Iberian Navy

[Logi]

Jefgte also asked for a sim of 3T2x279

I deliver. The ship is tiny, only 500 tons more than the predecessor (actually built) Iberian battleships. I do not like it very much due to the many compromises in armor I had to make. In order to fit the gun on only 380 ft of length, I had to raise half of the secondaries as well.

For reference this ship has a lower bow wave height than the previous ship so wetness is even less of a concern.
This ship definitely has too little length for modern longer guns. I believe the lower beam also prevents refitting the ship with triples but I may be proven wrong.

Hull-019, Iberia Predreadnought laid down 1900

Displacement:
   7,000 t light; 7,371 t standard; 8,095 t normal; 8,674 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (380.00 ft / 380.00 ft) x 57.00 ft x (24.00 / 25.35 ft)
   (115.82 m / 115.82 m) x 17.37 m  x (7.32 / 7.73 m)

Armament:
      6 - 11.00" / 279 mm 45.0 cal guns - 671.17lbs / 304.44kg shells, 80 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1900 Model
     3 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      8 - 4.00" / 102 mm 50.0 cal guns - 33.88lbs / 15.37kg shells, 200 per gun
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1900 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 4,298 lbs / 1,950 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   12.0" / 305 mm   255.00 ft / 77.72 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   125.00 ft / 38.10 m   4.00 ft / 1.22 m
   Upper:   4.00" / 102 mm   255.00 ft / 77.72 m   4.00 ft / 1.22 m
     Main Belt covers 103 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   11.0" / 279 mm   4.00" / 102 mm      6.00" / 152 mm
   2nd:   0.25" / 6 mm   0.25" / 6 mm            -

   - Armoured deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 2.00" / 51 mm
   Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm  Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 5.72" / 145 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 9,595 ihp / 7,158 Kw = 18.00 kts
   Range 6,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,303 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   426 - 554

Cost:
   £0.846 million / $3.382 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 780 tons, 9.6 %
      - Guns: 780 tons, 9.6 %
   Armour: 2,505 tons, 30.9 %
      - Belts: 1,561 tons, 19.3 %
      - Armament: 385 tons, 4.8 %
      - Armour Deck: 509 tons, 6.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 50 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 1,499 tons, 18.5 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,216 tons, 27.4 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,095 tons, 13.5 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     5,812 lbs / 2,636 Kg = 8.7 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 1.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
   Metacentric height 2.5 ft / 0.8 m
   Roll period: 15.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.69
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.07

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.545 / 0.553
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.67 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.49 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 65
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  13.00 ft / 3.96 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Average freeboard:      9.32 ft / 2.84 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 103.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 60.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 15,046 Square feet or 1,398 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 88 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 115 lbs/sq ft or 560 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.94
      - Longitudinal: 1.65
      - Overall: 1.00
   Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Tanthalas]

Iregardless Logi, the problem is if we allow one player to fo it, we have to allow everyone to (and someone *whistles inocently* would be sure his ship had enough room).  Further more, im genuinly wondering where the secondaries would fit on it as is (im not going to bother drawing it but I think at 390' she would be damn tight (and I dont care what your calculations say... Look at OTL ships of similar design.  Brandenburg AQY 10' shorter (close enough) but with twice the freeboard for call it half her legnth (roughly) IDK I doubt the guns your fitting would fit, Just sayin ya know.

[Logi]

Further more, im genuinly wondering where the secondaries would fit on it as is (im not going to bother drawing it but I think at 390' she would be damn tight

I fully agree. If I was to go ahead on the design I would have to allow the tonange to raise 100-200 tons to allow a longer ship. That may have cascading effects on the stability of the design and I like ending my tonnage in multiples of 500s so I didn't do it.

(and I dont care what your calculations say... Look at OTL ships of similar design.  Brandenburg AQY 10' shorter (close enough) but with twice the freeboard for call it half her length (roughly) IDK I doubt the guns your fitting would fit, Just sayin ya know.

Freeboard doesn't factor in length. I want to understand your point but I can't understand your lingo.

[snip]

Well, the nerest comparison I have to these ships in OTL is the USN coastal battleships I will have to use those. They had issues due to there limited freebord. These ships will be no different, despite the calculations you present which cannot account for the weather not cooperating (which unlike prefect-math-land, stuff does not always work out in ideal ways). They may not get swamped, but they will be damn uncomfortable and that will have an effect on preformace.

Subpar in terms of ability to take a hit how?

Not talking about armor. Talking about protected buoyancy. Almost any hit scored on these ships that penetrates has the potential to let the sea in in comparison to a ship with higher freeboard. Also, given the deep draft, there is lots of volume that is already submerged in comparison to above the normal load waterline. Not qualities that lend themselves well to surviobility, no matter what numbers you cough up.

In my IC opinion, the RN feels these ships should be the poster children for Glass Cannons premade with cracks and is glad that most any sort of weather will keep the Iberian Navy bottled up in port, unable to do anything.

OOC opinion: These designs, despite the math presented, will have issues handleing in all but glass-sheat seas. That will be reflected in any combat these ships engage in. Once again, very powerful monitor, but it is no substitute for a proper battleship and if Iberia feels the need to defend her possession she should investigate larger more capable ships. Selling BP means you can afford to do this from the industrial side and you can sure as hell do it from the cash side. Iberia should be able to afford and build better ships for her defense. Don't count on being able to hide behind France's skirt.

[Tanthalas]

about the 3X2X11/45 one uhm 380' thats brandenburgs length... the guns wont fit (least I dont think they will) Brandenburg had to use one L35 with 2 L40 turrets.  If I get motivated I might see what happens when I slap L45s on my Brandenburg drawing tomorow but I can tell you that AQY with them is tight on the RE class hull.

as to my lingo I didnt explain what I was trying to very well did I, I was mostly refering to places to mount guns which your ship is sorley lacking... I shoulda just drug out the dreaded NEDS.

[Logi]

Well, the nerest comparison I have to these ships in OTL is the USN coastal battleships I will have to use those. They had issues due to there limited freeboard. These ships will be no different, despite the calculations you present which cannot account for the weather not cooperating (which unlike prefect-math-land, stuff does not always work out in ideal ways). They may not get swamped, but they will be damn uncomfortable and that will have an effect on performance.

Maybe you go into perfect mathland but I used empirical models - ie models based on real data. I will be rude in saying this but I'll say it anyways. If the formulas are good enough for naval architects and universities everywhere, including DEFLT in Netherlands and the US government, I will trust them over your inhibitions.

Let me pull the example of a US coastal battleship, the Indiana class. The class had a freeboard of 11.5' (according to Congressional hearings). For the areas of operation for the US, the wave heights are 15' in large swaths of territory . Going by the previously mentioned sea state, the ship would be wet 18.11% of the time in 15 ft waves. Much more likely is the large swath of area near New England that is subject to 20-25' waves regularly. In 25' waves the ship is 35.87% likely to be wet.

Now what does that sound like? The 15 ft wave condition of wetness for the Indiana corresponds the 9,000 ton design I posted if we cut off the bow and run it in the water without regard for the fact that bow wave decreases dramatically after the bow. The 25 ft wave condition of water corresponds to the same bow cut situation with the design in the Straits of Gibraltar. Now if we ignore that complete fantasy and take the data of the design with a bow, the design is MUCH less wet than the Indiana.

For reference, the (later) Maine class has ~18.75 ft of freeboard at bow (from the same Congressional hearing) and has 0.21% of wetness at 15 ft waves and 2.45% wetness at 25 ft waves. The Maine class did indeed have much better seakeeping than the Indiana class. (Btw these numbers are very similar to my design with a bow)

Not talking about armor. Talking about protected buoyancy. Almost any hit scored on these ships that penetrates has the potential to let the sea in in comparison to a ship with higher freeboard. Also, given the deep draft, there is lots of volume that is already submerged in comparison to above the normal load waterline. Not qualities that lend themselves well to survivability, no matter what numbers you cough up.

That's a factor of the ship tonnage. There's nothing wrong with the design itself. To point this out as a flaw is the same as complaining that a cruiser can take less water than a battleship before sinking - moot.

Also note that the argument goes both ways. While a penetrating hit is more likely to let in water, a lower freeboard also means that penetrating hit is less likely to happen. I'll also quote Admiral Capps from the Congressional hearing on this:
"Generally speaking, freeboard in excess of seagoing requirements is most undesirable in a battleship. High freeboard involves a high center of gravity and considerably less stability under damaged conditions; it also means greater target area; moreover, the extra weight devoted to high freeboard decrease the percentage of displacement which can be devoted to other seriously important elements of the design.

