Small Orange ships and MWVs

[Carthaginian]

You are incorrect, there's no indication whatsoever that this ship won't be able to work in bad weather. Historical evidence is contrary to your assumptions, regardless of repeating them.

Howso?
How are my 'assumptions' being 'proven false', P3D?
Let me look back:

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1018.0

Here, you say that a Swiss ship with 25 knots speed and 1.51 seakeeping would 'slow down the battleline in bad weather.' Now, I'm not one to defend DF lightly, but his battleline was 3-4 knots slower than that. There had to be SOME reason that his ships were going to have poor performance in bad weather.

Please explain this, and explain how your ship- far poorer at seakeeping than this ione- would lack those same problems.

Here DIRECTLY, you cite 'average seakeeping' as insufficient to maintain full speed in poor seas (the same gales you specifically state that your ships can maintain 30 knots in). Which is it? Or is it that one nation's ships can while another's can't? Either ALL ships with poor seakeeping are handicapped, or we throw seakeeping out the window.

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1246.msg11117#msg11117

Your ships still have several feet higher freeboard than historical ships - even 2 or 3 feet can make a BIG difference (e.g. a 750t N3-verse destroyer having the same hull depth as a 2000t one from WWII).

Well, that's more from my lack of familiarity with naval design than from a deliberate attempt to break the rules. If you'll notice, my ships are trending towards more realistic ones, within the limits of information I have.

Also note that dock size is not an issue with this design.
Nevertheless, I can change the characteristics to give the ship a completely unjustified freeboard just to get seakeeping over 1.00 if I have to, I will build those mini-cruisers, sacrificing only a single knot of speed.

Howso?
You are expecting to get excellent seakeeping performance out of a ship that cannot have it due to it's design parameters. It's too short and has too high a top speed, that is VERY much contradictory for good seakeeping according to SS.

And, in the end, SS is the ONLY reliable system we have.
Everything MUST work within it or THE SYSTEM FOR DESIGN WITHIN THE SIM IS NEGATED.
That is the issue. You cannot say that 'my ships can do what I want them to' on the one hand and then point to SS as 'the rules' on the other.

Either a destroyer has to operate within the system, or no ship will be forced to regard the system as concrete.

That's why I need some Moderator input how ships with realistic freeboards should be handled - would they have a significant disadvantage over fantasy ships or not.
[/quote]

[Ithekro]

Before we get into a bigger argument on this matter, I'll say I'm going to ask around for those more knowledgable in SS2 and historical designs, as my knowledge is limited on the matter.  I am well aware of SS2's problem with light vessels as I had great difficultly simming historical 1898 destroyers for Chile.  I'm wondering if SS3 has corrected that problem, but I doubt it, since these programs are more for people to play with cruisers and battleships than tin cans.

I'll see what opinions I can get from those with more experiance on this matter before I'd make an uneducated ruling.  Thus it will take a little time before we have a good answer.  So don't you two get bent out of shape at each other.  These back and forths just get our collective blood pressured raised.  His is suppose to be a friendly experiance, right?  Your nations are not even close enough to each other to warrent worrying about the other in character, that is for sure.

[Tanthalas]

well just for the sake of Argument, i went and simed a historic 750 toner USS Paulding, its of the apropriat era, I did Italianise it a bit (raised a couple guns extended the break but basicly it proves if you use a historic ship as a guidline you can build a fairly decent DD)


USS Paulding, USA Historic 750 ton DD laid down 1910 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   750 t light; 776 t standard; 915 t normal; 1,026 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   293.83 ft / 293.83 ft x 27.00 ft x 9.50 ft (normal load)
   89.56 m / 89.56 m x 8.23 m  x 2.90 m

Armament:
      4 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1910 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on centreline ends, majority forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      4 - 0.75" / 19.1 mm guns in single mounts, 0.21lbs / 0.10kg shells, 1910 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side, all amidships
   Weight of broadside 129 lbs / 58 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100
   6 - 21.0" / 532.9999 mm above water torpedoes

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 19,223 shp / 14,340 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 5,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 251 tons

Complement:
   83 - 108

Cost:
   £0.105 million / $0.418 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 16 tons, 1.8 %
   Machinery: 463 tons, 50.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 236 tons, 25.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 165 tons, 18.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 35 tons, 3.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     234 lbs / 106 Kg = 7.3 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.34
   Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
   Roll period: 10.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.25
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.17

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.425
   Length to Beam Ratio: 10.88 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 17.14 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 65 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
   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 %):   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Mid (50 %):      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:   12.32 ft / 3.76 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 180.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 63.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 4,963 Square feet or 461 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 54 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 23 lbs/sq ft or 112 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 1.75
      - Overall: 0.52
   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


The Point of this exersise was to make a point, You can build them However P3D you have CHOSEN not to.  This isnt earth in 1910 this is the NVerse, things are diferent here.  heck even some of the laws of Physics are suspended...

