Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Hunter_Steel

This has Always Grinded My Gears

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

813
[_ARP_]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,737 posts
3,186 battles

So there's multiple ship configs out there, and there's been hundreds of proposals for Japanese Capitol Ships. The one configuration is the 2x2 and 2x3 gun configuration where the 3-gun turrets are super-firing over the 2-gun turrets. 

Some of note would be Hiraga's Kongou replacement and one of the Earlier Yamato Prelims. In my mind, I cannot agree with this design feature at all, and think more towards practical designs such as Giulio Cesare with the heavier turrets on the deck and lighter ones being the Superfiring ones. 

Was there any advantage at all to using a turret configuration like that? Why put the heaviest one on a high point? It's one thing I cannot understand. 

Imagine if King George V had it's Quad turret super-firing over the dual turret? 

kongo_replacement_battleships_by_leovict

 

~Hunter

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[VX9]
Beta Testers
323 posts
3,688 battles

I would love to hear from someone with a more historical perspective of it. I can't think of any reasoning for it aside from the note that you do see this turret configuration on some cruisers (Pensacola comes to mind), so maybe there was some merit. Then again, since you never saw a BB with it, there had to be a reason it didn't make its way to them. I would suspect that it had to do with what would end up being a much wider turret barbette, giving the enemy a much bigger target to hit. 

 

 This is something I'm curious about from a design standpoint, so I'm gonna follow this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,009
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,538 battles
20 minutes ago, Hunter_Steel said:

So there's multiple ship configs out there, and there's been hundreds of proposals for Japanese Capitol Ships. The one configuration is the 2x2 and 2x3 gun configuration where the 3-gun turrets are super-firing over the 2-gun turrets. 

Some of note would be Hiraga's Kongou replacement and one of the Earlier Yamato Prelims. In my mind, I cannot agree with this design feature at all, and think more towards practical designs such as Giulio Cesare with the heavier turrets on the deck and lighter ones being the Superfiring ones. 

Was there any advantage at all to using a turret configuration like that? Why put the heaviest one on a high point? It's one thing I cannot understand. 

Imagine if King George V had it's Quad turret super-firing over the dual turret? 

~Hunter

 

The twin turrets have smaller turret rings.  That allows for finer hull lines, and thus more speed, at a trade of higher center of gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,009
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,538 battles
9 minutes ago, LightningWaffle said:

I would love to hear from someone with a more historical perspective of it. I can't think of any reasoning for it aside from the note that you do see this turret configuration on some cruisers (Pensacola comes to mind), so maybe there was some merit. Then again, since you never saw a BB with it, there had to be a reason it didn't make its way to them. I would suspect that it had to do with what would end up being a much wider turret barbette, giving the enemy a much bigger target to hit. 

 

 This is something I'm curious about from a design standpoint, so I'm gonna follow this discussion.

The Lexington class BCs were the same.  When originally designed for 10 X 14-inch, they had triples over twins so they could keep the hull narrower.  Putting the triples down low can force you to to increase your beam to accommodate the barbette sooner then you want to.

BBs for the most part, were not about speed.

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
813
[_ARP_]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,737 posts
3,186 battles
2 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

The Lexington class BCs were the same.  When originally designed for 10 X 14-inch, they had triples over twins so they could keep the hull narrower.  Putting the triples down low can force you to to increase your beam to accommodate the barbette sooner then you want to.

BBs for the most part, were not about speed.

I would've just gone for a longer hull than having what would later be an unstable design in rough seas. 

~Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,009
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,538 battles
2 minutes ago, Hunter_Steel said:

I would've just gone for a longer hull than having what would later be an unstable design in rough seas. 

~Hunter

If your drydocks are not long enough to accomodate the longer hull, it's not an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,009
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,538 battles

Something else to think about is that a longer hull also costs you displacement.  if you have enough weight down low, the elevated turrets aren't a problem.  The problem with the Pensacolas specifically is that the machinery weighed less than expected, and that threw the entire design out of balance.  The same happened to the Northamptons and Portlands; the machinery was too light for the design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
7 minutes ago, Hunter_Steel said:

I would've just gone for a longer hull than having what would later be an unstable design in rough seas. 

