Now, I don't fully understand the difference between the Lyon's / Bretagne's 340mm/45 Modèle 1912 guns and the Dunkerque's 330mm/50 Modèle 1931 in terms of recoil, but the Lyon's does have a bigger gun, and it's a smaller ship then the Dunkerque, so the ship I see from WGing may not be able to handle all that recoil. "The absorption of the great recoil forces also presented difficulties, and these ships were very lightly constructed, and they suffered repeatedly from damage caused by the firing of their own guns." -Wikipedia. Now that I think on it, the Dunkerque was a longer ship, and yet even she was overwhelmed by the power of her 13 inch guns. Bottom line: the design needs a much longer bow, both for additional volume (buoyancy), and to reduce its prismatic coefficient. The props would probably be cavitating long before the hull ever reached that speed. And a speed of 27 knots under these conditions? Highly unlikely. Combine this with the fact that there is very little bow volume forward of the first turret and barbette, where one would find a large concentration of mass, and this already disadvantageous situation becomes even worse this design will pivot back and forth around its center of mass, burying the bow into incoming seas as it does. My main issue with the weight distribution is rooted in the ship's high prismatic coefficient this ship's cross-sectional area changes very quickly at its bow (it's blunt), which means that it will throw a horrific wash over the forward deck, and create tremendous resistance in any, but particularly, in heavy seas. The smaller caliber will allow for the cube root of the ratio of necessary spaces, with respect to the dimensions of a larger shell, so the internal volume of the hull can be a bit less with the smaller guns.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |