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

[Jefgte]

...On aircraft weight:  I disagree.  Aircraft weight has always been rising, perhaps not in a linear progression but rising nonetheless.  They haven't stayed the same from 1915 to 1930.  I think it is entirely reasonable that a carrier designer in 1931 will expect the growth to continue, and have a ballpark sense of minimum aircraft size a mere four years later...

Rocky is right.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I strongly disagree (obviously).

The exact date is a little arbitrary, as planes changed throughout the mid 1930s, but the weight change was put in to model the decrease in airgroups on sees in real life carriers.

We simple do not know all the variables that caused that decline, but timewise, it appeared  linked to the  with the introduction of more powerful engines, greater payloads and particularly monoplanes as take off weights climbed, so the increased Misc weight was roughly linked to the arrival of monoplanes.

Not investing a tremendous amount of time in this for examples :

A common 1927-29 bomber would be the Blackburn Dart torpedo plane with a empty weight of 1632kg.  - That would be Rocky's current plan.

A 1930-33 torpedo biplane bomber would be a Blackburn Ripon - 1,874kg.  - That's the tech Rocky is researching, and so is to me 'foreseeable'.

The 1934-38 was was actually followed by another biplane that had a lighter TO weight - the Baffin.   - This is the tech Rocky hasn't started.

But looking forward just a bit to find a monoplane bomber the 1938 Hawker Henley was a monoplane early Brit Dive/torpedo bomber, with an empty weight of 2496kg.  - That's 2 techs, and technology adoption (monoplane) that I'm objecting to Rocky pre-planning for.

[TacCovert4]

Of course the easy solution is to map it for the lighter tech, with "expansion room" anticipating that in time bigger aircraft might take up more space.   Built for 70 planes with the understanding that during the ships lifespan it might wind up with less air group if planes get bigger as is anticipated.

[Kaiser Kirk]

That is roughly what I'm doing - building for the light tech, and maximizing that, and just accepting I'll have a smaller airgroup later.
Though I will probably just refurbish my carriers, add some bulges to absorb more weight, accept either the slower ship or redo the engines, and then add the weight back in.  That will also be a good time for 'storyline' arrestor gear/elevator swaps/catapult rebuilds.

Going back to the forecasting ...
Ok, so folks are saying it was foreseeable, I think if that had been the case, we would not have seen the biplane/monoplane difference. 

But let's go the other way and presume that one can project the increase and plan on it.


My question is...why would they only increase the allowance from 80 to 95, how is that foreseeable?
Why not less? Why not more?

Well Rocky pointed to the escalation of sizes from 1915-1930,

So what would be that?

Again, working from just historical aircraft weights....using the 'look at past to project future'
1918 : 997kg : Sopwith Cuckoo - first purpose built carrier torpedo plane
1928 : 1632kg : Blackburn Dart

So a 63.4% increase in 10 years, and so budget 131tons/plane to 'future proof'.
Or 1.634*1.634 for 20 years – ships lifespan, and so budget 2.67% or 213.6tons/plane.

Or working another way - presuming the Wilno Engineers are looking at their 1930 tech and expecting they will get bigger in the future, so 95 tons/each instead of 80... so they are expecting a 18.75% increase in 4 years.

The Carrier's lifespan is 20+ years the logical budgeting is 5 cycles of that.
Or   1.1875^5  or  2.36%  so budget 188.8 tons / plane.

So...future proof by overbudgeting is just as logical.

[TacCovert4]

My in game solution for my own carriers is that the Aztec aviation branch isn't yet that efficient, so we're eating 95 tons per aircraft now.  And by the time we figure out how to more efficiently pack a carrier......the planes will be bigger.  I'm doing it as a 2nd rate power trying to get into a high tech field.

[Jefgte]

For designers, we can consider that excess weight constitutes 20% to 25% safety planes reserve.
1600kg real => 2000kg design

[The Rock Doctor]

I really don't understand the issue here. 

My approach isn't giving me a technical edge.  It isn't jumpstarting technology.  It isn't saving me money or build/refit time.  It isn't changing the math in SS output.

