My new Korvettes were modified to conform with the new rules. 750t light, 4 Torpedo tubes, and 9t misc displacement - 4 of which is the torpedo mounts, 1t is wireless/other equipment, while another 4t can be used for Torpedo reloads, or additional fuel/stores.
K20 Orange Torpedo Korvette laid down 1905
Displacement:
750 t light; 775 t standard; 883 t normal; 970 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
85.00 m / 85.00 m x 8.50 m x 2.40 m
Armament:
2 - 100 mm guns in single mounts, 30.51lbs / 13.84kg shells, 1905 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 10.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1905 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts on centreline, all amidships
Weight of broadside 61 lbs / 28 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
4 - 450 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 3 shafts, 13,223 shp / 9,864 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 195 tons (90% coal)
Complement: 80 - 105
Cost: £0.103 million / $0.413 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 8 tons, 0.9 %
Armour: 2 tons, 0.2 %
- Armament: 2 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 504 tons, 57.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 227 tons, 25.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 133 tons, 15.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 9 tons, 1.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
249 lbs / 113 Kg = 8.2 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.61
Metacentric height 1.6 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 9.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.08
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.29
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.505
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.70 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 65 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.73 ft / 5.10 m
- Mid (35 %): 16.73 ft / 5.10 m (9.84 ft / 3.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Stern: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Average freeboard: 12.62 ft / 3.85 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 192.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 104.8 %
Waterplane Area: 5,204 Square feet or 483 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 39 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 23 lbs/sq ft or 111 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.76
- Overall: 0.56
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
If you're still with the "Advanced: 1905" engines, then your powerplant is too big (4000 hp/shaft). I'm also not sure if you can really get three shafts on a hull that small.
Ahoj!
Pretty!
I see nothing to whine about :)
For once!
And I see that Rock has better eyes!
Borys
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on March 15, 2007, 06:07:43 AM
If you're still with the "Advanced: 1905" engines, then your powerplant is too big (4000 hp/shaft). I'm also not sure if you can really get three shafts on a hull that small.
There were RN destroyers of the size having 2-3 shafts.
SS is attributing too much power for the relatively limited speed. The first
Tribals on similar power made 33kts.
I know it is my design, but even if it weren't I'd allow it - a 10% difference.
So 4,000 hp/shaft is more like a guideline?
My main intention was to have a limit on capital ship/cruiser speed. If I installed four shafts, with inefficient small propellors, I would be well below this limit. Originally there was an additional turbine tech after the first one. I might raise max shaft power to 5000HP, so the difference from the next tech won't be as enormous - would that make you happy :) ?
That would be fine - I'm just making the point that the tech levels need to be concrete - no slippage. Otherwise, there'll be lots of slippage.
True. At least myself should conform with the rules, at least as I can change them ::).
The coastal minelayer/sweeper of the Orange Navy eqipped with some experimental oil-firing boilers. Engineers swear it would work.
Displacement:
500 t light; 517 t standard; 587 t normal; 643 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
223.10 ft / 223.10 ft x 27.89 ft x 5.91 ft (normal load)
68.00 m / 68.00 m x 8.50 m x 1.80 m
Armament:
2 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns in single mounts, 30.51lbs / 13.84kg shells, 1904 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 - 0.39" / 10.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1904 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 61 lbs / 28 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 1,150 ihp / 858 Kw = 15.00 kts
Range 4,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 126 tons
Complement:
59 - 77
Cost:
£0.045 million / $0.181 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 8 tons, 1.3 %
Machinery: 151 tons, 25.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 243 tons, 41.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 87 tons, 14.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 98 tons, 16.7 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
838 lbs / 380 Kg = 27.5 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.29
Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 10.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 74 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.10
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.559
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 14.94 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 37
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 15.94 ft / 4.86 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 14.76 ft / 4.50 m (10.14 ft / 3.09 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 10.14 ft / 3.09 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.14 ft / 3.09 m
- Stern: 10.14 ft / 3.09 m
- Average freeboard: 11.16 ft / 3.40 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 112.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 143.3 %
Waterplane Area: 4,379 Square feet or 407 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 127 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 34 lbs/sq ft or 165 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 2.63
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
I want to get some fst destroyers in the water, not only battleships. Here's one with oil firing. A coal-firing version is available, with 3000@10kts range, and one less 4" gun.
The TTs are on the sides, and there's no reload.
Ships are carrying a small 5t wireless - enough for short range communication. The squadron flagship has a 10t wireless set at the expense of 4 torpedoes.
Orange Destroyer, laid down 1907 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
750 t light; 778 t standard; 873 t normal; 949 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
260.00 ft / 260.00 ft x 26.00 ft x 10.00 ft (normal load)
79.25 m / 79.25 m x 7.92 m x 3.05 m
Armament:
4 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1905 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
4 - 0.39" / 10.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1905 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships
Weight of broadside 128 lbs / 58 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
8 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 17,892 shp / 13,347 Kw = 29.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 171 tons
Complement:
79 - 104
Cost:
£0.103 million / $0.412 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 16 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 3 tons, 0.4 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 3 tons, 0.4 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 453 tons, 51.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 260 tons, 29.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 123 tons, 14.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 18 tons, 2.1 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
238 lbs / 108 Kg = 7.4 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.22
Metacentric height 1.0 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 11.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.30
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.452
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.12 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 69 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Mid (43 %): 17.00 ft / 5.18 m (10.00 ft / 3.05 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Stern: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 13.41 ft / 4.09 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 183.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 52.1 %
Waterplane Area: 4,319 Square feet or 401 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 49 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 26 lbs/sq ft or 126 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 3.39
- Overall: 0.60
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Ahoj!
Some reading for you:
http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/battleshipplan_1912.html
http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/
Borys
Quote from: Borys on April 20, 2007, 09:53:29 AM
Ahoj!
Some reading for you:
http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/battleshipplan_1912.html
http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/
Borys
Already read those pages, and about everyting else on that site :)
But my bases and basing is much superior to what the Netherlands had historically.
Quote from: P³D on April 19, 2007, 11:09:18 PM
I want to get some fst destroyers in the water, not only battleships. Here's one with oil firing. A coal-firing version is available, with 3000@10kts range, and one less 4" gun.
The TTs are on the sides, and there's no reload.
Ships are carrying a small 5t wireless - enough for short range communication. The squadron flagship has a 10t wireless set at the expense of 4 torpedoes.
Hu? were did those come from, i was under the impression that it was at least 10 tons or non for a radio set?
It's definitely the smallest listed set, and the one that I designed my new DD's around.
Had I know that we could install a smaller one and get even 25 miles out of it, I'd have used that.
Even the 10t sets are in the misc weight allowance.
Quote from: P³D on July 17, 2007, 03:27:37 PM
Even the 10t sets are in the misc weight allowance.
So why mention anything about a 5ton set if they are using 10 ton sets?
...was that they come in 5t, 10t and 20t sizes.
A small ship intended for coastal patrol, rescue and secondary mine laying and sweeping duties. I actually have the notion to make these boats diesel-powered (2x500HP engines) adding an extra 1000nm range or 10t misc. weight, but this I rejected due to fuel availability concerns.
Range requirement is determined by unrefuelled range on a two-way travel between main Orange ports at 12kts - or between Luanda and Walvis bay at reduced speed.
Orange patrol boat laid down 1908 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
200 t light; 206 t standard; 244 t normal; 274 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
120.00 ft / 120.00 ft x 20.00 ft x 6.00 ft (normal load)
36.58 m / 36.58 m x 6.10 m x 1.83 m
Armament:
1 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading gun in deck mount
on centreline aft
2 - 0.40" / 10.2 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 1 raised mount
Weight of broadside 14 lbs / 6 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 1,159 shp / 865 Kw = 16.00 kts
Range 1,500nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 68 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
30 - 40
Cost:
£0.017 million / $0.066 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 58 tons, 23.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 89 tons, 36.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 44 tons, 18.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 52 tons, 21.3 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
332 lbs / 151 Kg = 24.6 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 0.5 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 11.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.09
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.63
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.593
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 10.95 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 68 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Mid (45 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m (7.00 ft / 2.13 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Stern: 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Average freeboard: 10.15 ft / 3.09 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 105.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 104.9 %
Waterplane Area: 1,704 Square feet or 158 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 134 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 25 lbs/sq ft or 120 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.77
- Longitudinal: 9.80
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
Managed to sim a ship pretty close to the historical Laforey class, but on 75t less displacement. Range, speed, armament, freeboard roughly the same.
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1905 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
750 t light; 777 t standard; 949 t normal; 1,086 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
260.00 ft / 260.00 ft x 26.00 ft x 10.00 ft (normal load)
79.25 m / 79.25 m x 7.92 m x 3.05 m
Armament:
3 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1905 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
2 - 0.39" / 10.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1905 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships
Weight of broadside 96 lbs / 44 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 22,438 shp / 16,739 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 309 tons
Complement:
85 - 111
Cost:
£0.110 million / $0.438 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 12 tons, 1.3 %
Armour: 3 tons, 0.3 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 3 tons, 0.3 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 523 tons, 55.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 188 tons, 19.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 199 tons, 20.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 25 tons, 2.6 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
184 lbs / 84 Kg = 5.8 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.54
Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 9.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 33 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.09
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.37
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.491
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.12 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 72 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Mid (30 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m (7.00 ft / 2.13 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Stern: 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Average freeboard: 9.66 ft / 2.94 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 190.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 56.7 %
Waterplane Area: 4,469 Square feet or 415 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 44 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 24 lbs/sq ft or 115 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.51
- Longitudinal: 1.04
- Overall: 0.54
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability
The updated patrol boat, with VTEs, build following merchant standards. Range got increased. Can be fitted with a twin torpedo launcher in war (models withdrawn from first-line service).
Misc. weight for torpedoes, W/T, motor launch, and minesweeping equipment.
Cost is $0.07 and 0.07BP each.
Orange Patrol Boat, laid down 1909
Displacement:
249 t light; 257 t standard; 313 t normal; 358 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
132.00 ft / 132.00 ft x 21.00 ft x 6.00 ft (normal load)
40.23 m / 40.23 m x 6.40 m x 1.83 m
Armament:
1 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
2 - 0.40" / 10.2 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
Weight of broadside 14 lbs / 6 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
2 - 16.0" / 406.4 mm above water torpedoes
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 1,322 ihp / 986 Kw = 16.00 kts
Range 2,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 100 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
36 - 48
Cost:
£0.024 million / $0.098 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 102 tons, 32.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 106 tons, 33.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 64 tons, 20.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 40 tons, 12.8 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
325 lbs / 148 Kg = 24.1 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.23
Metacentric height 0.7 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 10.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.06
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.60
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.659
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.29 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 11.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 67 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 44
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Mid (45 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m (7.00 ft / 2.13 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Stern: 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Average freeboard: 10.15 ft / 3.09 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 123.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 77.1 %
Waterplane Area: 2,113 Square feet or 196 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 122 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 26 lbs/sq ft or 126 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.80
- Longitudinal: 7.06
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
Orange Korvette proposal for 1911. The better engine techs (Blessed be those dice!) allowed one more gun, and adequate misc. weight for FCS (25t) torpedoes(6t) WT (10t) mines/sweeping equipment (9t) installed. Long-range radio communication is the task of flottilla leaders (either cruisers or 1000t destroyers built later).
Orange Korvette laid down 1911 (engine 1912)
Displacement:
750 t light; 779 t standard; 926 t normal; 1,044 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
260.00 ft / 260.00 ft x 26.00 ft x 9.50 ft (normal load)
79.25 m / 79.25 m x 7.92 m x 2.90 m
Armament:
4 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
4 - 0.40" / 10.2 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1912 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships
Weight of broadside 128 lbs / 58 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 22,283 shp / 16,623 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 265 tons
Complement:
83 - 109
Cost:
£0.107 million / $0.430 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 16 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 4 tons, 0.5 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 4 tons, 0.5 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 483 tons, 52.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 201 tons, 21.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 176 tons, 19.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 45 tons, 4.9 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
186 lbs / 84 Kg = 5.8 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.28
Metacentric height 1.0 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 10.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 37 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.17
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.46
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.505
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.12 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 72 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 14.50 ft / 4.42 m
- Mid (35 %): 14.50 ft / 4.42 m (7.50 ft / 2.29 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 7.50 ft / 2.29 m
- Stern: 7.50 ft / 2.29 m
- Average freeboard: 10.55 ft / 3.22 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 186.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 36.8 %
Waterplane Area: 4,523 Square feet or 420 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 47 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 24 lbs/sq ft or 117 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.31
- Overall: 0.55
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability
QuoteOrange Korvette proposal for 1911. The better engine techs (Blessed be those dice!) allowed one more gun, and adequate misc. weight for FCS (25t) torpedoes(6t) WT (10t) mines/sweeping equipment (9t) installed. Long-range radio communication is the task of flottilla leaders (either cruisers or 1000t destroyers built later).