He continues after asserting the English and Japanese also only design for the minimum freeboard necessary.
"In the very long and fine lined ship, however, with concentration of weight nearer the extremities, it is desirable, for seagoing reasons, as already stated, to raise the forecastle; but the Japanese are apparently so impressed with the desirability of limiting the elevation of their top weights and devoting as much weight as possible to armor and armament, that they appear to be willing to make some sacrifice in freeboard. They have therefore maintained approximately the same freeboard in their new and longer battleships as seemed sufficient for their older and shorter vessels; and surely the Japanese have the advantage of great experience so far as concerns the essential requirements of battleships under modern battle conditions."

In my IC opinion, the RN feels these ships should be the poster children for Glass Cannons premade with cracks and is glad that most any sort of weather will keep the Iberian Navy bottled up in port, unable to do anything.

OOC opinion: These designs, despite the math presented, will have issues handling in all but glass-sheet seas. That will be reflected in any combat these ships engage in. Once again, very powerful monitor, but it is no substitute for a proper battleship and if Iberia feels the need to defend her possession she should investigate larger more capable ships. Selling BP means you can afford to do this from the industrial side and you can sure as hell do it from the cash side. Iberia should be able to afford and build better ships for her defense. Don't count on being able to hide behind France's skirt.

I have no problem if you believe hiding in your own beliefs and refusing any fact presented to you is a way to solve you changing your mind about anything. I've presented facts, and even made a counterpoint by demonstrating the validness of my empirical models in front of you.

The problem here is that you have already formulated an idea of what a good ship's specifications are and simply refuse to accept any alteration of the idea, even after being bombarded with empirical and historical facts. You have already decided what the minimum tonnage for a capable ship is, what the freeboard is, etc. irregardless of the different missions and operating areas of ships and irregardless of any incorrectness in your original idea. I don't know what you would call it, but I call it a lost cause. One of those fanatic who would rather delude themselves than change their minds.

Freeboard is not universal, but a condition of the ship's mission. If you have assets far from coast that you have to venture into the Atlantic to protect, you will encounter higher waves and need more freeboard. If you're operating in a relatively bottled up area with low waves, you don't need high freeboard. I'm not even going to talk about how the ratios  of a ship's l/b/d affect the freeboard needed to manage waves.

about the 3X2X11/45 one uhm 380' that's Brandenburg's length... the guns wont fit (least I don't think they will) Brandenburg had to use one L35 with 2 L40 turrets.  If I get motivated I might see what happens when I slap L45s on my Brandenburg drawing tomorrow but I can tell you that AQY with them is tight on the RE class hull.

as to my lingo I didn't explain what I was trying to very well did I, I was mostly referring to places to mount guns which your ship is sorely lacking... I shoulda just drug out the dreaded NEDS.

As I said, I had to lift half of the secondary (8x4"/50, same as Brandenburg) up a deck. I assume the superstructure needed for the secondaries is halved as well. I am not sure either but I thought freeing up the deck space of 2x4"/50 guns (we can say 400" total or 33.33' total from my estimate in the Indiana class) would be enough space saved to just barely fit the longer guns.

This calculation, as opposed to my seakeeping calculations are very shaky since I haven't studied and looked at it in detail. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong and it's NEDS. I'll wait for your drawing tomorrow.

[Nobody]

STOP.
This is pointless.

Logi, no matter what you think you prove by writing these (I suppose) hydrodynamic formulas is completely moot if we don't understand the theory behind it.
If you want to show us something do it literally. You could e.g.:

• make a scale drawing of you ship
  
• apply a normal wave pattern to it, which sources why you choose a certain wave height
  
• apply the self generating waves of the ship, again sources
  
• superimpose those patterns onto the ship drawings, bot best and worst case
  Let us see what happens.
  
  

  a freeboard of 11.5' (according to Congressional hearings). For the areas of operation for the US, the wave heights are 15' in large swaths of territory . Going by the previously mentioned sea state, the ship would be wet 18.11% of the time in 15 ft waves.
  