I'm taking a large number and optimizing it so it divides in a convenient way for most of the ship's career.  I don't see it being any more or less problematic than people tweaking ammunition loads or bunkerage to give a nice round number to light displacement. 

[Kaiser Kirk]

So, I'm not singling Rocky out, I swing by and look at ship designs when I'm tired and fairly caught up.

It sounds like both Tac and Jefgte are doing this, so I am simply in the minority.
It's not a rules issue, it's a player disagreement, and I will probably have to just be infuriated by it,
but suck it up and continue.

Ok, let me take a step back and try to explain in a different way.

1. It is reasonable to dedicate miscellaneous weight for what you need. - All agreed.

2. Many of us do allocate Misc Wt for future contingencies - I do 50-200 tons usually.  No problems with that - All agreed.

In "real life" , they simply added on the weight topside and let the draft increase. Then went back and added bulges for both anti-torpedo effect and to get the freeboard back up. However SS doesn't do that well, so I just leave a little misc wt for whatever.

3. Excess weight as a "safety design" - I call false.   It might make sense to do that.
So instead of 80x 64 = 5,120 tons
you would budget 80x1.25 x 64. = 6,400 tons- most of us don't budget 1,280 tons of reserve miscellaneous weight.

4.  Lets say you are indeed budgeting for the future - The weight being allocated is EXACTLY the amounted needed years in the future for a type plane (metal skinned monoplane) not fielded by anyone at this point, and with current engine technology, not a very viable plane.

Further, from that engineering argument - 95/80 = 1.1875, so your saying the engineers managed to determine that +18.75% would be needed...not +18% or +19% or Jefgte's +20% or +25% ?

That , to me , is flat out unreasonable use of foresight. 

4. This to me would be allot like designing a battleship with a single 150mm deck in 1918 because you'd need it in 1928 (Nelson Class).

Folks would justifiably point to that as unreasonable foresight.

I think if someone budgeted Misc Wt for a future +75mm deck to be added, Folks would also think that unreasonable.

Even if some one just took a 25% misc wt reserve to do that...I think folks would still think that unreasonable.

That - to me - is what is basically being done.


5.  Obviously what we should have done when designing the aviation is also adjust the area needed per plane by 19%.
Sadly I didn't conceive of folks just pretending they had the ability to forecast exactly the weights needed in the future.

[The Rock Doctor]

I'm not opposed to increasing the waterplane area footprint of a plane to match the weight increase. 

[TacCovert4]

So, I'm not singling Rocky out, I swing by and look at ship designs when I'm tired and fairly caught up.

It sounds like both Tac and Jefgte are doing this, so I am simply in the minority.
It's not a rules issue, it's a player disagreement, and I will probably have to just be infuriated by it,
but suck it up and continue.

Ok, let me take a step back and try to explain in a different way.

1. It is reasonable to dedicate miscellaneous weight for what you need. - All agreed.

2. Many of us do allocate Misc Wt for future contingencies - I do 50-200 tons usually.  No problems with that - All agreed.

In "real life" , they simply added on the weight topside and let the draft increase. Then went back and added bulges for both anti-torpedo effect and to get the freeboard back up. However SS doesn't do that well, so I just leave a little misc wt for whatever.

3. Excess weight as a "safety design" - I call false.   It might make sense to do that.
So instead of 80x 64 = 5,120 tons
you would budget 80x1.25 x 64. = 6,400 tons- most of us don't budget 1,280 tons of reserve miscellaneous weight.

4.  Lets say you are indeed budgeting for the future - The weight being allocated is EXACTLY the amounted needed years in the future for a type plane (metal skinned monoplane) not fielded by anyone at this point, and with current engine technology, not a very viable plane.

Further, from that engineering argument - 95/80 = 1.1875, so your saying the engineers managed to determine that +18.75% would be needed...not +18% or +19% or Jefgte's +20% or +25% ?

That , to me , is flat out unreasonable use of foresight. 

4. This to me would be allot like designing a battleship with a single 150mm deck in 1918 because you'd need it in 1928 (Nelson Class).