~Hunter

 

Thing is that actually increases the amount of armour as the forward bulkhead needs to be wider. So you've got a longer ship, with more structural weight and more armour weight @_RC1138 could comment bette on how that would affect in water performance and engine requirements and stability and all the rest, but i doubt it's a minor change and i suspect there are tradeoffs involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
813
[_ARP_]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,737 posts
3,186 battles
7 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

If your drydocks are not long enough to accomodate the longer hull, it's not an option.

True, although I doubt Japan had that issue, they were intending to construct to the 251m Amagis. 

At most these designs were somewhat the same length or slightly longer than the Kongous. 

4 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Something else to think about is that a longer hull also costs you displacement.  if you have enough weight down low, the elevated turrets aren't a problem.  The problem with the Pensacolas specifically is that the machinery weighed less than expected, and that threw the entire design out of balance.  The same happened to the Northamptons and Portlands; the machinery was too light for the design.

There is that issue, although it could have been avoided with a better hull design entirely. The Pensacola's also fell to a terrible Hull Design that made them fragile little things (I'm talking about IRL.) Japan's Furutaka class were sturdier than the Pensa's. 

~Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,203 posts
6,433 battles

As others have mentioned it already, on the Pensacola class it was also done like that.

If you have Tonnage restrictions, you Need to Keep the hull as small as possible. Even a few centimeters more width will Show themselves quite significantly on a 150-250m Long vessel.

It's a trade-off you make. Less Tonnage with the same firepower, but in Exchange you pay for it with stability. And Tonnage was usually used in Treaties to ruin everyone's fun in the arms races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
9 minutes ago, Hunter_Steel said:

True, although I doubt Japan had that issue, they were intending to construct to the 251m Amagis. 

At most these designs were somewhat the same length or slightly longer than the Kongous. 

There is that issue, although it could have been avoided with a better hull design entirely. The Pensacola's also fell to a terrible Hull Design that made them fragile little things (I'm talking about IRL.) Japan's Furutaka class were sturdier than the Pensa's. 

~Hunter

 

The Pepsi's also had to carry 400 tons more top weight because of the greater number of guns. That significantly alters the rest of the design and incorporates further tonnage penalties. It's quite possibble that that actual difference was double or more ithat n favour of the Furutaka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
813
[_ARP_]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,737 posts
3,186 battles
4 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

As others have mentioned it already, on the Pensacola class it was also done like that.

If you have Tonnage restrictions, you Need to Keep the hull as small as possible. Even a few centimeters more width will Show themselves quite significantly on a 150-250m Long vessel.

It's a trade-off you make. Less Tonnage with the same firepower, but in Exchange you pay for it with stability. And Tonnage was usually used in Treaties to ruin everyone's fun in the arms races.

To be honest, the world navies should have put down gun-restrictions and not tonnage restrictions. But, that's hindsight and the angry Otaku in me that wanted the Amagi class to be completed instead of turned into CVs, at least Amagi and Akagi should've been completed >.> If it was me I would've scraped the Fusous and Mutsu, and finished the two Amagis in construction. But that's just me and my love for the Amagi speaking. 

3 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

The Pepsi's also had to carry 400 tons more top weight because of the greater number of guns. That significantly alters the rest of the design and incorporates further tonnage penalties. It's quite possibble that that actual difference was double or more ithat n favour of the Furutaka.

It's also a fact of the USN screwing themselves on their first Heavy Cruiser, and instead of making a sensible design that was both fast, sturdy and stable, they opted to slap as many guns onto her as possible and forgoing stability and overall survivability. As an 8-gun or 6-gun ship she easily could have been one of the best for her time. I'd also like to note that the Aoba class was also wider than the Pensacola class, while still retaining lots of speed and having torpedoes and 6 guns. She could've been an 8-gun cruiser at the sacrifice of the Torpedoes though. 

~Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,203 posts
6,433 battles
1 minute ago, Hunter_Steel said:

To be honest, the world navies should have put down gun-restrictions and not tonnage restrictions. But, that's hindsight and the angry Otaku in me that wanted the Amagi class to be completed instead of turned into CVs, at least Amagi and Akagi should've been completed >.> If it was me I would've scraped the Fusous and Mutsu, and finished the two Amagis in construction. But that's just me and my love for the Amagi speaking. 

There were gun restrictions in some treaties.

