Techology Discussion

[snip]

About the guns: The heavy (e.g. 16" L50, L55 and L60) come much too early.

With a 4-5 year lead time before they can be built onto ships, it comes out about right in comparison to historical dates. For the 16"/50 Mk2, we have a design date of 1916 and a approximate service entry date of 1923 (had the ships these armed been completed). Under my table, the Mk2 would be designable under the 1915 tech, so the gun itself could not be researched until 1918 (assuming the tech takes the full three years and is started as early as permissible under N3 rules), the gun would then be developed with serviceable mounts by 1920, which depending on the ship has it in service around the same timeframe as projected for the Mk2 sans-WNT. Even moving this up by a year via an early roll still places it approximately in the ballpark of OTL projected service entry. The longer guns have no effective OTL analog, and as such I feel we just have to trust the table when it comes to there inclusion. Other examples of approximate OTL development-to-service timelines that mesh with the table under the previous assumptions can be found in the American 14"/45 Mk1, British 13.5" Mark V, as well as other guns.

Also you need to define where, say a 15" gun, fits into. Is it a 16" or is it a 14"? Neither category really fits them.

Maximum Bore Diameter dictates that 15" guns are governed by the 16" column. Using the same method as above, this places both the 15"/42 Mark I and 38 cm SK L/45 within a year to 18 months (hull dependent) of there OTL service entry dates.

Diesels should have a much bigger range advantage. About 100%. Penalty is more difficult. The first generation of Diesel engines was actually lighter than a same power steam plant, but very limited in power.

My numbers were mostly meant to illustrate the concept, I think the longer range bonus could work out. I presumed in my example that a single source was being used for the powerplant, perhaps adding some sort of caveat to account for diesel's meant for cruise only? For example, Weight penalty only applies for diesels with a SHP of greater then X?

[Kaiser Kirk]

Dunno if this helps- lacking any definitive text, if you do searches you can find a googlebooks doc on the different efficiencies the USN found for various power plants- turboelectric, geared and fixed. Jupiter trials?  In books about the panzerships and subs you can find discussions about relative values of diesels.  My understanding is the mature marine diesels generally had lower power:weight but much better range.

I believe the times I've tried to SS designs with modifiers I used *something* like this :
Turboelectric: -10% SHP, +12% range
Direct drive: -11% range
Diesel : -25% SHP +50% range
Note that lowever SHP means lower speeds and changed seakeeping.

Darned if I know if those are accurate, those are simply my memory of what I came up with several years ago.

[snip]

Requoting a few proposals with some minor changes to some. Note the text within the quotes is the most up to date proposal and may be different with that in the quote.

Capital Ship Architecture

Main guns are defined as the largest caliber carried on the ship, intermediary guns are anything between the main caliber and 155mm guns, secondaries are 80-155mm, tertiary are <79mm.

1880: Main guns in twin turrets, secondaries in casemate, tertiary in casemate or deck mounts.
1891: Mixed-caliber main battery (Main+intermediary calibers), Superfiring secondaries (Restricted Axial Firing Arcs) and Stacked Main Battery turrets OR Main caliber battery in AQY. [Pick One Only]
1902: All-big-gun ship with wing turrets OR Superfiring turrets (restricted axial firing arcs) [Pick one or both]
1905: Improved turret hydraulics, independent gun elevation, Torpedo Bulkheads, triple turrets
1908: Superfiring turrets (unrestricted firing arcs), "All or Nothing" Protective Schemes
1912: Quadruple turrets, Sloped external belts
1920:  No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns

Drive Shafts. Note I have included some of the recommendations. All techs in this tree are optional in the sense that previous ones are not prerequisites for later techs, sans direct drives which everyone gets. This proposal treats the SS default figures for both range, weight and SHP as those for direct drives.

1890: Direct Drives: The basic drive option. No bonus or penalty.
1906: Electric Drives: Allows for Electric drives. Takes a additional 25% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 15% bonus to range plus improved compartmentalization (effects number of torpedo hits to sink).
1910: Hydraulic Drives: Allows for Hydraulic drives. Takes an additional 10% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 5% bonus to range.
1912: Geared Drives: Allows for Geared drives. Provides a 10% bonus to range.
1912: Diesel Engines: Allows for Diesel engines to be used as part of mixed drive units or standalone power. Takes a additional 30% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 75% bonus to range. Can be combined with Electric, Hydraulic or Geared drives (Bonus and penalties stack). [Note: Might add to this to account for cruise-only engines]

[Jefgte]

...1891: Mixed-caliber main battery (Main+intermediary calibers), Superfiring secondaries (Restricted Axial Firing Arcs) and Stacked Main Battery turrets OR Main caliber battery in AQY. [Pick One Only]

Cool, I could have Masséna BBs.

