I am thinking of building a small torpedo boat for the philippines and western med. Something I could build in larger numbers than the 750 ton design. I came out with this but I am not exactly happy with it. Any suggestions?
TB-1909-S, Iberia Torpedo Boat laid down 1909
Displacement:
402 t light; 414 t standard; 434 t normal; 451 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
202.82 ft / 200.00 ft x 20.00 ft x 7.60 ft (normal load)
61.82 m / 60.96 m x 6.10 m x 2.32 m
Armament:
1 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing gun in deck mount
on centreline forward, 1 raised gun
2 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm guns in single mounts, 3.81lbs / 1.73kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all aft, 1 raised mount
Weight of broadside 20 lbs / 9 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
2 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 10,188 shp / 7,601 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 1,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 37 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
46 - 61
Cost:
£0.049 million / $0.196 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3 tons, 0.6 %
Armour: 3 tons, 0.8 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 3 tons, 0.8 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 233 tons, 53.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 150 tons, 34.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 33 tons, 7.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 12 tons, 2.8 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
138 lbs / 62 Kg = 10.7 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 0.5 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 11.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.16
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.500
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 14.14 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 73 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m (14.50 ft / 4.42 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 13.00 ft / 3.96 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: 12.21 ft / 3.72 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 181.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 96.7 %
Waterplane Area: 2,665 Square feet or 248 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 41 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 21 lbs/sq ft or 102 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 6.53
- Overall: 0.65
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
You probably don't need that much armor on the gun mounts. A half inch will probably stop splinters and small arms fire.
As half of the hull weight is machinery, I'd build it a bit bigger. Armor is 3t, the W/T is 15. Not much else to cut.
Quote from: P3D on October 15, 2007, 10:52:15 PM
As half of the hull weight is machinery, I'd build it a bit bigger. Armor is 3t, the W/T is 15. Not much else to cut.
Bigger goes against the cheap'o idea that is the core of this design. I am trying to create the smallest design possible and won't suffer from the NS TB's problems. I think this is it but I was hoping someone might have something better. I'm fairly sure a full 500 ton design would be better just not sure how much.
Michael
Something based on a historical design. This is a destroyer if you can believe it.
Capitan Thompson
Chilean Destroyer laid down 1898 (Engine 1910)
Displacement:
289 t light; 299 t standard; 350 t normal; 389 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
214.00 ft / 213.00 ft x 21.50 ft x 5.33 ft (normal load)
65.23 m / 64.92 m x 6.55 m x 1.62 m
Armament:
1 - 2.88" / 73.3 mm guns in single mounts, 12.00lbs / 5.44kg shells, 1898 Model
Quick firing gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
5 - 2.29" / 58.2 mm guns in single mounts, 6.00lbs / 2.72kg shells, 1898 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 42 lbs / 19 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
2 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 6,465 ihp / 4,823 Kw = 25.25 kts
Range 1,150nm at 15.00 kts (Bunkerage = 92 tons)
Complement:
39 - 52
Cost:
£0.041 million / $0.162 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 5 tons, 1.5 %
Machinery: 186 tons, 53.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 93 tons, 26.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 61 tons, 17.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 5 tons, 1.4 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
91 lbs / 41 Kg = 7.6 x 2.9 " / 73 mm shells or 0.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 0.7 ft / 0.2 m
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.16
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.79
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.502
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.91 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 14.59 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 67 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 95
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 4.75 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Mid (50 %): 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Stern: 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Average freeboard: 8.59 ft / 2.62 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 184.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 92.0 %
Waterplane Area: 2,939 Square feet or 273 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 39 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 18 lbs/sq ft or 88 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.16
- Overall: 0.54
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
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
Mike, if you're willing to cut down on the seakeeping (1.20 is pretty high for a small destroyer), you've got room to scale the design down.
I think it is fairly capable for its size - the speed is good, the range adequate for defensive work. If you're willing to accept a smaller, slower vessel (which is still faster than most capital ships), I'd direct you to my thread on Riverine Torpedo Boats on page 3 of this forum.