I believe, and therefore am probably mistaken, that the WT weight was included in the FCS weight, therefore you should have another 10t misc weight to play with. Not bad little ship in general, although that seakeeping is eek.. :D
Ships with similar freeboards were no unknown of running 6-8hrs full power trials (33-35kts) in gale-force winds. There were no destroyers of similar size with higher freeboard. It is rather historical, so I don't see why it would be the problem. SS2 allows building ships with too much excess freeboard, therefore N3-verse is full with such ships which are rather miniature cruisers not destroyers - and I'd like to avoid building such ships if possible.
Quote from: P3D on January 14, 2008, 03:15:41 AM
Ships with similar freeboards were no unknown of running 6-8hrs full power trials (33-35kts) in gale-force winds. There were no destroyers of similar size with higher freeboard. It is rather historical, so I don't see why it would be the problem. SS2 allows building ships with too much excess freeboard, therefore N3-verse is full with such ships which are rather miniature cruisers not destroyers - and I'd like to avoid building such ships if possible.
That is also a effect of us building them for radically different mission profiles then was historically the case.
Generally TBs here are several knots slower the IRL, but better armed and much better seaboats and more habitable.
And i see nothing wrong with that.
Well, I personally don't understand how they will handle anything but coastal work... should they deploy in any kind of real weather, they would face all the problems that my suggested 1910/11 destroyers would face, right down to difficult torpedo launching. They easily have the poorest seaboat rating of any ship class in the N-verse; I'd see them having an tremendously hard time operating in gale force winds while doing anything other steaming fortheir lives. Seaboat quility is 'relative' after all, and SS says that .70 is a minimum for 'workable' performance... that means that they lack seaworthiness for something their size, and thus are pretty dog-gone lousy ships. Running trials is NOT requiring the ship to keep a fighting trim, and thus though it could run at 30 knots, it would be exceptionally hard-pressed to do anything but run 30 knots in those conditions... no guns firing, torps having trouble launching, etc. Lord only knows how calm the seas would have to be for the ships to actually retain any useful degree of handling.
I'd say that 'Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability' is a waring we should see on torpedo boats and coastal ships only... not something that's intended to go to sea. If NS destroyers were suffering from handling problems during the war with their 1.00+ seaboat ratings, these ships would be utterly useless.
QuoteThat is also a effect of us building them for radically different mission profiles then was historically the case.
Generally TBs here are several knots slower the IRL, but better armed and much better seaboats and more habitable.
And i see nothing wrong with that.
The rules allows buiding destroyers which are anything but destroyers in name. We could even attempt to sim real destroyers with SS2, but that met the resistance of some player (you were especially against making rules anything realistic).
Carthaginian,
Historical evidence shows that destroyers with similar or LOWER freeboard hardly had big problems in bad weather. They survived like 70 degrees inclination, made 30 kts+ in gale force wind. And we have no historical evidence whatsoever if N3-verse "destroyers" would behave as SS2 predicts.
I'd rather have the opinion of the moderators that what type of destroyers they want. One that has at least looks like a real world one but slower, or one that is a slow, overgunned, over-torpedo-equipped, or having even deck and belt armor, essentially a small cruiser - obeying the letter of the rules only.
Because if I build historical ships, and be severely handicapped by it (as there are "destroyers" around with over unity seakeeping, the broadside of a protectred cruiser, etc.), and even having armor (something destroyers did not have).
The 0.50 cross-sectional strength is not really representing flimsy, weak structure that would break up in any breeze. It is necessary as DDs usually had much lighter machinery, which cannot be simmed other way (could be, actually). With lighter machinery you could sim historical (altough pre-WWI) ships with 1.00 overall strength.
Having atempted on several ocasions to sim real DDs I have given up on that line of reasoning, they simply dont work even using Historical range and preformance numbers
Quote from: P3D on January 14, 2008, 11:33:29 AM
Historical evidence shows that destroyers with similar or LOWER freeboard hardly had big problems in bad weather. They survived like 70 degrees inclination, made 30 kts+ in gale force wind. And we have no historical evidence whatsoever if N3-verse "destroyers" would behave as SS2 predicts.
If we throw out the SS predictions, then we are running on W.A.G.'s, and throwing out the only system we have for determining performance. We need to stick to what we have... start saying 'well, this isn't the case for X' and the entire system starts to take a hit. Either the seaboat rating has relevance to a ship's handling related to it's size, or there is no correlation whatsoever, and no ship should be handicapped on this basis.
Quote1 - Destroyers have a minimal overall and cross-sectional strength of 0.50 - this is to represent lightweight destroyer machinery, as realistic speeds cannot be met with keeping composite strength to 1.00. For ships of composite strength below 1.00, we as mods reserve the right to deal out damage or even loss in heavy weather.
For this rule to work as written, then seaboat quality must have some bearing on how well the ship handles in rough seas, and thus provide guidelines for the mods to determine what degree of damage a ship would sustain during heavy weather. If one player sacrifices speed and firepower in order to get seakeeping, his destroyers should be allowed to handle better and prove more durable during poor conditions than someone that focused on these attributes over seakeeping.
If you want a boat that's fast as a thief... that's fine. I have a 750t destroyer that's very similar and has just as realistic a freeboard and it has a FAR better seaboat rating. I sacrificed DOCK SIZE to get this, but attained it on the same tonnage and cost as your hull.
You gotta give something up.
This ship would, IMO, be so prone to sustaining damage during poor weather that it would be unusable in worse than 10 foot seas and would be swamped in gale force winds almost half the time.
She's not a fleet destroyer... she's a giant harbor defense craft.
Like I said, if NS and DKB destroyers with double that craft's seakeeping rating and even higher were having 'performance problems' during the war, this ship's performance would be entirely underwhelming.
Quote from: P3D on January 14, 2008, 11:33:29 AMI'd rather have the opinion of the moderators that what type of destroyers they want.
WHY?
Players are building destroyers within the rules, and are grossly happy with their performance. They make them with a flavor that fits their nation and with designs that fit within the specified goals for the design.
What more do we need?
If they are different than 'reality' then so be it... this is not reality.
Quote from: Carthaginian on January 14, 2008, 04:00:58 PM
If you want a boat that's fast as a thief... that's fine. I have a 750t destroyer that's very similar and has just as realistic a freeboard and it has a FAR better seaboat rating. I sacrificed DOCK SIZE to get this, but attained it on the same tonnage and cost as your hull.
You gotta give something up.
This ship would, IMO, be so prone to sustaining damage during poor weather that it would be unusable in worse than 10 foot seas and would be swamped in gale force winds almost half the time.
She's not a fleet destroyer... she's a giant harbor defense craft.
Like I said, if NS and DKB destroyers with double that craft's seakeeping rating and even higher were having 'performance problems' during the war, this ship's performance would be entirely underwhelming.
You are incorrect, there's no indication whatsoever that this ship won't be able to work in bad weather. Historical evidence is contrary to your assumptions, regardless of repeating them.