Folks would justifiably point to that as unreasonable foresight.

I think if someone budgeted Misc Wt for a future +75mm deck to be added, Folks would also think that unreasonable.

Even if some one just took a 25% misc wt reserve to do that...I think folks would still think that unreasonable.

That - to me - is what is basically being done.


5.  Obviously what we should have done when designing the aviation is also adjust the area needed per plane by 19%.
Sadly I didn't conceive of folks just pretending they had the ability to forecast exactly the weights needed in the future.

In my case I was legitimately not trying to game the system for refit.  I'm RPing as a 2nd rate power trying to play globally.   And currently rushing to put carriers at sea without fully understanding how to solve problems and having an air ministry that never thought about carriers with the exception of one foreign built seaplane carrier. 

So I do the 95t now not as future proofing, but as a handicap because we just don't know how to efficiently utilize the aviation spaces and treat it more like an aerodrome.   

[The Rock Doctor]

Do you expect us to pretend we don't have the exact weight at hand? 

We have the entire tech tree right there available to look at.  Is anybody not using it to plan ahead?

[The Rock Doctor]

Anyway, I'm not trying to be miserable about this.  Obviously we have different ideas about how far it is practical to look ahead and with what precision.

[The Rock Doctor]

Decided to see what I could do with surplus guns from an Angstrom class ship, and this was about the smallest monitor I could generate with acceptable parameters.

Given that the recycled armament is only 10% of the total cost, I can't say it's a great value.

I see the gun year reset itself when I corrected my engine year, not sure if that would change anything but it's probably moot.



Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1932

Displacement:
   7,523 t light; 8,003 t standard; 8,726 t normal; 9,305 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (337.25 ft / 324.80 ft) x 91.86 ft x (15.75 / 16.63 ft)
   (102.79 m / 99.00 m) x 28.00 m  x (4.80 / 5.07 m)

Armament:
      3 - 13.78" / 350 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,319.35lbs / 598.45kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mount, 1932 Model
     1 x Triple mount on centreline, forward deck centre
      1 raised mount
      8 - 3.94" / 100 mm 45.0 cal guns - 30.77lbs / 13.96kg shells, 400 per gun
     Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1932 Model
     4 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
      8 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 4.18lbs / 1.89kg shells, 1,500 per gun
     Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1932 Model
     4 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      8 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm 90.0 cal guns - 0.12lbs / 0.05kg shells, 5,000 per gun
     Machine guns in deck mounts, 1932 Model
     4 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 4,239 lbs / 1,923 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   1.97" / 50 mm   211.12 ft / 64.35 m   11.81 ft / 3.60 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 100% of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
      1.97" / 50 mm   211.12 ft / 64.35 m   15.12 ft / 4.61 m
   Beam between torpedo bulkheads 65.62 ft / 20.00 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   5.91" / 150 mm   1.97" / 50 mm      3.94" / 100 mm
   2nd:   0.79" / 20 mm   0.79" / 20 mm            -
   3rd:   0.59" / 15 mm         -               -
   4th:   0.59" / 15 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - single deck:
   For and Aft decks: 1.97" / 50 mm
   Forecastle: 0.98" / 25 mm  Quarter deck: 0.98" / 25 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 1.97" / 50 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Diesel Internal combustion generators,
   Electric motors, 2 shafts, 12,332 shp / 9,200 Kw = 17.91 kts
   Range 5,000nm at 15.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,303 tons

Complement:
   450 - 586

Cost:
   £3.174 million / $12.695 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 724 tons, 8.3%
      - Guns: 724 tons, 8.3%
   Armour: 1,564 tons, 17.9%
      - Belts: 243 tons, 2.8%
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 233 tons, 2.7%
      - Armament: 309 tons, 3.5%
      - Armour Deck: 760 tons, 8.7%
      - Conning Tower: 18 tons, 0.2%
   Machinery: 364 tons, 4.2%
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,331 tons, 49.6%
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,203 tons, 13.8%
   Miscellaneous weights: 541 tons, 6.2%
      - Hull below water: 200 tons
      - Hull above water: 99 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 42 tons
      - Above deck: 200 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     21,457 lbs / 9,733 Kg = 16.4 x 13.8 " / 350 mm shells or 5.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.39
   Metacentric height 7.8 ft / 2.4 m
   Roll period: 13.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 90 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.41
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.29

