Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Psycodiver

Question about Lexington engines and US standard's Turbo electric drive

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,747 posts
3,622 battles

So I remember a couple years back it was discussed that it was possible for the Lexington's Turbo Electric Drives (I'll shorten to TED) to be fitted into the Standards that used TED. The Standards use 2 TEDs while the Lexington used 4. It looks like the Drives the Standards used made roughly made 13,400HP Drives for a total of 26,800HP while the Lexington's used 45000HP drives that equaled about 180,000HP across the 4 drives. So for game sake why couldn't the New Mexico and Colorado get a mythical engine upgrade (not the stupidly applied 18knots to 21knots since the standards went 21knots originally) where they would get a pair of these Drives that would equate to around 90,000HP, this should push them I would guess to around 24-25knots?

 

Sure they would still be slow, but it would also shut up the talentless players who complain about their speed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,241
[TARK]
Members
4,421 posts
1,720 battles

But 21 knots is perfectly serviceable for the standards.

They dont suffer any from being slower...indeed, the only one that is significantly slower than other BBs is Colorado...and high tier meta is so static I'm almost never at full speed in her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,306
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,334 battles

@Psycodiver I would think the CV has the space for 4 power plants and the considerably smaller BBs don't. Besides that the picture of the ships power plants is just there with numbers the speed data is just a value from 0 to X max that you adjust with the throttle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,507
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,650 posts
13,013 battles
38 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

@Psycodiver I would think the CV has the space for 4 power plants and the considerably smaller BBs don't. Besides that the picture of the ships power plants is just there with numbers the speed data is just a value from 0 to X max that you adjust with the throttle.

The standard BB's could have fit the generators needed with ease but the extra speed was not needed. Where I find this technology impressive is in its application to subs and to smaller ships like the USCG's 180 class like the Sundew, all but one, chuff chuff, built in Duluth Minnesota and the one off USCGC Mackinaw ice breaker giving huge thrust with relatively small engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,623 posts
10,887 battles
2 hours ago, Psycodiver said:

talentless players who complain about their speed

A bit unfair, as there is something to be said of a 21 knot BB having to try and traverse maps meant for tier 8 and 9 ships that are typically 7-10 knots faster with better firing range and weapons. Let alone trying to adapt to a changing battle on the large maps because you go one way, but then having to try and change and how long it takes. Especially because USN guns below tier 8 with that slow speed are a bit short changed when it comes to range. Nagato is 4 knots faster, has no range upgrade yet has 2 km more range than CO - unless CO gets APR1, and all the other BB's at that tier have similar range, maybe a bit less but are faster than even Nagato and can better afford to be. Skill can make up for the shortcomings of the CO in some of these battles, but at others they are liability's that are a problem.

 

That said, even assuming you could drag and drop the Lex TED's in to the BB's, and they work, trying to get Wargaming to change something in general, let alone that they think is fine is like pulling teeth in the dark with a piece of dental floss from a T-Rex. It took years of fighting just to get what few tweaks Colorado has been given. Cripes CV's we had to fight them for a year on historically accurate aircraft and that was just a model switch we wanted... and a fight we have to have yet again thanks to the rework. You have to also couple that with the purists. Much as I'll fight them tooth and nail over Kaga, there are some ships where bending the planes and certain things are a bit required. Some won't even yield on the tech tree ships at all if they existed, some even if the blueprints specified something and while Wargaming has been content to ignore the CV community for the most part - they won't ignore the BB one if they start lashing out about the fact of "But it could only do 21 knots" and demands ftom players of other ships to have more speed, or gun range, or whatever they think they should have even though last check CO is literally one of the worst BB's in the game. Probably don't want the headache that comes with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,624
[RKLES]
Members
11,052 posts
12,551 battles

I would like to point out something that this topic may need to be taken into account. The Lexington class CV hulls were originally being laid down and built as Battle Cruisers before plans changed and their being built as CVs instead. That would play a factor in their top speed, and why Lexington has that surprising Belt Armor on her side retained from the BC designs.

I know this may sound a little crazy, but when ever possible Wargaming likes to have historical data put into their game vehicles. And while that plays more of a factor with tanks, it still can be found in interesting ways with Warships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,212
[WOLF3]
Members
23,000 posts
20,882 battles
On 8/18/2019 at 8:05 PM, Psycodiver said:

Sure they would still be slow, but it would also shut up the talentless players who complain about their speed

I had always enjoyed running down 21kt BBs with faster Battleships.  It's hilarious a.f. running down a 21kt Standard BB with Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, much less with a Tier VIII BB.

They can't push to impose their will.

