Small Orange ships and MWVs

[Tanthalas]

I can give an example from Recent History, USS Kitty Hawk in 2001 outran all her Gas Turbine Powerd Escorts during her sprint to the Gulf.  The Shitty Kitty could do a max of 33 knots, while her escorts could run at substantialy higher speeds, (I know I was on one of her Escorts playing Nuke Guard) however they couldnt maintain the speeds they needed to to stay with her (and this was in calm seas).  She made it to the Gulf a full 47 hours ahead of us in a run from Yokuska to the Persian Gulf.

[P3D]

Destroyers as far as I am aware of, could do their full-power trials in rough seas (not in 'storm', though). That means max practical speed in general should be only 1-2 knots below trial speed.

Allowing lower freeboards and less seakeeping would only allow one knot more speed, no more than 30-31 kts, still 2-4 knots below what the destroyers should be capable of (after discounting for that 1-2 decrease in speed).
I could accept (at least until SS3) 1.00 seakeeping for a while
Getting 1.00 seakeeping is still achievable with decreasing speed by 1kts -

BTW. I played a bit with SS2 about the relation with seakeeping and speed. 1 knot decrease in speed would increase seakeeping by 0.08-0.13, so taking 0.10 as a rule of thumb is an obvious choice.
E.g. a 27kts ship with 1.00 seakeeping would have the equivalent of 1.20 seakeeping at 25kts.

Transom stern would allow slightly (1.5kts) higher speed. as SS2 is more or less fine for speeds below 30kts, transom stern IMO could be allowed for destroyers with speeds at least 31 or 32kts.

[Tanthalas]

Tell you what show me an example of a class of ship OTL that was being built in 1910 that had a Transtom Stern and I might agree, however since I cant find any sry just shouldnt happen.

[Carthaginian]

Destroyers as far as I am aware of, could do their full-power trials in rough seas (not in 'storm', though). That means max practical speed in general should be only 1-2 knots below trial speed. ts.

'Rough seas' being about 6-10 feet, sure.
Get much over that, and a DD would not be able to make full speed, and her speed would drop quickly as things got worse. By what we see in WWII pics, a 1500t destroyer would have virtually no speed in 25-30 foot waves; at that point, survival is the chief concern.

A painting of your average 500t destroyer in a storm. Strangely enough, their dimensions are about the same as yours, though your DD's are much heavier. I'd say that the higher BC and narrower beam would make yours a bit more prone to wallow (flatter bottom)... would that be true or not?

This is a 750t ship in probably 10-foot seas (off Ireland). She's got a pretty good roll going on, enough so that I think those seas would give her a fun time running hard.

Another pic... sea state appears pretty 'average' for open sea- call it 10-15 feet. Again, nice roll going on, and this 1000t 4-piper is bouncing laid over pretty hard. She's also only making convoy speed in this pic. I imagine the ride would get much rougher at a flank bell.

Here's a pic of a 1000t destroyer doing a speed run in 'rough' seas (according to the US Navy Historical Center). Looks mighty unpleasant, and seems like a LOT of performance is lost... in fact, I doubt that the ship could be fought at all in those seas.


I agree that slowing down helps... but only to a degree.
The only thing is, with a really crappy seaboat rating in the beginning, you're going to have to slow down A LOT more than a ship with a similar size and lower seaboat rating. For instance, my 300t destroyer (of similar length and beam) would be pulling along nicely in weather that would make this ship fight for it's life.

[P3D]

Which destroyer of mine you are referring to as having problem in rough seas? The original 30kts version or the 29kts one with 1.20 seakeeping?

276 ft length is not too short - only compared to the 300'+ US ships. The 1000t RN destroyers (equivalent to the 750t light displacement here, about the same full disp.) of WWI were of similar size, some longer, some shorter. Same length for the German GTB1913.

BTW in a storm one RN destroyer had a roll angle of more than 60 degrees, the seawater inlets for the machinery (at the bottom of the hull) were in the air. Just returned the destroyer book to the library, so I don't have the figures with me.

[Tanthalas]

a 60 deg. roll OUCH, you do realise that on curent US warships masts shear off at 40% (I think it was 40 anyway that the Cruiser I rode with would have lost them I was a Marine not a Sailor remember)

[Carthaginian]

Which destroyer of mine you are referring to as having problem in rough seas? The original 30kts version or the 29kts one with 1.20 seakeeping?

THIS one... the 30 knot one, the one that started it all:
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=137.msg21102#msg21102
I think you know which one I was talking about.

276 ft length is not too short - only compared to the 300'+ US ships. The 1000t RN destroyers (equivalent to the 750t light displacement here, about the same full disp.) of WWI were of similar size, some longer, some shorter. Same length for the German GTB1913.