QuoteBigger goes against the cheap'o idea that is the core of this design. I am trying to create the smallest design possible and won't suffer from the NS TB's problems. I think this is it but I was hoping someone might have something better. I'm fairly sure a full 500 ton design would be better just not sure how much.
Mike, if you're willing to cut down on the seakeeping (1.20 is pretty high for a small destroyer), you've got room to scale the design down.
Unfortunately P3D seems to think differently. According to him any DD less than 750tons is totaly worthless in anything less than calm seas.
Quote from: DesertfoxAccording to him any DD less than 750tons is totaly worthless in anything less than calm seas.
How horrible! A small ship can make only 20knots in 15' waves although it has the SHP to do 30! Outrageous! Unrealistic!
Desertfox, I don't think you have ever been at sea on a small vessel.
I have, a 35foot length 9 foot wide all steel work boat. When the weather was fine, going all out was just fast and noisy ,15 Kts, the diesel vibrating everything, including my teeth.
But when the chop came up, we had to trottle down because things became alive, pitch, roll and yawn all at the same time, I never forget the feeling of disorientation.
During the return trip, we had to trottle all out to keep the bow into the waves, and not making much headway.
Now, that isn't much compared to a 1905 750 tons DD.
On the other side, the workboat was build in 1958,and re-engined in 1984, I personaly welded on the trimkeels in 1992, and when we were busy, replaced all the zink anodes, remade the rudder into a balanced one (huge difference, less load on the steering mechanisme and better handling.)
To make a long story short. You cannot push a 750 tons DD trough 15" waves at 25 kts, and not suffer damages that will cripple the ship. The "advantage" of DD tech is that you're allowed to build ships with less than 1 composite hullstrength.
Disadvantage is that these ships are weak hulled, and can be damaged in heavy weather.Will be damaged in hurricanes or Typhoons.(as mod I kept this at a minimum in the Nverse 2, and we didn't get that into the Nverse 3, but the "idea" still stands) Pushing such a vessel trough less than mirror like seas at top speed will feel as if the small waves are a lot bigger.
Quote from: Desertfox on October 16, 2007, 12:02:07 PM
Unfortunately P3D seems to think differently. According to him any DD less than 750tons is totaly worthless in anything less than calm seas.
DF, I have many friends that have 25' fishing boats that weigh in at less than a ton and are capable of over 70 knots... in calm water. However, as soon as you get more than a 2 foot chop, they drop down to about 10 knots, or they will flip over. Granted, they are planing hulls instead of displacement hulls, but I'm sure that you see the point.
Just because they have the horsepower to make insane speeds under perfect conditions does not mean that they can keep that up whent hey are 'out of their element.' Destroyers are no different than those race boats with rod holders... they are built with 'optimal conditions' in mind.
My own 500t boats are coastal designs for just that reason- they can't operate in inclement weather anywhere except protected waters without struggling to stay afloat, much less in a condition that would allow combat operations. I mean, how can I expect a 200' destroyer to make 27.5 knots in waves that are 10% it's own length? I'll be happy if they can even patrol AT ALL in those conditions! Even my 750t designs will be hard-pressed to do battle on the open sea; they just lack the moxie to handle rough weather.
Perhaps when I reach 1000t I'll be able to build a decent 'fleet destroyer'... but for the moment, that is just a design concept who's time has not yet come.
Quote from: maddox on October 16, 2007, 12:33:49 PM
To make a long story short. You cannot push a 750 tons DD trough 15" waves at 25 kts, and not suffer damages that will cripple the ship. The "advantage" of DD tech is that you're allowed to build ships with less than 1 composite hullstrength.
Disadvantage is that these ships are weak hulled, and can be damaged in heavy weather.Will be damaged in hurricanes or Typhoons.(as mod I kept this at a minimum in the Nverse 2, and we didn't get that into the Nverse 3, but the "idea" still stands) Pushing such a vessel trough less than mirror like seas at top speed will feel as if the small waves are a lot bigger.
Well now i will make a sidetrack again.
But one major reason for destroyers to have "weaker" hulls is that Springsharp makes much of the equipment on fast small ships excessively heavy (esp. the engines).
