17,500 tons to the displacement, causing it to be at LEAST 88,500 tons full load, without considering the larger crew and ammo requirements of the big guns.

Without a massive lengthening of beam and stretching, that would mean the ship would, if not just sink, ride very low in the water and be vulnerable to large waves and rain. If you do stretch the dimensions, you add displacement, and then the ship is going to progressively slow down, until it's hardly moving. You can add more engines, but guess what? The add displacement, and you have the riding low in the water problem again!

Welcome to the real world :lol:

And of the course the iowa already handled itself pretty poorly in heavy seas (even compared to a horrendously "wet" ship like the George V).

Now the Vangaurd, that was a nice ship that handled beautifully even in the worst the north atlanic could throw at it (15 degree pitch as opposed to 30 degree for the iowa)

Yeah well, pretty doesn't count for much in a Sea Battle. The Hood was vunerable to long range fire, and the Bismarck proved that with one shot. The Yamato's fire control stunk for its weapons, and it was unable to even put out the fires on itself during its sinking.

I don't think anyone is even reading my links.

The Montana weighed in at; Full Load 70,965 tons to be exact. 40' draft.

I think Iansisle covered everything else, so I won't repeat it. But the fact that the Yamato's fires wern't put out is irrelevant. It was hit by "some ten torpedoes, mainly on the port side, and several bombs" ( http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-xz/yamato-n.htm ), and at that point putting the fires out would have been like digging a hole in water, it gets ya nowhere. :wink: Besides, its rumored that the crew was standing on the deck saluting when it sunk, I dont know if its true but if it is that MIGHT explain a lack in fire crews, eh?

Must have touched a nerve. :P
I knew no one was reading my posts. First point. I posted the differences between the metallurgy of WWII, (agreed during the time period the 16" triple gun battery was superior,) time changes and the world moves on. Without revealing too much, (come up with your own ideas,) I thought I had explained that in a previous post. Yes, I understand Displacement. I also understand that with new alloys come new weight. (M1 Abrams- Tiger Tank reference.) Alloys allow for better Hardness, Tensile strength at lower weights. Noted the differences in projectiles regarding heat and stress factors, anybody note that? Nooooooooo?

Anyway, for the sake of argument look at the differences in weights of the New Jersey; WWII BB62 1943-1945 59,300 tons. Displacement (1968-69) BB.62 New Jersey Only 57,124 tons (2000 tons lighter? Hmmmm, what could that mean?) Newer ship, got helicopters on it. Displacement (1982-92) Full Load 57,256 tons. Little heavier with the all the ECM equipment, AntiAir systems and missiles but not by much. Get the Point?

Far as the Bismarck/Hood thing, coulda been, shoulda been, didn't happen.

The Americans lost 12 Avengers out of 356 launched from Task force 58. Good shootin thar hoss.

Look, I understand that the heavier the load on the deck, the higher the center of gravity will be on the ship. For sailing deeper is better. Anyway I just found out that 280mm is a 16" gun, so no more arguments from me, as I'm willing to accept (12) 16" guns. :)

According to this (http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/IowaClass/Statistics.htm) website, which I consider fairly reliable, the Iowas full load displacement from 1943 was 57,216 tons...in 1968 it was 57,124...in 1983 it was 57,353. Sorry that it's not New Jersey* specific like your unquoted source, but it's the best I have.

Now, you may contend that the Tomahawks and Harpoons should have increased her weight more than it did, but you'll notice that between 1943 and 1983, the Iowas lost 8 5" secondary guns and 129 medium and light aircraft batteries, along with the people who man them. Huh.

Your problem is that you're using a WWII design. I give you the Bismarck: a modern, post-treaty battleship with better damage control than just about any other ship afloat and more armor than I'd care to shake a stick at. She was caught and destroyed by a knot-slower treaty battleship displacing 6,000 tons less than her (who also had half her guns out of operation at any one time) and an ancient treaty battleship that couldn't outrun molassas going uphill. Why? Because German designers relied on outdated Great War underwater and upper deck models. Well, that and her AA suite was TOO modern, but that's beside the point.

Where am I going with this? Simply that if you want a ship that can compete with modern vessels within its class, DESIGN A MODERN SHIP.

The Americans lost 12 Avengers out of 356 launched from Task force 58. Good shootin thar hoss.

One might be moved to point out that Japanese AA guns were among the worst in the world, which tracked and fired far too slowly or were too light to do serious damage, and lacked the modern fire control of contemporary American vessels, but that would be too damn logical. Still, I fail to see what this comment has to do with anything.

* American battleship names are so boring. I'd take Vanguard or Warspite any day over South Dakota or Iowa.

"Ar, South Dakota...what do they produce in that fine state?"

"Nuttin' besides broken treaties with yon Native Americans, if'n memory serves!"

Point of Reference. Might want to check out the differences in weight between the old M198 155mm Howitzers, and the M777 155mm Howitzers being sold to the U.S. by yon English types.

I'm not going to engineer an entire ship without getting paid for it, thats the American way.

P.S. I'll take my unquoted source over your quoted one any day. (Smiles knowingly.)

Fine, keep your secrets. Until I see some sort of credit for the information, I'll just have to assume you pulled it solidly out of your ass.

By the way, nice job of skirting around any sort of issue by posting a largely irrelevant and still ever so vague reference to field artillery a fifth the size of the naval guns we're talking about.

No one's asking you to engineer an entire ship ... a few general statements about engine size, armor arrangment, length and beam and gun fittings are usually enough. Of course, that may take actual work, and it's much easier to lounge about and 'smile knowingly' while posting large (and largely irrelevant) pictures of outdated warships.

Cosairs, would you be interested in creating a joint venture storefront?

No way! You'll all copy me. I can only offer a line drawing of the Montana (ONI manual declassified) but it is impossible for me to find a cutaway of this ship.

Since someone pointed out that the Montana is an extended version of the Iowa class BB, here is a cutaway of that ship, as you can see the engines are located above the keel close to the center.

Up yours.
http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/IowaClass/Cutaway.htm

Cosairs, would you be interested in creating a joint venture storefront?

I've already got plans for one, maybe I'll go with you on it or let you in too or sumptin if you can convince me. :P

SilveryMinnow:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/s-file/s511-21.jpg
The solid outline is the Iowa, the dotted extensions show the Montana.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112176&highlight=


Cosairs the ships that we will be building will make ANY aircraft carrier look tiny :)