260' was the length on the original (750t) one... and, as you point out, a little bit of length can make a lot of difference. Especially when the ship is 9relatively) short and fat and prone to roll.

BTW in a storm one RN destroyer had a roll angle of more than 60 degrees, the seawater inlets for the machinery (at the bottom of the hull) were in the air. Just returned the destroyer book to the library, so I don't have the figures with me.

ONE ship... which was- as any of the crew would suggest- lucky to have survived.
Destroyers were NOT meant to operate in heavy conditions.

[P3D]

ONE ship... which was- as any of the crew would suggest- lucky to have survived.
Destroyers were NOT meant to operate in heavy conditions.

IIRC the study concluded that there was nothing extraordinary in the ship's survival, and other ships should have survived in similar circumstances. Was the conclusion justified, I don't know.

[Carthaginian]

ONE ship... which was- as any of the crew would suggest- lucky to have survived.
Destroyers were NOT meant to operate in heavy conditions.

IIRC the study concluded that there was nothing extraordinary in the ship's survival, and other ships should have survived in similar circumstances. Was the conclusion justified, I don't know.

What you are doing is somewhat similar to concluding that all the Baltimore class cruisers were prone to catastrophic structural failure of their bows basing the evidence on only USS Pittsburgh. Using her only example, it wouldn't seem extraordinary to assume this. However, taking the class (and the 3 classes based on the hull) in totality, you'd find that to be false.

Taking destroyers in totality as a type, they are poorly suited for bad weather, and many have been lost to weather conditions alone. That's proof enough that they are more sensitive to sea state with regards to performance than larger ships.

Just going on the 'strength of numbers' theory, I'd say that the commission you refer to was being a bit optimistic about the ships capabilities and a bit pessimistic about the effects that dumb luck can play (much like the Pittsburg incident).

[P3D]

ONE ship... which was- as any of the crew would suggest- lucky to have survived.
Destroyers were NOT meant to operate in heavy conditions.

IIRC the study concluded that there was nothing extraordinary in the ship's survival, and other ships should have survived in similar circumstances. Was the conclusion justified, I don't know.

What you are doing is somewhat similar to concluding that all the Baltimore class cruisers were prone to catastrophic structural failure of their bows basing the evidence on only USS Pittsburgh. Using her only example, it wouldn't seem extraordinary to assume this. However, taking the class (and the 3 classes based on the hull) in totality, you'd find that to be false.

Taking destroyers in totality as a type, they are poorly suited for bad weather, and many have been lost to weather conditions alone. That's proof enough that they are more sensitive to sea state with regards to performance than larger ships.

Just going on the 'strength of numbers' theory, I'd say that the commission you refer to was being a bit optimistic about the ships capabilities and a bit pessimistic about the effects that dumb luck can play (much like the Pittsburg incident).

Apparently the RN did not have any problems with the seakeeping of their destroyers, and their structural integrity in bad weather, as they lost a total of zero destroyers due to weather.

[P3D]

Alternative korvette leader for the destroyer divisions. Medium range wireless, FC, weight reserved for mines&sweeping equipment and torpedo reloads. Now I only have to figure it out how it all fits on the hull.

Korvette Leader laid down 1912

Displacement:
   1,000 t light; 1,056 t standard; 1,226 t normal; 1,362 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   310.00 ft / 310.00 ft x 28.00 ft x 12.00 ft (normal load)
   94.49 m / 94.49 m x 8.53 m  x 3.66 m

Armament:
      4 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on centreline ends, majority forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      2 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1912 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on centreline, all amidships
      4 - 0.39" / 9.9 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 277 lbs / 126 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 200
   6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   1.00" / 25 mm   0.50" / 13 mm            -
   2nd:   0.50" / 13 mm         -               -

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 19,342 shp / 14,429 Kw = 29.00 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 15.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 305 tons

Complement:
   103 - 134

Cost:
   £0.141 million / $0.563 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 35 tons, 2.8 %
   Armour: 13 tons, 1.0 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 13 tons, 1.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 547 tons, 44.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 306 tons, 24.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 226 tons, 18.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 8.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     293 lbs / 133 Kg = 4.7 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
   Metacentric height 1.0 ft / 0.3 m
   Roll period: 11.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.46
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.412
   Length to Beam Ratio: 11.07 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 17.61 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Mid (37 %):      17.00 ft / 5.18 m (9.00 ft / 2.74 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Stern:      9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Average freeboard:   12.20 ft / 3.72 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 175.2 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 57.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 5,382 Square feet or 500 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 63 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 27 lbs/sq ft or 133 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 1.69
      - Overall: 0.56
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[P3D]

