Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
June 2, 2012
Image Size
179 KB
Resolution
990×463
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
665 (2 today)
Favourites
9 (who?)
Comments
4

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
×
Improved Gangut Class Battleship by Tzoli Improved Gangut Class Battleship by Tzoli
I've improved the original Gangut Class battleship to have much better gun layout and similar look to the Viribus Unitis Class.
Isn't it look better this way?
Also a result of this arrangement there are much more deck space which could be allocated for extra guns, so I given her 10 Twin 100mm B-32 Dual Purpose AA Guns
The engine space is better as well giving her more speed.

Based on this Drawing:
[link]

The simulation:

Gangut, Soviet Battleship laid down 1909 (Engine 1910)

Displacement:
22311 t light; 23769 t standard; 24333 t normal; 24783 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(606,74 ft / 599,57 ft) x 88,25 ft x (27,56 / 27,97 ft)
(184,93 m / 182,75 m) x 26,90 m x (8,40 / 8,53 m)

Armament:
12 - 12,01" / 305 mm 52,0 cal guns - 1038,38lbs / 471,00kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1909 Model
4 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 raised mounts
16 - 4,72" / 120 mm 50,0 cal guns - 63,93lbs / 29,00kg shells, 200 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1902 Model
16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
20 - 3,94" / 100,0 mm 56,0 cal guns - 34,39lbs / 15,60kg shells, 350 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1937 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, forward deck aft
4 x Twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
12 - 1,46" / 37,0 mm 67,0 cal guns - 1,61lbs / 0,73kg shells, 3000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
6 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
6 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
6 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 14191 lbs / 6437 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8,27" / 210 mm 382,22 ft / 116,50 m 16,73 ft / 5,10 m
Ends: 4,92" / 125 mm 208,99 ft / 63,70 m 11,29 ft / 3,44 m
8,37 ft / 2,55 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 4,92" / 125 mm 382,22 ft / 116,50 m 7,55 ft / 2,30 m
Main Belt covers 98 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
4,92" / 125 mm 389,73 ft / 118,79 m 26,12 ft / 7,96 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 82,02 ft / 25,00 m

- Hull void:
0,00" / 0 mm 0,00 ft / 0,00 m 0,00 ft / 0,00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7,99" / 203 mm 7,99" / 203 mm 5,91" / 150 mm
2nd: 4,92" / 125 mm - 4,92" / 125 mm
3rd: 0,98" / 25 mm 0,98" / 25 mm 0,98" / 25 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2,95" / 75 mm
Forecastle: 2,95" / 75 mm Quarter deck: 2,95" / 75 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 9,84" / 250 mm, Aft 4,72" / 120 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 42777 shp / 31912 Kw = 23,00 kts
Range 1500nm at 14,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1014 tons

Complement:
973 - 1266

Cost:
2,354 million / $9,416 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3175 tons, 13,1 %
- Guns: 3175 tons, 13,1 %
Armour: 9180 tons, 37,7 %
- Belts: 3343 tons, 13,7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1853 tons, 7,6 %
- Armament: 1621 tons, 6,7 %
- Armour Deck: 2100 tons, 8,6 %
- Conning Towers: 264 tons, 1,1 %
Machinery: 1768 tons, 7,3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8037 tons, 33,0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2022 tons, 8,3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0,6 %
- Hull below water: 50 tons
- Hull void weights: 25 tons
- Hull above water: 40 tons
- On freeboard deck: 20 tons
- Above deck: 15 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
31241 lbs / 14171 Kg = 36,1 x 12,0 " / 305 mm shells or 5,8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,20
Metacentric height 5,8 ft / 1,8 m
Roll period: 15,3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 49 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,70
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,22

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a normal bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,584 / 0,586
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,79 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24,49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 40
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20,00 degrees
Stern overhang: -4,92 ft / -1,50 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00 %, 19,69 ft / 6,00 m, 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Forward deck: 30,00 %, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Aft deck: 35,00 %, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Quarter deck: 15,00 %, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m, 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Average freeboard: 17,06 ft / 5,20 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 79,7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 122,4 %
Waterplane Area: 38126 Square feet or 3542 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 95 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 184 lbs/sq ft or 896 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,96
- Longitudinal: 1,44
- Overall: 1,00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsindarfrom:
Give us link to the original ship design, so we can compare =) (we - I mean your watchers)
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Jun 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Okay added the link to the original
Reply
:iconsindarfrom:
Thanks =) That is just what I thought - in the original design all rotating guns are placed farther from each other. It was probably because they didn't want to risk loosing two guns at for one hit (that is a speculation =) ).
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Jun 2, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Maybe, but I heard and read that this class was a rather unsatisfactory design.

You should go through and see my other designs as well I like to see others opinions on them
Reply
Add a Comment: