Messing around with an early Pre-Dreadnought

[Korpen]

4" deck.... really? 

What is wrong with that? It seems fairly normal in period.

64 light guns... yet your policy is to ignore the unprotected ends? 

Makes sense given the threats at this point, big gun shot will punch trough any armour, and most shell will have limited effect at best, even against unarmoured areas.

And to top it off a cruise speed of 14knts... wow your designers are really top notch and psychics ta boot.  ;)

Or went to period Italian design school...

This is not a question of reality verses your desired fantasy vessel, but of the physics of the world and SS's limited representation of it. That is why other designers ask that one begins with a real ship and modify to get where you want to go.

This is tricky in this period as quite a few of the ships built were quite unreal....

[Valles]

.85 as tops, huh? I honestly hadn't known that.

The gunshields, in my mind, actually aren't mobile, but my 'visualization' of leaving the guns unshielded would lead to gaps more than a meter tall, rather simply the clearance needed for the barrels.

Probably the immediately previous class to this was substantially slower and had no freeboard to speak of - the layout is a 'monitor' that's had a 'weather deck' built on top of it and armament raised to clear the deck, not any kind of 'proto all-or-nothing'. Put another way, she's a protected cruiser that's been scaled up to take a swing at a battleship's job, rather than an armored one.

Note the top speed as well as cruise: She's designed to be able to hoof it from the Sea of Okhotsk to the East China Sea or Yellow Sea without needing to waste time stopping. I don't see how any form of psionics is required to see how that could be useful in a crunch.

Shuiroi Aware to Tsuuseki no Gajou, San-mei Ou no Bakufu Ship of the Line laid down 1880
Barbette ship

Displacement:
   13,301 t light; 13,933 t standard; 16,043 t normal; 17,732 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   459.32 ft / 459.32 ft x 75.46 ft x 19.69 ft (normal load)
   140.00 m / 140.00 m x 23.00 m  x 6.00 m

Armament:
      3 - 13.78" / 350 mm guns in single mounts, 1,102.31lbs / 500.00kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in open barbettes
     on centreline ends, majority aft
      16 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 88.18lbs / 40.00kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all aft
     16 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in any sea
      16 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns in single mounts, 26.46lbs / 12.00kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all aft
      16 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm guns in single mounts, 3.31lbs / 1.50kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
      32 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 0.44lbs / 0.20kg shells, 1880 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
   Weight of broadside 5,208 lbs / 2,362 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   9.84" / 250 mm   164.04 ft / 50.00 m   10.20 ft / 3.11 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
   Upper:   9.84" / 250 mm   164.04 ft / 50.00 m   8.01 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 55 % of normal length
     Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:         -            -         17.7" / 450 mm
   2nd:   9.84" / 250 mm         -               -
   3rd:   9.84" / 250 mm         -               -
   4th:   0.98" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 17.72" / 450 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 7,000 ihp / 5,222 Kw = 14.10 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 14.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,799 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   712 - 926

Cost:
   £1.216 million / $4.863 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 652 tons, 4.1 %
   Armour: 5,676 tons, 35.4 %
      - Belts: 1,547 tons, 9.6 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,638 tons, 10.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,249 tons, 14.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 243 tons, 1.5 %
   Machinery: 1,446 tons, 9.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,396 tons, 33.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,742 tons, 17.1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 130 tons, 0.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     20,817 lbs / 9,443 Kg = 18.7 x 13.8 " / 350 mm shells or 2.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.50
   Metacentric height 6.6 ft / 2.0 m
   Roll period: 12.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.13
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.12

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.823
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.09 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 21.43 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 33 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 63
   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:      16.40 ft / 5.00 m
      - Forecastle (10 %):   16.40 ft / 5.00 m
      - Mid (25 %):      16.40 ft / 5.00 m (8.20 ft / 2.50 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (10 %):   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Stern:      8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Average freeboard:   10.25 ft / 3.13 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 61.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 80.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 30,873 Square feet or 2,868 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 144 lbs/sq ft or 701 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.15
      - Longitudinal: 0.95
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Carthaginian]

Personally, I can find nothing in any naval text that remotely resembles this vessel... and I've delayed this long to look as thoroughly as I can on my budget and resources.

The BC is a joke- a Mississippi river pushboat might work well with this kind of hull, but your ship would in no way be able to go to sea with it. Hell, read about the ICW and the kinds of areas where this vessel might be appropriate. No real ocean-going ship will have even an 0.85 BC... 0.65 would be more appropriate.

