TZoli's Warship Designs

Interesting. I've put quite a bit of thought into how a similar 18" gun armed Montana alternative or succeeding class would laid out. Don't really have the skill to do drawings however. Came up with about 5 potential layouts. As impressive as a mixed 5" and 6" secondary battery would have been both the USN and RN were pretty committed to the idea of a single caliber for the secondary battery at that point.
 
Last edited:
A few more:
A British Littorio:
On the hull of the Lion as laid down, with 3x3 15"/50 BL Mark II New Cannons, 4x3 6"/50 BL Mark XXIII Guns and 8x1 4"/45 QF Mark XVI AA Guns
British Littorio.png

And a British Richelieu:
Hull dimensions are the same as Lion preliminary Design 14B-38 eg the same one I've used for the British Bismarck with armament of 2x4 15" Mark II, 3X3 6" Mark XXIII, 4X2 5,25" Mark I
British Richelieu.png

A British Sovetsky Soyuz might follow.
 
Last edited:
And starting the American or USN line:
The American King George V:
American KGV.png

The hull is the Iowa preliminary Slow Battleship Design I (234,7 wl x 32,97 x 10,67m ) The superstructure of the Montana BB-65C design eg a modified enlarged South Dakota and the armament is:
1x2,2x4 14"/50 Mark B / Mark 13, 10x2 5"/38 Mark 12
 
Aelvir said:
Wasn't the P-class supposed to have the forward 283 mm turret superfiring over the forward 150 mm turret and the the aft 150 mm turret superfiring over the aft 283 mm turret?
Click to expand...
A very late response, but that's Panzerschiff P Entwurf AV, the most represented design in what would become a very long series by May 1939. However, the final design reverted the arrangement so that the 15cm would superfire the 28cm. The AV arrangement comes primarily due to the size of the machinery spaces as I recall, or that only the B turrets in Scharnhorst and Gneisenau could be used (for what reason I cannot recall at this time). Either way, it would not be the case in the final design that was drawn up before the project was placed on low priority (leading to the Handelzerstorer).
 
Now the American Yamato:
Montana preliminary BB-65-4 hull and superstructure with the armament of 3x3 18"/47 Mark A, 2x3 6"/47 Mark 16, 10x2 5"/38 Mark 12
American Yamato.png

I might change the superstructure to that of the final Montana with two funnels
 
Last edited:
Next is the American Bismarck!

Montana preliminary BB-65C hull and superstructure with the armament of 4x2 16"/45 Mark 5/8, 6x2 6"/47 Mark 16, 6x2 5"/38 Mark 12

dg4em4k-a3e77e1c-601e-411c-b0fd-a63762db686e.png
 
Last edited:
Tzoli said:
Now the American Yamato:
Montana preliminary BB-65-4 hull and superstructure with the armament of 3x3 18"/47 Mark A, 2x3 6"/47 Mark 16, 10x2 5"/38 Mark 12
View attachment 702432

I might change the superstructure to that of the final Montana with two funnels
Click to expand...
That is very impressive. But wouldn't an "American Yamato" use the 5"/54 Mark 16 as planned for the Montana-class?
 
Christopher Wang said:
That is very impressive. But wouldn't an "American Yamato" use the 5"/54 Mark 16 as planned for the Montana-class?
Click to expand...
No because that is a much later and more powerful gun. Note it is not a Montana just a preliminary hull used for my drawing.
 
Tzoli said:
Now an American Littorio. I had trouble choosing the heavy AA guns due to the small number and sub standard calibre the Italians used for the Littorio so for broadside weight 4 single older 5"/25 guns roughly equals to 6 single 90mm ones.
dg9lypq-8bdaa994-1a91-459e-b9a1-ec8a34b88a1f.png
Click to expand...
Could you make American Iowa versions of the British N3, G3 and I3, and such designs. And what a British Colorado would look like. Heck even a Japanese Iowa, Bismarck, Littorio, and Richelieu. Also an American Richelieu version would be awesome.
 
Tzoli said:
If you commission I can do those but my fun idea was only for new construction ships.

But I've finished the American Richelieu:
The comparable USN weapons of the French ship was the 16"/45 Mark 6, 6"/47 Mark 16 and 5"/38 Mark 12
dj44qp5-68286b55-fc6c-454b-b1e2-1eed2403998a.png
Click to expand...
Will you ever update your old drawings from around the early 2010s, would be cool to see them brought up to your current style of drawing.
 