We have the restriction that no non-Battleship is allowed to have guns larger than 203mm. Then the entire Big-Seven Story. And then we had the classification of Light and Heavy Cruisers. But well, latter got thrown out of the window by the IJN with the Mogami class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
24 minutes ago, Hunter_Steel said:

To be honest, the world navies should have put down gun-restrictions and not tonnage restrictions. But, that's hindsight and the angry Otaku in me that wanted the Amagi class to be completed instead of turned into CVs, at least Amagi and Akagi should've been completed >.> If it was me I would've scraped the Fusous and Mutsu, and finished the two Amagis in construction. But that's just me and my love for the Amagi speaking. 

It's also a fact of the USN screwing themselves on their first Heavy Cruiser, and instead of making a sensible design that was both fast, sturdy and stable, they opted to slap as many guns onto her as possible and forgoing stability and overall survivability. As an 8-gun or 6-gun ship she easily could have been one of the best for her time. I'd also like to note that the Aoba class was also wider than the Pensacola class, while still retaining lots of speed and having torpedoes and 6 guns. She could've been an 8-gun cruiser at the sacrifice of the Torpedoes though. 

~Hunter

 

Torpedoes weigh next to nothing compared to guns. The pepsi twins are 180 odd tons, all of furutaka torps put together weigh just 22.5tons and are mounte lower down to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,026
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,136 posts
8,762 battles
1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

The twin turrets have smaller turret rings.  That allows for finer hull lines, and thus more speed, at a trade of higher center of gravity.

This and I wonder if this layout would also provide more protection of the triple turret both topside with the double and by being deeper within the citadel, better to keep the triple firing than the double?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,416
[5BS]
Members
4,465 posts
1 hour ago, Carl said:

 

Thing is that actually increases the amount of armour as the forward bulkhead needs to be wider. So you've got a longer ship, with more structural weight and more armour weight @_RC1138 could comment bette on how that would affect in water performance and engine requirements and stability and all the rest, but i doubt it's a minor change and i suspect there are tradeoffs involved.

 

1 hour ago, Hunter_Steel said:

So there's multiple ship configs out there, and there's been hundreds of proposals for Japanese Capitol Ships. The one configuration is the 2x2 and 2x3 gun configuration where the 3-gun turrets are super-firing over the 2-gun turrets. 

Some of note would be Hiraga's Kongou replacement and one of the Earlier Yamato Prelims. In my mind, I cannot agree with this design feature at all, and think more towards practical designs such as Giulio Cesare with the heavier turrets on the deck and lighter ones being the Superfiring ones. 

Was there any advantage at all to using a turret configuration like that? Why put the heaviest one on a high point? It's one thing I cannot understand. 

Imagine if King George V had it's Quad turret super-firing over the dual turret? 

kongo_replacement_battleships_by_leovict

 

~Hunter

 

Generally, very generally, speaking you dont want to put high amounts of mass high up in the ship (btw, high up in the ship is basically defined as +1 meter over the Water Line). The reason is it raises your metacentric height, which in turn decreases your period of roll and makes a ship vibrate and act very 'stiff.' It is 'sorta' more stable at a high Metacentric height, BUT the downside means they are FAR more likely to KEEP going if they tip (Vasa is a textbook example of this).

You know how the IJN had a huge issue with ships rolling over in storms? Because they were so overweight? That was tied to them increasingly raising metacentric height by adding all sorts of [edited] high in the ship. So if a ship heels in a hard turn or a wave catches it bad and starts it to rotate, once it gets past say, 20 degrees off the vertical, it flips. A lower metacentric height will have a less 'stable' in the sense that the rolling period is longer *BUT* a lower metacentric can recover from a high heel or a rough sea much more readily. Low enough metacentric and it becomes nearly impossible to flip it over (think self-righting barges).

But believe it or not, it isn't stability that typically precluded placing a 3 gun turret over a 2 gun turret, as warships will often sacrifice a degree of comfort for a more stable gun platform, but rather huge increases in displacement. A 3 gun turret requires a bigger barbette, which are heavily armored. A wider barbette has a larger circumference, thus a larger surface area, thus a larger volume, thus MORE armor than say, a 2 gun barbette of the same height. And displacement is key, less so for speed as many think, more so for money (steel is expense, and armor exponentially so) and portage. You increase displacement, more often than not, draft increases (some mass additions like air-filled bulges or compartments can actually increase buoyancy and thus decrease displacement and thus draft (that's how some ships get heavier but somehow ride higher in the ocean after a refit)) and draft is everything in ship building, as if you can't dock the thing, it's worthless. And most nations only have a select few deep-water portages, some almost none, so if you allow your draft to get too crazy, you may find yourself unable to dock your big beautiful warship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
813
[_ARP_]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,737 posts
3,186 battles
3 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

 

Generally, very generally, speaking you dont want to put high amounts of mass high up in the ship (btw, high up in the ship is basically defined as +1 meter over the Water Line). The reason is it raises your metacentric height, which in turn decreases your period of roll and makes a ship vibrate and act very 'stiff.' It is 'sorta' more stable at a high Metacentric height, BUT the downside means they are FAR more likely to KEEP going if they tip (Vasa is a textbook example of this).

You know how the IJN had a huge issue with ships rolling over in storms? Because they were so overweight? That was tied to them increasingly raising metacentric height by adding all sorts of [edited] high in the ship. So if a ship heels in a hard turn or a wave catches it bad and starts it to rotate, once it gets past say, 20 degrees off the vertical, it flips. A lower metacentric height will have a less 'stable' in the sense that the rolling period is longer *BUT* a lower metacentric can recover from a high heel or a rough sea much more readily. Low enough metacentric and it becomes nearly impossible to flip it over (think self-righting barges).

But believe it or not, it isn't stability that typically precluded placing a 3 gun turret over a 2 gun turret, as warships will often sacrifice a degree of comfort for a more stable gun platform, but rather huge increases in displacement. A 3 gun turret requires a bigger barbette, which are heavily armored. A wider barbette has a larger circumference, thus a larger surface area, thus a larger volume, thus MORE armor than say, a 2 gun barbette of the same height. And displacement is key, less so for speed as many think, more so for money (steel is expense, and armor exponentially so) and portage. You increase displacement, more often than not, draft increases (some mass additions like air-filled bulges or compartments can actually increase buoyancy and thus decrease displacement and thus draft (that's how some ships get heavier but somehow ride higher in the ocean after a refit)) and draft is everything in ship building, as if you can't dock the thing, it's worthless. And most nations only have a select few deep-water portages, some almost none, so if you allow your draft to get too crazy, you may find yourself unable to dock your big beautiful warship.

Thank you very much for the Science behind it. The Science makes the design make more sense, although to me from a practicality point of view, wouldn't it have just been better to remove the 10 gun layout and just go with a more standard 8-gun layout? (Yamato stopped functioning at 25 degrees and finally capsized at 35 degrees.) (On the topic of the barges, there's also Tugboats which are, for almost all intents and purposes, unsinkable. Capsized or anything doesn't really matter.) 

So what you're telling me is this Kongou replacement, is more stable than Kongou herself, but will tip at a much shallower angle than Kongou? 

~Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
4 minutes ago, Hunter_Steel said:

So what you're telling me is this Kongou replacement, is more stable than Kongou herself, but will tip at a much shallower angle than Kongou? 

 

 

I assume that would depend on the rest of the design specification which RC1138 may not have access to, but potentially depending on those, yes if i understand him right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
813
[_ARP_]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,737 posts
3,186 battles
1 minute ago, Carl said:

 

I assume that would depend on the rest of the design specification which RC1138 may not have access to, but potentially depending on those, yes if i understand him right.

In this case, the Hiraga replacement is about as tall as Fusou. However, they might not roll as much in this case, they will capsize at a shallower angle. Say if Kongou's capsize angle was 35 degrees, Fusou's is probably 25 degrees. 

~Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,416
[5BS]
Members
4,465 posts
59 minutes ago, Hunter_Steel said:

wouldn't it have just been better to remove the 10 gun layout and just go with a more standard 8-gun layout?

Depends on a *lot* of things. The least of which is what is your concerns? You can go with 8 guns, but then your broadside goes down dramatically unless you raise caliber (which was the exact rational why the moved from 13.5" to 15" in the Queen Elizabeths). Conversely does the weight savings higher in the ship make that big of a difference? Probably, but you need to work that out (ahh the rare times we get to do hardcore math). And then you have the conversation, in warships, of well, we drop to 8 guns and save all the topmounted mass, but we designed propulsion around that displacement, do we wana reduce output/cost on propulsion, or add armor lower in the ship with this freed up mass? It's a thing, is the short version.

1 hour ago, Hunter_Steel said:

So what you're telling me is this Kongou replacement, is more stable than Kongou herself, but will tip at a much shallower angle than Kongou? 

