Vilnius Union Ships, 1930+: The Good, The Bad, and the Unseaworthy

[The Rock Doctor]

A thought that comes to mind for the Wrogi class is relocating the wing turrets to the centerline, basically producing a Gangut-style layout.

However, my read of the rules suggests this would be too much even for a reconstruction, and I certainly can't think of a historical precedent or even proposal for something similar.  Whatcha'll think?

[Jefgte]

A thought that comes to mind for the Wrogi class is relocating the wing turrets to the centerline, basically producing a Gangut-style layout.

However, my read of the rules suggests this would be too much even for a reconstruction, and I certainly can't think of a historical precedent or even proposal for something similar.  Whatcha'll think?

Too expensive.

Test perhaps new engines to have a faster BB.

[The Rock Doctor]

I reckon the design's too flawed to invest that kind of money into, if I can't fix the flaws.

[The Rock Doctor]

What if I took that gunship with three Nieugiety turrets and two Nieugiety turbines and added a fourth turret?

Well, you get a pocket battleship of sorts.  It has better deck protection and underwater protection and the same broadside as Nieugiety but less horizontal protection and a limited secondary/tertiary armament.

About 2,800 t of material would be recycled here, so the actual cost would be around 11.5 BP.

Overall hull dimensions are not far off the historical Espana class, which of course was renowned as being perhaps the smallest and most useless dreadnoughts ever, for context.

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1931 (Engine 1922)

Displacement:
   14,375 t light; 15,228 t standard; 16,574 t normal; 17,652 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (457.95 ft / 442.91 ft) x 85.30 ft x (25.59 / 26.95 ft)
   (139.58 m / 135.00 m) x 26.00 m  x (7.80 / 8.22 m)

Armament:
      8 - 11.81" / 300 mm 45.0 cal guns - 830.84lbs / 376.86kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1931 Model
     4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      2 raised mounts - superfiring
      8 - 5.12" / 130 mm 45.0 cal guns - 67.61lbs / 30.67kg shells, 400 per gun
     Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1931 Model
     4 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
      12 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 4.18lbs / 1.89kg shells, 1,000 per gun
     Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
     6 x Twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
      6 raised mounts
      16 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm 90.0 cal guns - 0.12lbs / 0.05kg shells, 4,000 per gun
     Machine guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
     8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
      8 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 7,240 lbs / 3,284 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   7.87" / 200 mm   287.89 ft / 87.75 m   16.37 ft / 4.99 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1.97" / 50 mm   287.89 ft / 87.75 m   24.15 ft / 7.36 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   13.8" / 350 mm   7.87" / 200 mm      11.0" / 280 mm
   2nd:   1.97" / 50 mm   1.18" / 30 mm      1.97" / 50 mm
   3rd:   0.59" / 15 mm         -               -
   4th:   0.59" / 15 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - single deck: 3.94" / 100 mm For and Aft decks
   Forecastle: 1.97" / 50 mm  Quarter deck: 3.94" / 100 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 13.78" / 350 mm,  Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 2 shafts, 32,171 shp / 24,000 Kw = 21.89 kts
   Range 18,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,424 tons

Complement:
   729 - 949

Cost:
   £5.814 million / $23.256 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,356 tons, 8.2 %
   Armour: 6,013 tons, 36.3 %
      - Belts: 1,680 tons, 10.1 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 506 tons, 3.1 %
      - Armament: 1,695 tons, 10.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,939 tons, 11.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 193 tons, 1.2 %
   Machinery: 1,091 tons, 6.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,555 tons, 33.5 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,200 tons, 13.3 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 360 tons, 2.2 %
      - On freeboard deck: 70 tons
      - Above deck: 290 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     27,067 lbs / 12,278 Kg = 32.9 x 11.8 " / 300 mm shells or 5.6 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
   Metacentric height 5.0 ft / 1.5 m
   Roll period: 16.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.57
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.14

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.600 / 0.607
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5.19 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 21.05 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 53
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  23.29 ft / 7.10 m,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m
      - Forward deck:   40.00 %,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m
      - Aft deck:   25.00 %,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m,  17.39 ft / 5.30 m
      - Average freeboard:      17.86 ft / 5.44 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 77.8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 125.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 27,633 Square feet or 2,567 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 160 lbs/sq ft or 782 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.91
      - Longitudinal: 2.27
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[Jefgte]

Looking at Nieugiety & Dziky you have 12T2x300

You can build 4 BC with 3T2x300 with 27, 30 or 32 kts. Excellent to screen the Fleet or directly protecting your CV.