  WTH? If the waves are higher than the freeboard than the ships basically awash, is it not? "18% wet" sounds strange in this situation.
  
  
  
  The others I think we need to discuss something in private.

[Logi]

make a scale drawing of your ship

I broke my tablet and using a mouse to draw takes me quite a bit longer than just hammering out the math. This also has to do with the fact that I suck at drawing ships and generally don't want to see how ugly I make a ship look.

apply a normal wave pattern to it, which sources why you choose a certain wave height

P3D's link to ocean weather.
NOAA/NCEP links to P3D's link and also to here.
When I pick a wave height, I'm picking from what the wave heights actually are in that area.

apply the self generating waves of the ship, again sources

I have them all named in my Logi's Unofficial tools thread. I use the Tasaki Empirical Model and the China Classification Society Model for 18% wetness in H_1/3T₁ sea state.
TU DELFT: Evaluation of Minimum Bow Height and Freeboard Based on Probabilistic Deck-Wetness Considerations
TU DELFT: Joint Development of a Bow height Formula by China and the Netherlands Based on Probabilistic Deck Wetness Analysis
Naval Hydrodynamics by the US Office of Naval Research (no links, sorry!)
Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 141 Pg 10, Titled: On Deck Wetness and Impulsive Water-Pressures Acting On The Deck In Head Seas (is quite far away at the Southern Illinois University Carbondale)
This report by the Seaking Committee in ITTC is a good overview of the terminology and methods used.


Most of the TU DELFT articles are taken from the J.M.J.Journée. The formulas are also mentioned in Naval Symposiums but they don't go in much detail or methods so they aren't useful to link to.

Just for good measure, multiple links to the Congressional Hearing I was quoting before. Btw, these are all free ebooks.
Hearings before the Committee on naval affairs of the House of Representatives
Congressional Serial Set
United States Congressional Serial Set

superimpose those patterns onto the ship drawings, bot best and worst case

I assume then you all have no idea what a H_1/3T₁ sea-state means. When I say something like 5 ft in H_1/3T₁ sea state that means the height of the highest 30% of waves over a single wave period. The H state is something like a normal distribution. H_1/100T₁ would then describe the highest 1% of waves over a single wave period (worst case period).

If you want pictures, I have to do more math and plot the function simply because while bow wave height decreases after the fact it doesn't do so in a nice formula although the general trend is quite nice. This is why I bound the function from above when doing the math so it absolutely encapsulates the wave.

WTH? If the waves are higher than the freeboard than the ships basically awash, is it not? "18% wet" sounds strange in this situation.

The reason is simple. Ships are not static, they rise with waves.  The wave has to overcome the ability of the ship to ride the wave to come over the top.

This research paper attempting to model this behavior should make it easy to understand (Because it has very nice pictures). Titled: A combined strip theory and Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics approach for estimating slamming loads on a ship in head seas

[snip]

I am going to pull the numbers that matter.

From the 6x14"

Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.83
Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.03

These numbers tell me this. The ship is built rather tight, and will not take a hit an be able to mantian is characteristics well.

From the 6x11"

Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.69
Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.07

Slightly better then the above, but the same point still stands.

You can throw all the numbers you want out, but in the end, only the ones that come out of SS reports matter. There will be no contesting this. If the numbers say one thing, and you claim another based on calculations outside of SpringSharp, the SpringSharp numbers will be the numbers that are used.

[Logi]

I am going to pull the numbers that matter.

From the 6x14"

Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.83
Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.03

These numbers tell me this. The ship is built rather tight, and will not take a hit an be able to mantian is characteristics well.

This is completely random, given all the values are the typical values expected on a ship. The only one high is the recoil but is still good.

From the 6x11"

Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.69
Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.07

Slightly better then the above, but the same point still stands.

You can throw all the numbers you want out, but in the end, only the ones that come out of SS reports matter. There will be no contesting this. If the numbers say one thing, and you claim another based on calculations outside of SpringSharp, the SpringSharp numbers will be the numbers that are used.

The same point is invalid. What exactly is your opinion of good criteria then? The years I've designed here and with the others have indicated that 1.08 stability and above is desired and recoil below 0.8 is desired. Anything fitting that is ok.

[snip]

Im done with this. Will only comment on rules violations from now on.