When Orange gets hold of the 1912 DD tech, the following destroyers would be laid down:

Orange korvette laid down 1916

Displacement:
   1,500 t light; 1,575 t standard; 1,791 t normal; 1,964 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   391.16 ft / 385.00 ft x 33.00 ft x 12.00 ft (normal load)
   119.23 m / 117.35 m x 10.06 m  x 3.66 m

Armament:
      5 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1915 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on centreline ends, majority aft, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      8 - 0.362" / 9.2 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1915 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on centreline, all amidships
      2 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1915 Model
     Anti-baloon guns in deck mounts
     on centreline, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 340 lbs / 154 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 200
   12 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.50" / 13 mm         -               -
   2nd:   0.50" / 13 mm         -               -
   3rd:   0.50" / 13 mm         -               -

   - Conning tower: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 37,274 shp / 27,806 Kw = 33.00 kts
   Range 6,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 390 tons

Complement:
   136 - 178

Cost:
   £0.322 million / $1.290 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 42 tons, 2.4 %
   Armour: 11 tons, 0.6 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 8 tons, 0.4 %
      - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 3 tons, 0.2 %
   Machinery: 953 tons, 53.2 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 403 tons, 22.5 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 291 tons, 16.3 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 90 tons, 5.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     314 lbs / 142 Kg = 5.0 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.28
   Metacentric height 1.5 ft / 0.5 m
   Roll period: 11.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.21
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.80

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.411
   Length to Beam Ratio: 11.67 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.62 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 63
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      23.00 ft / 7.01 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Mid (37 %):      16.00 ft / 4.88 m (8.00 ft / 2.44 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
      - Stern:      8.00 ft / 2.44 m
      - Average freeboard:   11.52 ft / 3.51 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 195.8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 38.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 7,874 Square feet or 732 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 56 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 30 lbs/sq ft or 146 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 0.74
      - Overall: 0.52
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
   Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

[P3D]

Orange war emergency destroyer if the war stretches long. For fast and easy production, which required several compromises in the design. Firepower and FC had to be sacrificed, so did range and seakeeping. However, the 29kts speed was kept. As the ship is to operate in coastal water and in the Rift sea against Italian DDs such is deemed to be acceptable. For faster and cheaper construction the ship is flush-decked (one less deck on the forecastle) and has only a single turbine (again, faster construction) and two boilers. Hull plates and girders are not galvanized, either. Plus the less sophisticated equipment (no FC, only a short-range W/T), the simplified machinery and reduced armament also decrease crew requirements at the cost of redundancy. Not much crew space for them, anyways. And can be laid down even in the smallest shipyards.
Even if these won't translate into game terms.

Orange Emergency korvette, Engine year 1912.
Displacement:
   500 t light; 518 t standard; 599 t normal; 664 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   229.50 ft / 229.50 ft x 22.00 ft x 8.00 ft (normal load)
   69.95 m / 69.95 m x 6.71 m  x 2.44 m

Armament:
      2 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1912 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on centreline, evenly spread
      4 - 0.40" / 10.2 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1912 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on centreline, all amidships
   Weight of broadside 64 lbs / 29 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 170
   6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.50" / 13 mm         -               -

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 1 shaft, 15,749 shp / 11,749 Kw = 29.00 kts
   Range 3,700nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 146 tons

Complement:
   59 - 78

Cost:
   £0.067 million / $0.270 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 8 tons, 1.3 %
   Armour: 2 tons, 0.4 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 2 tons, 0.4 %
      - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 309 tons, 51.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 162 tons, 27.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 99 tons, 16.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 18 tons, 3.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     148 lbs / 67 Kg = 4.6 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 0.6 ft / 0.2 m
   Roll period: 11.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.21
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.80

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has raised forecastle
   Block coefficient: 0.519
   Length to Beam Ratio: 10.43 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 15.15 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 73 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 62
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      14.50 ft / 4.42 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   13.00 ft / 3.96 m (11.20 ft / 3.41 m aft of break)
      - Mid (42 %):      10.20 ft / 3.11 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   10.20 ft / 3.11 m
      - Stern:      10.20 ft / 3.11 m
      - Average freeboard:   10.99 ft / 3.35 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 180.2 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 20.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 3,302 Square feet or 307 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 45 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 22 lbs/sq ft or 107 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 2.62
      - Overall: 0.59
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
   Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

[Korpen]

   6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

What sort of torpedo arrangement? Two fixed in the bow and two twins, or two triples?

Otherwise i think she is usefull given her size.

[Jefgte]

Very good concept for the job in the Rift.

A dangerous adversary with 6TTx533


;)