General Social/Chatter Thread

[The Rock Doctor]

I've occasionally mixed up the cruising speed and range fields, so I have a cruising speed of 10,000 kts and a range of 10 nm, but I don't think I've ever previously set up a design to have 10,000 shafts and a cruising range of 2 nm.

[snip]

Do share it.  ;D

[The Rock Doctor]

I never saved a version of that, just fixed it and moved on. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

I never saved a version of that, just fixed it and moved on.

Aww come on, we want to see the mighty Vilnus "Butter Churn"

[The Rock Doctor]

I never saved a version of that, just fixed it and moved on.

Aww come on, we want to see the mighty Vilnus "Butter Churn"

"It will kill you if you let us tow it into you."

[The Rock Doctor]

I was thinking it'd be interesting to look at refurbing the Wspanialy class PDNs, which have 2x2 280mm and 4x2 200mm, to a 2x2 + 4x1 280mm layout.

Of course, the original file is lost to me on an old computer, so I had to rebuild the 1902 design.  That produced interesting results as I'd somehow gave it 78 m bulges without noticing, and couldn't parse why I needed so much machinery or had a capsizing warning.  But I finally found and fixed it.

And now I see that the layout change would not work with a refurb - the single 280mm mounting is heavier than the twin 200mm mountings.  So that's that, I guess.

[The Rock Doctor]

Okay, the refit/refurb rules speak to roller diameter as the constraint on turret replacement - not turret weight.  Are we inferring one from the other or do we have enough stats for historical roller diameters to go straight from sources?

[Guinness]

There's got to be an algorithm we can establish for this...

Looking in Friedman's Naval Weapons of World War 1, I can find some data:

German:

• 38cm L/45 twin: Roller ring diameter of 8.75m, inner barbette diameter 10m, gun axes 3.7m apart.
• 30.5cm L/50 twin: Roller track diameter of 7.32m inner barbette diameter 8.5m, gun axes 2.7m apart.
• 28cm L/45 twin: C/06 mount rode a ball bearing ring with a diameter of 6.6m, inner barbette diameter of 7.8m. C/07 ring was 6.92m, inner barbette diameter 8.1m. Gun axes were 2.27m apart.
• 21cm L/45 twin: Roller track diameter5.18m, inner barbette diameter 6.12m, gun axes 1.80m apart.

British:

• 12inL50 Mx Xii twin BXI mounting: Roller path diameter of 24.5 feet, inner barbette diameter of 28 feet, gun axes 90in apart.
• 9.2inL50 Mk XI single MkVIII mounting: Roller path diameter of 12.75 feet, inner barbette diameter of 16.5 feet.
• 9.2inL50 Mk XI twin Mk VII mounting: Roller path diameter of 16.5 feet, inner barbette diameter of 19.5 feet. Gun axes 82 in. apart.

I was hoping he'd have such measurements for French guns, but he doesn't seem to. Still I think the 9.2" mounts might be instructive here: In that case, the barbettes of the single mount of 85% the size of those for the twin mount, with a difference of 3 feet. Then if we look at the scale of the difference between German 28cm and 21cm twin barbettes, we see that the 21cm twin barbette is 75% as large as the largest 28cm barbette.

So I think a 2x20cm turret is probably on a barbette of approximately 5.75 to 6m inner diameter, and that a single 28cm should fit on a barbette of 5.85 to 6m. To me that's close enough to say it fits.

[The Rock Doctor]

Fair enough.

So a back of the envelope calculation of the refurb, then:

20% of LD:  $3 and 0 BP
Replace 4x2 200mm with 4x1 280mm:  $3.4 and 1.7 BP
Swap in new VTE engines for ~22 knts:  ~$4 and 2 BP
===
~$10.4 and 3.7 BP, minus the value of 4x2 200mm turrets if re-used.

That's a not-unreasonable BP cost, but the cash cost is pretty steep for a ship that'll have a six-gun 280mm broadside and reciprocating engines in 1914.

[Guinness]

If modernizing them both, you could be buying one 20k ton ship. Also you have to consider that both ships would have to be out of service for a year or more. Neither is state of the art, but they are only roughly 7 years old and would still be in first line service. They'd be more modern if modernized, but still not really modern.

I think I'd leave them be and build new.

[Jefgte]

I made rebuilt with Barbarossa class, similar BB.

Yours have more recent BB & their rebuilt is interesting & economical.
Increase the speed to 21-22kts, new 28cm guns...
That could make good colonial support battle line, armament is dissuasive for any cruisers.

8T2x200 are free => use them on 2 or 4 cruisers.
It's interesting too to have free turrets for cruisers.

No hesitation  ;)

Have fun  ;)

[Desertfox]

I really think we need a revamp of the refurbishing rules, they are just too expensive right now for major work and will dissuade people from keeping around older ships.

[snip]

I'd disagree with that assumption over the long term. Right now, most older ships have a huge technical obsolescence to them. You can only do so much to a ship built around lower speeds with VTE engines to make it viable in a world of turbine powered ships, and where warship sizes are right now the difference in cost between that kind of radical reconstruction and a more capable new build does not make sense. I think once you start to see the size and general capability of capital ships levels off, refits in that sector will gain more relative value. The same will hold true for other ships as well. Additionally, cash growth is going to massively outstrip BP growth as colonies grow up, which will help make the cash/BP differences in refurbishments and reconstructions.

[The Rock Doctor]

To be fair, I'm designing and building my true dreadnoughts with the assumption that I'm going to re-engine them mid-life and they'll all be two or three knots faster as a result.  That's fine and I'll accept the cost of undertaking such work.

This is probably the only time I'd be looking at significant alterations to main/intermediate batteries in any kind of mid-life scenario.  Is it good value for money?  I'm inclined to say no, but at the same time, I tend to do naval sims with a high degree of efficiency in mind and maybe I should be different this time around. 

They still wouldn't be front-line warships, but they'd have a definite leg-up on actual pre-dreads and be reasonable challenges to first-gen dreadnoughts. 

As Jef notes, the intermediate 200/45mm battery would work well as the main battery of a new armored cruiser, and I'd get a pair out of them.  There is a problem with the sides/roof armor of the removed turrets - I designed them with 15mm of armor rather than 150mm - but I'd just add the additional armor as new costs if I re-used the guns.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Okay, the refit/refurb rules speak to roller diameter as the constraint on turret replacement - not turret weight.  Are we inferring one from the other or do we have enough stats for historical roller diameters to go straight from sources?

Snip made a ruling on this long ago,
the Guns + Mount weight is the equivalent of "roller path" for this purpose.

That's why the new Parthian guns are odd lengths- they are to replace old mounts and had to fit.