I have a question.
I've been asked to design a modern Italian battleship (1980's tech)
stats:
34knots max speed, 18-20 knots cruising, 4.500nm range
around 30.000tons standard displacement,
225m (wl) x 26m x 9m dimensions
3-3-4 285mm turrets

My question is, Springsharp calculated around 180.000shp is required to propel this ship at the desired speed.
So what do you guys think would be the best engine layout and type for it?

I went with CODAG so 8x 10.000shp MTU Diesel engines and 8x 25.000shp General Electric LM2500-25 Gas turbines for a total of 260-280.000shp. (180-200.000 for the maximum/dash speed on Gas turbines and 80.000shp for cruising speed on Diesels)
eg two diesels and two gas turbines per shaft

Would this suffice? Did I over engine the ship?
 
Last edited:
Tzoli said:
If you commission I can do those but my fun idea was only for new construction ships.

But I've finished the American Richelieu:
The comparable USN weapons of the French ship was the 16"/45 Mark 6, 6"/47 Mark 16 and 5"/38 Mark 12
dj44qp5-68286b55-fc6c-454b-b1e2-1eed2403998a.png
Click to expand...
This layout kind of makes sense for a Montana alternative. Keep the main battery more compact. Instead of six inchers in the back using a pair of the automated 8" from the Des Moines-class in an inline stack formation, and retain 10-12 turrets of the proven 5" dual-purpose guns. Plenty of room for a second stack to add power. Would have made a conversion to a missile ship easier in the 1980's. While 16" guns were more than enough, seems quad 18's would have been fitting for the next generation.

The all-or-nothing weakness of no rear defense more or less eliminated by rapid fire of 8 inchers, meant battlecruisers wouldn't be able to flank them without taking a sure pounding.

​

 
Last edited:
Tzoli said:
I went with CODAG so 8x 10.000shp MTU Diesel engines and 8x 25.000shp General Electric LM2500-25 Gas turbines for a total of 260-280.000shp. (180-200.000 for the maximum/dash speed on Gas turbines and 80.000shp for cruising speed on Diesels)
eg two diesels and two gas turbines per shaft

Would this suffice? Did I over engine the ship?
Click to expand...
Very offhandedly, Cavour being of comparable size, and she has COGAG, with 4 gas turbines on 2 shafts for 29 kt (and 6 diesel generators for electricity). So you can make the same system with 8 turbines for 34, with 2-4 used for cruising. The increase in speed/power sounds about right.
 
Martes said:
Very offhandedly, Cavour being of comparable size, and she has COGAG, with 4 gas turbines on 2 shafts for 29 kt (and 6 diesel generators for electricity). So you can make the same system with 8 turbines for 34, with 2-4 used for cruising. The increase in speed/power sounds about right.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

That peculiar commission is this:

dkx9bd1-cd79383f-1018-47c6-87e2-d520effab062.png


Dimensions: 225 (wl) x 238,62 (oa)x 26 x 9 meters
Displacement: 30.000tons (standard), 33.000tons (full load)
Engines: Around 180-220.000shp CODOG
Speed: 64km/h (34knots)
Armaments:
1x4,2x3 285mm/55 Cannons
2x2 135mm/55 Guns
7x4 45mm/80 CIWS
10x1 25mm/85 Light MG
14x8 VLC Cells
4x12 RBU-6000 ASW launchers
2-4x Aérospatiale SA 365 Dauphin 2 helicopters
8x3 Chaff launchers
 
Tzoli said:
Armaments:
1x4,2x3 285mm/55 Cannons
2x2 135mm/55 Guns
7x4 45mm/80 CIWS
10x1 25mm/85 Light MG
14x8 VLC Cells
4x12 RBU-6000 ASW launchers
2-4x Aérospatiale SA 365 Dauphin 2 helicopters
8x3 Chaff launchers
Click to expand...
That seems a bit high for the 2010s, the small boat/USV threat was nowhere near as recognized as it is today.

For today or into the 2030s, I'd say it's reasonable.
 
Hello Tzoli! I'm a new member here, but I've used your ship designs as inspiration for naval technology in a nation roleplay community I participate in.

Do you remember your 12-inch Large Cruiser design for the Royal Navy?

Hm...

