Shipbucket
http://shipbucket.com./forums/

Delaware class Battleship
http://shipbucket.com./forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1746		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Karle94 [ August 12th, 2011, 2:53 am ]
Post subject:  Delaware class Battleship
This is something I made as a 3D model for the game Silent Hunter IV. The basic idea is a battleship class of two ships, the USS Delaware and the USS Connecticut. This is a successor to the Colorado but a predecesor to the North Carolina. My idea was that the design of the North Carolina would be based on the Delaware, witch is why you will find some resemblence to the North Carolina. So far there are three design studies. All three are basicly the same with some changes to the hull, superstructure, arnament and performance.
I know that the ships are awful but I want to see what people think about them.

Delaware class design study 1:
displacement: 33,500 t
length: 195 m
beam: 32 m
draft: 8.5
propulsion: 4 GE geared turbines, 110,000 hp
speed: 25 kts
armor: armor belt 11", deck 1", turret 14"
arnament: 2X8 14"/50, 2X3 6"/47, 4X1 5"/38, 8X1 5"/51, 4X1 3"/50, 14X1 0.50" M2HB

Study 1 fits for shore bombardement and convoy escort. Chasing battleships or escorting carriers isn`t really suited because of the ships`s low speed. Study 1 has a clipper bow as the ones on North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa classes. Large open spaces on the hull and superstructure allows more AA guns to be mounted

[ img ]

Delaware class design study 2:
displacement: 38,500 t
length: 205 m
beam: 32 m
draft: 9.1
propulsion: 4 B&G geared turbines, 130,000 hp
speed: 27.5 kts
armor: armor belt 12", deck 1.5", turret 16"
arnament: 4X3 16"/50, 4X1 5"/38, 8X1 5"/51, 4X1 3"/50, 14X1 0.50" M2HB

Study 2 barely manages to keep up with carriers and other battleships. It is heavily armed acompared to studys 1 and 3, therefore it can outgun most battleships and is well suited for shore bombardement. Trades the clipper bow for a flared bow for increased stability in rough sea.

[ img ]

Delaware class design study 3:
displacement: 35,500 t
length: 215 m
beam: 32 m
draft: 9.5
propulsion: 4 GE geared turbines, 150,000 hp
speed: 29.5 kts
armor: armor belt 10", deck 0.95", turret 14"
arnament: 3X8 14"/50, 1X3 6"/47, 4X1 5"/38, 8X1 5"/51, 4X1 3"/50, 14X1 0.50" M2HB

[ img ]

Study 3 trades armor for speed, making her a suitable candidate for carrier escort. The forward 6 inch turret has been removed, the lengthened hull and removal of the six inch turret has allowed a new quad 14 turret to be mounted. Suits well for chasing cruisers and battlecrusiers but the lack of armor puts it in a disadvantage against other battleships. A large number of high caliber guns makes the ship well suited for shore bombardement. Study 3`s increase in length allows more AA guns to be mounted, unlike study 2.

Please give feedback, I want to know what should be improved.
Author:  emperor_andreas [ August 12th, 2011, 4:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Delaware class Battleship
Interesting vessel!

I'm a Silent Hunter fan myself...just started using the Gray Wolves Expansion Pack for Silent Hunter 3...love it!
Author:  orihara [ August 12th, 2011, 1:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Delaware class Battleship
I'd discount studies 1 and 3, simply due to the role of battleships in the pre-WWII era. Simply put, their job is to fight other battleships. A battleship not designed for that task is a failure of a battleship, because it'll either be forced into that role, and bear a higher risk of being killed, or it'll be forced to avoid coming to battle with it's theoretical equals, which means it's a waste of money. Another argument against both is the use of quad turrets, which were not favored due to the issues with space inside the turret. Interestingly, you've got a single funnel on all 3 studies, while both the successor and predecessor classes has two funnels of a different design (though similar to each other)

Now, issues with the study 2: It's ~5000 tons lighter in displacement than the actual design that slotted between the Colorado and the North Carolina, with similar weight of armament. However, if it's still a treaty limited battleship, it's 3500 tons overweight. I'd suggest dropping one of the turrets, which will free significant amounts of weight, and bring the design closer to inline with the successor North Carolina. This would allow later refits to also increase the AA armament as necessary.
Author:  Karle94 [ August 12th, 2011, 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Delaware class Battleship
emperor_andreas wrote:
Interesting vessel!

I'm a Silent Hunter fan myself...just started using the Gray Wolves Expansion Pack for Silent Hunter 3...love it!
Thanks.