A 14 knot cruise speed is also insane. Most 'ships of the line' of this period made this as a maximum speed, and your ship cruises at it? Be ready for some SERIOUS downtime related to engine wear, as those engines will be taking a beating of monumental proportions.

There is also ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can convince me that all those weapons will fit into that hull and leave room for people to move about to man them. The H.M.S. Minotaur was only 25 feet shorter, had more freeboard, similar length, and mounted less than 40 guns on broadside. Yet you claim that you can fit more than that AND have room for a trio of barbettes mounting guns bigger than anything that she mounted?

This is a clear-cut case of 'Springsharp can tell you if the WEIGHTS will work, but not if the DESIGN will.'

EDIT: A monitor doesn't have a hull with a break and a super-heavy secondary battery.
This is a 'battleship,' pure and simple.

[Korpen]

There is also ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can convince me that all those weapons will fit into that hull and leave room for people to move about to man them. The H.M.S. Minotaur was only 25 feet shorter, had more freeboard, similar length, and mounted less than 40 guns on broadside.

Minotaur was much smaller, and she had larger guns in her hull. So compared to her the 32 smaller guns in the hull on valles design in not totally out off the realm.

[Carthaginian]

There is also ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can convince me that all those weapons will fit into that hull and leave room for people to move about to man them. The H.M.S. Minotaur was only 25 feet shorter, had more freeboard, similar length, and mounted less than 40 guns on broadside.

Minotaur was much smaller, and she had larger guns in her hull. So compared to her the 32 smaller guns in the hull on valles design in not totally out off the realm.

Minotaur being 400'x60'x28' and being the largest broadside ironclad should tell Valles something in and of itself.

Yes, the guns were individually larger... but Valles is trying to cram twice as many guns into the same hull space. While they might be individually smaller, there is still a finite amount of room that must be left for the mounting of the guns and for the men to move about.

I am, also, ignoring that every gun on the ship is mounted on the aft part of the hull.
I'm sure that is a typo.

The point of this is, of course, even if Springsharp says 'this will fit' it isn't taking into account anything but the fact that the guns will sit side-by-side in the allotted space- not that those guns can be worked with any degree of effectiveness.

[Korpen]

Minotaur being 400'x60'x28' and being the largest broadside ironclad should tell Valles something in and of itself.

I think this ship is closer to Italia in some sense.

Yes, the guns were individually larger... but Valles is trying to cram twice as many guns into the same hull space. While they might be individually smaller, there is still a finite amount of room that must be left for the mounting of the guns and for the men to move about.

The 5cm and volley guns only need about 2 men per gun, and are spread out along the deack and (i guess) the fighting tops, the space they take up is marginal.

I am, also, ignoring that every gun on the ship is mounted on the aft part of the hull.
I'm sure that is a typo.

I do not think so, but note that the midbreak is at 25%, 3/4 of the ship is "aft".

The point of this is, of course, even if Springsharp says 'this will fit' it isn't taking into account anything but the fact that the guns will sit side-by-side in the allotted space- not that those guns can be worked with any degree of effectiveness.

If all the secondaries are mounted within the citadel they would on average have 6,25m of space for each gun; that do not sound all that over cramped.

[Carthaginian]

I still state that it's probably going to be 'cramped' overall until I see the drawing.


Oh, there are 16 guns per side in a 50m citadel = 3.125m per gun, not 6.25m... not counting the space the gun itself takes up.

[Valles]

The secondary armament is placed in three decks, upper (50mm), middle (100mm), and lower (150mm). Each deck has eight guns per side; that's 6.25 meters. If that's not enough, then the length of the belt may well end up being adjusted when I get to the art stage. I think it's reasonable to conclude that each of the 'fighting tops' has room for four Nordenfelt mounts, so that's the tertiary machine guns taken care of.

I don't care about the terminology you want to apply to it any more than I do futile appeals to historical precedent.

The placement of the secondary battery 'all aft sides' is indeed deliberate, and Korpen has correctly identified the reasoning - the guns are 'actually' closer to midships, but Springsharp has screwy definitions.

The ability to maintain near-maximum speed for long periods is not a negotiable design trait; if it's considered by the consensus of the entire community that the possible sustained speed is only twelve, or ten, or eight knots, then that will limit the maximum speed just as much.