Methinks it could be modernised in the 1950s or 1960s by turning the area in red into space for a RIM-2 Terrier launcher and magazine, the secondaries in lime green into British counterparts of the American Mark 42 5"/54 dual-purpose gun, and the seaplane-launching area in yellow into spaces for launching cruise missiles comparable to the RGM-8 Regulus.
1764921944866.png

The 12-inch guns can be made to fire nuclear artillery shells like the W9 nuclear warhead (fired from the 11-inch Atomic Annie gun) as well.
 
Geoffrey de Vere said:
Hello Tzoli! I'm a new member here, but I've used your ship designs as inspiration for naval technology in a nation roleplay community I participate in.

Do you remember your 12-inch Large Cruiser design for the Royal Navy?

Hm...

Methinks it could be modernised in the 1950s or 1960s by turning the area in red into space for a RIM-2 Terrier launcher and magazine, the secondaries in lime green into British counterparts of the American Mark 42 5"/54 dual-purpose gun, and the seaplane-launching area in yellow into spaces for launching cruise missiles comparable to the RGM-8 Regulus.
View attachment 794196

The 12-inch guns can be made to fire nuclear artillery shells like the W9 nuclear warhead (fired from the 11-inch Atomic Annie gun) as well.
Click to expand...
Well recently we got some idea on British cruise missiles though not exact on their size:

As for Terrier I never seen conversions where they not used up the existing gun ammo space except for the above deck storage versions.
But why not use Seaslug?
 
Tzoli said:
The commissioner wanted this, original idea was 4-3-4 turrets....
Click to expand...
IMHO, but any "modern battleship" (yes, I also love the concept... no matter how impractical it is) should have 2-3 single or dual turrets at most. With modern autoloaders & guided shells, the large numbers of barrels simply isn't required
 
Geoffrey de Vere said:
Methinks it could be modernised in the 1950s or 1960s by turning the area in red into space for a RIM-2 Terrier launcher and magazine, the secondaries in lime green into British counterparts of the American Mark 42 5"/54 dual-purpose gun, and the seaplane-launching area in yellow into spaces for launching cruise missiles comparable to the RGM-8 Regulus.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the removal of rear turret be more practical? Those early missiles with vacuum tube electronic likely won't react well on shock from big guns firing nearby.
 
Dilandu said:
IMHO, but any "modern battleship" (yes, I also love the concept... no matter how impractical it is) should have 2-3 single or dual turrets at most. With modern autoloaders & guided shells, the large numbers of barrels simply isn't required
Click to expand...
I think his very first idea was a Modernized Littorio than this evolved into a Modern Littorio and finally this design. I asked about the gun calibre as well as the only possible gun armed surface ship it could take out is a modernized Stalingrad as it could be mincemeat by both the Modernized Iowas, Vanguard/KGVs and Sovetsky Soyuzes in this alternative timeline. Then I've been told that this Socialist Italy is pro-Europe though not USA allied. And the mission profile is coastal bombardment not surface walfare...
 
Last edited:
Tzoli said:
Well recently we got some idea on British cruise missiles though not exact on their size:

As for Terrier I never seen conversions where they not used up the existing gun ammo space except for the above deck storage versions.
But why not use Seaslug?
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Seaslugs could work fine as well.

My primary focus regarding my ideas for the Large Cruiser, however, would be converting the seaplane hangars/launchers amidships to stow and launch anti-ship missiles like a British version of the Regulus.

Imagine if the United Kingdom used gun cruisers as part of the maritime component of their nuclear triad deterrent

not to mention the fact that the new missile-launching facilities amidships could also be used to launch anti-ship missiles

the 12-inchers could also be able to fire nuclear shells (I mean, the US did it with the 11-inch Atomic Annie gun and its W9 warhead, so why not?)
 
Dilandu said:
Wouldn't the removal of rear turret be more practical? Those early missiles with vacuum tube electronic likely won't react well on shock from big guns firing nearby.
Click to expand...
Sure, if we could replace it with another Regulus launcher! Or preferably, a VLS system. Or even a pod of Styx or Harpoon missiles.
 
Tzoli said:
It was quite some tiem since I last posted here as nowadays I rarely draw truly hypothetical not real world designs, but since my last post I've made same:
First the Karl von Muller class Big Gun Cruiser:
dablhy7-07bfaa94-ada4-46a3-be9c-a7a3ae2282e4.png


Requested by a friend as a modified and slightly enlarged Deutschland style big gun cruiser with set armament calibres, dimensions, speed and armour.

