The Viribus Unitis Battleship: 1:25 Model; Main Gun Turrets

special announcement: the charts
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/th...del-main-gun-turrets.t7810/page-2#post-352144
arrived; anybody willing to go through cuts of all tiers, from up and down, look from one side, and the other? (really? then send me a Private Message) it'll take me hours ... I started with consulting

LOL!

FORBIN said:

View attachment 16305

Click to expand...

thank you, FORBIN, for reminding me I started to neglect the thread I had established

to me, the best picture of the Viribus Unitis is this:

(I think it was taken during 1912 sea trials)

Now I'll add what I recently realized about the TAG guns
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/th...del-main-gun-turrets.t7810/page-3#post-352822

1. They were "portable" (theoretically -- the weight was about 5000 pounds):

and you should be able to see the rings (one on the "B" turret, three on "A") into which the guns could be put -- in reality, during the years they were gradually removed and either replaced by BAGs (as shown in this picture), or not ...

2. Those on top of the turrets were "coaxial" with the main battery guns, and their elevation could be controlled by some gear to be the same as of the 12" below; theoretically, it should be useful, I mean cost-effective, for practicing the main-gun firing

3. I was wrong

Jura said:

...
Lighter guns, which I'll describe next, could shoot once they thought they should
...

Click to expand...

... perhaps I confused them with Hotchkiss quick-firing guns in other Navies ...
and their fire was controlled (I think instructions were transmitted using "portable phone lines" -- I saw such a picture, but can't find it); somebody was obviously needed to give orders to the deck guns in situations like this:

(it comes from an awesome blog by somebody who colored the pictures of the Viribus Unitis!

but the description is in Japanese :-(

4. Of course, if the superstructure was hit by medium- and/or large-caliber shell(s), those guns would likely be damaged and their crews eliminated ...

Jura said:

...

The torpedo-tube will be next (yes, there were four of them), ...

Click to expand...

... all submerged; in a fancy arrangement:

• one starboard, middle area, launching at 63 degrees with respect to the bow
• one port side, middle area, launching at 63 degrees with respect to the bow
• one aft!
  
• and one bow, visible in my picture
  

The total numbers of torpedoes carried (they were 533 mm / 6.3) was 14, so I wondered which launcher(s) had more of them all I found is there were two practice torpedoes, so I assume three real torpedoes on each station:


But don't worry: none had been launched in action LOL!

shows an Austro-Hungarian frogman ca. 1910 and looks tough, doesn't it? ... but a moment ago I found this picture of a Russian diving squad of that period (from
):

Jura said:

...

The torpedo-tube will be next (yes, there were four of them),

Click to expand...

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/th...del-main-gun-turrets.t7810/page-4#post-355470

Jura said:

followed by the turbine ... but my holidays end tomorrow :-( so I'm not sure when I'll post
...

Click to expand...

Jul 18, 2015 ... another reason for this delay is I'm not a technical type so I had to do my homework, and my pictures of the propulsion system were not useful ... for example I didn't know how the condenser looked like ... it's below the machinery-room (which is in the upper-left corner in this picture:

also showing the turbine and boilers; comes from

so, the Viribus Unitis had 12 Yarrow boilers (six per boiler room); they were water-tube, hybrid (coal with the option to add oil) type, each with the grate-area of almost 98 m squared; total heating surface about 4903 m squared (probably you'll think I have nothing to do but I was kinda checking on the propulsion-related numbers)

they supplied the steam of 18.5 atm (about 272 psi), and of temperature unknown to me, to the four Parsons turbines, which I believe were of direct-drive type; there were four propeller shafts coupled to them, but I didn't find any description how all this was operated (stuff like high pressure/low pressure, inner/outer shaft ...)

the highest value of the shaft rpm I found was 164 (but it's for the Tegetthoff, achieved during April 15, 1913 sea-trials); values for speed/power differ though, but are reported around the design values (20.5 knots/27 000 ihp)

I'm going to add my thoughts of that-time battleships' propulsion next, together with some "trivia"

it's getting difficult to even find this thread ... I noticed a funny mistake

Jura said:

... the Viribus Unitis had 12 Yarrow boilers (six per boiler room); they were water-tube, hybrid (coal with the option to add oil) type, each with the grate-area of almost 98 m squared; ...