They can't run to save their rears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,747 posts
3,622 battles
10 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I had always enjoyed running down 21kt BBs with faster Battleships.  It's hilarious a.f. running down a 21kt Standard BB with Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, much less with a Tier VIII BB.

They can't push to impose their will.

They can't run to save their rears.

Agreed, you have to rely on skill and the fact the Shiney Horse sisters always go for the torpedo, I can usually dodge most if not all send delivery a great close range broadside. I'm guilty of doing it in my Scharnhorst and its such a good counter I'm surprised more players don't do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,736
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,363 posts
672 battles
On 8/26/2019 at 12:04 AM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I had always enjoyed running down 21kt BBs with faster Battleships.  It's hilarious a.f. running down a 21kt Standard BB with Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, much less with a Tier VIII BB.

They can't push to impose their will.

They can't run to save their rears.

 

At least in Colorado's case she can shove 16" shells through your face because she can overmatch your bow.

 

The poor 14"-armed ships just don't have that option. I think that will be the one and only real downside of the California at tier 7. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
80 posts
5,587 battles
On 8/18/2019 at 11:05 PM, Psycodiver said:

So I remember a couple years back it was discussed that it was possible for the Lexington's Turbo Electric Drives (I'll shorten to TED) to be fitted into the Standards that used TED. The Standards use 2 TEDs while the Lexington used 4. It looks like the Drives the Standards used made roughly made 13,400HP Drives for a total of 26,800HP while the Lexington's used 45000HP drives that equaled about 180,000HP across the 4 drives. So for game sake why couldn't the New Mexico and Colorado get a mythical engine upgrade (not the stupidly applied 18knots to 21knots since the standards went 21knots originally) where they would get a pair of these Drives that would equate to around 90,000HP, this should push them I would guess to around 24-25knots?

 

Sure they would still be slow, but it would also shut up the talentless players who complain about their speed

The answers you are looking for are to be found not in the Lexington class power plants but in the aborted 1920 South Dakota power plants. During the late war years when the US 1916 Naval plan was being executed, the USN was held to a unified fleet speed because it was feared to go to the higher speeds would obsolete the fleet. Failed logic to be sure, because even if the USN did not transition everyone else was going too. The US Standard class battleship all had a similarly sized footprint for the turbo generator rooms. When the New Mexico class was refit, the power plants from the South Dakota class were used as well as some of the armor. While these ships lost their turbo electric systems for commonality, they did use the boilers system that were rated for 40,000 SHP. These same boilers were rated for 60,000 SHP in the South Dakota but were de-rated to 40,000. This was an option considered when the South Dakota class was in design, so it was an easy switch. The new 40,000 SHP plants were good for 22 to 22.5 knots, but official runs were mostly around 21.8 to 22 knots. Had the 60,000 SHP plants been used the ships would have gained 3 knots circa. The South Dakota were rated at 21 knots under then 40,000 SHP plant and 23 knots under the 60,000 SHP plant. The New Mexico being roughly 10,000 tons smaller should easily tack on extra knot. That would bring the ships in between 25 and 26 knots.

Even with this much extra SHP the ships would still have their ability to carry the additional armor so the other aspects of their rebuild would be unaffected.

If this were to be conducted on the Big 5, there is every reason to believe that those ships would have retained the turbo generators since the only reason New Mexico did not was to 300,000 dollars on buying three sets of geared turbines when Idaho, New Mexico and Mississippi were refit.

The time that this could be undertaken is also a factor. Shortly after 1932, the US began compacting its power plants and was putting 120,000 SHP plants in the same space that held plants half that power or less. Theoretically, you could stuff one of those into a Colorado since you could stick such plants in a 10,000 ton cruiser, but such a ship would be a wet ship since her bow is not suited for such speeds in anything but the calmest of seas. 

But, to finalize what I was saying, there is no reason to hold back any of the slow battleships, as they have the engineering space and propulsion technology to move any of their ships at fast speed, even just after WW I.

Edited by _Stormcloud_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
179
[BIER]
Members
341 posts
5,466 battles

Actually, one of the major problems with the Standards and increasing their speed is that their hull's hydrodynamics SUCKS.

You'll notice they're relatively short, and broad-beamed. They have a very low beam:length ratio.  This makes them VERY poor hydrodynamically.  It's pretty certain that 23 knots is their maximum speed, no matter what power plant was put in. Hydrodynamic drag would sap any extra power applied. 

 

The 1920 South Dakotas got their extra speed not just with a potentially more powerful engine, but with a significantly better beam:length ratio and a much better hydrodynamic drag coefficient.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
416
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,320 posts
4,252 battles

LAnybody has very coarsely identified the problem:  The hull design of the two ships.

