Wet Navy Ship Design

[snrdg082102]

Yep, they thoroughly modernized the Queen Elizabeth class fast dreadnaught/battleship, but what I have not been able to find yet is the data for the as built specifications to compare with the after modernization.

I have a copy of "The Illustrated Directory of Warships from 1860 to the present day (2001) by David Miller. Standard displacement per this source is 27,500 tons and fully loaded as 31,500 tons. From http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_queen_elizabeth_class_battleships.html
the as built displacement was 27,500 and 33,000 tons plus. Unfortunately, I have not been successful, with the exception of material on Wikipedia, on finding any other information. However, the change of 1,500 tons has an effect that has to be compensated for in order to maintain stability and other characteristics.

So upgrading, real world or in Traveller, is not a simple task of pulling out and replacing components with the same mass. Please ensure that upgrading takes in the need to recalculate the specifications.

You might want to look at how thoroughly the British modernized some of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships between World War 1 and 2.

 

[Timerover51]

Yep, they thoroughly modernized the Queen Elizabeth class fast dreadnaught/battleship, but what I have not been able to find yet is the data for the as built specifications to compare with the after modernization.

I have a copy of "The Illustrated Directory of Warships from 1860 to the present day (2001) by David Miller. Standard displacement per this source is 27,500 tons and fully loaded as 31,500 tons. From http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_queen_elizabeth_class_battleships.html
the as built displacement was 27,500 and 33,000 tons plus. Unfortunately, I have not been successful, with the exception of material on Wikipedia, on finding any other information. However, the change of 1,500 tons has an effect that has to be compensated for in order to maintain stability and other characteristics.

So upgrading, real world or in Traveller, is not a simple task of pulling out and replacing components with the same mass. Please ensure that upgrading takes in the need to recalculate the specifications.

Try to get a copy of British Battleships of World War 2 through interlibrary loan, as that goes into a great amount of detail on the modernizations.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning timerover51,

Try to get a copy of British Battleships of World War 2 through interlibrary loan, as that goes into a great amount of detail on the modernizations.

Thank you for the recommendation and since I am going to be in town, with a library, I'll see what I can make the request.

Regardless of how much modernization was done the need to ensure ship stability at sea was not achieved by simply replacing components. A lot of recalculation is required to maintain the original stability and other characteristics.

 

[Timerover51]

Morning timerover51,
Thank you for the recommendation and since I am going to be in town, with a library, I'll see what I can make the request.

Regardless of how much modernization was done the need to ensure ship stability at sea was not achieved by simply replacing components. A lot of recalculation is required to maintain the original stability and other characteristics.

I fully understand the need for re-calculation for stability and other load characteristics. However, trying to put that into a design sequence for the average gamer is probably going too far. Stability is a very difficult issue to grasp, as it can mean different things to different people, depending on the type of ship.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy again timerover51,

I fully understand the need for re-calculation for stability and other load characteristics. However, trying to put that into a design sequence for the average gamer is probably going too far. Stability is a very difficult issue to grasp, as it can mean different things to different people, depending on the type of ship.

Upgrading a starship's M-drive, J-drive, or Power plant requires recalculation which in my opinion is basically the same action when modernizing a vessel that travels on, in, or, under a liquid medium like water.

 

[sfchbryan]

Upgrading an early ship's boilers and power plant could result in either doubling or tripling the range of the vessel, freeing up more weight for weapons or armor (taking stability into consideration), or improving the protection of the vessel by reducing the loaded draft and/or allowing additional coal to be carried but not used. Two feet of coal equated to 1 inch of steel plate in resisting projectiles, so a full 5 foot deep coal bunker would add 2.5 inches of protection to the armor of the ship, as well as improving its resistance to torpedoes.

A cubic foot of coal weighs 85 pounds, and allowing for 85% bunker loading and space for coal passages from bunker to boiler rooms, one Traveller Displacement ton of approximately 476 cubic feet will hold 12.5 tons of coal.

Errhh, could you give me some examples of upgrading ship's boilers & power plant "doubling or tripling the range of the vessel?" I haven't been able to find a single RL example.

For that matter, I haven't been able to find a single example of a Navy keeping a hull but replacing moving from reciprocating engines to turbines - going from coal fired to oil fired, yes, but that is about it. Those ships would be scrapped, just like they were in RL, Washington Naval Treaty or not.

A lot of ship's got overhauled in the interwar period - at the end of the day, there was no increase in capabilities. Increases in power plant capabilities were offset by increases in ship weight - which also affected the hull dynamics.

If you want to use a comparison on interwar upgrades, I wouldn't use the QEs as an example. A better bet would be the Kongos. And even with everything the Japanese did with them, there was no increase in ship capabilities.

 

[Timerover51]

Errhh, could you give me some examples of upgrading ship's boilers & power plant "doubling or tripling the range of the vessel?" I haven't been able to find a single RL example.

For that matter, I haven't been able to find a single example of a Navy keeping a hull but replacing moving from reciprocating engines to turbines - going from coal fired to oil fired, yes, but that is about it. Those ships would be scrapped, just like they were in RL, Washington Naval Treaty or not.

A lot of ship's got overhauled in the interwar period - at the end of the day, there was no increase in capabilities. Increases in power plant capabilities were offset by increases in ship weight - which also affected the hull dynamics.

If you want to use a comparison on interwar upgrades, I wouldn't use the QEs as an example. A better bet would be the Kongos. And even with everything the Japanese did with them, there was no increase in ship capabilities.

If you are still interested in the difference between various propulsion systems and its effects on ship design, I would highly recommend that you download the following from archives.org.

https://archive.org/details/warships00attwrich

It says that it is the 1910 edition but it actually is the 1917 edition. It is a textbook on the design of warships.