CSA 1917 Mystery Ship

[Valles]

I think the Maori will just have their Naval Attache in Richmond ask about the things.

[Guinness]

I think the Maori will just have their Naval Attache in Richmond ask about the things.

But what fun would that be?

[Walter]

Walter: serious question because I'm curious: How do you guys handle subs over there? Is there just some standard misc weight to add to springsharps to do submarines?

Well, we generally stick to the springstyle rules for submarines ( I get the idea that most subs are between 1/5 and 1/6 of the normal displacement for the ballast). Considering that is a stability issue with a design if you add too much miscellaneous weight (and the more things you add, the more difficult it is), I have been using alternative weight-adding tricks to sim other aspects of the submarine like the torpedoes on my version of the German Biber. I used the weight of the torpedo bulkhead to sim the weight of those two torpedoes. For the latest models, I have been using the main belt to sim the weight of the torpedoes. I also simmed a 21" and a 24" torpedo. :) I used a negative value somewhere in the torpedo sims, but can't remember what exactly I did.

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?postid=11451#post11451

[miketr]

Nay.. this is what you REALLY want for a sub...

Michael

[Valles]

...Fun?

Seriously, though, I haven't got a clue. 'Could be called cruisers' is way too suspicious, and the weight isn't anything obvious.

[Guinness]

Ok, another clue then:

Deep in the recesses of the converted hotel that now serves as the HQ of the CSN's Bureau of Ships in Richmond, one of the constructors is discussing this project with a naval officer counterpart:

"So have you looked at the updated timeline?" asked the constructor.

"Yes, the first issue is the armament. The Naval Ordnance Factory at Norfolk hasn't built guns of that caliber in some time." the officer notes.

"True, they say they have the necessary tooling on hand though, and claim that they can produce the necessary number of guns without delaying the ships' overall progress." said the constructor.

The officer: "Truthfully, I'm less worried about the guns and mounts, and more worried about getting them to San Diego. I wish they'd delay laying down that ship another six months. Transportation will be difficult. After all, when they planned the construction of the new heavy shore defense batteries there, they gave them an extra six months in the schedule compared to those being built at Norfolk."

[Desertfox]

Criuser with really big guns = http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/goryo_f.htm

I think Im getting close, its either a Fisher Follie or some sort of gun testbed/monitor.

[ledeper]

Love that page http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/goryo_f.htm ,
someday Ill build
http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/fuhrer_f.htm,
giggle :D ;) ;)

[Jefgte]

2x18"  @30kts


;)

[Sachmle]

2x18"  @30kts


;)

The CSA never produced anything larger then 15" so far, and it says

The Naval Ordnance Factory at Norfolk hasn't built guns of that caliber in some time.

So I doubt it's anything larger in caliber than 12", and is most likely a 9.2" as P3D stated earlier.

[Desertfox]

Don't forget that pre-dreadnought guns tended to be very big. 18" guns were not uncommon.

[Sachmle]

I just looked here:

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=751.0

[P3D]

Rather this one:

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3136.0

[P3D]

By Guiness' clues, it would be 12" guns then, as 9.2"s (the other caliber not produced for some time) should hardly cause that much trouble during transportation. So 8x12" and high speed, minimal armor.

[Sachmle]

Rather this one:

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3136.0

No, that's the "CURRENT" guns, I meant the Historic ones, i.e. not produced anymore. But I do agree on the 12" high speed little armor idea.