Your ships still have several feet higher freeboard than historical ships - even 2 or 3 feet can make a BIG difference (e.g. a 750t N3-verse destroyer having the same hull depth as a 2000t one from WWII).
Also note that dock size is not an issue with this design.
Nevertheless, I can change the characteristics to give the ship a completely unjustified freeboard just to get seakeeping over 1.00 if I have to, I will build those mini-cruisers, sacrificing only a single knot of speed.
That's why I need some Moderator input how ships with realistic freeboards should be handled - would they have a significant disadvantage over fantasy ships or not.
The 'mini-cruiser' version.
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1912
Displacement:
750 t light; 779 t standard; 913 t normal; 1,020 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
276.00 ft / 276.00 ft x 26.00 ft x 11.00 ft (normal load)
84.12 m / 84.12 m x 7.92 m x 3.35 m
Armament:
4 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 128 lbs / 58 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
6 - 20.0" / 508 mm above water torpedoes
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 17,108 shp / 12,763 Kw = 29.00 kts
Range 2,800nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 241 tons
Complement:
82 - 107
Cost:
£0.102 million / $0.408 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 16 tons, 1.8 %
Machinery: 444 tons, 48.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 240 tons, 26.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 163 tons, 17.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 5.5 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
245 lbs / 111 Kg = 7.7 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.33
Metacentric height 1.1 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 10.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.405
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.62 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.61 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 65 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Mid (37 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m (9.00 ft / 2.74 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Stern: 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Average freeboard: 11.91 ft / 3.63 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 176.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 111.4 %
Waterplane Area: 4,430 Square feet or 412 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 59 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 25 lbs/sq ft or 122 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.20
- Overall: 0.58
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Quote from: P3D on January 14, 2008, 04:17:56 PM
You are incorrect, there's no indication whatsoever that this ship won't be able to work in bad weather. Historical evidence is contrary to your assumptions, regardless of repeating them.
Howso?
How are my 'assumptions' being 'proven false', P3D?
Let me look back:
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1018.0
Here, you say that a Swiss ship with 25 knots speed and 1.51 seakeeping would 'slow down the battleline in bad weather.' Now, I'm not one to defend DF lightly, but his battleline was 3-4 knots slower than that. There had to be SOME reason that his ships were going to have poor performance in bad weather.
Please explain this, and explain how your ship- far poorer at seakeeping than this ione- would lack those same problems.
Here DIRECTLY, you cite 'average seakeeping' as insufficient to maintain full speed in poor seas (the same gales you specifically state that your ships can maintain 30 knots in). Which is it? Or is it that one nation's ships can while another's can't? Either ALL ships with poor seakeeping are handicapped, or we throw seakeeping out the window.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1246.msg11117#msg11117 (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1246.msg11117#msg11117)
Quote from: P3D on January 14, 2008, 04:17:56 PM
Your ships still have several feet higher freeboard than historical ships - even 2 or 3 feet can make a BIG difference (e.g. a 750t N3-verse destroyer having the same hull depth as a 2000t one from WWII).
Well, that's more from my lack of familiarity with naval design than from a deliberate attempt to break the rules. If you'll notice, my ships are trending towards more realistic ones, within the limits of information I have.
Quote from: P3D on January 14, 2008, 04:17:56 PMAlso note that dock size is not an issue with this design.
Nevertheless, I can change the characteristics to give the ship a completely unjustified freeboard just to get seakeeping over 1.00 if I have to, I will build those mini-cruisers, sacrificing only a single knot of speed.
Howso?
You are expecting to get excellent seakeeping performance out of a ship that cannot have it due to it's design parameters. It's too short and has too high a top speed, that is VERY much contradictory for good seakeeping according to SS.
And, in the end, SS is the ONLY reliable system we have.
Everything MUST work within it or THE SYSTEM FOR DESIGN WITHIN THE SIM IS NEGATED.
That is the issue. You cannot say that 'my ships can do what I want them to' on the one hand and then point to SS as 'the rules' on the other.
Either a destroyer has to operate within the system, or no ship will be forced to regard the system as concrete.
That's why I need some Moderator input how ships with realistic freeboards should be handled - would they have a significant disadvantage over fantasy ships or not.
[/quote]
Before we get into a bigger argument on this matter, I'll say I'm going to ask around for those more knowledgable in SS2 and historical designs, as my knowledge is limited on the matter. I am well aware of SS2's problem with light vessels as I had great difficultly simming historical 1898 destroyers for Chile. I'm wondering if SS3 has corrected that problem, but I doubt it, since these programs are more for people to play with cruisers and battleships than tin cans.
I'll see what opinions I can get from those with more experiance on this matter before I'd make an uneducated ruling. Thus it will take a little time before we have a good answer. So don't you two get bent out of shape at each other. These back and forths just get our collective blood pressured raised. His is suppose to be a friendly experiance, right? Your nations are not even close enough to each other to warrent worrying about the other in character, that is for sure.
well just for the sake of Argument, i went and simed a historic 750 toner USS Paulding, its of the apropriat era, I did Italianise it a bit (raised a couple guns extended the break but basicly it proves if you use a historic ship as a guidline you can build a fairly decent DD)
USS Paulding, USA Historic 750 ton DD laid down 1910 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
750 t light; 776 t standard; 915 t normal; 1,026 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
293.83 ft / 293.83 ft x 27.00 ft x 9.50 ft (normal load)
89.56 m / 89.56 m x 8.23 m x 2.90 m
Armament:
4 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1910 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, majority forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 0.75" / 19.1 mm guns in single mounts, 0.21lbs / 0.10kg shells, 1910 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 129 lbs / 58 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
6 - 21.0" / 532.9999 mm above water torpedoes
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 19,223 shp / 14,340 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 5,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 251 tons
Complement:
83 - 108
Cost:
£0.105 million / $0.418 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 16 tons, 1.8 %
Machinery: 463 tons, 50.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 236 tons, 25.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 165 tons, 18.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 35 tons, 3.8 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
234 lbs / 106 Kg = 7.3 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.34
Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 10.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.25
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.17
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.425
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.88 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.14 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 65 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m (8.00 ft / 2.44 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Stern: 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Average freeboard: 12.32 ft / 3.76 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 180.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 63.9 %
Waterplane Area: 4,963 Square feet or 461 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 54 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 23 lbs/sq ft or 112 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.75
- Overall: 0.52
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
The Point of this exersise was to make a point, You can build them However P3D you have CHOSEN not to. This isnt earth in 1910 this is the NVerse, things are diferent here. heck even some of the laws of Physics are suspended...
QuoteHistorical evidence shows that destroyers with similar or LOWER freeboard hardly had big problems in bad weather. They survived like 70 degrees inclination, made 30 kts+ in gale force wind. And we have no historical evidence whatsoever if N3-verse "destroyers" would behave as SS2 predicts.