Shuiroi Aware to Tsuuseki no Gajou, San-mei Ou no Bakufu Ship of the Line laid down 1880
Barbette ship

Displacement:
   11,766 t light; 12,350 t standard; 13,646 t normal; 14,682 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   459.32 ft / 459.32 ft x 75.46 ft x 19.69 ft (normal load)
   140.00 m / 140.00 m x 23.00 m  x 6.00 m

Armament:
      3 - 13.78" / 350 mm guns in single mounts, 1,102.31lbs / 500.00kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in open barbettes
     on centreline ends, majority aft
      16 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 88.18lbs / 40.00kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all aft
     16 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in any sea
      16 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns in single mounts, 26.46lbs / 12.00kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all aft
      16 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm guns in single mounts, 3.31lbs / 1.50kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
      32 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 0.44lbs / 0.20kg shells, 1880 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
   Weight of broadside 5,208 lbs / 2,362 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   9.84" / 250 mm   164.04 ft / 50.00 m   10.20 ft / 3.11 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
   Upper:   9.84" / 250 mm   164.04 ft / 50.00 m   8.01 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 55 % of normal length
     Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:         -            -         17.7" / 450 mm
   2nd:   9.84" / 250 mm         -               -
   3rd:   9.84" / 250 mm         -               -
   4th:   0.98" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 17.72" / 450 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 4,000 ihp / 2,984 Kw = 12.45 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,332 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   630 - 820

Cost:
   £1.075 million / $4.301 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 652 tons, 4.8 %
   Armour: 5,422 tons, 39.7 %
      - Belts: 1,542 tons, 11.3 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,638 tons, 12.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,023 tons, 14.8 %
      - Conning Tower: 218 tons, 1.6 %
   Machinery: 827 tons, 6.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,736 tons, 34.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,879 tons, 13.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 130 tons, 1.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     19,000 lbs / 8,618 Kg = 17.1 x 13.8 " / 350 mm shells or 2.9 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.44
   Metacentric height 6.2 ft / 1.9 m
   Roll period: 12.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.14
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.12

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.700
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.09 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 21.43 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 26 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 63
   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:      16.40 ft / 5.00 m
      - Forecastle (10 %):   16.40 ft / 5.00 m
      - Mid (25 %):      16.40 ft / 5.00 m (8.20 ft / 2.50 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (10 %):   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Stern:      8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Average freeboard:   10.25 ft / 3.13 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 57.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 81.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 27,780 Square feet or 2,581 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 138 lbs/sq ft or 674 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.06
      - Longitudinal: 0.98
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Carthaginian]

How long are you expecting the ship to hold top speed?
How long do you think that the ship can manage before you have to stop and do a serious lube job or lock up the bearings? 3000 nautical miles would not be anything that the ship could handle without some stopping. The nature of a VTE is that it works well for low-speed cruising, but high-speed is very taxing on them. I think that Janes' says in entries of several WWII era ships that 24 hours at top speed was maximum for 'modern' VTEs with forced lubrication. I'm unsure how long you'd have to slow down or stop... but the ship would start having some real problems with holding those kinds of speed for that long.

[snip]

I have resisted commenting until now, but I feel the need to break my silence

I don't care about the terminology you want to apply to it any more than I do futile appeals to historical precedent.

This is quite a rude comment to make. Might as well just us all to shove it if you are going to do whatever you want anyway.

The ability to maintain near-maximum speed for long periods is not a negotiable design trait; if it's considered by the consensus of the entire community that the possible sustained speed is only twelve, or ten, or eight knots, then that will limit the maximum speed just as much.

Its not a matter of the community having an opinion that such things should not be possible, its a matter of historical president and mechanical reality. Max speed is determined by SHP and hull form. As it is not something that is normally sustained for long, the mechanical reliability of the engines does not have as much of a factor if the ship is at a just-refitted condition. With reciprocating engines of all kinds, running them for long periods has massive effects on the prefomance of those engines. For a historical example (if you care to find it relevent), look at the shape of the Russian Baltic fleet at Tsusema. They were incapbale of hiting there max speeds due to the wear that the jurny had placed on them, and that was after only crusing at what I assume would be around 8-10knts. Having a ship with reciprocating engines of any kind that is expected to cruse at more then that will wear its engines out so fast that it would IMO quickly be rendered ineffective as anything short of a stationary platform. In conclusion, for the time that we are at having high cruse speeds is compleaty impractical from a mechanical standpoint due to the engines involved. Like it or not, this is an undismisable fact and one that IMO is not up for debate.

I will wait until I see the drawing to bring up the armament.

Overall, I have found your attitude about everything that others are adding or commenting on about N4 or areas under your control within to be very hostile to any point that runs contrary to your own. Frankly, I am getting quite feed up with it.

[Carthaginian]

I won't...

A ship with an 8.2 foot freeboard and gun ports that are 4' off the waterline?
Not a good plan; those will ship water in the most calm seas!
Heck, the wave generated by the ship's motion might be enough to do that.

Your next gun deck will have a muzzle height of about 13 feet.
These will ship water in moderately rough seas, like any other pre-dread design.

Again, possible, but not sound. Why design a ship which will almost never be able to fight her best secondaries, and have trouble fighting any of them in rough weather.
This is, of course, independent of the engineering arguments.

[Valles]

This is quite a rude comment to make. Might as well just us all to shove it if you are going to do whatever you want anyway.

And might as well just tell me to shove it if all people are going to say is that it's not enough like what actually happened.

Its not a matter of the community having an opinion that such things should not be possible, its a matter of historical president and mechanical reality. Max speed is determined by SHP and hull form. As it is not something that is normally sustained for long, the mechanical reliability of the engines does not have as much of a factor if the ship is at a just-refitted condition. With reciprocating engines of all kinds, running them for long periods has massive effects on the prefomance of those engines. For a historical example (if you care to find it relevent), look at the shape of the Russian Baltic fleet at Tsusema. They were incapbale of hiting there max speeds due to the wear that the jurny had placed on them, and that was after only crusing at what I assume would be around 8-10knts. Having a ship with reciprocating engines of any kind that is expected to cruse at more then that will wear its engines out so fast that it would IMO quickly be rendered ineffective as anything short of a stationary platform. In conclusion, for the time that we are at having high cruse speeds is compleaty impractical from a mechanical standpoint due to the engines involved. Like it or not, this is an undismisable fact and one that IMO is not up for debate.

So, ten knots, then.

*shrug* All right. Ten knots it is.

Overall, I have found your attitude about everything that others are adding or commenting on about N4 or areas under your control within to be very hostile to any point that runs contrary to your own. Frankly, I am getting quite feed up with it.

If I were a saint, I'm make my arguments with grace, style, and goodwill towards all. Since I'm not, I end up looking like an ass when I try to fight off what looks to me like an already-hostile lobby aiming to turn the entire playerbase's freedom to design into the freedom to pick which already designed exactly historical hull, and already recorded exactly historical nation, they'd like to pick off of a list of 'allowable options'. This might be an unfair perception on my part, but it's nonetheless one I've found reinforced within this very thread.

For instance:

A BC of 0.913 is crazy. The 14" Monitor HMS Roberts had a BC of 0.84,(supposedly highest in the Royal Navy) and that was ONLY because it was to be shallow draught and slow speed. Designed speed of 10 knts on 4000ihp or so, they ended up getting 5.7-7.7 knots due to the poor hull shape.

This is an effective argument; it provides supporting evidence and explanation for why its point should be so. Therefore, even though its tone is no more friendly than my other example, it provides me with useful advice and feedback which you will note I did apply.

Personally, I can find nothing in any naval text that remotely resembles this vessel... and I've delayed this long to look as thoroughly as I can on my budget and resources.

This is not an effective argument; it reports only a lack of precedent, without attempting to apply any sense of the principles that led to that principle. Without the evidence that would render it into constructive feedback, it takes on the emotional content of an attempt to browbeat me rather than illustrate a flaw in the design. Considering that a hostile act, I respond snappishly and thus lead us into your own post - even though, in general, I have no problem with Carth.

In fact, returning to topic, he has something of a point about the gunports, though I'm uncertain whether or not they might be somewhat a matter of hindsight.