The simulation:


Karl von Müller class, German Weimar Republic Big Gun Cruiser / Pocket Battleship laid down 1934 (Engine 1936)

Displacement:
14 479 t light; 15 449 t standard; 16 473 t normal; 17 292 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(621,04 ft / 606,96 ft) x 74,67 ft x (26,84 / 27,81 ft)
(189,29 m / 185,00 m) x 22,76 m x (8,18 / 8,48 m)

Armament:
6 - 11,30" / 287 mm 52,0 cal guns - 770,23lbs / 349,37kg shells, 125 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
16 - 5,79" / 147 mm 55,0 cal guns - 104,61lbs / 47,45kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
28 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm 83,0 cal guns - 2,25lbs / 1,02kg shells, 4 000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
3 raised mounts - superfiring
10 x Twin mounts on side ends, majority forward
6 raised mounts - superfiring
36 - 1,06" / 27,0 mm 65,0 cal guns - 0,66lbs / 0,30kg shells, 3 000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1934 Model
8 x Quad mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
1 x Quad mount on centreline, aft deck aft
Weight of broadside 6 382 lbs / 2 895 kg
Main Torpedoes
12 - 22,0" / 559 mm, 24,61 ft / 7,50 m torpedoes - 1,774 t each, 21,292 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted centre rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5,59" / 142 mm 401,90 ft / 122,50 m 10,37 ft / 3,16 m
Ends: 2,76" / 70 mm 205,05 ft / 62,50 m 10,37 ft / 3,16 m
Upper: 1,57" / 40 mm 401,90 ft / 122,50 m 8,01 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 102 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 13,50 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
2,76" / 70 mm 394,52 ft / 120,25 m 18,04 ft / 5,50 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 72,18 ft / 22,00 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: 5,91" / 150 mm 2,95" / 75 mm 4,72" / 120 mm
2nd: 0,98" / 25 mm 0,98" / 25 mm 0,98" / 25 mm

- Box over machinery & magazines:
4,61" / 117 mm
Forecastle: 1,18" / 30 mm Quarter deck: 1,18" / 30 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3,94" / 100 mm, Aft 1,97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, plus diesel motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 90 000 shp / 67 140 Kw = 30,08 kts
Range 9 999nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1 843 tons

Complement:
726 - 945

Cost:
£7,672 million / $30,688 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 762 tons, 10,7 %
- Guns: 1 719 tons, 10,4 %
- Weapons: 43 tons, 0,3 %
Armour: 4 619 tons, 28,0 %
- Belts: 1 396 tons, 8,5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 726 tons, 4,4 %
- Armament: 604 tons, 3,7 %
- Armour Deck: 1 810 tons, 11,0 %
- Conning Towers: 82 tons, 0,5 %
Machinery: 2 525 tons, 15,3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5 396 tons, 32,8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1 993 tons, 12,1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 177 tons, 1,1 %
- Hull below water: 25 tons
- Hull void weights: 55 tons
- Hull above water: 22 tons
- On freeboard deck: 45 tons
- Above deck: 30 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
21 175 lbs / 9 605 Kg = 29,4 x 11,3 " / 287 mm shells or 2,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,15
Metacentric height 4,2 ft / 1,3 m
Roll period: 15,3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 54 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,78
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,18

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck ,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,474 / 0,480
Length to Beam Ratio: 8,13 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24,64 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 16,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6,56 ft / 2,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 15,00 %, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m, 24,11 ft / 7,35 m
- Forward deck: 34,34 %, 24,11 ft / 7,35 m, 22,31 ft / 6,80 m
- Aft deck: 34,34 %, 22,31 ft / 6,80 m, 22,31 ft / 6,80 m
- Quarter deck: 16,32 %, 15,26 ft / 4,65 m, 15,58 ft / 4,75 m
- Average freeboard: 21,89 ft / 6,67 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 93,2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 130,8 %
Waterplane Area: 29 504 Square feet or 2 741 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 149 lbs/sq ft or 728 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,93
- Longitudinal: 1,93
- Overall: 1,00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Click to expand...

It's a very good design, but I have a crackpot idea to improve upon it further:

A successor class with three turrets.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom