Italia 1911 (I decided to just put them all in one thread)

[Ithekro]

What would placing the majority forward for the guns get the simulation instead of even?  Would SS2 think the third turret is ahead of the midbreak even though the midbreak is so far back on the hull?

[Tanthalas]

What would placing the majority forward for the guns get the simulation instead of even?  Would SS2 think the third turret is ahead of the midbreak even though the midbreak is so far back on the hull?

it works but like I said I inturpet that to be a nelson style layout tbh this was the hybrid version of all my diferent atempts (the one I thought most acuratly reflected what I was trying to do that is) ill post the other atempts if yall want but idk like I said I felt this one most acuratly reflected what I was trying to do.

[Ithekro]

It could just be that SS2 can't functionally produce that design like you think it should.  Korpen's problem with it is from the technical size that suggests that the barbette would not protect all the way down to the botttom of the hull (and thus leave that part of the hoists and magazine exposed to enemy fire)  Looking at the vessel visually, that doen't make sense since A turret is the same as X turret from the waterline.  Y turret is actually shorter in this design.

I wonder if there is away to prove one way or the other if the program is simming the barbettes correctly the way you designed it?

[Tanthalas]

Not that I know of... like I said b4 if infact the X turret has to be super fire to work then A should have to be as well.  SF is used to reduce armord citidel lenght to my understanding, and as the pic reflects im not trying to do that.  I just want a turret mounted infront of the midships break with a masive gap to the next turret like on the late WW1 german BCs.  adding SF and moving the break Foreward would actualy save me around 500 tons of armor... and improve stability at the expence of some seakeaping (she has it to burn however imho) but this is what I was trying to sim or as close to it as I think you can get with SS

[Korpen]

I give up some people just cant accept that someone else would come up with a diferent idea, if we arnt copying a totaly Historic ship its automaticly breaking a rule or 2 or 3.  Maybee I should just make Korpen and P3D happy and deleat all my posts, and quit the sim.  After all thats aparently what they want anyone creative gone, but then I think wait making assholes miserable is what I live for.  so ill hang around just to do that, then I get told to play nice by the mods so I do im a perfect little angle.  I even agree with people who I generaly would disagree with just for the sake of causing an argument, My reward for atempting to bury the hatchet is that instead of doing the same they attack me and acuse me of cheating, so from now on ill treat everyone with exactly the same respect they treat me.  So let it be known from this point on if your an ass to me ill be an ass to you (not that thats any diferent than it was previously before I was asked to play nice).  /end rant

Your problem is not that the ship is not historic (that is something i least of all have something against), but that the ship drawing and the springsharp report is in conflict with each other. The design is not a problem for defying historic precedence, but for you claiming that the report simulates things in fact does not.
Oddball ships are fun and something I like, but the still must follow the basic functionality of springsharp that is the very basis of this sim, what you are trying to do is similar to simming a ship with 28cm guns and then claiming it is really 38cm guns.

What would placing the majority forward for the guns get the simulation instead of even?  Would SS2 think the third turret is ahead of the midbreak even though the midbreak is so far back on the hull?

No it would not, like i have said 2ggr in this thread already, springsharp (2) cannot divide an equal number of turrets unequal.

One must be aware that SS fore and aft is only in relation of the midbreak, and never calculates guns as to being on the quarterdeck or forecastle. I know it might be counter intuitive of describing ABC on a design such as this as "all forward" but that will result in springsharp using the correct height for it calculations.

Not that I know of... like I said b4 if infact the X turret has to be super fire to work then A should have to be as well.  SF is used to reduce armord citidel lenght to my understanding, and as the pic reflects im not trying to do that.  I just want a turret mounted infront of the midships break with a masive gap to the next turret like on the late WW1 german BCs.  adding SF and moving the break Foreward would actualy save me around 500 tons of armor... and improve stability at the expence of some seakeaping (she has it to burn however imho) but this is what I was trying to sim or as close to it as I think you can get with SS

Springsharp is a stupid program in the sense that different parts does not talk with each other, and that i really have no concept of de-facto space.  So in a springsharp file adding superfiring or not does not affect the  space demands (basically springsharp only counts how much underwater space magazines an machinery takes, if it fits on deck SS gives no clue on) or length of the main belt.
The reason X has to be superfiring (as you have chosen to sim her) is that springsharp consider the two aft turrets to be aft of the midbreak, so it is using an incorrect assumption for what you want it to sim. This is not an issue with a-turret (I think, will look more careful when I wake up) as it is part of the two turrets SS consider to be ahead of the midbreak, and therefore is using correct height for.

[Korpen]

It could just be that SS2 can't functionally produce that design like you think it should.  Korpen's problem with it is from the technical size that suggests that the barbette would not protect all the way down to the botttom of the hull (and thus leave that part of the hoists and magazine exposed to enemy fire)  Looking at the vessel visually, that doen't make sense since A turret is the same as X turret from the waterline.  Y turret is actually shorter in this design.

I wonder if there is away to prove one way or the other if the program is simming the barbettes correctly the way you designed it?

Springsharp have no real problems with simming a ship as envisioned by Tanthalas, it is just that the way he have made the report is not an accurate way to do it.

I is not the bottom that is unprotected, it is to top of the barbarette (as springsharp thinks the barbarettes ends 3,7m over the waterline, while the turrets is at 6,4m)...

There are plenty of way go get a more accurate simulation of the layout Tanthalas wants;
Either as now: evenly spread, but with two turrets superfiring.
Split in two, three turrets all forward, one more entry with all guns aft (2 guns).

[Valles]

I note that you still have not produced a convincing citation for your definition of 'midbreak' with respect to turret placement.

[Tanthalas]

I note that you still have not produced a convincing citation for your definition of 'midbreak' with respect to turret placement.

My personal opinion is that there realy isnt one, None of us realy know.  Basicly what I did is in my Noobishness is stumble into somthing that SS has no rule for.  From what I can find there is Literaly no seting in SS for what I want to do

Centerline - distributed: Layout like Brandenburg
Centerline - ends (equal/fore > aft): Traditional Layout
Centerline - ends (aft > fore): one foreward 2 aft kind of thing is how I view this
Centerline - grouped foreward: Nelson
Centerline - grouped center: realy old stuff couldnt find any I liked
Centerline - grouped aft: I personaly dont know of any but im sure there were some.

None of these layouts fit what I want, even combining them I cant come up with what I want.  None of them fit, its like I jumped into limbo.  hence I decided to go with the spirit of what I wanted and got as close as I could.  that said everyone had plenty of time to post on the 25 knot version, and noone did.  So I decided there must not be any Major flaws in it because noone was comenting, as such I modified it to somthing I could actualy build and called it good.  Fact of the matter is I posted around 6 ships using exactly this layout and noone brough tup that it wouldnt work, some of them even included drawings. 

So this is what realy got me going, if it was ok or ignored a week ago why is it an issue today? The only answer I could come up with was this is a personal attack, and when atacked I respond in kind, if I was wrong I apologise.

That said however I just dont see how any of the available layouts fit what I want, i also dont see how the layout I chose is so wrong (Centerline - ends (equal/fore > aft))  im simply saying that the Majority is foreward of the midbreakeven though one is only barely foreward of it and facing aft, however it is still fore>aft.  this was the most efective way I could come up with to sim this.  SS3 lets you do alot more diferent things, including mount turrets below the main deck, why anyone would want to is beyond me but still you can technicly.  The point of mentioning that is there are a TON more setings for where guns are in SS3, such as

centreline, forward deck forward
centreline, forward deck centre
centreline, forward deck aft
centreline, aft deck forward
centreline, aft deck centre
centreline, aft deck aft

these make it far easier to place guns where you realy want them imho.

[Tanthalas]

Ill consead the point on one condition let me use SS3 to sim her, it has the tools to do it where SS2 just dosnt.

Italia-BB-1911, Italia Battle Ship laid down 1911 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   24,488 t light; 25,715 t standard; 27,396 t normal; 28,741 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (638.00 ft / 625.00 ft) x 97.00 ft x (29.60 / 30.73 ft)
   (194.46 m / 190.50 m) x 29.57 m  x (9.02 / 9.37 m)

Armament:
      6 - 14.00" / 356 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,372.00lbs / 622.33kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts , 1911 Model
     3 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
      1 raised mount - superfiring
      2 - 14.00" / 356 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,383.70lbs / 627.63kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mount , 1911 Model
     1 x 2-gun mount on centreline, forward deck aft
      12 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts , 1911 Model
     12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      8 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
      2 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 45.0 cal guns - 13.62lbs / 6.18kg shells, 200 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mount , 1911 Model
     1 x 2-gun mount on centreline, forward deck aft
      1 raised mount
      20 - 0.75" / 19.1 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.21lbs / 0.10kg shells, 1,000 per gun
     Machine guns in deck mounts , 1911 Model
     10 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 11,787 lbs / 11,787 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   351.00 ft / 106.98 m   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
   Ends:   6.00" / 152 mm   274.00 ft / 83.52 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Upper:   8.00" / 203 mm   351.00 ft / 106.98 m   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
     Main Belt covers 86 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1.50" / 38 mm   351.00 ft / 106.98 m   26.84 ft / 8.18 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   8.00" / 203 mm      11.0" / 279 mm
   2nd:   13.0" / 330 mm   8.00" / 203 mm      11.0" / 279 mm
   3rd:   6.00" / 152 mm   3.00" / 76 mm            -
   4th:   1.00" / 25 mm   1.00" / 25 mm            -

   - Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 4 shafts, 48,000 shp / 35,808 Kw = 23.41 kts
   Range 6,600nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,026 tons

Complement:
   1,064 - 1,384

Cost:
   £2.270 million / $9.080 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2,515 tons, 9.2 %
   Armour: 10,308 tons, 37.6 %
      - Belts: 5,537 tons, 20.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 523 tons, 1.9 %
      - Armament: 2,471 tons, 9.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,543 tons, 5.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 235 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 2,182 tons, 8.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,329 tons, 37.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,908 tons, 10.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 1.3 %
      - Hull below water: 350 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     39,963 lbs / 18,127 Kg = 29.1 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 6.9 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
   Metacentric height 6.0 ft / 1.8 m
   Roll period: 16.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.62
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.39

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.534 / 0.540
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.44 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 25.00 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 26.56 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   22.00 %,  26.00 ft / 7.92 m,  22.00 ft / 6.71 m
      - Forward deck:   45.00 %,  22.00 ft / 6.71 m,  22.00 ft / 6.71 m
      - Aft deck:   11.00 %,  13.00 ft / 3.96 m,  13.00 ft / 3.96 m
      - Quarter deck:   22.00 %,  13.00 ft / 3.96 m,  13.00 ft / 3.96 m
      - Average freeboard:      19.38 ft / 5.91 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81.0 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 151.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 41,694 Square feet or 3,874 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 178 lbs/sq ft or 871 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.98
      - Longitudinal: 1.47
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Carthaginian]

Korpen:

If Tan's ship is in error, so is your dread.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=676.0
If you'll notice, you have an aft-pointing, deck level turret forward of the midbreak.
If you're not wrong, Tan's not wrong. The fact that his aft turret is superfiring is incidental, they are mounted in the same position in relation to the ship.

Let's drop this issue before any truely hard feelings come about and just get back to the game.

[Sachmle]

If this is the Dreadnought you're refering to, then he's got bigger issues than the deck height aft facing turret, he's got no turrets on the centerline, all are on the SIDE...Talk about the picture not representing the SS report.

Jacob van Heemskerck, Netherlands Battleship laid down 1907 (Engine 1909)


Armament:
      8 - 13,78" / 350 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1 322,77lbs / 600,00kg shells, 1907 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on side, evenly spread
     Aft Main mounts separated by engine room

[Tanthalas]

oh god lets not start that argument again... It was a compromise to reflect ships with wing turrets due to the fact that you cant drop the number of shells on anything but the MB.  tbh though it isnt that diferent from what I did make a comprimise because SS2 lacked the tools to do what I wanted done.  SS3 has the tools, and perhaps we should just shift to it WW is already using it, but tbh thats not a decision for me to make.  I do forsee us all resiming alot of ships in SS3 though once we make the jump to it and in a few cases finding out that well what we thought was a pimp ship is realy a pig.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
In N-verse the en echelon arrangment of main armament in SS2 is represented by "all on side". That's the feedback I got when designing the "ersatz Teggethoff", the option which got the most backing of several discussed.
Afterwards there had been suggestions to represent this arrangment as splitting the guns between "aft-fore" and "all on side".
AFAIK nothing had been definitely agreed upon, so "all sides" is legit.

Borys

[Tanthalas]

Ahoj!
In N-verse the en echelon arrangment of main armament in SS2 is represented by "all on side". That's the feedback I got when designing the "ersatz Teggethoff", the option which got the most backing of several discussed.
Afterwards there had been suggestions to represent this arrangment as splitting the guns between "aft-fore" and "all on side".
AFAIK nothing had been definitely agreed upon, so "all sides" is legit.

Borys

Like I said lets not have that debate again LOL

I know everyone (or atleast several people) are against going to SS3.  the Honest truth is it allows alot more flexibility in hoe guns are mounted and atleast in my case as the report shows it has the tools to put them in the right place.

[Ithekro]

We still are not fully using SS3 in WesWorld due to the fact that SS3 is still in Beta.  Once SS3 is out of beta and functional, then WW was going to shift over.  However we seem to be stuck in 1935 at the moment.

Here we are still holding out until SS3's bugs are fixed and to see if they've managed to make it destroyer friendly (rather than just scaling down the cruisers and battleships).  Hopefully soon enough that these problems won't keep coming up.