Messing around with an early Pre-Dreadnought

[Valles]

I'm unpersuaded regarding the principle, but on a practical level, we seem to've hit on a workable way of simulating the effect.

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

Displacement:
   12,873 t light; 13,481 t standard; 14,850 t normal; 15,946 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   492.13 ft / 492.13 ft x 75.46 ft x 19.69 ft (normal load)
   150.00 m / 150.00 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 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 51 % 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 = 12.255 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,465 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   672 - 874

Cost:
   £1.180 million / $4.720 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 652 tons, 4.4 %
   Armour: 5,604 tons, 37.7 %
      - Belts: 1,546 tons, 10.4 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,638 tons, 11.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,189 tons, 14.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 231 tons, 1.6 %
   Machinery: 1,298 tons, 8.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,189 tons, 34.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,977 tons, 13.3 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 130 tons, 0.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     22,162 lbs / 10,053 Kg = 19.9 x 13.8 " / 350 mm shells or 2.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.52
   Metacentric height 6.7 ft / 2.0 m
   Roll period: 12.3 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.18
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.39

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.711
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.52 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22.18 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 29 %
   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): 63.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 117.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 30,057 Square feet or 2,792 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: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.06
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily


Machinery weight calculated for 14 knots/6,300 hp
Armor deck slopes up from waterline protecting machinery
Belt covers secondary armament only

[Carthaginian]

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.

I DID show that- I listed the class in question BY NAME. I showed a vessel which had similar armament, similar speed and similar armor scheme (all a little better than yours, really) and how it was historically considered unsuccessful. This is not a distinction that escapes you due to ignorance of a fact... it is rapidly becoming something you simply choose to ignore.

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?

"Limited knowledge of warships of the era?"
If you are referring to me, I have Conway's "All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1860-1907" beside my computer ATM (God bless used bookstores) and there is nothing like that in said book, which records all the classes of vessels that were in commission throughout the world during that time period! While I am not an expert of naval engineering, I do have what is considered to be the most historically complete source before me, so that is to count for something.

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...

It is hardly counter-intuitive to over-engineer something... indeed, it is generally regarded as necessary to intentionally over-engineer most pieces of equipment, regardless of what field you are in! Automobiles have more potential horsepower, torque and towing capacity than they are ever expected to use- this is done precisely for the reasons cited by our several separate posts, to ensure that more moderate requirements do not overstress the equipment.

[Valles]

I DID show that- I listed the class in question BY NAME. I showed a vessel which had similar armament, similar speed and similar armor scheme (all a little better than yours, really) and how it was historically considered unsuccessful. This is not a distinction that escapes you due to ignorance of a fact... it is rapidly becoming something you simply choose to ignore.

In the specific case of this ship, I'm actually intending to build a 'failure', more or less, but that's neither here nor there.

"a lack of precedent indicates that 'nothing like this came before.'" is already an implicit argument that you consider the design invalid. I don't need that spelled out any further, and I'm quite capable of seeing the logic you used to arrive at that point of view. "I am raising an historical argument stating that 'nothing like this ever existed, so I cannot consider this a valid design.'" does nothing except repeat the original statement more explicitly.

With only that to go on, I can only either give up entirely and go home, which isn't going to happen short of the mods actively banning me, or grope around blind for something workable, getting more and more annoyed at the people whose idea of useful feedback is 'You're Wrong. Do It The Way They Really Did.'

"Limited knowledge of warships of the era?"
If you are referring to me, I have Conway's "All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1860-1907" beside my computer ATM (God bless used bookstores) and there is nothing like that in said book, which records all the classes of vessels that were in commission throughout the world during that time period! While I am not an expert of naval engineering, I do have what is considered to be the most historically complete source before me, so that is to count for something.

...Um, no.

I was talking about myself.

I'm designing blind. I freely admit it. And when people get high-handed about how I'm Doing It Wrong rather than giving me the information to work out the reasoning - the real reasoning, not just the absence of evidence - I get tetchy, probably more than I should. I freely admit that, too.

It is hardly counter-intuitive to over-engineer something... indeed, it is generally regarded as necessary to intentionally over-engineer most pieces of equipment, regardless of what field you are in! Automobiles have more potential horsepower, torque and towing capacity than they are ever expected to use- this is done precisely for the reasons cited by our several separate posts, to ensure that more moderate requirements do not overstress the equipment.

All of this is true; what I'm confused by is the apparent presumption that increased peak horsepower is the only possible outcome of overdesign, and therefore that a hypothetical machine cannot be built for... call it 'ruggedness'.

[Carthaginian]

In the specific case of this ship, I'm actually intending to build a 'failure', more or less, but that's neither here nor there.

Actually, intending to design a failure makes a monumental difference... if one is intending to design a failure, then it becomes a different matter entirely! If you are trying to design a ship with a powerful appearance, yet with fatal flaws, you have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

With only that to go on, I can only either give up entirely and go home, which isn't going to happen short of the mods actively banning me, or grope around blind for something workable, getting more and more annoyed at the people whose idea of useful feedback is 'You're Wrong. Do It The Way They Really Did.'

I have attempted to give some feedback where I could- and to point out those things that I felt were wrong, yet where I could not give any advice to better things. Even though I could not directly point out a more effective way to do it, I felt at least pointing out where the mistakes lie might help.

...Um, no.

I was talking about myself.

I'm designing blind. I freely admit it. And when people get high-handed about how I'm Doing It Wrong rather than giving me the information to work out the reasoning - the real reasoning, not just the absence of evidence - I get tetchy, probably more than I should. I freely admit that, too.

Wikipedia can be a big help- I used it while I was last here.
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/H/bx53056/1668/r0.htm
http://www.warshipsww2.eu/staty.php?language=E
These websites are also strong aids if you would like to use them. The Flixco site can be a bit testy, but both are full of ships that can be used as examples and starting points.

All of this is true; what I'm confused by is the apparent presumption that increased peak horsepower is the only possible outcome of overdesign, and therefore that a hypothetical machine cannot be built for... call it 'ruggedness'.

'Over-designing' is 'building for ruggedness'... plain and simple.