I will reccomend that you convert to SH4, as it has many more stunning mods and overall better graphics etc...

I have made a study 4.

Delaware class design study 4:
displacement: 35,000 t
length: 215 m
beam: 32 m
draft: 9.8
propulsion: 4 GE geared turbines, 150,000 hp
speed: 31 kts
armor: armor belt 12", deck 1.5", turret 16"
arnament: 3X3 16"/45, 4X1 5"/38, 8X1 5"/51, 4X1 3"/50, 22X1 0.50" M2HB

Designed to remedy the weaknesses in study three. It has the same overall length as the study three, but with study two bow. Removes the two six inch turrets and trades the three quad 14"/45 turrets for three trippel 16"/45 Mark 6. Fast, well armored and well armed. Study four is a match for any warship sailing the seven seas. Also well suited for carrier escort and shore bombardement.

[ img ]
Author:  Karle94 [ August 12th, 2011, 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Delaware class Battleship
orihara wrote:
I'd discount studies 1 and 3, simply due to the role of battleships in the pre-WWII era. Simply put, their job is to fight other battleships. A battleship not designed for that task is a failure of a battleship, because it'll either be forced into that role, and bear a higher risk of being killed, or it'll be forced to avoid coming to battle with it's theoretical equals, which means it's a waste of money. Another argument against both is the use of quad turrets, which were not favored due to the issues with space inside the turret. Interestingly, you've got a single funnel on all 3 studies, while both the successor and predecessor classes has two funnels of a different design (though similar to each other)

Now, issues with the study 2: It's ~5000 tons lighter in displacement than the actual design that slotted between the Colorado and the North Carolina, with similar weight of armament. However, if it's still a treaty limited battleship, it's 3500 tons overweight. I'd suggest dropping one of the turrets, which will free significant amounts of weight, and bring the design closer to inline with the successor North Carolina. This would allow later refits to also increase the AA armament as necessary.
The study 1 is fast enough to overtake all old battleships except the Nagato class. The US navy din`t know their top speed in the 30`s. Study 3 was indfluenced by the Iowa, trading a little armor for speed. The overweight of the study 2 has been corrected in the study 4. The North Carolina did have one big funnel that was later split into two. This was just before the quad 14"/45 turrets were replaced with the three tripple 16"/45 mark 6.
Author:  Karle94 [ August 12th, 2011, 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Delaware class Battleship
So it has come to this: Study 4 was ultimately chosen as it satisfied most of the requirements. I have made a war time refit of the ships. This is the 1942 Delaware class. Removed single guns and the 0.50 cal M2HB. M2HB replaced with Oerlikon 20 mm. Added 4 extra 5"/38 twin turret in place of the 5"/51 and 3"/50.

Delaware class design study 4 War time refit:
displacement: 38,000 t standard, 46,000 t fully loaded, 48,000 t max
length: 215 m
beam: 32 m
draft: 10,1
propulsion: 4 GE geared turbines, 150,000 hp
speed: 30 kts
armor: armor belt 12", deck 1.5", turret 16"
arnament: 3X3 16"/45, 8X2 5"/38, 44X2 20 mm

[ img ]
Author:  eltf177 [ August 14th, 2011, 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Delaware class Battleship
Nice group of designs. Just a few nitpicks...

1) The mixed Secondary Batteries suggest a laydown date around the end of WWI, but these look far more modern than that. Ditto with the aviation arrangements, they look too modern for the period.
2) 1-inch of deck armor is way too thin, by this time 2-3 inches is the norm.
3) The US didn't use a 3-shaft arrangement on BB's, go with 4 shafts.

Other than that I like them. I plan on doing them up in Springsharp at some point to see how well they work...

Looking forward to more from you! :D
Author:  Thiel [ August 14th, 2011, 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Delaware class Battleship
eltf177 wrote:
1) The mixed Secondary Batteries suggest a laydown date around the end of WWI, but these look far more modern than that. Ditto with the aviation arrangements, they look too modern for the period.
Not quite. The 3in guns are part of the aa armament and as such falls outside the traditional system of primary, secondary, etc battery in much the same way the 40mm does.
Author:  Karle94 [ August 14th, 2011, 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Delaware class Battleship
Both the 3"/50`s and 5"/51`s are part of the AA suite. There are 4 propellers on the ship. not 3.
Author:  Thiel [ August 14th, 2011, 9:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Delaware class Battleship
Four props but only one rudder? That's... odd.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/