Simming destroyers - alternative

[P3D]

One with year 1909 engines

Displacement:
   750 t light; 773 t standard; 857 t normal; 924 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   271.00 ft / 264.00 ft x 24.00 ft x 9.50 ft (normal load)
   82.60 m / 80.47 m x 7.32 m  x 2.90 m

Armament:
      2 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1905 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      4 - 0.40" / 10.2 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1905 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on side, all amidships
   Weight of broadside 64 lbs / 29 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   4 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 17,722 shp / 13,220 Kw = 29.00 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 152 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   78 - 102

Cost:
   £0.098 million / $0.394 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 8 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 467 tons, 54.5 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 260 tons, 30.4 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 107 tons, 12.5 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 15 tons, 1.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     255 lbs / 116 Kg = 8.0 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.41
   Metacentric height 1.1 ft / 0.3 m
   Roll period: 9.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 32 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.16
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.41

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.498
   Length to Beam Ratio: 11.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 16.25 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 69 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Mid (30 %):      15.00 ft / 4.57 m (7.00 ft / 2.13 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   7.00 ft / 2.13 m
      - Stern:      7.00 ft / 2.13 m
      - Average freeboard:   9.40 ft / 2.87 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 185.0 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 57.6 %
   Waterplane Area: 4,215 Square feet or 392 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 47 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 33 lbs/sq ft or 163 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.74
      - Longitudinal: 1.51
      - Overall: 0.80
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

[P3D]

Destroyer laid down 1912

Displacement:
   750 t light; 771 t standard; 853 t normal; 918 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   275.00 ft / 268.00 ft x 25.00 ft x 10.00 ft (normal load)
   83.82 m / 81.69 m x 7.62 m  x 3.05 m

Armament:
      2 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      4 - 0.40" / 10.2 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on side, all amidships
   Weight of broadside 64 lbs / 29 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 120
   6 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 19,714 shp / 14,707 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 147 tons

Complement:
   78 - 102

Cost:
   £0.097 million / $0.387 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 8 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 455 tons, 53.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 273 tons, 32.0 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 103 tons, 12.1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 14 tons, 1.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     261 lbs / 119 Kg = 8.2 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.35
   Metacentric height 1.1 ft / 0.3 m
   Roll period: 10.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 31 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.15
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.37

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.446
   Length to Beam Ratio: 10.72 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 16.37 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 69 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Mid (30 %):      15.00 ft / 4.57 m (7.00 ft / 2.13 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   7.00 ft / 2.13 m
      - Stern:      7.00 ft / 2.13 m
      - Average freeboard:   9.40 ft / 2.87 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 180.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 46.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 4,258 Square feet or 396 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 52 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 35 lbs/sq ft or 171 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.74
      - Longitudinal: 1.56
      - Overall: 0.80
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
   Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

[P3D]

1000t Destroyer Laid down 1912

Displacement:
   1,000 t light; 1,032 t standard; 1,165 t normal; 1,272 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   315.00 ft / 308.00 ft x 28.00 ft x 10.00 ft (normal load)
   96.01 m / 93.88 m x 8.53 m  x 3.05 m

Armament:
      4 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      4 - 0.40" / 10.2 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts
     on side, all amidships
   Weight of broadside 128 lbs / 58 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 120
   4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 22,440 shp / 16,740 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 4,100nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 240 tons

Complement:
   99 - 129

Cost:
   £0.133 million / $0.534 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 16 tons, 1.4 %
   Machinery: 607 tons, 52.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 363 tons, 31.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 165 tons, 14.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 14 tons, 1.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     374 lbs / 170 Kg = 11.7 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.49
   Metacentric height 1.5 ft / 0.4 m
   Roll period: 9.7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 29 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.19
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.34

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.473
   Length to Beam Ratio: 11.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 17.55 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Mid (30 %):      15.00 ft / 4.57 m (7.00 ft / 2.13 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   7.00 ft / 2.13 m
      - Stern:      7.00 ft / 2.13 m
      - Average freeboard:   9.40 ft / 2.87 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 179.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 60.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 5,608 Square feet or 521 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 60 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 39 lbs/sq ft or 191 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.78
      - Longitudinal: 0.99
      - Overall: 0.80
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
   Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

[Walter]

No one is building destroyers with historical freeboard.