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has low forecastle, rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.650 / 0.656
   Length to Beam Ratio: 3.54 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 18.02 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 4.92 ft / 1.50 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00%,  20.67 ft / 6.30 m,  15.75 ft / 4.80 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00%,  23.62 ft / 7.20 m,  23.62 ft / 7.20 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00%,  15.75 ft / 4.80 m,  15.75 ft / 4.80 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00%,  15.75 ft / 4.80 m,  15.75 ft / 4.80 m
      - Average freeboard:      18.50 ft / 5.64 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81.9%
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 187.5%
   Waterplane Area: 22,857 Square feet or 2,124 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 134%
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 164 lbs/sq ft or 798 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.85
      - Longitudinal: 4.34
      - Overall: 1.00
   Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Excellent accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Jefgte]

Decided to see what I could do with surplus guns from an Angstrom class ship, and this was about the smallest monitor I could generate with acceptable parameters.

Given that the recycled armament is only 10% of the total cost, I can't say it's a great value...

I have the same question with the old 191 in barbette replaced by 133DP and the 120 replaced by 114DP.
These old guns could be installed on gunboats (?)

[Kaiser Kirk]

Sorry folks, I felt I should step away. My use of the term infuriating was accurate- hence my stepping back for a bit.
I fully acknowledge that this might be incomprehensible to others.

My online debate style can become severely sarcastic, with risk of being insulting, and quite stubborn, turning into that can be perceived as brow beating. While I have never veered into the personal vitriol of online trolls, that does not mean I do not regret some past exchanges. So I felt I should step back and allow the matter to settle.

As for various points

1.Forecastle- on refection, the freeboard setting is the minimum, and so you can exceed it. My comment was in error.

2.Misc Weight Allocation -
Yes, not looking ahead towards techs and the requirements that do not yet exist, nor are you researching was certainly my expectation.

Is anybody not using it to plan ahead?

If you look at my carriers, you'll see I do not have the miscellaneous weight margin for it.
I had not realized others were peering into the future in such a way.
You are carrying biplanes, you are researching more biplanes, you are forecasting monoplane wieghts.
I find this extremely unreasonable.

3.Engineers can plan for it- Basically Jefgte's argument
My response is...they apparently couldn't because they did not.
Therefore that is an invalid argument

So, during the development of the aircraft carrier rules, I looked both at websites and my various books, particular American & British Aircraft Carrier development, but also places like Armoredcarrier.com and even wiki. Wiki is a bit unreliable. There are a number of carriers that had their airgroup size decline, had engineers been able to forecast it , that would not be the case.

For a very simple example of why I find this unreasonable, I will point to the Wikipedia entry for Ark Royal
under design is this passage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(91)
Along with the inclusion of two hangar decks, this allowed Ark Royal to carry up to 72 aircraft, although the development of larger and heavier aircraft during the carrier's construction meant that the actual number carried was between 50 and 60.[5]

Now, in 1934 the Brits had the most experience in aircraft carriers. While they were a bit behind at by 1941 and are famed for retaining the biplane Swordfish, I suspect that was a matter of wingloading and the low speed needed for torpedo launch, as they introduced the Blackburn Skua monoplane in 1937- the same year the carrier was launched.

They very definitely, despite being a leading aircraft carrier power, and fielding monoplanes ...did not see into the future requirements.

So I was very surprised to find myself in the clear minority on this.
It's not the first time I've had my expectations dashed.
I don't suppose it will be the last.

So that's my piece. Hopefully it illuminates the basis on which I object.


Edit :
One last observation - per the Naval Construction Rules, you can't lay down a ship with technology you have not completed previously.

That may effect my expectations as to "planning ahead" by budgeting weight for a technology that is not even available to research yet.