Sure a destroyer is lighter built then a cruiser, but a cruiser is also far lighter built then a dreadnought. All thing equal, the smaller the ship, the lighter its construction.
Oh, and I think she's an excellent design, Mike... good for close-in work in the many channels and sounds in the Pacific archepelegos. Great speed for the calm Pacific summers as well... though like my TR-200's, the tropical weather season will likely make them seek out shelter.
Quote from: Korpen on October 16, 2007, 12:41:22 PM
Well now i will make a sidetrack again.
But one major reason for destroyers to have "weaker" hulls is that Springsharp makes much of the equipment on fast small ships excessively heavy (esp. the engines).
The 1910 tech for engines isn't light to start with. And every increase of speed needs a lot of extra Hp.
QuoteSure a destroyer is lighter built then a cruiser, but a cruiser is also far lighter built then a dreadnought. All thing equal, the smaller the ship, the lighter its construction.
That is represented by the composite hull strength. If a ship has less than 1, the guideline is that it becomes vurnable to heavy weather if handled not perfectly right.
You can build a 1 composite hull strength DD and make it as large as you want.... (looking at the faster NS designs)
I cant realy coment on small boat preformance in heavy seas, my only experiance with small craft in heavy seas is on a LCAC (shouldnt count isnt realy a boat) and a Scarab that we rented in Australia once. The Scarab isnt realy a fair comparison because well it actualy preforms better in heavy seas, the more of the hull you can get out of the watter the faster it is lol. That said at 60 kts the damn thing was still scary as hell.
On a semi-related side note: on Saturday I played a modified version of General Quarters 3. We used order cards for movement, gunnery, changes in orders, torpede launches, torpedo movement, damage control, and detection. One stack of cards gave us three turns worth of everything, but in a random order. This however lead to something interesting. We would write our orders based on a compass heading and speed rather than adjusting by points on the turn marker. Since our orders could be spread rather far apart (or several one after another without actaully moving) we've normally set our speeds at far less than flank (especially since this was a night action). If we had moved at flank our forces would have missed each other quite easily, or even with our fleets having detected each other, our course was set until the next orders card came up, so be still might miss an opportune turn or sail right into a torpedo or warship. As it was the French managed to torpedo one of their own ships (one heavy cruiser actually torpedoed herself, the danger of using very fast cruisers but setting your torpedoes on the slowest setting, then turning into the torpedoes path) and the Italians torpedoed one of their own destroyers and almost torpedoed one of their own cruisers (the cruisers out ran the torpedos, but that shot had been a calculated risk, unlike the French incidents). The Italians managed to torpedo one of the French cruisers and the French torpedoed an Italian cruiser. Only one French destroyer was blown apart by Italian guns after it was rammed by an Italian cruiser.
The orders by heading made the battle look a whole lot like the plots one sees in all those books on various historical naval actions. But it also set in us that battles are not always held at flank speed. The only time our ships went full out was when they were deciding to run or give chase, and even that was almost more trouble than it was worth. (Only the Italian destroyers went to flank for that side, the French when tot flank earlier and left the field (38 knot destroyers) as well as a flank speed turn to get out of the path of the Italian cruiser, which did not work. The French heavy cruiser managed to outrun her own torpedoes and the light cruiser was rammed by the Italian heavy cruiser, the torpedoed by Italian destroyers. Both sank.
That noted, one must remember the stories from WWII destroyers, or more specificially the flush-deck 4 pipers from the first world war that operated in the second war. The ships were uncomfortable and pitched a lot, and those were larger that the ships we are using.
I understand the weather problem perfectly, I have nothing to say about that. Course weather that bad would have affected the cruiser too, especially the gunnery of her new crew. Plus I made it clear that the only reason the DDs would not attack during that campaign would be due to weather, so why where they there in the first place?
How does this look? I actualy like this design and might build a few of them myself.
