Mutant Monitor-Thing

[Tanthalas]

my 1870 BB type calls for I think 4X6" in wing turrets (ok so they are wing deck mounts realy)

[Nobody]

Also "interesting" choice of gun caliber and armor thickness. Any specific reason for that?

I suspect I can answer that, he is using Japanese measurements with 30,3mm to the inch, so the guns are 12 inches, the end and upper belt 10 inches.
I like it! :)

Okay, shall I use one of the Prussian* Inches then? The one from 1755 (26.1545 mm) or the decimal one from 1816 (37.6625 mm)?

Could lead to confusing treaties. I'm only allowed to use 12 Inch guns? No problem that would still be 451.95 mm! ;)



*) of course I could also use units from Baden(1 Inch = 3 cm), Bavaria (1 Inch = either 24.3216 mm or 29.18592 mm) or a Saxon (1 Inch = 23.6 mm)

[Valles]

Korpen has indeed picked out the reason for the measurements.

The main guns have a bore of one shaku, two bu and are hence shakunibu; they fire shells massing 125 kan each, and so forth.

The lack of secondary guns is a direct reflection of their close descent from the 'monitor type'. Plus, of course, anything that gets tagged by a 14.3" gun, even a low-velocity one, during this period is going to be having what you might call a real bad day.

Presumably, international treaties would specify the measurement system used to define their units. Given that Springsharp works quite happily in Metric, the most plausible/universal candidate, I think it's disingenuous to claim that this represents some kind of 'real' increase in complexity for those not interested in investing that much detail in their design practices.

[Nobody]

Actually, the more I think about it the more interesting the idea of using different measuring systems becomes. Imagine a ship class were each ship was build on a different yard with slightly different systems. That could be the base for a very good story - if simming them all differently wouldn't be so much work.

[Tanthalas]

oh I agree Nobody, im actualy going the other Direction myself (every ship is a logical extention of the previous class till 1880 when I have a Eureka moment and then go back to making gradual improvements)

[Ithekro]

This is what I found for the normal Monitor thingy.

I am actually not sure if this is an offical version or if I made this.


Monitor, United States Ironclad laid down 1861
Central citadel ship

Displacement:
   897 t light; 979 t standard; 987 t normal; 989 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   172.00 ft / 172.00 ft x 41.50 ft x 10.50 ft (normal load)
   52.43 m / 52.43 m x 12.65 m  x 3.20 m

Armament:
      2 - 11.00" / 279 mm guns (1x2 guns), 376.15lbs / 170.62kg shells, 1861 Model
     Muzzle loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret
     on centreline amidships
   Weight of broadside 752 lbs / 341 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   3.00" / 76 mm   107.00 ft / 32.61 m   6.00 ft / 1.83 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   7.00" / 178 mm         -               -

   - Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 1 shaft, 216 ihp / 161 Kw = 8.00 kts
   Range 300nm at 3.00 kts (Bunkerage = 14 tons)

Complement:
   87 - 114

Cost:
   £0.120 million / $0.479 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 94 tons, 9.5 %
   Armour: 102 tons, 10.3 %
      - Belts: 88 tons, 8.9 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 7 tons, 0.8 %
      - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 6 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 67 tons, 6.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 634 tons, 64.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 90 tons, 9.1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     336 lbs / 153 Kg = 0.9 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
   Metacentric height 1.8 ft / 0.5 m
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 11 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.02
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.02

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.461
   Length to Beam Ratio: 4.14 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 13.11 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 26 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 100
   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:      0.50 ft / 0.15 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   0.50 ft / 0.15 m
      - Mid (50 %):      0.50 ft / 0.15 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   0.50 ft / 0.15 m
      - Stern:      0.50 ft / 0.15 m
      - Average freeboard:   0.50 ft / 0.15 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 5.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 4,595 Square feet or 427 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 128 lbs/sq ft or 623 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.98
      - Longitudinal: 1.18
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
   Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
   Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

[Walter]

Different from what I simmed. I looked at Wiki, and while it is a bit of a guess, using the cross section there, I determined the freeboard to be about 2 feet, which I think is a lot better and safer than the 0.5 feet of the sim you posted.