[Desertfox]

Historical evidence shows that destroyers with similar or LOWER freeboard hardly had big problems in bad weather. They survived like 70 degrees inclination, made 30 kts+ in gale force wind. And we have no historical evidence whatsoever if N3-verse "destroyers" would behave as SS2 predicts.

Hmm.. if that is the case I wonder how my 29knot destroyers were caught by a 28knot cruiser in less than gale force winds...

It is rather historical, so I don't see why it would be the problem. SS2 allows building ships with too much excess freeboard, therefore N3-verse is full with such ships which are rather miniature cruisers not destroyers - and I'd like to avoid building such ships if possible.

Maybe it was because some of us wanted minature cruisers. Not many countries faced the problem of fighting across Trans-Pacific distances. Note that the first NS destroyers were called not Torpedo Boat Destroyers (TBD) but rather Super Destroyers, a totally different class of ships.

[P3D]

You are incorrect, there's no indication whatsoever that this ship won't be able to work in bad weather. Historical evidence is contrary to your assumptions, regardless of repeating them.

Howso?
How are my 'assumptions' being 'proven false', P3D?
Let me look back:

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1018.0

Here, you say that a Swiss ship with 25 knots speed and 1.51 seakeeping would 'slow down the battleline in bad weather.' Now, I'm not one to defend DF lightly, but his battleline was 3-4 knots slower than that. There had to be SOME reason that his ships were going to have poor performance in bad weather.

Please explain this, and explain how your ship- far poorer at seakeeping than this ione- would lack those same problems.

Here DIRECTLY, you cite 'average seakeeping' as insufficient to maintain full speed in poor seas (the same gales you specifically state that your ships can maintain 30 knots in). Which is it? Or is it that one nation's ships can while another's can't? Either ALL ships with poor seakeeping are handicapped, or we throw seakeeping out the window.

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1246.msg11117#msg11117

My assumptions proved to be false - please refer to the date of my posts. After a few months declaring that, I read accounts about the performance of RN destroyers in bad weather. So I changed my mind since then because I learned that I previously believed to be true was wrong.

Your ships still have several feet higher freeboard than historical ships - even 2 or 3 feet can make a BIG difference (e.g. a 750t N3-verse destroyer having the same hull depth as a 2000t one from WWII).

Well, that's more from my lack of familiarity with naval design than from a deliberate attempt to break the rules. If you'll notice, my ships are trending towards more realistic ones, within the limits of information I have.

And, in the end, SS is the ONLY reliable system we have.
Everything MUST work within it or THE SYSTEM FOR DESIGN WITHIN THE SIM IS NEGATED.
That is the issue. You cannot say that 'my ships can do what I want them to' on the one hand and then point to SS as 'the rules' on the other.

Either a destroyer has to operate within the system, or no ship will be forced to regard the system as concrete.

SS2 says seakeeping is relative to ships of similar size. If there's a historical ship with accounts for good seakeeping, and simming that historical ship with SS2 gives a well below average value, then I had say the problem is with SS2.

It's true that there's only limited amount of information available on historical freeboard values on the net (French plans, dreadnoughprojects, german-navy.de), and values for draught at a given displacement - both of which affects the overall strength significantly.

Tanthalas:
Nice work, the only mistake I see is that the mid-break would be at ~33% length for the Pauldings. But that affects seakeeping a lot.

[Carthaginian]

My assumptions proved to be false - please refer to the date of my posts. After a few months declaring that, I read accounts about the performance of RN destroyers in bad weather. So I changed my mind since then because I learned that I previously believed to be true was wrong.

You never presented data to the contrary, apologized or otherwise made mention of said mistakes, or gave any indication that you had your opinions changed. I picked out the only available quotes you made on the issue and then used them in my retort.

Had you perhaps expressed this change of heart on the forums, there would have been less confusion. Indeed, had you shared this knowledge, perhaps the boards at large would become more amiable to designing historically-minded destroyers... yet you chose not to share it, and only to interject it when a design you put forth came under attack.

Anything learned should be shared... especially given that you are trying to achieve the goal of having better ships throughout the sim.

A little information goes a long, long way.

Your ships still have several feet higher freeboard than historical ships - even 2 or 3 feet can make a BIG difference (e.g. a 750t N3-verse destroyer having the same hull depth as a 2000t one from WWII).

Well, that's more from my lack of familiarity with naval design than from a deliberate attempt to break the rules. If you'll notice, my ships are trending towards more realistic ones, within the limits of information I have.

And, in the end, SS is the ONLY reliable system we have.
Everything MUST work within it or THE SYSTEM FOR DESIGN WITHIN THE SIM IS NEGATED.
That is the issue. You cannot say that 'my ships can do what I want them to' on the one hand and then point to SS as 'the rules' on the other.