[The Rock Doctor]

They do have a lot of guns between them, yes.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Relocating wing turrets "in reality" would mean moving structural bulkheads as the off-centerline weight was not easily transferred to the keel, thus requiring additional structure support. That would also mean moving internal bulkheads, etc. Which "in game" triggers the more expensive bits.

I do believe I re-purposed some wing turrets to hold smaller quicker firing guns, but I researched those with that purpose in mind.

In 1930-31, a 250ft flight deck should not be dismissed as utterly impracticable. Biplanes could take off in very short distances, and fairly short landing distances, it's more an idea that would rapidly become outdated as monoplanes entered service, but even then carrier monoplanes were a bit later than land-based as ..I think... the higher wingloading needed for slow landings, and reinforced landing gear, meant large wing areas and favored bi-planes. 


As for the 6 & 8 x 300/45 ships

Where's the "   Beam between torpedo bulkheads" line?

From a game/battle-playing point of view, if the turrets are not freshly researched, the date should reflect the original. That will effect rate of fire.  The gun tech at the time you fielded 300/45s will effect MV.. on new builds that is a bit of a hassle, but on old guns in new ships, a note in the data would be appreciated.

[The Rock Doctor]

I can never find the bulkhead distance in my reports, only the program; I think I left a 3m gap on each side of the ship.

Noted for the guns.  It's less of an issue if I'm building fire-support vessels, but I can see that being unpopular on dedicated fighting ships.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Weird, it shows up on the reports SS generates for me.
I know you've said the Aux con doesn't 'weigh' anything as well...and it does for me.

For example the report on the 'wirozag XXI' design, a yet-unbuilt/posted , has
   - Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
      2.24" / 57 mm   400.92 ft / 122.20 m   37.34 ft / 11.38 m
   Beam between torpedo bulkheads 82.02 ft / 25.00 m

All in all makes me wonder if you have a slightly earlier version than SS3b3 aka Springsharp 3.0 "A warship design simulator beta 3.0..." ?
Help->About F1 will pop up the splash.  I know I had SS3B2 on either my laptop or desktop for sometime and it baffled me why porting the design
from one to the other didn't quite line up...I think it was desktop. Ironically I know I've fixed some of those old designs in refit...by slimming the aux con.


Guns- it's more a note for final designs, but I've mentioned the date and the limitations of such on other 'old guns on new ships' builds...so I try to be consistent when I notice it, which is rarely.
Granted, it becomes more of a pain when doing a large battle than a fire support, but as I recall the 'weight of shell' over some time period stands in for the bombardment modifier, so ROF matters there too.

[The Rock Doctor]

You're right, I've got 3b2a.  Well that's silly.

[Jefgte]

I use

SpringSharp 3.0b3

[The Rock Doctor]

Well...I'm not going to go back and re-run ten sim-years of designs through 3b3, but I'll check the 1929 lay-downs and adjust those at least.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Well...I'm not going to go back and re-run ten sim-years of designs through 3b3, but I'll check the 1929 lay-downs and adjust those at least.

Of course not !!

The two are very close, sometimes there's no change needed.
Usually you'll get a 0.99 or 1.01 comp hull, trim might be slightly off.

Heck I discovered it in the first place when I started using my laptop as well, and pulled down a fresh version of SS...
and the designs ported did not quite line up.

Some/All? of my pre-1910 ships were with SS3b2 and I either trim the aft con armor, or the end belts to correct
when I do refurbishments.

But until I go to do them, I don't even know there's an issue. 

[The Rock Doctor]

Yeah, I had a peek at that 1931 BB I posted a few days back and it came out at 0.99 with the updated SS.  Knocked about 30 t out of my weight reserve (yay weight reserve!) and it was good.  So if it's a 0.07% difference in the sim, it's certainly not worth sweating with smaller stuff just yet.

[Jefgte]

...So if it's a 0.07% difference in the sim, it's certainly not worth sweating with smaller stuff just yet.

Phew !!!

:)