I have no idea without builders plans. Because what kind of armor is high (conning towers ect) on one but not the other. Does one have a deeper citadel than the other, does one have torpedo buldges. So many things can contribute to metacentric height (which itself is just the difference between center of gravity (G) and metacenter (M), all in relation to the center of buoyancy (B). So you have a deeper set citadel/powerplant, but a very tall ship, the center of gravity  will be low, but the metacenter will be very high and thus have a very tall metacentric height, which means when the ship tips at all, the righting arm is going to be that much more extreme (larger arc=larger righting arm) and thus the ship is going to be 'stable' in that altered orientation, and then the next wave pushes it more, and it stays 'stable' in that position, until it finally tips over. Once you hit 12 degrees, you'll run into problems and need counter flooding, once you hit 15 you're list will be permanent (as the amount of flooding to correct it might cause you to sink) and over 15 degrees most ships will sink and invert as the point of vanishing stability will be reached and it flips. IDK the specific details for the Kongo class, pre- or post refit, and while simplified versions usually take a single point, an engineer designing a ship will typically do it every half frame over the entire length of a ship; different parts of a ship may have different metacentric heights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,476 posts
1,521 battles

I am not an engineer or shipbuilder but I would think the obvious reason would be that it moves the weight back toward the center of the ship and away from the bow and stern.   In fact, Generally speaking I would say that on any ship you would want most of your weight being centered as much as possible.  Sure the weight is moved up a little toward the top, however we aren't talking moving it upward by that much comparatively and that can be countered pretty easily by adding a few feet more beam to the ship to counter any tendency to roll due to more weight being added up high.  Also you could counter this by adding more weight or ballast beneath the waterline as well.  However if you have too much weight at or near the bow or stern you have major issues.  Too much weight forward and your bow plunges forward into the sea especially if your dealing with heavy seas.  To much weight to the stern and your bow won't cut the water correctly and you would end up with more drag on the hull.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,844
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,654 posts
7,555 battles

Warships have a limited amount of space for things, especially ships with fine lines and deep torpedo defense systems. The IJN went through a phase between wars of putting the maximum possible amount of firepower on ships and not really caring about the effect of the large amount of weight high on the ship. They were willing to sacrifice the stability of the ships to mount more firepower until they started losing ships because of that decision. 

This design follows similar lines trying to stuff as many guns into a ship as possible, it might not be possible to fit a triple turret in the A position because of the fine lines of the hull and perhaps the designers were unwilling to sacrifice torpedo defense depth or other factors that limited the potential width available for mounting the barbette. The North Carolina for example had a narrower Torpedo Defense System around the A turret because those designers were more willing to sacrifice the torpedo defense effectiveness than they were willing to sacrifice a gun. It could also be a weight constraint because the designers might have been willing to sacrifice two guns and the associated extra weights for a lower tonnage design or to use for other systems. 

An interesting thing to note is that for the gunnery more guns in turrets was considered less efficient for the gunnery. There are multiple factors behind this but basically a twin gun turret was considered  to be equal to 1.8 single gun turrets of the same gun, a triple turret was even less efficient. Navies also preferred to have the entire system be the same, having everything be the same simplified some of the gunnery work. Mixing different turrets was generally a sign that the warships were working on the edge of a hard constraint such as price or displacement as is the case of the Pensacola or KGV classes. 

Without Design notes it would be difficult to tell the motivations of the design choices that were made. Every navy picked some features over others, some examples include: the Soviets were interested in high shell velocity and high ship speeds, the USN focused on long range endurance and the IJN focused on firepower and speed. Each of those factors is based on the expected mission of the ships and their situation, the soviets had a large coast line and expected mostly defensive missions and spending a lot of time in port, the USN expected to be operating far from their bases in the Pacific because they were forbidden from improving ports to use as naval bases, the IJN had a ship number disadvantage so they tried to maximize the value of each hull in a fight. 

Its worth noting that the designers of that particular proposal likely went through many proposals before deciding on a particular layout and the proposed  the design that they thought would perform the best for their situation. If documentation from that design process was released or found its likely that they started with 4 dual turrets and then tried to increase the firepower in various ways. The North Carolina for example has a rather well documented design process that included 35 different design proposals. Engineering is a 0 sum game, everything has a cost in something else and how the design turns out depends on the factors considered and the relative value that the designers placed on each factor. Like I said that the IJN went through a period were the practically ignored potential stability issues with ships and had to substantial rebuilds to several classes because of that. Choices that they made might seem wrong and we might disagree decisions that were made but its what they did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×