USS Monitor, Union Monitor laid down 1861
Central citadel ship

Displacement:
   985 t light; 1,020 t standard; 1,039 t normal; 1,053 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   172.00 ft / 172.00 ft x 41.50 ft x 10.50 ft (normal load)
   52.43 m / 52.43 m x 12.65 m  x 3.20 m

Armament:
      2 - 11.00" / 279 mm guns (1x2 guns), 133.50lbs / 60.55kg shells, 1861 Model
     Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret
     on centreline amidships
   Weight of broadside 267 lbs / 121 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   4.00" / 102 mm   111.80 ft / 34.08 m   6.00 ft / 1.83 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 100% of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   9.00" / 229 mm   9.00" / 229 mm            -

   - Armour deck: 0.60" / 15 mm, Conning tower: 9.00" / 229 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 1 shaft, 224 ihp / 167 Kw = 8.00 kts
   Range 500nm at 5.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 33 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   90 - 118

Cost:
   £0.122 million / $0.489 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 94 tons, 9.1%
   Armour: 293 tons, 28.2%
      - Belts: 121 tons, 11.7%
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0%
      - Armament: 102 tons, 9.9%
      - Armour Deck: 50 tons, 4.8%
      - Conning Tower: 20 tons, 1.9%
   Machinery: 63 tons, 6.0%
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 535 tons, 51.5%
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 54 tons, 5.2%
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     442 lbs / 200 Kg = 1.2 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.04
   Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
   Roll period: 14.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 32 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.04
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0.26

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.485
   Length to Beam Ratio: 4.14 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 13.11 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 27 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 78
   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:      2.00 ft / 0.61 m
      - Forecastle (20%):   2.00 ft / 0.61 m
      - Mid (50%):      2.00 ft / 0.61 m
      - Quarterdeck (15%):   2.00 ft / 0.61 m
      - Stern:      2.00 ft / 0.61 m
      - Average freeboard:   2.00 ft / 0.61 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.5%
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 19.0%
   Waterplane Area: 4,498 Square feet or 418 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 88%
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 102 lbs/sq ft or 499 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.12
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
   Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

[Carthaginian]

Either one shows something that no one may argue with - CHARLIE DON'T SURF!!!
Anyone who takes these boats off a river and onto more than a placid bay deserves to drown.

[Walter]

Charlie only has CANOES! Charlie ain't got a boat like THAT! We You Yanks do did! ;D

That's what you get for sticking to a historical freeboard. The vertical hull sides themselves are only 6 feet high (hence the 6 feet belt). The rest of the underwater hull is at an angle. As a result, SS gives a low and crappy seaboat rating, but considering how SS sims it, I think it is a miracle that it got over 0.25! :D

[Carthaginian]

Charlie only has CANOES! Charlie ain't got a boat like THAT! We You Yanks do did! ;

Who are you calling a Yank?
My family is not now- nor have they ever been- dirty, rotten, yellow-bellied Billy Yanks.

ANd you're right- she was never meant to do anything other than float... and just barely that.

[Ithekro]

Sorry to tell ya, but after Reconstruction, to the rest of the world...everyone in the United States is a Yank.  Everyone.  Be they from New York, Maine, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, or California.  To the rest of the world, we are all Yanks.

[Walter]

Who are you calling a Yank?

Not you anyway. :D Monitor was a Union ship and the last time I checked, Alabama is not listed among the Union states. So in reality I was referring to anyone here on the board who hails from *looks for list* California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia or Wisconsin. :D

My family is not now- nor have they ever been- dirty, rotten, yellow-bellied Billy Yanks.

Good for you, Johnny Red. :)

To the rest of the world, we are all Yanks.

Yes, and you should blame the Yanks for that. ;D

[Ithekro]

I'd blame the British.

[Carthaginian]

See, guys, thats the difference between me and some others... I don't blame- I educate. :) Just ask the members of H.M.'s Armed Forces I worked with.

[Walter]

I'd blame the British.

I guess more precisely the evil English, right? :)

I don't blame- I educate.

So I guess you want to teach us Europeans that it is called the 1st/2nd Battle of Manassas and not the 1st/2nd Battle of Bull Run as 'Those People' call it and that, unlike what 'Those People' say, Sherman was a crazy, murdering, looting, burning and pillaging war criminal who should burn in hell for all the atrocities he and his troops committed. :o ;D