Jef

[snip]

...1891: Mixed-caliber main battery (Main+intermediary calibers), Superfiring secondaries (Restricted Axial Firing Arcs) and Stacked Main Battery turrets OR Main caliber battery in AQY. [Pick One Only]

Cool, I could have Masséna BBs.

Jef

As long as they were layed down in 1894 or later.

[Walter]

Well, the originall one was laid down in 1892...

... but if Jef were to go for it, he would not mind changin it to 1894. :)

[snip]

Well, the originall one was laid down in 1892...

... but if Jef were to go for it, he would not mind changin it to 1894. :)

Well, I forgot about prototyping, so one example could be layed down earlyer then that.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Drive Shafts. Note I have included some of the recommendations. All techs in this tree are optional in the sense that previous ones are not prerequisites for later techs, sans direct drives which everyone gets. This proposal treats the SS default figures for both range, weight and SHP as those for direct drives.

1890: Direct Drives: The basic drive option. No bonus or penalty.
1906: Electric Drives: Allows for Electric drives. Takes a additional 25% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 15% bonus to range plus improved compartmentalization (effects number of torpedo hits to sink).
1910: Hydraulic Drives: Allows for Hydraulic drives. Takes an additional 10% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 5% bonus to range.
1912: Geared Drives: Allows for Geared drives. Provides a 10% bonus to range.
1912: Diesel Engines: Allows for Diesel engines to be used as part of mixed drive units or standalone power. Takes a additional 30% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 75% bonus to range. Can be combined with Electric, Hydraulic or Geared drives (Bonus and penalties stack). [Note: Might add to this to account for cruise-only engines]

I know in N3 we used SS2, and in N5 it was to be SS3, but I confess to being unsure which you are using here.
In SS2, the allocation of Misc weight had a far different effect than large engine mass, being "placed" higher in the ship it had different effects on seakeeping than large engine weights placed low.
I don't know how the SS3 below decks weight models out.
Personally, when I've tried these things, I prefer to simply
1. Fit the engine in. Note current SHP.
2. Downsize the engine to 70% (if diesel) of SHP.  Note top speed, seakeeping results.
3. Return engine size to original.
Note differences on misc notes, and when put in encyclopedia, note in appropriate locations "real" numbers.
It's not too hard, and should result in a better modeled result.

Oh, and twin+ screw turbo-electrics were apparently more maneuverable, as they could put full reverse on any desired screw(s), allowing them to turn tighter, avoiding collisions, torpedoes and bombs better.

Oh, and I think Carrier rules should require you to add height to freeboard to account for hanger heights. I don't recall that being adopted, but makes a heck of a difference in what a carrier can hold, resulting in more realistic vessels in my opinion.

[snip]

Drive Shafts. Note I have included some of the recommendations. All techs in this tree are optional in the sense that previous ones are not prerequisites for later techs, sans direct drives which everyone gets. This proposal treats the SS default figures for both range, weight and SHP as those for direct drives.

1890: Direct Drives: The basic drive option. No bonus or penalty.
1906: Electric Drives: Allows for Electric drives. Takes a additional 25% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 15% bonus to range plus improved compartmentalization (effects number of torpedo hits to sink).
1910: Hydraulic Drives: Allows for Hydraulic drives. Takes an additional 10% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 5% bonus to range.
1912: Geared Drives: Allows for Geared drives. Provides a 10% bonus to range.
1912: Diesel Engines: Allows for Diesel engines to be used as part of mixed drive units or standalone power. Takes a additional 30% of engine weight in misc weight and provides a 75% bonus to range. Can be combined with Electric, Hydraulic or Geared drives (Bonus and penalties stack). [Note: Might add to this to account for cruise-only engines]

I know in N3 we used SS2, and in N5 it was to be SS3, but I confess to being unsure which you are using here.
In SS2, the allocation of Misc weight had a far different effect than large engine mass, being "placed" higher in the ship it had different effects on seakeeping than large engine weights placed low.
I don't know how the SS3 below decks weight models out.
Personally, when I've tried these things, I prefer to simply
1. Fit the engine in. Note current SHP.
2. Downsize the engine to 70% (if diesel) of SHP.  Note top speed, seakeeping results.
3. Return engine size to original.
Note differences on misc notes, and when put in encyclopedia, note in appropriate locations "real" numbers.
It's not too hard, and should result in a better modeled result.