Click to expand...

"each" came into the way (the number is correct, but refers to all twelve boilers; otherwise coal would have been burning under about one third of the deck

before I go on ... have you noticed the tumblehome of the Viribus Unitis?

I've read it was used to protect the furled anti-torpedo nets:

and also read those were removed during the war (and the stability issues stayed)

finally I'll get back to this

Jura said:

...

I'm going to add my thoughts of that-time battleships' propulsion next, together with some "trivia"

Click to expand...

Around 1910:

#1 max. speeds achievable with turbines were not necessarily higher than those provided by steam-engines;

#2 coal consumption of turbines was higher (but I've recently noticed in a Polish naval journal a trick played when the author said the higher consumption was due to the ships being bigger ... it seemingly might work this way, since according to Noppen:

1. the Radetzky could travel 4000 nm at 10 kn with 1350 t of coal, and assuming 15845 t of full displacement, it's 1350/15.845/4 = about 21.3 tons of coal per 1000 tons of displacement per 1000 nm of sail at 10 knots, while
   
2. the Viribus Unitis accordingly 4200 nm at 10 kn with 2000 t of coal, assuming 21595 full load gives 2000/21.595/4.2, about the same number (22.1) as above, but ...

I don't buy it, as for example

1. the max. range of the Deleware (BB-28, with steam engines) was up to 9700 nm at 10 knots, while of her sister ship, the Noth Dakota (BB-29, with Curtiss turbines), was just 6560 nm at the same speed; both numbers from actual sails!
2. the French Navy would have even used mixed propulsion (two engines mainly for cruising, and two turbines) in the Normandie-class (to lower the consumption as compared to the Bretagne-class, yet we'll never know if it had worked

#3 reliability of steam-engines was generally higher than of turbines; the example concerning BB-28 and BB-29 mentioned above: "Delaware, on the other hand, was the first American battleship that could steam for 24 hours at full speed without needing repairs, even though she had to rely on earlier reciprocating engines." (quote from Conway's 1906-22)

#4 price of turbines was higher, especially for the Austro-Hungarian Navy which had to start with paying for the license to build Parsons turbines (I've read somewhere they built them in Terst, didn't bring them from the UK)

With much bigger ships to be soon built, also the Austro-Hungarian Navy went for the turbine, though.

An interesting thing is one of the design flaws of the Tegetthoffs was too big shaft bossing, which acted as "wings" (don't quote me, I'm not a Marine Engineer LOL) causing for example more than 19 degrees list during 35 degrees turns at max. speed. The fix which was adopted was to prohibit any changes to the course while sailing at max. power

Jura, these next few posts are for you. I thought I would show the USS Texas compared to the Viribus Unitis. They were definitely contemporary dreadnaught battleships.

The Viribus was launched in June 1911. The Texas was launched in May 1912.

The Viribus was commissioned in December 1912. The Texas was commissioned in March 1914.

Both ships saw active duty in word War I.

But that is where the similarities end. The Viribus, right at the end of the war, after being turned over to the new Croat/Serb state, was sunk by mines attached to her hull. The Texas went on to serve through the interim years between wars, and then throughout World War II in both the Atlantic/European Theater and in the Pacific Theater, ultimately becoming a museum ship after the war.

Here are the characteristics of each, Texas vs Viribus

Displacement: 27,000 tons vs 20,000 tons
Length: 573 ft vs 499 ft
Beam: 95 ft vs 92 ft
Draft: 29 ft vs 28 ft 7 in
Speed: 21 knots vs 20 knots
Range: 7,060 nmi vs 4,200 nmi
Crew: 1,042 vs 1,087
Main Guns: 10 x 14" vs 12 x 12"
2nd Guns: 21 x 5" vs 12 x 6"
Other: 2 x 3" vs 18 x 3"

After a major refit, and then following heavier armament in world War II, several characteristics for Texas changed:

Displacement: 33,000 tons
Beam: 106 ft.
Draft: 32 ft.
Range: 15,400 nmi
Crew: 1,810
Secondary Guns; 6 x 5"
Other: 10 x 3", 40 x 40mm, 44 x 20mm

Here are some pictures:

Viribus Unitis



USS Texas



Viribus Unitis



USS Texas

Viribus Unitis



USS Texas



Viribus Unitis



USS Texas