Either a destroyer has to operate within the system, or no ship will be forced to regard the system as concrete.

SS2 says seakeeping is relative to ships of similar size. If there's a historical ship with accounts for good seakeeping, and simming that historical ship with SS2 gives a well below average value, then I had say the problem is with SS2.

It's true that there's only limited amount of information available on historical freeboard values on the net (French plans, dreadnoughprojects, german-navy.de), and values for draught at a given displacement - both of which affects the overall strength significantly.

Tanthalas:
Nice work, the only mistake I see is that the mid-break would be at ~33% length for the Pauldings. But that affects seakeeping a lot.
[/quote]

[Tanthalas]

^.^ like I said I italiasized her just a tad (Paulding didnt have SF guns either and was only 29.5 knots historicly)  that is honestly how I come up with most of my DDs I take a historic boat (lets face it we know they worked otl) spec it then play with it till it dosnt work anymore then I back off a bit and call it good =P

[P3D]

You never presented data to the contrary, apologized or otherwise made mention of said mistakes, or gave any indication that you had your opinions changed. I picked out the only available quotes you made on the issue and then used them in my retort.

I had a complete thread where I posted about the freeboard thing, where I mentioned we were simming DDs completely wrong. And the low seakeeping are a direct consequence of the freeboard issue.

Then the agreement was to postpone the destroyer issues until the full version of SS3 is available.
I believe that's still a few months away   :(

[Tanthalas]

You never presented data to the contrary, apologized or otherwise made mention of said mistakes, or gave any indication that you had your opinions changed. I picked out the only available quotes you made on the issue and then used them in my retort.

I had a complete thread where I posted about the freeboard thing, where I mentioned we were simming DDs completely wrong. And the low seakeeping are a direct consequence of the freeboard issue.

Then the agreement was to postpone the destroyer issues until the full version of SS3 is available.
I believe that's still a few months away   :(

ya its a few months off at best... Perhaps like I said previously we should just do the best we can with what we have.  ships can be made stable, and therfore imo they should be.  Generaly our destroyers are slower than their historical counterparts, but tbh most of our ships are slower than their historical counterparts.

[Ithekro]

Suggestions call for modification of the vessel to at least 0.70 seakeeping.  One suggests using the transom stern (but I'd like to avoid that one if possible).  It is asked what historical design this is based on for reference.

Kaiser Kirk:

I think aiming for 1.0 seakeeping is flawed for destroyers of that era anyhow, just hitting the 0.7 for poor should be enough. Second, the 30knt speed may be the trial speed and not represent the practical maximum sea speed.

It sounds like the pictured freeboard has a one deck rise for the forward 1/3 of the ship. Otherwise I'd advocate extending the forecastle aft.

So, if you don't want to drop speed, then I'd raise the freeboard by 2 feet and increase the BC to 0.515 and call it good.

HoOmAn:

Have you tried a transome stern? For a small, fast vessel it might help a lot. I don´t think it is impossible to raise seakeeping to 0,8 at least. See the RSAN 1935er light destroyer. Even though that vessel carrys less misc weight and TTs she features more light guns and much better seakeeping on a similar size. So there absolutely is a chance to get the design working using SSv2.

Anyhow, if all this is historical (based on which design?) then there is little you can do if you want to stick to that particular design. Otherwise I´d propose a complete redesign.

ShinRa_Inc:

I recently had similar problems trying to design a small destroyer for Canada. I tried making a small, high speed ship around 900 tons, but due to seakeeping, I had to bring it up to 1200 tons just to make it seaworthy.

My personal opinion would be something along the lines of ships under 1000 tons should be allowed with seakeeping between .50 and 1.00 with the understanding that they won't be able to maintain high speeds in moderate to severe weather, and god help it if it's caught in a real gale, not because it's generally unseaworthy, but because of it's size.

[Tanthalas]

that Discusion is from WesWorld right?

[Ithekro]

Yes

[Tanthalas]

Cool ought to get some good ideas anyway, I realy ought to get caught up over there.  the .7 thing is a good idea imo, although seriously I have never had a problem geting my DDs stable (I usualy have the other problem they are Insanly OVER stable even basing them on Historical boats)  ofcourse anything under a 1.0 should suffer from sea state penalties.

[Ithekro]

As to answer Desertfoxes question about why a slightly slower cruiser caught a destroyer is simple.  The destroyer could not maintain flank speed.  The cruiser could not either, but was able to maintain a higher speed than the destroyer over time.  (Likey result of a prolonged chase of this sort, the destroyer runs at high speed and runs out of fuel, then the cruiser catches up and either sinks it or captures it.  Also flank speed is not something that is generally maintained for long on coal powered ships.  The black gang tends to drop dead after a while).

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Also, smaller ships are much more affected by weather. Didn't the Duke of York outpace its destroyer escort at the battle of the Nordkap?
Borys