Oh, and twin+ screw turbo-electrics were apparently more maneuverable, as they could put full reverse on any desired screw(s), allowing them to turn tighter, avoiding collisions, torpedoes and bombs better.

Oh, and I think Carrier rules should require you to add height to freeboard to account for hanger heights. I don't recall that being adopted, but makes a heck of a difference in what a carrier can hold, resulting in more realistic vessels in my opinion.

We are using SS3 so the Weight allocation issue is not the same as in SS2.

[Walter]

Oh, and I think Carrier rules should require you to add height to freeboard to account for hanger heights. I don't recall that being adopted, but makes a heck of a difference in what a carrier can hold, resulting in more realistic vessels in my opinion.

I disagree with that. To me a hangar is a structure build on top of the hull with the flight deck as the roof of the hangar. As for what a carrier can hold, I am pretty sure a carrier with the freeboard you want can hold as many planes with a carrier with a freeboard at the main deck level so that does not change a thing.

If you want to sim the miscellaneous weight of the planes as "Hull - Above water" instead of "Above deck", you could just tell us that. ;)

[Kaiser Kirk]

I wasn't suggesting using decks for simming the aviation aspects (planes and stuff) that we normally do as misc weight.

As you may recall, many have found the miracle of small carriers with oversized aviation outfits via misc weight. It's much easier to field 40 planes w/1600 tons than 80 planes on 6400 tons. Yet in OTL, there were economies of scale with larger carriers- as well as better operations, etc. My observation from with playing around with SS2 has been much of this disparity vanishes if you raise the freeboard to take in the hanger heights.

Admittedly, just because I have an idea, doesn' mean it's a good one :)

[The Rock Doctor]

I'm in total agreement with you, Kirk.  At the very least, the basic freeboard needs to be higher than ~6 metres as most of those small carriers tend to have. 

[Logi]

As Snip stated, we are using SS3. This is stated in the short introduction in the OP of the 'Rollcall and Other Misc. Statistics' thread.

I believe the maneuverability of twin-screw+turbo-electric should be something handled on the combat sim side of things. Whilst I, personally, am receptive to a modifier in that regard, we'll need some numbers and figures to formalize any notion of difference.

Regarding the issue of SS3 and carriers. I don't know what effect SS3 has on these considerations, since they seem to be rooted in SS2 issues. Since we are starting in 1900, we are still quite a ways off from carriers, we can postpone this issue.

In addition I think these restrictions for carriers (as currently discussed) far more under the design guidelines, which itself is a living document that we can change at a later date to accommodate for experience in SS3.

[snip]

Personally, when I've tried these things, I prefer to simply
1. Fit the engine in. Note current SHP.
2. Downsize the engine to 70% (if diesel) of SHP.  Note top speed, seakeeping results.
3. Return engine size to original.
Note differences on misc notes, and when put in encyclopedia, note in appropriate locations "real" numbers.
It's not too hard, and should result in a better modeled result.

I forgot to address this point separate of my response to the SS2vsSS3 weight distribution issue. Please understand that I am not knocking this as a inferior method, I think it is the only solution when using SS2 given the way it allocates misc weight, simply outlining my concerns as it relates to having a level playing field. When it comes to modifying the output of a SS report, from the perspective of a moderator, I can see several issues that using misc weight minimizes or removes. First is simply the manor in which information is presented. When it comes to misc weight, it is clear that there is X tonnage marked off for some use and is easy to check what it could be used for. In addition, there already exists somewhat of a standard in accounting for the exact makeup of misc weight so it is easy to spot the breakdown. With your proposal, I see several ways that the accounting could be noted. Seeing as beyond the standard report most have a individual way of formatting things, I feel that these multiply methods of noting such might lead to the information sometimes being missed when reviewing a sim. Also, by altering one of the inputs of the Springsharp report in a manor that does not have a trackable value in the final report (ie, differing engine years) to obtain the desired result it does open up an avenue where a individual with a desire to game the system could cheat to gain an advantage (note I am not saying anyone would, just that it could happen). By moving away from a value that can be clearly seen in the report and re-inputted into a resim of a design under scrutiny for being borderline leagle, there is then a window for disagreement and I would prefer to keep modifications to things that minimize the possibility for disagreements.

[Darman]

Just a note vis a vis engine weights etc. I saw it pointed out in a different forum that American engines tended to be slightly more powerful for their size, and English-made engines were slightly bigger for the same power.  Its really only relevant when simming historic ships and you get slight variations in displacement.  As long as we are all dealing with the same issues then its equitable.