M-1 , New Switzerland Destroyer laid down 1906 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
397 t light; 417 t standard; 455 t normal; 486 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
230.00 ft / 230.00 ft x 22.00 ft x 7.00 ft (normal load)
70.10 m / 70.10 m x 6.71 m x 2.13 m
Armament:
2 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1906 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
1 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1906 Model
Quick firing gun in deck mount
on centreline aft
Weight of broadside 66 lbs / 30 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 270
4 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 9,261 shp / 6,908 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 2,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 70 tons (90% coal)
Complement:
49 - 64
Cost:
£0.053 million / $0.212 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 8 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 2 tons, 0.5 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 2 tons, 0.5 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 230 tons, 50.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 143 tons, 31.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 58 tons, 12.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 14 tons, 3.1 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
138 lbs / 63 Kg = 4.3 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 0.7 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 10.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.450
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.45 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.17 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 67 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
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: 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Mid (50 %): 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Quarterdeck (25 %): 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Stern: 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Average freeboard: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 181.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 69.4 %
Waterplane Area: 3,228 Square feet or 300 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 46 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 22 lbs/sq ft or 108 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.55
- Longitudinal: 2.15
- Overall: 0.63
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
I have created a 500 ton design to the same general idea and design just some minor changes in hull form and draft really.
All coal, 75mm guns, 1.2 seakeeping and same general speed 27 knots.
So for 100 tons I get 2 more 75's, 2 more torps and 800 mile more range. The 400 ton design just doesn't seam worth it.
The seakeeping is the breaking point. From what I have read in the recent fighting TB's have been very effective but the low seakeeping designs have been punished. All my past and current designs are 1.0 seakeeping my fear is that the war as shown this to be in error. I am really torn on what to do here...
Thanks for peoples thoughts.
Michael
TB-1909-M, Iberia Torpedo Boat laid down 1909
Displacement:
500 t light; 518 t standard; 559 t normal; 592 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
213.00 ft / 210.00 ft x 21.00 ft x 8.70 ft (normal load)
64.92 m / 64.01 m x 6.40 m x 2.65 m
Armament:
3 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in one mount, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mount
on centreline forward, 2 raised guns
2 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm guns in single mounts, 3.81lbs / 1.73kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 46 lbs / 21 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
4 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 12,180 shp / 9,087 Kw = 27.26 kts
Range 1,800nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 74 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
56 - 74
Cost:
£0.063 million / $0.254 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 6 tons, 1.0 %
Armour: 5 tons, 0.9 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 5 tons, 0.9 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 293 tons, 52.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 182 tons, 32.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 59 tons, 10.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 14 tons, 2.5 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
167 lbs / 76 Kg = 13.0 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 0.6 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 11.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 73 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.31
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.510
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 14.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 72 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Mid (50 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 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: 12.78 ft / 3.90 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 180.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 67.1 %
Waterplane Area: 2,965 Square feet or 275 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 44 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 22 lbs/sq ft or 110 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 6.33
- Overall: 0.65
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
Designs of this era are not perfect, they just are. I might note that a torpedo boat really doesn't need any real gun power. Her job is to place torpedoes into things, not slug it out with other torpedo craft. That is what destroyers and torpedo-gunboats are for.
As for the DDs verse a cruiser...when was that again? Which ships and where? I supsect it was due either to orders, or they were all that was avalible to intercept the cruiser that day/night. But I don't remember which action is being recalled, so I cannot say for sure like I can with Anchorage.
It wasn't a specific event / battle but rather the course of the war over all. Here is an update of my 750 ton design, to the same idea all coal and 1.2 sea keeping. It basicly lost 2 knots of speed but gained 600 nm range, 2 50mm guns and of course the 1.2 seakeeping.