Hmm.. if that is the case I wonder how my 29knot destroyers were caught by a 28knot cruiser in less than gale force winds...
QuoteIt is rather historical, so I don't see why it would be the problem. SS2 allows building ships with too much excess freeboard, therefore N3-verse is full with such ships which are rather miniature cruisers not destroyers - and I'd like to avoid building such ships if possible.
Maybe it was because some of us wanted minature cruisers. Not many countries faced the problem of fighting across Trans-Pacific distances. Note that the first NS destroyers were called not Torpedo Boat Destroyers (TBD) but rather Super Destroyers, a totally different class of ships.
Quote from: Carthaginian on January 14, 2008, 04:43:35 PM
Quote from: P3D on January 14, 2008, 04:17:56 PM
You are incorrect, there's no indication whatsoever that this ship won't be able to work in bad weather. Historical evidence is contrary to your assumptions, regardless of repeating them.
Howso?
How are my 'assumptions' being 'proven false', P3D?
Let me look back:
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1018.0
Here, you say that a Swiss ship with 25 knots speed and 1.51 seakeeping would 'slow down the battleline in bad weather.' Now, I'm not one to defend DF lightly, but his battleline was 3-4 knots slower than that. There had to be SOME reason that his ships were going to have poor performance in bad weather.
Please explain this, and explain how your ship- far poorer at seakeeping than this ione- would lack those same problems.
Here DIRECTLY, you cite 'average seakeeping' as insufficient to maintain full speed in poor seas (the same gales you specifically state that your ships can maintain 30 knots in). Which is it? Or is it that one nation's ships can while another's can't? Either ALL ships with poor seakeeping are handicapped, or we throw seakeeping out the window.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1246.msg11117#msg11117 (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1246.msg11117#msg11117)
My assumptions proved to be false - please refer to the date of my posts. After a few months declaring that, I read accounts about the performance of RN destroyers in bad weather. So I changed my mind since then because I learned that I previously believed to be true was wrong.
QuoteQuote from: P3D on January 14, 2008, 04:17:56 PM
Your ships still have several feet higher freeboard than historical ships - even 2 or 3 feet can make a BIG difference (e.g. a 750t N3-verse destroyer having the same hull depth as a 2000t one from WWII).
Well, that's more from my lack of familiarity with naval design than from a deliberate attempt to break the rules. If you'll notice, my ships are trending towards more realistic ones, within the limits of information I have.
And, in the end, SS is the ONLY reliable system we have.
Everything MUST work within it or THE SYSTEM FOR DESIGN WITHIN THE SIM IS NEGATED.
That is the issue. You cannot say that 'my ships can do what I want them to' on the one hand and then point to SS as 'the rules' on the other.
Either a destroyer has to operate within the system, or no ship will be forced to regard the system as concrete.
SS2 says seakeeping is relative to ships of similar size. If there's a historical ship with accounts for good seakeeping, and simming that historical ship with SS2 gives a well below average value, then I had say the problem is with SS2.
It's true that there's only limited amount of information available on historical freeboard values on the net (French plans, dreadnoughprojects, german-navy.de), and values for draught at a given displacement - both of which affects the overall strength significantly.
Tanthalas:
Nice work, the only mistake I see is that the mid-break would be at ~33% length for the Pauldings. But that affects seakeeping a lot.
Quote from: P3D on January 14, 2008, 06:04:43 PM
My assumptions proved to be false - please refer to the date of my posts. After a few months declaring that, I read accounts about the performance of RN destroyers in bad weather. So I changed my mind since then because I learned that I previously believed to be true was wrong.
You never presented data to the contrary, apologized or otherwise made mention of said mistakes, or gave any indication that you had your opinions changed. I picked out the only available quotes you made on the issue and then used them in my retort.
Had you perhaps expressed this change of heart on the forums, there would have been less confusion. Indeed, had you shared this knowledge, perhaps the boards at large would become more amiable to designing historically-minded destroyers... yet you chose not to share it, and only to interject it when a design you put forth came under attack.
Anything learned should be shared... especially given that you are trying to achieve the goal of having better ships throughout the sim.
A little information goes a long, long way.
QuoteQuote from: P3D on January 14, 2008, 04:17:56 PM
Your ships still have several feet higher freeboard than historical ships - even 2 or 3 feet can make a BIG difference (e.g. a 750t N3-verse destroyer having the same hull depth as a 2000t one from WWII).
Well, that's more from my lack of familiarity with naval design than from a deliberate attempt to break the rules. If you'll notice, my ships are trending towards more realistic ones, within the limits of information I have.
And, in the end, SS is the ONLY reliable system we have.
Everything MUST work within it or THE SYSTEM FOR DESIGN WITHIN THE SIM IS NEGATED.
That is the issue. You cannot say that 'my ships can do what I want them to' on the one hand and then point to SS as 'the rules' on the other.
Either a destroyer has to operate within the system, or no ship will be forced to regard the system as concrete.
SS2 says seakeeping is relative to ships of similar size. If there's a historical ship with accounts for good seakeeping, and simming that historical ship with SS2 gives a well below average value, then I had say the problem is with SS2.
It's true that there's only limited amount of information available on historical freeboard values on the net (French plans, dreadnoughprojects, german-navy.de), and values for draught at a given displacement - both of which affects the overall strength significantly.
Tanthalas:
Nice work, the only mistake I see is that the mid-break would be at ~33% length for the Pauldings. But that affects seakeeping a lot.
[/quote]
^.^ like I said I italiasized her just a tad (Paulding didnt have SF guns either and was only 29.5 knots historicly) that is honestly how I come up with most of my DDs I take a historic boat (lets face it we know they worked otl) spec it then play with it till it dosnt work anymore then I back off a bit and call it good =P
Quote from: Carthaginian on January 14, 2008, 07:20:24 PM
You never presented data to the contrary, apologized or otherwise made mention of said mistakes, or gave any indication that you had your opinions changed. I picked out the only available quotes you made on the issue and then used them in my retort.
I had a complete thread where I posted about the freeboard thing, where I mentioned we were simming DDs completely wrong. And the low seakeeping are a direct consequence of the freeboard issue.
Then the agreement was to postpone the destroyer issues until the full version of SS3 is available.
I believe that's still a few months away :(
Quote from: P3D on January 14, 2008, 07:54:49 PM
Quote from: Carthaginian on January 14, 2008, 07:20:24 PM
You never presented data to the contrary, apologized or otherwise made mention of said mistakes, or gave any indication that you had your opinions changed. I picked out the only available quotes you made on the issue and then used them in my retort.
I had a complete thread where I posted about the freeboard thing, where I mentioned we were simming DDs completely wrong. And the low seakeeping are a direct consequence of the freeboard issue.
Then the agreement was to postpone the destroyer issues until the full version of SS3 is available.
I believe that's still a few months away :(
ya its a few months off at best... Perhaps like I said previously we should just do the best we can with what we have. ships can be made stable, and therfore imo they should be. Generaly our destroyers are slower than their historical counterparts, but tbh most of our ships are slower than their historical counterparts.
Suggestions call for modification of the vessel to at least 0.70 seakeeping. One suggests using the transom stern (but I'd like to avoid that one if possible). It is asked what historical design this is based on for reference.
Kaiser Kirk:
QuoteI think aiming for 1.0 seakeeping is flawed for destroyers of that era anyhow, just hitting the 0.7 for poor should be enough. Second, the 30knt speed may be the trial speed and not represent the practical maximum sea speed.
It sounds like the pictured freeboard has a one deck rise for the forward 1/3 of the ship. Otherwise I'd advocate extending the forecastle aft.
So, if you don't want to drop speed, then I'd raise the freeboard by 2 feet and increase the BC to 0.515 and call it good.
HoOmAn:
QuoteHave you tried a transome stern? For a small, fast vessel it might help a lot. I don´t think it is impossible to raise seakeeping to 0,8 at least. See the RSAN 1935er light destroyer. Even though that vessel carrys less misc weight and TTs she features more light guns and much better seakeeping on a similar size. So there absolutely is a chance to get the design working using SSv2.
Anyhow, if all this is historical (based on which design?) then there is little you can do if you want to stick to that particular design. Otherwise I´d propose a complete redesign.
ShinRa_Inc:
QuoteI recently had similar problems trying to design a small destroyer for Canada. I tried making a small, high speed ship around 900 tons, but due to seakeeping, I had to bring it up to 1200 tons just to make it seaworthy.
My personal opinion would be something along the lines of ships under 1000 tons should be allowed with seakeeping between .50 and 1.00 with the understanding that they won't be able to maintain high speeds in moderate to severe weather, and god help it if it's caught in a real gale, not because it's generally unseaworthy, but because of it's size.
that Discusion is from WesWorld right?
Yes
Cool ought to get some good ideas anyway, I realy ought to get caught up over there. the .7 thing is a good idea imo, although seriously I have never had a problem geting my DDs stable (I usualy have the other problem they are Insanly OVER stable even basing them on Historical boats) ofcourse anything under a 1.0 should suffer from sea state penalties.
As to answer Desertfoxes question about why a slightly slower cruiser caught a destroyer is simple. The destroyer could not maintain flank speed. The cruiser could not either, but was able to maintain a higher speed than the destroyer over time. (Likey result of a prolonged chase of this sort, the destroyer runs at high speed and runs out of fuel, then the cruiser catches up and either sinks it or captures it. Also flank speed is not something that is generally maintained for long on coal powered ships. The black gang tends to drop dead after a while).
Ahoj!
Also, smaller ships are much more affected by weather. Didn't the Duke of York outpace its destroyer escort at the battle of the Nordkap?
Borys
I can give an example from Recent History, USS Kitty Hawk in 2001 outran all her Gas Turbine Powerd Escorts during her sprint to the Gulf. The Shitty Kitty could do a max of 33 knots, while her escorts could run at substantialy higher speeds, (I know I was on one of her Escorts playing Nuke Guard) however they couldnt maintain the speeds they needed to to stay with her (and this was in calm seas). She made it to the Gulf a full 47 hours ahead of us in a run from Yokuska to the Persian Gulf.
Destroyers as far as I am aware of, could do their full-power trials in rough seas (not in 'storm', though). That means max practical speed in general should be only 1-2 knots below trial speed.
Allowing lower freeboards and less seakeeping would only allow one knot more speed, no more than 30-31 kts, still 2-4 knots below what the destroyers should be capable of (after discounting for that 1-2 decrease in speed).
I could accept (at least until SS3) 1.00 seakeeping for a while
Getting 1.00 seakeeping is still achievable with decreasing speed by 1kts -
BTW. I played a bit with SS2 about the relation with seakeeping and speed. 1 knot decrease in speed would increase seakeeping by 0.08-0.13, so taking 0.10 as a rule of thumb is an obvious choice.
E.g. a 27kts ship with 1.00 seakeeping would have the equivalent of 1.20 seakeeping at 25kts.
Transom stern would allow slightly (1.5kts) higher speed. as SS2 is more or less fine for speeds below 30kts, transom stern IMO could be allowed for destroyers with speeds at least 31 or 32kts.
Tell you what show me an example of a class of ship OTL that was being built in 1910 that had a Transtom Stern and I might agree, however since I cant find any sry just shouldnt happen.
Quote from: P3D on January 15, 2008, 01:20:45 PM
Destroyers as far as I am aware of, could do their full-power trials in rough seas (not in 'storm', though). That means max practical speed in general should be only 1-2 knots below trial speed. ts.
'Rough seas' being about 6-10 feet, sure.
Get much over that, and a DD would not be able to make full speed, and her speed would drop quickly as things got worse. By what we see in WWII pics, a 1500t destroyer would have virtually no speed in 25-30 foot waves; at that point, survival is the chief concern.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h98000/h98599k.jpg)
A painting of your average 500t destroyer in a storm. Strangely enough, their dimensions are about the same as yours, though your DD's are much heavier. I'd say that the higher BC and narrower beam would make yours a bit more prone to wallow (flatter bottom)... would that be true or not?
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0502204.jpg)
This is a 750t ship in probably 10-foot seas (off Ireland). She's got a pretty good roll going on, enough so that I think those seas would give her a fun time running hard.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h57000/h57794.jpg)
Another pic... sea state appears pretty 'average' for open sea- call it 10-15 feet. Again, nice roll going on, and this 1000t 4-piper is bouncing laid over pretty hard. She's also only making convoy speed in this pic. I imagine the ride would get much rougher at a flank bell.
(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h01000/h01868.jpg)
Here's a pic of a 1000t destroyer doing a speed run in 'rough' seas (according to the US Navy Historical Center). Looks mighty unpleasant, and seems like a LOT of performance is lost... in fact, I doubt that the ship could be fought at all in those seas.
I agree that slowing down helps... but only to a degree.
The only thing is, with a really crappy seaboat rating in the beginning, you're going to have to slow down A LOT more than a ship with a similar size and lower seaboat rating. For instance, my 300t destroyer (of similar length and beam) would be pulling along nicely in weather that would make this ship fight for it's life.
Which destroyer of mine you are referring to as having problem in rough seas? The original 30kts version or the 29kts one with 1.20 seakeeping?
