With the completion of the rearming of te Heer, the KKK can get back to expansion.
This is a planed followup for the Juan de Austria class, with the folowing incrimental changes:
- new generation powerplant, with some oil sprinkling;
- all centerline arrangement - A-Q-X-Z;
- two AA guns;
- Secondary Battery casemattes brought to Main Deck level, due to space freed by centerline arrangement of Main battery;
- new 20 inch torpedos;
- customary 400 tonnes allocated to FC, w/t and whatnots;
ersatz Sobieski
Habsburgs Schlachtiff
1912
Displacement:
23 087 t light; 24 308 t standard; 25 558 t normal; 26 559 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
540,00 ft / 540,00 ft x 99,00 ft x 29,00 ft (normal load)
164,59 m / 164,59 m x 30,18 m x 8,84 m
Armament:
6 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1 250,00lbs / 566,99kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
2 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (1x2 guns), 1 250,00lbs / 566,99kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
12 - 6,00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 100,00lbs / 45,36kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
2 - 3,00" / 76,2 mm guns in single mounts, 13,50lbs / 6,12kg shells, 1912 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all aft
8 - 0,43" / 11,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,04lbs / 0,02kg shells, 1912 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 11 227 lbs / 5 093 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110
4 - 20,0" / 508 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13,0" / 330 mm 350,00 ft / 106,68 m 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
Ends: 4,00" / 102 mm 190,00 ft / 57,91 m 12,00 ft / 3,66 m
Upper: 8,00" / 203 mm 350,00 ft / 106,68 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 100% of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,50" / 38 mm 350,00 ft / 106,68 m 45,00 ft / 13,72 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13,0" / 330 mm 6,00" / 152 mm 11,0" / 279 mm
2nd: 13,0" / 330 mm 6,00" / 152 mm 12,0" / 305 mm
3rd: 6,00" / 152 mm - 2,00" / 51 mm
4th: 0,50" / 13 mm - -
- Armour deck: 3,00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 11,00" / 279 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 39 203 shp / 29 246 Kw = 22,00 kts
Range 6 500nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2 250 tons (90% coal)
Complement:
1 009 - 1 313
Cost:
£2,219 million / $8,875 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 396 tons, 5,5%
Armour: 10 140 tons, 39,7%
- Belts: 4 575 tons, 17,9%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 874 tons, 3,4%
- Armament: 2 362 tons, 9,2%
- Armour Deck: 2 124 tons, 8,3%
- Conning Tower: 206 tons, 0,8%
Machinery: 1 702 tons, 6,7%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9 448 tons, 37,0%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 472 tons, 9,7%
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 1,6%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
35 974 lbs / 16 318 Kg = 29,2 x 13,5 " / 343 mm shells or 6,8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
Metacentric height 5,9 ft / 1,8 m
Roll period: 17,1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,50
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,35
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,577
Length to Beam Ratio: 5,45 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,24 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
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: 26,00 ft / 7,92 m
- Forecastle (20%): 22,00 ft / 6,71 m
- Mid (50%): 22,00 ft / 6,71 m (16,00 ft / 4,88 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15%): 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
- Stern: 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
- Average freeboard: 19,32 ft / 5,89 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84,2%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 135,6%
Waterplane Area: 38 267 Square feet or 3 555 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 182 lbs/sq ft or 886 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,93
- Longitudinal: 1,95
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Hurray for expansion!
It'll fit in nicely with the Juan de Austria class, and seems a logical progression from them.
Wasn't there a Hapsburger BB building in Russia? Or did that end up being Japanese-built Siligia?
Ahoj!
Thanks - I did try for a progression. I even tried to use the same hull, but the superfiring turret messed up everything :)
Yes, the SMS Siligia is the neverwere from Sankt Peterburg :)
Borys
Quote from: Borys on April 22, 2008, 03:45:54 AM
With the completion of the rearming of te Heer, the KKK can get back to expansion.
This is a planed followup for the Juan de Austria class, with the folowing incrimental changes:
- new generation powerplant, with some oil sprinkling;
- all centerline arrangement - A-Q-X-Z;
- two AA guns;
- Secondary Battery casemattes brought to Main Deck level, due to space freed by centerline arrangement of Main battery;
- new 20 inch torpedos;
- customary 400 tonnes allocated to FC, w/t and whatnots;
Solid and unexciting! ;)
A thought however, with no casemates to protect, why the very heavy 20cm upper belt?
And how come the choice was to place the superfiring pair of guns aft?
Ahoj!
After the kinky Siligia solemnity has reigned at the Marineamt ...