Michael
TB-1909, Iberia Torpedo Boat laid down 1909
Displacement:
748 t light; 787 t standard; 894 t normal; 979 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
250.00 ft / 250.00 ft x 25.00 ft x 11.00 ft (normal load)
76.20 m / 76.20 m x 7.62 m x 3.35 m
Armament:
3 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns in single mounts, 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, majority aft, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm guns in single mounts, 3.81lbs / 1.73kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 121 lbs / 55 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300
4 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 16,500 shp / 12,309 Kw = 28.19 kts
Range 3,600nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 192 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
81 - 106
Cost:
£0.104 million / $0.415 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 15 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 10 tons, 1.2 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 10 tons, 1.2 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 463 tons, 51.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 236 tons, 26.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 146 tons, 16.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 23 tons, 2.6 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
207 lbs / 94 Kg = 5.9 x 4.1 " / 105 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
Metacentric height 0.8 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 11.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 86 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.37
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.455
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.81 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 69 %
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: 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19.00 ft / 5.79 m (11.07 ft / 3.37 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 11.07 ft / 3.37 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 11.07 ft / 3.37 m
- Stern: 11.07 ft / 3.37 m
- Average freeboard: 12.82 ft / 3.91 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 184.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 70.4 %
Waterplane Area: 4,003 Square feet or 372 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 50 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 25 lbs/sq ft or 121 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 3.32
- 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
Short range radio 10 tons, 8 torpedos (4 in tube and 4 reloads) and 7 tons construction reserve.
Ithekro, this is the engagement in question, the Swiss DDs are Fishers.
QuoteJan 8: Two DKB KKs (Vineta, Gazelle) picketing possible approach lines detects Swiss forces. Beaufort 6.
Swiss forces are in three groups. 2x4 Fisher DDs and the rest. Vineta pursues one group, being both stronger and faster in the weather, hitting one DD at the funnels, and slowing her down. The ship is slowly pounded into pieces, and turns to launch its torpedoes on Vineta, but miss the cruiser steaming at 27kts. After another hour, Vineta catches up with the rest, sinking the other three.
Could we leave the post-battle analyses to another thread?
Generally speaking, I don't care for the inclusion of reloads for above-deck fish in this era. It's ahistorical. But if there are some reloads, I'd suggest weight needs to be set aside for reloading gear as well as the fish themselves.
Otherwise, Mike, I think that's a very nicely balanced, capable boat.
Ahoj!
I've seen models of the Kaiserliche Marine B97 (1350 tonnes light) and of the G101 (1100 tonnes light) with reloads - at least one torpedo if not two, on the deck. By the looks of it reloading would be by hand.
I have a feeling the first fleet with reloading gear on anything smaller than a cruiser was introduced by the Japanese in the 1930s. On vessels over 1500 tonnes light.
Borys
OK to address the reload issue... The pair of single tubes would be in the bow area and only limited transverse so only 5 torps on a broadside.
Michael
TB-1909, Iberia Torpedo Boat laid down 1909
Displacement:
748 t light; 787 t standard; 894 t normal; 979 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
250.00 ft / 250.00 ft x 25.00 ft x 11.00 ft (normal load)
76.20 m / 76.20 m x 7.62 m x 3.35 m
Armament:
3 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns in single mounts, 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, majority aft, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm guns in single mounts, 3.81lbs / 1.73kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 121 lbs / 55 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300
6 - 20.0" / 508 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 16,500 shp / 12,309 Kw = 28.19 kts
Range 3,600nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 192 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
81 - 106
Cost:
£0.104 million / $0.415 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 15 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 10 tons, 1.2 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 10 tons, 1.2 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 464 tons, 51.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 238 tons, 26.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 146 tons, 16.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 21 tons, 2.3 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
197 lbs / 90 Kg = 5.6 x 4.1 " / 105 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.07
Metacentric height 0.7 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 12.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 86 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.41
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.455
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.81 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 69 %
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: 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m (11.07 ft / 3.37 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 11.07 ft / 3.37 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 11.07 ft / 3.37 m
- Stern: 11.07 ft / 3.37 m
- Average freeboard: 12.94 ft / 3.94 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 184.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 41.7 %
Waterplane Area: 4,003 Square feet or 372 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 50 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 25 lbs/sq ft or 120 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 3.42
- Overall: 0.60
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Short range radio 10 tons, Six 20" torpedos (2x2 & 2x1) 6 tons and 5 tons construction reserve
OK now ditching the 1.2 seakeeping I get this...
Which I think is more of what I have in mind. It can't take rough weather but I can build 5 of these for 2 of the 750 ton design. So I can go for a high low mix.