Shuiroi Aware to Tsuuseki no Gajou, San-mei Ou no Bakufu Ship of the Line laid down 1880
Barbette ship

Displacement:
   11,354 t light; 11,921 t standard; 12,772 t normal; 13,454 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   459.32 ft / 459.32 ft x 75.46 ft x 18.37 ft (normal load)
   140.00 m / 140.00 m x 23.00 m  x 5.60 m

Armament:
      3 - 13.78" / 350 mm guns in single mounts, 1,102.31lbs / 500.00kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in open barbettes
     on centreline ends, majority aft
      16 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 88.18lbs / 40.00kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all forward
     16 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
      16 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns in single mounts, 26.46lbs / 12.00kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all forward
      16 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm guns in single mounts, 3.31lbs / 1.50kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
      32 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 0.44lbs / 0.20kg shells, 1880 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
   Weight of broadside 5,208 lbs / 2,362 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   9.84" / 250 mm   164.04 ft / 50.00 m   10.20 ft / 3.11 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
   Upper:   9.84" / 250 mm   164.04 ft / 50.00 m   8.01 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 55 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:         -            -         17.7" / 450 mm
   2nd:   9.84" / 250 mm         -               -
   3rd:   9.84" / 250 mm         -               -
   4th:   0.98" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 17.72" / 450 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 2,000 ihp / 1,492 Kw = 10.18 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,533 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   599 - 780

Cost:
   £1.003 million / $4.012 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 652 tons, 5.1 %
   Armour: 5,413 tons, 42.4 %
      - Belts: 1,539 tons, 12.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,638 tons, 12.8 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,027 tons, 15.9 %
      - Conning Tower: 209 tons, 1.6 %
   Machinery: 413 tons, 3.2 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,746 tons, 37.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,418 tons, 11.1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 130 tons, 1.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     24,115 lbs / 10,938 Kg = 21.7 x 13.8 " / 350 mm shells or 3.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.48
   Metacentric height 6.4 ft / 2.0 m
   Roll period: 12.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.20
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.42

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.702
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.09 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 21.43 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 18 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   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:      16.40 ft / 5.00 m
      - Forecastle (10 %):   16.40 ft / 5.00 m
      - Mid (65 %):      16.40 ft / 5.00 m (8.20 ft / 2.50 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (10 %):   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Stern:      8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Average freeboard:   13.53 ft / 4.13 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 50.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 122.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 27,830 Square feet or 2,585 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 135 lbs/sq ft or 658 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.98
      - Longitudinal: 1.19
      - 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]

Valles,

"A lack of precedent" is not what is being shown here- a lack of precedent indicates that 'nothing like this came before.' What I addressed was that no ship like this existed at the time you are suggesting this ship would have, nor did they exist after. This indicates that while the technology existed in fact, no one considered such a ship possible or feasible- and those 'no ones' had a lot more practical knowledge and experience than any of us. Thus, I am not raising an insubstantial argument based on 'nothing like this came before'- I am raising an historical argument stating that 'nothing like this ever existed, so I cannot consider this a valid design.'

I could point to individual ships that had elements of designs which your ship features- by name, if I were to spend that much time digging around int he Conway's I was so recently able to acquire... but honestly, that would take a damn long time. Unfortunately, that appears to be exactly what you seem to be necessitating.
As I will likely be working tomorrow, most of the examples in question will be posted Friday.
I can post about the gunports that many pre-dreadnoughts which had casemated guns in the 10-15' above waterline range often shipped water in rough seas (the reason that they were largely plated over when such ships were refitted), and many old three-deckers shipped water in relatively calm seas... especially those with added armor.
Also, I can state with some certainty that the closest ship to your design here was the French Amiral Duperre class of barbette ship. These vessels featured many of the same features of your ship- including a similar number of secondary guns, but no tertiary guns... though they had a freeboard which appears to be closer to that of your fo'c'sle than your main deck. These ships were largely (and this IS hindsight) considered failures due to one of the other things pointed out about your ship- too much unarmored hull area. Also, note that while this ship had a similar top speed to your original design, it would not have had nearly the cruising range... suggesting that your desire for your ship to 'cruise at top speed' is unreasonable.*

This design seems to be largely a combination of an admirable desire to do something completely different (which I applaud loudly) and a complete disregard for what history shows was possible at the time (which we simply can't do here).

*Dropping your top speed to 10 knots will not help you 'cruise at top speed.' Sadly, an engine that maintains it's maximum output for any great length of time will be unduly strained- whether it be 1 horsepower or 100,000 horsepower. To maintain a cruising speed of 10 knots, you will need a much more powerful engine... this is simply the way that such things work. Beating up on a little engine will have the same effect as beating up on a big one- your engine will still break down due to abuse. Better to have a big, idling engine than a small, straining one.

[Valles]

"A lack of precedent" is not what is being shown here- a lack of precedent indicates that 'nothing like this came before.' What I addressed was that no ship like this existed at the time you are suggesting this ship would have, nor did they exist after. This indicates that while the technology existed in fact, no one considered such a ship possible or feasible- and those 'no ones' had a lot more practical knowledge and experience than any of us. Thus, I am not raising an insubstantial argument based on 'nothing like this came before'- I am raising an historical argument stating that 'nothing like this ever existed, so I cannot consider this a valid design.'

You seem to be drawing some distinction between the bolded sections which continues to escape me.

Historical examples are useful to me not because they draw limits, but because they illustrate, mmmmm, the factors in play - and, in the cases where things were tried and failed, where the limits of those individual factors were. I don't care whether or not nobody did a given thing; if someone did something short of it and it turned out to be a failure, that's a different matter.

This design seems to be largely a combination of an admirable desire to do something completely different (which I applaud loudly) and a complete disregard for what history shows was possible at the time (which we simply can't do here).

Or, perhaps, a limited knowledge of the warships of the era? Such that I'm effectively in the position of relearning the 'feel' for designs I first learned for N3, and liable to produce designs as bizzare as the Bardiches simply because I'm willing to scattershot the field wildly rather than huddle around the cold campfire of closely imitated examples?

*Dropping your top speed to 10 knots will not help you 'cruise at top speed.' Sadly, an engine that maintains it's maximum output for any great length of time will be unduly strained- whether it be 1 horsepower or 100,000 horsepower. To maintain a cruising speed of 10 knots, you will need a much more powerful engine... this is simply the way that such things work. Beating up on a little engine will have the same effect as beating up on a big one- your engine will still break down due to abuse. Better to have a big, idling engine than a small, straining one.

I find it extremely counterintuitive that a steam engine designed to power a textile mill would be designed to produce twice as much power as it would ever be called on to use. Peak vs sustained, in my mind, is a design trade-off at the level of the device itself, and one that I think is often played with in different applications... Just not ones we think about.

If SS3 were working, I'd've hung the 'weight per horsepower' notch very high to illustrate the kind of construction being seen, since it would be sturdier and heavier than an engine that would only be expected to exert its peak strength for short periods. Since we've got 2 to work with, I suppose that either misc weight or judicious editing-away of what the program thinks is a higher 'peak' speed would have to do...

Hmm.

[Nobody]

*Dropping your top speed to 10 knots will not help you 'cruise at top speed.' Sadly, an engine that maintains it's maximum output for any great length of time will be unduly strained- whether it be 1 horsepower or 100,000 horsepower. To maintain a cruising speed of 10 knots, you will need a much more powerful engine... this is simply the way that such things work. Beating up on a little engine will have the same effect as beating up on a big one- your engine will still break down due to abuse. Better to have a big, idling engine than a small, straining one.

I find it extremely counterintuitive that a steam engine designed to power a textile mill would be designed to produce twice as much power as it would ever be called on to use. Peak vs sustained, in my mind, is a design trade-off at the level of the device itself, and one that I think is often played with in different applications... Just not ones we think about.

Think of it the other way around. If you ask an engineer to design an engine with a sustained output of 1000 hp, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be able to produce several times as much (peak). In practice this might have been done by building the engine to run with 12 bar steam pressure and then deliver it together with a 8 bar boiler. That way the max power could indeed be sustained power.
I have a real world example which goes in the same direction: Few years ago a swiss reeder decided to retrofit some of their paddle "steamers" (which had been diesel powered for decades) with a new steam engine. When finished they made dyno run to prove that it produced the required power. They found out it could produce much more but didn't dare to find out how much exactly - to prevent damaging the brand new bearings.
Another example is that the reverse gear of a car has a life expectancy of 20 minutes - at full power. Ever heard of reverse failing first?

If SS3 were working, I'd've hung the 'weight per horsepower' notch very high to illustrate the kind of construction being seen, since it would be sturdier and heavier than an engine that would only be expected to exert its peak strength for short periods. Since we've got 2 to work with, I suppose that either misc weight or judicious editing-away of what the program thinks is a higher 'peak' speed would have to do...

Yes that would be nice, but in the meantime you could simply make the ship faster and write in the annotations that the ship is not supposed to be able to run that fast.