276 ft length is not too short - only compared to the 300'+ US ships. The 1000t RN destroyers (equivalent to the 750t light displacement here, about the same full disp.) of WWI were of similar size, some longer, some shorter. Same length for the German GTB1913.
BTW in a storm one RN destroyer had a roll angle of more than 60 degrees, the seawater inlets for the machinery (at the bottom of the hull) were in the air. Just returned the destroyer book to the library, so I don't have the figures with me.
a 60 deg. roll OUCH, you do realise that on curent US warships masts shear off at 40% (I think it was 40 anyway that the Cruiser I rode with would have lost them I was a Marine not a Sailor remember)
Quote from: P3D on January 15, 2008, 02:40:55 PM
Which destroyer of mine you are referring to as having problem in rough seas? The original 30kts version or the 29kts one with 1.20 seakeeping?
THIS one... the 30 knot one, the one that started it all:
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=137.msg21102#msg21102 (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=137.msg21102#msg21102)
I think you know which one I was talking about.
Quote from: P3D on January 15, 2008, 02:40:55 PM
276 ft length is not too short - only compared to the 300'+ US ships. The 1000t RN destroyers (equivalent to the 750t light displacement here, about the same full disp.) of WWI were of similar size, some longer, some shorter. Same length for the German GTB1913.
260' was the length on the original (750t) one... and, as you point out, a little bit of length can make a lot of difference. Especially when the ship is 9relatively) short and fat and prone to roll.
Quote from: P3D on January 15, 2008, 02:40:55 PMBTW in a storm one RN destroyer had a roll angle of more than 60 degrees, the seawater inlets for the machinery (at the bottom of the hull) were in the air. Just returned the destroyer book to the library, so I don't have the figures with me.
ONE ship... which was- as any of the crew would suggest- lucky to have survived.
Destroyers were NOT meant to operate in heavy conditions.
Quote from: Carthaginian on January 15, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
ONE ship... which was- as any of the crew would suggest- lucky to have survived.
Destroyers were NOT meant to operate in heavy conditions.
IIRC the study concluded that there was nothing extraordinary in the ship's survival, and other ships should have survived in similar circumstances. Was the conclusion justified, I don't know.
Quote from: P3D on January 15, 2008, 03:49:30 PM
Quote from: Carthaginian on January 15, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
ONE ship... which was- as any of the crew would suggest- lucky to have survived.
Destroyers were NOT meant to operate in heavy conditions.
IIRC the study concluded that there was nothing extraordinary in the ship's survival, and other ships should have survived in similar circumstances. Was the conclusion justified, I don't know.
What you are doing is somewhat similar to concluding that all the
Baltimore class cruisers were prone to catastrophic structural failure of their bows basing the evidence on only
USS Pittsburgh. Using her only example, it wouldn't seem extraordinary to assume this. However, taking the class (and the 3 classes based on the hull) in totality, you'd find that to be false.
Taking destroyers in totality as a type, they are poorly suited for bad weather, and many have been lost to weather conditions alone. That's proof enough that they are more sensitive to sea state with regards to performance than larger ships.
Just going on the 'strength of numbers' theory, I'd say that the commission you refer to was being a bit optimistic about the ships capabilities and a bit pessimistic about the effects that dumb luck can play (much like the
Pittsburg incident).
Quote from: Carthaginian on January 15, 2008, 08:22:35 PM
Quote from: P3D on January 15, 2008, 03:49:30 PM
Quote from: Carthaginian on January 15, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
ONE ship... which was- as any of the crew would suggest- lucky to have survived.
Destroyers were NOT meant to operate in heavy conditions.
IIRC the study concluded that there was nothing extraordinary in the ship's survival, and other ships should have survived in similar circumstances. Was the conclusion justified, I don't know.
What you are doing is somewhat similar to concluding that all the Baltimore class cruisers were prone to catastrophic structural failure of their bows basing the evidence on only USS Pittsburgh. Using her only example, it wouldn't seem extraordinary to assume this. However, taking the class (and the 3 classes based on the hull) in totality, you'd find that to be false.
Taking destroyers in totality as a type, they are poorly suited for bad weather, and many have been lost to weather conditions alone. That's proof enough that they are more sensitive to sea state with regards to performance than larger ships.
Just going on the 'strength of numbers' theory, I'd say that the commission you refer to was being a bit optimistic about the ships capabilities and a bit pessimistic about the effects that dumb luck can play (much like the Pittsburg incident).
Apparently the RN did not have any problems with the seakeeping of their destroyers, and their structural integrity in bad weather, as they lost a total of zero destroyers due to weather.
Alternative korvette leader for the destroyer divisions. Medium range wireless, FC, weight reserved for mines&sweeping equipment and torpedo reloads. Now I only have to figure it out how it all fits on the hull.
Korvette Leader laid down 1912
Displacement:
1,000 t light; 1,056 t standard; 1,226 t normal; 1,362 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
310.00 ft / 310.00 ft x 28.00 ft x 12.00 ft (normal load)
94.49 m / 94.49 m x 8.53 m x 3.66 m
Armament:
4 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, majority forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
2 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1912 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships
4 - 0.39" / 9.9 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 277 lbs / 126 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 19,342 shp / 14,429 Kw = 29.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 305 tons
Complement:
103 - 134
Cost:
£0.141 million / $0.563 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 35 tons, 2.8 %
Armour: 13 tons, 1.0 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 13 tons, 1.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 547 tons, 44.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 306 tons, 24.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 226 tons, 18.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 8.2 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
293 lbs / 133 Kg = 4.7 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 1.0 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 11.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.46
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.412
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.07 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.61 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Mid (37 %): 17.00 ft / 5.18 m (9.00 ft / 2.74 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Stern: 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Average freeboard: 12.20 ft / 3.72 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 175.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 57.8 %
Waterplane Area: 5,382 Square feet or 500 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 63 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 27 lbs/sq ft or 133 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.69
- Overall: 0.56
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
When Orange gets hold of the 1912 DD tech, the following destroyers would be laid down:
Orange korvette laid down 1916
Displacement:
1,500 t light; 1,575 t standard; 1,791 t normal; 1,964 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
391.16 ft / 385.00 ft x 33.00 ft x 12.00 ft (normal load)
119.23 m / 117.35 m x 10.06 m x 3.66 m
Armament:
5 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1915 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, majority aft, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 0.362" / 9.2 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1915 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships
2 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1915 Model
Anti-baloon guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 340 lbs / 154 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
12 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
- Conning tower: 1.00" / 25 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 37,274 shp / 27,806 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 390 tons
Complement:
136 - 178
Cost:
£0.322 million / $1.290 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 42 tons, 2.4 %
Armour: 11 tons, 0.6 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 8 tons, 0.4 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 3 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 953 tons, 53.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 403 tons, 22.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 291 tons, 16.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 90 tons, 5.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
314 lbs / 142 Kg = 5.0 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.28
Metacentric height 1.5 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 11.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.21
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.80
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.411
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 63
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Mid (37 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m (8.00 ft / 2.44 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Stern: 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Average freeboard: 11.52 ft / 3.51 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 195.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 38.9 %
Waterplane Area: 7,874 Square feet or 732 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 56 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 30 lbs/sq ft or 146 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 0.74
- Overall: 0.52
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
Orange war emergency destroyer if the war stretches long. For fast and easy production, which required several compromises in the design. Firepower and FC had to be sacrificed, so did range and seakeeping. However, the 29kts speed was kept. As the ship is to operate in coastal water and in the Rift sea against Italian DDs such is deemed to be acceptable. For faster and cheaper construction the ship is flush-decked (one less deck on the forecastle) and has only a single turbine (again, faster construction) and two boilers. Hull plates and girders are not galvanized, either. Plus the less sophisticated equipment (no FC, only a short-range W/T), the simplified machinery and reduced armament also decrease crew requirements at the cost of redundancy. Not much crew space for them, anyways. And can be laid down even in the smallest shipyards.