Michael
TB-1909-S, Iberia Torpedo Boat laid down 1909
Displacement:
303 t light; 314 t standard; 331 t normal; 345 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
201.76 ft / 200.00 ft x 20.00 ft x 7.25 ft (normal load)
61.50 m / 60.96 m x 6.10 m x 2.21 m
Armament:
1 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
2 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm guns in single mounts, 3.81lbs / 1.73kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all aft, 1 raised mount
Weight of broadside 20 lbs / 9 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300
4 - 20.0" / 508 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 8,001 shp / 5,969 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 1,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 31 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
38 - 50
Cost:
£0.038 million / $0.150 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3 tons, 0.8 %
Armour: 3 tons, 1.0 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 3 tons, 1.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 177 tons, 53.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 107 tons, 32.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 28 tons, 8.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 14 tons, 4.2 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
93 lbs / 42 Kg = 7.2 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 0.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.06
Metacentric height 0.5 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 11.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.13
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.400
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 14.14 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 69 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 68
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 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 %): 9.75 ft / 2.97 m
- Mid (50 %): 9.75 ft / 2.97 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9.75 ft / 2.97 m
- Stern: 9.75 ft / 2.97 m
- Average freeboard: 9.77 ft / 2.98 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 183.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 45.1 %
Waterplane Area: 2,462 Square feet or 229 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 40 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 19 lbs/sq ft or 95 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 3.17
- Overall: 0.60
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Short range radio 10 tons and Four 20" torpedos (2x2) 4 tons
Ahoj!
The thought of 12 strong flotillas of these girls stationed at Ceuta, Tanger, Algeciras and Cadiz is ... interesting ...
I do not like the reloads, though. On such small boats, doing it by hand ... these boats can almost get back to port, reload and get back to sea than manhandle a 20 foot long, over a tonne, sausage about the deck into a tube.
Borys
Ahoj!
Do these boat look as if they had space for reloads? And moving them about?
http://freenet-homepage.de/kriegsmarine/huszar_klasse.htm
Borys
Drop the realoads- they are just more fireworks when you get hit.
Other than that, I love them all.
Does appear that cost-effectiveness will be in vouge in this generation of destroyers.
The latest design dropped the reloads I thought... looks again... yup gone... Will have to see where we are at when the Pacific war ends... So local defense squadrons of 300 ton boats at the straights, Philippines and Brazil with a DD/GTB 750 ton boat squadron for the fleet. Need to build some smaller slipways to in Philippines I think.
Is the war over yet?
Michael
Ahoj!
No, the war is not over yet.
Borys
Not that I will build any of these but I wanted to see how small of a torpedo boat I could build. The 300 ton design is so much better so odds are I will build that and 750 ton boats next year. Still maybe someone else could find a use for something like this.
Michael
TB-1909-Tiny, Iberia Torpedo Boat laid down 1909
Displacement:
200 t light; 204 t standard; 212 t normal; 217 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
175.00 ft / 175.00 ft x 15.00 ft x 6.00 ft (normal load)
53.34 m / 53.34 m x 4.57 m x 1.83 m
Armament:
1 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1909 Model
Quick firing gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
Weight of broadside 2 lbs / 1 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
2 - 20.0" / 508 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 6,658 shp / 4,967 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 500nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 13 tons (100% coal)
Caution: Delicate, lightweight machinery
Complement:
27 - 36
Cost:
£0.024 million / $0.096 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 0 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 0 tons, 0.2 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 0 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 121 tons, 57.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 77 tons, 36.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 11 tons, 5.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 2 tons, 0.9 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
63 lbs / 28 Kg = 32.1 x 1.6 " / 40 mm shells or 0.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.14
Metacentric height 0.4 ft / 0.1 m
Roll period: 10.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.02
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.470
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 13.23 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 72 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
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: 10.25 ft / 3.12 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Mid (50 %): 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Stern: 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Average freeboard: 9.10 ft / 2.77 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 186.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 56.6 %
Waterplane Area: 1,703 Square feet or 158 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 32 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 16 lbs/sq ft or 80 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 5.13
- Overall: 0.63
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
2 tons for two 20" torpedo tubes
I've been shooting for a 250t design myself, to export to smaller countries or to start refurbishing my own forces with. Haven't had too much success, though... I might have to just look up something historical and use it. There were some nice 100t historical designs.