The most broadly used measure of hull efficiency is length to beam ratio.  The best for high speed is about 10 to 1.  Using this measure as a starting point, you get:

Lexington:  Length 888 feet, beam 107 feet (yes, I should make sure these are waterline, but it's just a rough estimate for now).  This equals a length to beam ratio of between 8 - 1 and 9 -1.  A hull designed for speed.

The "standard" battleships:  Length 624 feet, beam 98 feet (before rebuilds like the W. Virginia).  This equals a ratio of about 6 - 1.

There's a lot more to it than that, but it illustrates the problem here:  US slow battleships were designed to go slow.  You really can't fix that.

That much lower ratio means there will be more resistance to speed increases meaning that for even a 1 knot increase you will need more HP than if you increased the speed of the Lexington 1 knot.  Worse, speed is a cube function for ships.  That is HP necessary to increase speed goes up on a cube function for each additional knot.

So, to make the battleships faster you'd need a massive amount more HP or you would have to redesign the hull of the ships to get a lower hydrodynamic drag as it moved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
80 posts
5,587 battles
10 hours ago, Murotsu said:

LAnybody has very coarsely identified the problem:  The hull design of the two ships.

The most broadly used measure of hull efficiency is length to beam ratio.  The best for high speed is about 10 to 1.  Using this measure as a starting point, you get:

Lexington:  Length 888 feet, beam 107 feet (yes, I should make sure these are waterline, but it's just a rough estimate for now).  This equals a length to beam ratio of between 8 - 1 and 9 -1.  A hull designed for speed.

The "standard" battleships:  Length 624 feet, beam 98 feet (before rebuilds like the W. Virginia).  This equals a ratio of about 6 - 1.

There's a lot more to it than that, but it illustrates the problem here:  US slow battleships were designed to go slow.  You really can't fix that.

That much lower ratio means there will be more resistance to speed increases meaning that for even a 1 knot increase you will need more HP than if you increased the speed of the Lexington 1 knot.  Worse, speed is a cube function for ships.  That is HP necessary to increase speed goes up on a cube function for each additional knot.

So, to make the battleships faster you'd need a massive amount more HP or you would have to redesign the hull of the ships to get a lower hydrodynamic drag as it moved.

This is incorrect and something of a myth. The New Mexico, California, Colorado, South Dakota and Lexington class all had the same hull form. They did have different lengths but it was the same hull form. All of these hulls can handle as much speed as you can pump into them, which in the case of the smaller ones is limited. Length to beam ratio does require more power when it is lower but it does not stop speed increases. The 600 foot hull has a 23.4 knot natural hull speed. What this means is that for very little additional SHP the ship can move up to that 23.4 knot speed. Everything after that mark will cost exponentially more power.  Lengthening the ship will reduce this demand and raise the natural speed. But these ships would not be lengthened. In fact they would be broadened in beam, but this does not affect speed more than .1 or .2 knots; it does affect heel and thus turning.

An interesting bit of data is out there in Freedman's where there is a study done on how much speed could be gotten from an oil conversion, new boilers and engines in the old Armored Cruisers. They were just over 500 feet long and the final estimate was 27 knots. They had a much worse hull form than any of the standards and it was possible to stuff a 58,000 SHP power plant in their very limited hull.

So, the Standards could very well have been faster in their current hull form. The only real issue would be that without a modification to the bow, they would have been wet at speed. The bow could have been rebuilt to flare and perhaps given some rise, this would also drop speed .1 to .3 knots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,736
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,363 posts
672 battles

I always wondered about that. The thing with American designs, be it in tanks, ships, etc, is they were rated for a speed, say 21 knots, and if they met that speed they were a 21 knot ship. How much faster could they actually go? We don't know because all we know is they met their design goal of 21 knots. We see this in Iowa a lot. Iowa was built for 33 knots. There are reports that she went faster than this on numerous occasions but all we know is that she went 33 knots. Same with the North Carolinas and South Dakotas. Especially North Carolina after her boilers were uprated to Iowa-spec after she was repaired of her torpedo damage. They still do it today. You'll see a ship's speed listed as 33+ knots. Some of this is due to their top speed being classified, of course. Part of it is due to the design goal being met so the actual top speed is irrelevant as far as US classification goes. 

 

We see this in US tanks too. They were designed for a certain speed and if they met that speed they were a 48kph tank. How fast could it REALLY go? Who cares? It met it's design speed of 48kph. 

 

Meanwhile, other nations rated their ships' speed by how fast it could go in trials because they weren't going for a uniform battle line.

 

So were the standards actually capable of speeds higher than 21 knots? As was said above their hull form was capable of it and their engines were almost certainly capable of more power than what they were rated for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×