Even if these won't translate into game terms.
Orange Emergency korvette, Engine year 1912.
Displacement:
500 t light; 518 t standard; 599 t normal; 664 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
229.50 ft / 229.50 ft x 22.00 ft x 8.00 ft (normal load)
69.95 m / 69.95 m x 6.71 m x 2.44 m
Armament:
2 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
4 - 0.40" / 10.2 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1912 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships
Weight of broadside 64 lbs / 29 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 170
6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 15,749 shp / 11,749 Kw = 29.00 kts
Range 3,700nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 146 tons
Complement:
59 - 78
Cost:
£0.067 million / $0.270 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 8 tons, 1.3 %
Armour: 2 tons, 0.4 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 2 tons, 0.4 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 309 tons, 51.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 162 tons, 27.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 99 tons, 16.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 18 tons, 3.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
148 lbs / 67 Kg = 4.6 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 0.6 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 11.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.21
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.80
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.519
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.43 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 73 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 62
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 14.50 ft / 4.42 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 13.00 ft / 3.96 m (11.20 ft / 3.41 m aft of break)
- Mid (42 %): 10.20 ft / 3.11 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.20 ft / 3.11 m
- Stern: 10.20 ft / 3.11 m
- Average freeboard: 10.99 ft / 3.35 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 180.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 20.0 %
Waterplane Area: 3,302 Square feet or 307 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 45 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 22 lbs/sq ft or 107 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.62
- Overall: 0.59
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
Quote from: P3D on December 01, 2008, 03:38:29 AM
6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
What sort of torpedo arrangement? Two fixed in the bow and two twins, or two triples?
Otherwise i think she is usefull given her size.
Very good concept for the job in the Rift.
A dangerous adversary with 6TTx533
;)
A TB design, intended for harbor defense and for the Rift sea. In calm waters should be able to make almost 34kts.
10t misc weight is 8x2t torpedoes and 6 depth charges.
Orange TB laid down 1916
Displacement:
280 t light; 290 t standard; 336 t normal; 373 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
220.00 ft / 220.00 ft x 18.00 ft x 7.00 ft (normal load)
67.06 m / 67.06 m x 5.49 m x 2.13 m
Armament:
2 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
2 - 0.40" / 10.2 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1912 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships
Weight of broadside 64 lbs / 29 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 10,184 shp / 7,598 Kw = 29.00 kts
Range 3,500nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 83 tons
Complement:
39 - 51
Cost:
£0.040 million / $0.161 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 8 tons, 2.4 %
Armour: 2 tons, 0.6 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 2 tons, 0.6 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 170 tons, 50.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 89 tons, 26.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 56 tons, 16.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 10 tons, 3.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
68 lbs / 31 Kg = 2.1 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 0.5 ft / 0.1 m
Roll period: 11.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 46 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.32
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.60
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.424
Length to Beam Ratio: 12.22 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 14.83 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 68 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 71
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Mid (42 %): 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Stern: 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Average freeboard: 7.47 ft / 2.28 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 184.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 25.0 %
Waterplane Area: 2,349 Square feet or 218 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 40 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 19 lbs/sq ft or 91 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.24
- Overall: 0.55
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability
Some modifications. Got rid of one of the 4" guns for 1kt extra nominal speed. Speed in calm seas/at trial should be 34.7kts.
Misc weight goes into 4 torps and 9 depth charges. There's the default short/range W/T.
If I build a flotilla leader for them, how large should it be?
Orange TB laid down 1916
Displacement:
310 t light; 320 t standard; 369 t normal; 408 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
229.74 ft / 228.00 ft x 19.00 ft x 7.50 ft (normal load)
70.03 m / 69.49 m x 5.79 m x 2.29 m
Armament:
1 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
4 - 0.40" / 10.2 mm guns in single mounts, 0.03lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1912 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships
1 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns in single mounts, 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading gun in deck mount
on centreline aft
Weight of broadside 33 lbs / 15 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 140
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 12,071 shp / 9,005 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 3,500nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 88 tons
Complement:
41 - 54
Cost:
£0.042 million / $0.167 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 4 tons, 1.1 %
Armour: 1 tons, 0.3 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 1 tons, 0.3 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 197 tons, 53.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 97 tons, 26.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 59 tons, 15.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 11 tons, 3.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
75 lbs / 34 Kg = 2.3 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 0.5 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 11.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 46 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.13
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.60
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.398
Length to Beam Ratio: 12.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.10 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 68 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 71
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 9.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m (8.00 ft / 2.44 m aft of break)
- Mid (42 %): 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Stern: 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Average freeboard: 7.79 ft / 2.37 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 183.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 30.5 %
Waterplane Area: 2,517 Square feet or 234 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 39 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 19 lbs/sq ft or 92 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.23
- Overall: 0.54
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability
This big:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g700000/g704702.jpg
Boris has been in a loopier mood than usual lately...
I think it depends on what you want the service radius of the leader to be. If it needn't be much further than the boats, then probably 500ish tons ought to give you another 4" gun and extra accommodation with the same speed and range.
Or you could go for a real 1000 ton destroyer I suppose.
Borys' suggestion lacks the necessary speed for the job, I think.
I'd assume a leader would add additional gunpower, a long-range wireless, and modest command facilities. A modern 1,000 t destroyer might suffice; a 1,500 t destroyer would certainly do.
Alternately, install these command/communications facilities in whatever tender is used as a base.