I have been thinking on that bit you said for a few moments. Have you ever considered that the reason why no one is building destroyers with historical freeboard is caused by the fact that most of us do not know what the historical freeboards are? I certainly have no idea at all about what is realistic for destroyers. That in combination with the weird idea that the seaboat rating has to be at least 1 will result in high freeboards.
Maybe you have some fancy book on DDs where you can get the info from but when you look at all the IJN destroyers and torpedo boats that I have simmed for Navalism, all those freeboards are pure guesswork. I will continue for a while with the DDs based on what the source I use gives me (=> http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/index.htm), sim the vessel based on engine output (and not on given speed), guess what the freeboard might be on a vessel of that size and I don't give a darn what seaboat rating I will end up with (*). Once all that is done I add the maximum speed given on that site at the bottom of my design. Works perfect.

SS isn't as broken as you might think but it will get a lot worse when you start doing weird things with it like using negative values (**) or using a BC <0.3 or a ridiculous high freeboard for the sake of seakeeping.

I tried a couple of Japanese DDs around the 1,000 ton mark using your guidelines but I end up with hull strengths that are a good 0.25 below what your guideline states. With a X-sectional of close to 0.5 (which I consider the limit) and the longitudinal strength of those designs below 0.75, there is no way I can get anywhere near the 0.8. Not even when I ditch all the ammunition of the main guns and all the miscellaneous weights and throw all the guns off the designs am I able to get to 0.8.

What we're sticking to with hull strengths at the moment is what is given in the Springstyle notes and we should stick to it. Despite that, I do think that your point of "Hull Depth ~16-20', draft 8-11' (for 500-2000t displacements)" should be applied to the sim to give us more realistic freeboards for ships of that size.

BTW, considering the amount of stability the designs you posted have, is there a specific reason why you do not alter the trim of the designs? That way they will give the impression that they are not as bad as they are now. :)


(*) when you look at the sims of Japan's DDs and TBs, you'll see that the seaboat rating is all over the place; a number of the TBs have a seaboat rating <0.5 and one even goes as low as 0.27; one DD design goes as high as 1.18. For this reason I ignore the seaboat rating for ships of that size.
(**) I say this, just in case you are thinking of reintoducing your idea of using negative values in SS for a DD. What I know is that negative values in SS are a no-no. There is no guarantee that the negative values you enter into SS will actually give you the 'proper' (read: 'realistic') results so we should avoid that. BTW, the negative values are not just limited to miscellaneous weights.

[P3D]

Walther, I realized that we are doing sg wrong only yesterday.

Anyway, I am still unsure what guidelines we can use.

[Ithekro]

Shouldn't we be more concerned about stability in the sim and rules rather than trying to fix stuff for realism every few weeks?  The more confused I get the less sense I put into things and distracts me from what I should be doing.  As it is I've not been able to focus at all on the war this week and I'm going away for a week and a half starting the 27th of this month.  (I might have access I might not)

All in all, it this worth the heavy debate?  Maybe it is because we've gone through something like this already in Wesworld (though with more modern warships).  The negative values remind me of attempts to correct SS' engine weight problems for Italian designs and others that used lighter weight materials in high speed engines.  It looks funny.  (I've yet to be able to successfully enter a negative number into SS, even for the bow angle).

I suppose some of the problem is that most of us want our boats to survive rather than be cheap.  THis also tends to translate into building ships that are far more stable and seaworthy than historical designs of the same type.  However many of these designs tend to come in under powered or over armed.  I had serious problems simming 1900 era Chilean destroyers because they were far too light for SS to handle within the specifications given in Jane's.  All but one came in under 0.3 BC because they are so light (300-350 tons).  It is just a problem we have to deal with and move on.  In most game systems used, destroyers and torpedo boats are only useful at launching torpedoes or engaging their opposite number.  Only those with 4" guns can generally hurt a light cruiser or better.  And even then the damage it not all that great.

[Desertfox]

Because it IS broke. No one is building destroyers with historical freeboard.
And my latest proposal is not the negative weight one.

Ah yes, you really want to make DDs totaly useless.

1000t Destroyer Laid down 1912

Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

What's going to be her speed in a Sea State 6? NEGATIVE 10 kts?

[P3D]

Desertfox,

are you trying to make yourself look stupid, or just in a write-only mode? Seakeeping values for destroyers are completely irrelevant not only within the current rules but in general.
We are swamped with fantasy ships of an important class here that have nothing in common with their real-life brethren besides their name.
FYI, the difference between the seakeeping of an 500 and an 1000t destroyer is significant (one cannot be used in heavy seas, the other doing its trial in a gale).

[miketr]

What Ithekro said...  I like realism as much as anyone, see my thread on oil for instance.  That said are TBs/GTBs/DDs really broken in the game?  So what if ours are slower, faster, higher freeboard than historic ones.  This is a fantasy world with historic names for flavor and little more.

Michael

[P3D]

What Ithekro said...  I like realism as much as anyone, see my thread on oil for instance.  That said are TBs/GTBs/DDs really broken in the game?  So what if ours are slower, faster, higher freeboard than historic ones.  This is a fantasy world with historic names for flavor and little more.

Michael

They are really broke. And as SS barely gives any weight penalty to guns, ships are going to be slower, shorter endurance, but equipped with an ahistorical amount of armament (from 4x4" and 8TT to 4-5x5" and 4TT on 750t) that was found on 50% larger ships. Nevermind the freeboard issue, but there aren't much line drawing on the web available for battleships.
As destroyers are the most numerous of all classes, I think it is pretty important. Hopefully SS3 will be able to deal with variable SHP/tons, and IIRC the release schedule it would happen in this November/December.

[Walter]

Walther, I realized that we are doing sg wrong only yesterday.

(sg??)
Well, that's fairly logical. If you had realized it a few months ago, you would have mentioned it back then. :)
To be honest, I would probably never have noticed it at all (due to my lack of knowledge in that area).

I've yet to be able to successfully enter a negative number into SS, even for the bow angle

Well, I simmed a couple of torpedoes using negative values with reasonable results. 8)
http://88.198.26.117/kunden/oponn/wbblite/thread.php?postid=11451#post11451
... reasonable if you ignore the high hp rating, the 200%+++ Hull, fittings & equipment rating and the fact that the 7 Nendo Shiki 24 inch can be manned (Complement: 0 - 1). :D
BTW, if I am not mistaken and remember it correctly, I think I used negative main belt armor on them...

So what if ours are slower, faster, higher freeboard than historic ones.

So you think it is correct to have a ship with an 8 foot draught and a 28 foot freeboard when fully loaded?

This is a fantasy world with historic names for flavor and little more.

What?! Fantasy world?! Where are the dragons?! I need a few for my squadrons!! ;D

Hopefully SS3 will be able to deal with variable SHP/tons

Hopefully...

IIRC the release schedule it would happen in this November/December.

With my luck, it will come out when I am on holiday in Paris.  :-\ (with SS2, it came out when I was on holiday in Canada). Fortunately I have the rest of December to work with it then almost 24/7. No need to worry about work until January 2. ;D

[miketr]

What Ithekro said...  I like realism as much as anyone, see my thread on oil for instance.  That said are TBs/GTBs/DDs really broken in the game?  So what if ours are slower, faster, higher freeboard than historic ones.  This is a fantasy world with historic names for flavor and little more.

Michael

They are really broke. And as SS barely gives any weight penalty to guns, ships are going to be slower, shorter endurance, but equipped with an ahistorical amount of armament (from 4x4" and 8TT to 4-5x5" and 4TT on 750t) that was found on 50% larger ships. Nevermind the freeboard issue, but there aren't much line drawing on the web available for battleships.
As destroyers are the most numerous of all classes, I think it is pretty important. Hopefully SS3 will be able to deal with variable SHP/tons, and IIRC the release schedule it would happen in this November/December.

I hate to say it P3D half the problems your talking about are because people are pushing weapons over speed / range.  One set eats into the other.  None of my designs has more than three 105's and I ditched the 30 knot design for a 28 knot design because of my new desire for seakeeping.  As to 6 or even 8 torps where the hell are people going to fit that many and 4 or 5 large guns?  The foot print just isn't there I am sorry.  Guns and above deck torpedo launchers eat deck space; especially on such a small design.

Michael    

[miketr]

So what if ours are slower, faster, higher freeboard than historic ones.

So you think it is correct to have a ship with an 8 foot draught and a 28 foot freeboard when fully loaded?

Who the heck is doing that?  Limit max freeboard compared to draught or something?  I put out a design with a 22 foot freboard at the bow but that was on a 10.5 draught.

This is a fantasy world with historic names for flavor and little more.

What?! Fantasy world?! Where are the dragons?! I need a few for my squadrons!! ;D

I assume you are joking...

Michael

[Walter]

Who the heck is doing that?  Limit max freeboard compared to draught or something?  I put out a design with a 22 foot freboard at the bow but that was on a 10.5 draught.

Fortunately no one. It was just a very extreme example with me spitting out a few numbers. I asked you that because of the "So what if ours are slower, faster, higher freeboard than historic ones" bit. Unfortunately, that gives me the impression that it says "I don't really care how high my freeboard is." Of course there is a good chance that that impression is in my mind due to the fact that I am Dutch (so if it's incorrect we'll just blame that very negative aspect of mine).

I assume you are joking...

Hmmm... I assume that there is a reason why I put ;D at the end of something that ridiculous...

[Ithekro]

Good thing we can't sim modern cruise liners.  Then your super tall freeboard and shallow draft would be almost normal.