Hull and Sail Draft

[miketr]

So let it be written and so let it be done.



Hull Materials: The 19th Century saw rapid changes in materials that ships hulls were constructed off.  In less than 50 years the worlds battlefleets moved from hulls of Wooden Hulls, to Ironclad, Iron hull and finally steel construction.  These different materials have different abilities to take the load of the ships weight.     

Wooden Hull Ships: 1.1 Composite Hull Strength
Iron Hull Ships: 1.05 Composite Hull Strength
Steel Hull Ships: 1.0 Composite Hull Strength


Sail vs. Steam: As the 19th century progressed there was a transition of warships from sail propulsion, to steam backup and finally to all steam propulsion.  The switch over to steam comes because of two reasons.  First is that ships can steam all the time in all weather conditions.  The second is that rigging is a fire hazard and source of possible debris to block the ships deck.  Of course a ship with sails does not need to go to port to coal and doesn't require the ship engine to be maintained.  So sailing ships will remain common in civilian service for a great deal of time. 

To simulate the weight of a ships sail gear and the ballast to counter the torque effects the mast has on the hull misc. weight will be used.  A portion will be below the waterline misc. weight and the other as above the deck misc. weight both found on the Weapons tab for SpringSharp3. 

There are two types of sail plans that ships can follow. The Full Rigged Ship (3 masted ship) or Brigantine / Brig (2 masted ship). 

A full rigged ship can do up to 2/3 of SS hull speed (not ship engine speed but speed based on hull) Displacement costs being 1.5% misc weight above hull for Full Rigged Ship and 6.5% misc weight below deck.  On a 6,000 ton ship this comes out to 480 total misc tons.


A Brigantine can do 1/2 of SS hull speed.  Displacement costs being 1% Misc Weight above hull and 4% misc weight below deck.  On a 6,000 ton ship this comes out to 300 total misc tons.   

[Valles]

As far as the sketchy information on Wiki goes, it looks like junk rigs have very roughly the same performance-per-weight as Western ones; would it be permissible to treat that as a 'fluff difference'?

[Tanthalas]

As far as the sketchy information on Wiki goes, it looks like junk rigs have very roughly the same performance-per-weight as Western ones; would it be permissible to treat that as a 'fluff difference'?

I would think that would be perfectly fine man.

*throws away his whole startup fleet and starts over*

[Carthaginian]

As far as the sketchy information on Wiki goes, it looks like junk rigs have very roughly the same performance-per-weight as Western ones; would it be permissible to treat that as a 'fluff difference'?

Whatever you want, I'd imagine.

[miketr]

As far as the sketchy information on Wiki goes, it looks like junk rigs have very roughly the same performance-per-weight as Western ones; would it be permissible to treat that as a 'fluff difference'?

Fluff is just that fluff.  You can call the ships rigging whatever you want as long as pay the correct amounts for the correct performance. 

Michael

[Valles]

Cool beans, then.

[snip]

are we going to have any IPH or SHP limits outside of the built in ones?

EDIT: Also, are we going to have any date limits on mounting types?  BL vs ML guns? Gun caliber/Muzzle energy? A program for doing ahistorical/tweeked historical guns in?

[Tanthalas]

are we going to have any IPH or SHP limits outside of the built in ones?

EDIT: Also, are we going to have any date limits on mounting types?  BL vs ML guns? Gun caliber/Muzzle energy? A program for doing ahistorical/tweeked historical guns in?

I have been using Nobodies gun tool, and once I got the data right it works like a charm (atleast as far as I can test it).  As far as BL vs ML im just trying to stay with historical presidence from OTL I think the 1870s is proly late enough.  I am also trying to stay around historical numbers for Cal/ME.

[Logi]

Give me a few days and I'll try to mod mine to give the correct values for mv/me (for the period). That'll help with finding a correct mv to input into Nobody's program. Also trying to create a very rough battle simulator.

Edit:

Current findings, P3D's historical muzzle energy approximation is off slightly for 1875-1900 guns. The constant value is ~0.03 rather than 0.04.

[Carthaginian]

Also, are we using similar standards for destroyer type vessels?

When are we allowed to start using 0.5 Composite for light, fast ships?
What are the tonnage limits on ships to be using this rule?

[miketr]

are we going to have any IPH or SHP limits outside of the built in ones?

EDIT: Also, are we going to have any date limits on mounting types?  BL vs ML guns? Gun caliber/Muzzle energy? A program for doing ahistorical/tweeked historical guns in?

I have been using Nobodies gun tool, and once I got the data right it works like a charm (atleast as far as I can test it).  As far as BL vs ML im just trying to stay with historical presidence from OTL I think the 1870s is proly late enough.  I am also trying to stay around historical numbers for Cal/ME.

From what I have read the big difference between ML and BL weapons was in terms of rate of fire.  Some BL achieved better performance compared to period ML but I think that was a result in a change over in barrel materials and construction so you saw an increase in Muzzle Velocity from higher chamber pressures and longer guns,

Michael

[miketr]

Also, are we using similar standards for destroyer type vessels?

When are we allowed to start using 0.5 Composite for light, fast ships?
What are the tonnage limits on ships to be using this rule?

are we going to have any IPH or SHP limits outside of the built in ones?

Let me try to get an answer out of Guinness and Charles on these two questions.

I believe that Guinness wants to make an attempt at people making DD's without use of a table like we do with submarines.  Lets see what people can do there.

Michael