Shipbucket
https://111903.jhzobq.asia/forums/

FAN Verdun (ex-Baden-BB-1916)
https://111903.jhzobq.asia/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5564		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Krakatoa [ September 8th, 2014, 1:07 pm ]
Post subject:  FAN Verdun (ex-Baden-BB-1916)
In 1919 the German Fleet scuttled itself at Scapa Flow. One battleship was saved, SMS Baden, which was run aground in shallow water before it sank. The Royal Navy used the Baden for various tests from 1919 through to destruction in 1921.

Thats 'Real Life', how boring. Lets say the RN do tests on the ship through late 1919 early 1920, then cede the vessel to France who had been unable to complete any of its Normandie class battleships as the war had made other calls on resources. Frances best ships at the time were the three Bretagne class with 10x13.4, virtually obsolete when compared to the latest UK, US, and Japanese battleships. The parlous state of the French economy made completing any of the Normandie class ships impossible. Receiving a ship like Baden for free would be of great value to France. With a ship of the class of Baden as Frances Fleet Flagship they would have at least one ship of true force.

Various upgrades like, changing the boilers from coal fired to oil fired, fitting of several 75mm AA guns, and later the first 37mm AA weapons. New optics for the rangefinding eqipment. etc. were fitted during the inter-war years.

Like the other ex-WW1 battleships of the same era, the French took the Verdun in hand for reconstruction on completion of the Dunkerque in 1936. With Dunkerque and Strasbourg being the latest French capital ships, superstructure and minor weaponry were copied from those ships. The Verdun returned to the fleet in very good order and well able to take on its peers.

[ img ]
Author:  apdsmith [ September 8th, 2014, 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FAN Verdun (ex-Baden-BB-1916)
Hi Krakatoa,

A couple of questions - Have you made any changes to torpedo defence in the 1939 version aside from removing the torpedo nets? Also, I can't see any provision for scout aircraft on the 1939 version - has this been omitted from this ship?

Regards,
Adam
Author:  heuhen [ September 8th, 2014, 4:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FAN Verdun (ex-Baden-BB-1916)
and why is she so deep!
Author:  JSB [ September 8th, 2014, 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FAN Verdun (ex-Baden-BB-1916)
I would be worried about weight on the rebuild without bulges.
The quads are heavy and high up as is the new mast.
Does it also have a lot of AA guns for as fitted in 39 ?

still very nice again 8-) .

JSB
Author:  apdsmith [ September 8th, 2014, 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FAN Verdun (ex-Baden-BB-1916)
Oh, yeah, forgot to mention that - this is a nice drawing and an interesting concept. (For reference, I don't generally comment on stuff that I either don't understand or do understand enough to think it's awful, so me nitpicking is actually because I think it's a good enough drawing to be worth enquiring about!)
Author:  Krakatoa [ September 8th, 2014, 8:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FAN Verdun (ex-Baden-BB-1916)
I have added a side view with bulges added, though I am not sure whether the ship would require them, their was a difference of 10.5 feet breadth between the width of a Revenge Class and Baden Class battleship.

Heuhen it is that deep because it had a draught of 31 feet, I have put a measure next to 1916 version.

I did not add scout aircraft, hangars catapults, because I could not find an area where they would fit comfortably. (Besides French doctrine could have it that the Bearn is tied to the Verdun all the time).

Yes it may have a few too many AA guns, the ones on the quarterdeck probably wouldn't get there till about 1941. The French did have a few more AA guns than some other nations on their ships at wars start.
Author:  Karle94 [ September 8th, 2014, 8:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FAN Verdun (ex-Baden-BB-1916)
Torpedo bulges were a must have on all WWI era battleships as not a single one of them could stand up against modern torpedoes. Closest thing is the Tennessee/Colorado classes which did reasonably well against air dropped Japanese torpedoes. West Virginia took 7, possibly 8 torpedoes before she sank.
Author:  heuhen [ September 8th, 2014, 9:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FAN Verdun (ex-Baden-BB-1916)
Krakatoa wrote:
Heuhen it is that deep because it had a draught of 31 feet, I have put a measure next to 1916 version..

if the ship had an draught of 31 feet, the it will still be 31 feet, perhaps close to 34 feet due to the added weight on deck. for me she feels very deep, an QE class is 30 feet at the most and that after many modification.

when making a ship heavier, the drought will get deeper, but the freeboard will be smaller... I have an another feeling that she might also be to top heavy.
Author:  Krakatoa [ September 8th, 2014, 10:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FAN Verdun (ex-Baden-BB-1916)
Heuhen

Yes lets look at the QE type, at the amount of topweight added to them with their rebuildings, are they too top heavy?

I have added no more topweight than added to the QE's. Since the Badens started with a lot more positive buoyancy than the QE's I do not think their will be any problem.

The QE's were 90.5 feet wide, the Badens 99 feet wide. That's a lot of extra positive buoyancy.

Add the anti-torpedo bulges, and they will add even more positive buoyancy to the ship. I have lengthened the ship which will add even more positive buoyancy.

I know which rebuilt BB I would rather be on, Baden every time. And that includes the RN, Jap, Italian, and US rebuilds.

From Wiki.
Commander W M Phipps Hornby, who lived on board Baden for weeks during the examination, wrote to the naval historian Arthur Marder in 1969 that it was his "considered opinion—which I know coincided with that of others engaged on the same job—that, considered as a fighting machine, anyhow on balance the Baden was markedly in advance of any comparable ship of the Royal Navy".
Author:  apdsmith [ September 8th, 2014, 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FAN Verdun (ex-Baden-BB-1916)
Hi Krakatoa,

Not really qualified to discuss most of the point you made, but the bit about Commanderr Phipps Hornby, I have read about - from Stuart Slade over at Navweaps:
What it does show is an interesting trend which is reflected right across the military spectrum and that's the presumption that the enemy's kit is better than ours. US soldiers damned the M16 and praised the AK47; North Vietnamese prisoners did the reverse. US soldiers worshipped the Soviet 130mm and damned their 155mm while their opponents did the reverse. And so it goes. The reason is quite simple - they see the effects of the enemy's weapons on a daily basis but not their own. There is also the novelty factor. Living on board somebody else's warship (something I've done more often than I care to remember) highlights the differences and novelties of the layout; its easy to translate that novelty into a "Theirs is better" mindset.

I've read the DNC report on Baden (many years ago) and its a lot less favorable than merely saying that British designers had little to learn from their German rivals; its actually damning of design inefficiencies and poor layout. It comments specifically, for example, on the large engine room compartments, the difficulty of accessing key systems for maintenance and much else. There is no doubt in some areas German designers came up with some pretty good ideas - they also came up with some real stinkers. However, in the specific quoted case of Baden vs. Revenge, Marder's opinion is not supportable.

Whole thing here:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-057.htm

Regards,
Adam
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/