The 8" Upper Belt is a leftover from the Juan de Austria :)
Also, the Austro-Hungarians like well armoured ships.
The "majority aft" arrangement is due to fears that a superfiring turret up front would put excessive weight on the bow, thus hampering seaworthiness.
Borys
L:B 5.45?? Wasn't 6:1 agreed as minimum?
Ahoj!
I must have the missed the 6:1 L/B rule. Sorry.
Borys
ersatz Sobieski
Habsburger Schlachtschiff
laid down 1912
Displacement:
23 088 t light; 24 310 t standard; 25 571 t normal; 26 580 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
570,00 ft / 570,00 ft x 94,00 ft x 28,75 ft (normal load)
173,74 m / 173,74 m x 28,65 m x 8,76 m
Armament:
6 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1 250,00lbs / 566,99kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
2 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (1x2 guns), 1 250,00lbs / 566,99kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
12 - 6,00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 100,00lbs / 45,36kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
2 - 3,00" / 76,2 mm guns in single mounts, 13,50lbs / 6,12kg shells, 1912 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all aft
8 - 0,43" / 11,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,04lbs / 0,02kg shells, 1912 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 11 227 lbs / 5 093 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110
4 - 20,0" / 508 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13,0" / 330 mm 330,00 ft / 100,58 m 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
Ends: 4,00" / 102 mm 240,00 ft / 73,15 m 12,00 ft / 3,66 m
Upper: 8,00" / 203 mm 330,00 ft / 100,58 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 89% of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,50" / 38 mm 350,00 ft / 106,68 m 45,00 ft / 13,72 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14,0" / 356 mm 6,00" / 152 mm 11,0" / 279 mm
2nd: 14,0" / 356 mm 6,00" / 152 mm 12,0" / 305 mm
3rd: 6,00" / 152 mm - 2,00" / 51 mm
4th: 0,50" / 13 mm - -
- Armour deck: 3,00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 12,00" / 305 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 38 119 shp / 28 437 Kw = 22,00 kts
Range 6 500nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2 271 tons (90% coal)
Complement:
1 010 - 1 314
Cost:
£2,212 million / $8,849 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 396 tons, 5,5%
Armour: 10 111 tons, 39,5%
- Belts: 4 487 tons, 17,5%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 874 tons, 3,4%
- Armament: 2 389 tons, 9,3%
- Armour Deck: 2 137 tons, 8,4%
- Conning Tower: 224 tons, 0,9%
Machinery: 1 655 tons, 6,5%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9 526 tons, 37,3%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 483 tons, 9,7%
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 1,6%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
36 322 lbs / 16 475 Kg = 29,5 x 13,5 " / 343 mm shells or 6,6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
Metacentric height 5,4 ft / 1,7 m
Roll period: 16,9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,58
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,42
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,581
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,06 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,87 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
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: 26,00 ft / 7,92 m
- Forecastle (20%): 22,00 ft / 6,71 m
- Mid (50%): 22,00 ft / 6,71 m (16,00 ft / 4,88 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15%): 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
- Stern: 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
- Average freeboard: 19,32 ft / 5,89 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84,5%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 136,3%
Waterplane Area: 38 497 Square feet or 3 576 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 179 lbs/sq ft or 872 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,94
- Longitudinal: 1,72
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Quote from: P3D on April 22, 2008, 12:15:55 PM
L:B 5.45?? Wasn't 6:1 agreed as minimum?
Never heard that before. Six to one sounds like a strange limit considering pretty much all pre-dreads had a L:B of around 5:1, and the early German dreadnoughts alos had less then 6:1.
Quote from: Korpen on April 23, 2008, 04:08:16 AM
Quote from: P3D on April 22, 2008, 12:15:55 PM
L:B 5.45?? Wasn't 6:1 agreed as minimum?
Never heard that before. Six to one sounds like a strange limit considering pretty much all pre-dreads had a L:B of around 5:1, and the early German dreadnoughts alos had less then 6:1.
Consider it as a drydock beam limit. 1:6 was chosen as a nice round number which is not much off RL numbers. Maddox had a 30000t+ battleship design L:B slightly below 5:1 and high BC that was exactly 170m long. Besides the Nassaus, there were no other dreadnoughts which were so stubby (before bulges were added, that is).
Quote from: P3D on April 23, 2008, 11:47:30 AM
Consider it as a drydock beam limit. 1:6 was chosen as a nice round number which is not much off RL numbers. Maddox had a 30000t+ battleship design L:B slightly below 5:1 and high BC that was exactly 170m long. Besides the Nassaus, there were no other dreadnoughts which were so stubby (before bulges were added, that is).
But 4:1, 5:1 or 7:1 ar all just as nice round numbers and equally sensible. Cannot see any point to such a limitation, and a large numbers of resons to stay clear of it. Sure one can build floating bricks, but i do not see that as a problem.
Strictly speaking, the Kaiser and Helgoland classes was below 6:1, as was all brittish battleships up to dreadnougt (exept swiftsure).
Ahoj!
I think I am starting to remember - vaguely - this L:B debate.
Just like we forbid more than 4 shafts, we could live with a rule on DD breadth -
Type 0, Dry-dock 70 meters/230 feet (B=12/38), cost $4
Type 1, Dry-dock 120 meters/393 feet (B=20/66), cost $12 +1 BP
Type 2, Dry-dock 170 meters/557 feet (B=28/93), cost $16 + 2 BP
Type 3, Dry-dock 220 meters/721 feet (B=37/120), cost $21 + 3 BP
Type 4, Dry-dock 270 meters/885 feet (B=45/148), cost $27 + 4 BP
Type 5, Dry-dock 320 meters/1049 feet (B=53/175), cost $34 + 5 BP
Or classify designs of 6:1 or 5:1 as "oddballs, moderator aproval".
I could live with either - but I think we are on the verge of outgrowing Type 2 DD anyway, which would eliminate the "playing the rules" (in this case slips/DD length) issue.
Now, my 2nd design - the anorectic one - doesn't fit my slips and can't be laid down before 2/1914.
Or back to the drawing board ...
Borys
With 6:1 L:B and fitting a Type 2 slip ... so maybe I'll just do repeat Juan de Austria's instead ...
Habsburgs Schlachtschiff laid down 1912
Displacement:
21 666 t light; 22 855 t standard; 24 067 t normal; 25 036 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
555,00 ft / 555,00 ft x 92,50 ft x 28,00 ft (normal load)
169,16 m / 169,16 m x 28,19 m x 8,53 m
Armament:
6 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1 250,00lbs / 566,99kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
2 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (1x2 guns), 1 250,00lbs / 566,99kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
12 - 6,00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 100,00lbs / 45,36kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
2 - 1,25" / 31,8 mm guns in single mounts, 1,00lbs / 0,45kg shells, 1912 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 0,43" / 11,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,04lbs / 0,02kg shells, 1912 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 11 202 lbs / 5 081 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110
4 - 20,0" / 508 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13,0" / 330 mm 330,00 ft / 100,58 m 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
Ends: 4,00" / 102 mm 225,00 ft / 68,58 m 12,00 ft / 3,66 m
Upper: 8,00" / 203 mm 330,00 ft / 100,58 m 8,00 ft / 2,44 m
Main Belt covers 91% of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,50" / 38 mm 350,00 ft / 106,68 m 44,00 ft / 13,41 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14,0" / 356 mm 6,00" / 152 mm 11,0" / 279 mm
2nd: 14,0" / 356 mm 6,00" / 152 mm 12,0" / 305 mm
3rd: 6,00" / 152 mm - 2,00" / 51 mm
4th: 0,50" / 13 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,50" / 64 mm, Conning tower: 12,00" / 305 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 37 163 shp / 27 723 Kw = 22,00 kts
Range 6 500nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2 181 tons (90% coal)
Complement:
965 - 1 255
Cost:
£2,154 million / $8,616 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 392 tons, 5,8%
Armour: 9 416 tons, 39,1%
- Belts: 4 440 tons, 18,5%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 855 tons, 3,6%
- Armament: 2 191 tons, 9,1%
- Armour Deck: 1 714 tons, 7,1%
- Conning Tower: 216 tons, 0,9%
Machinery: 1 614 tons, 6,7%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8 844 tons, 36,7%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 401 tons, 10,0%
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 1,7%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
31 025 lbs / 14 073 Kg = 25,2 x 13,5 " / 343 mm shells or 5,7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
Metacentric height 5,3 ft / 1,6 m
Roll period: 16,8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 64 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,52
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,26
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,586
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,56 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
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: 26,00 ft / 7,92 m
- Forecastle (20%): 18,00 ft / 5,49 m
- Mid (35%): 18,00 ft / 5,49 m (16,00 ft / 4,88 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15%): 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
- Stern: 16,00 ft / 4,88 m
- Average freeboard: 17,34 ft / 5,29 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89,3%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 120,4%
Waterplane Area: 37 059 Square feet or 3 443 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 176 lbs/sq ft or 857 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,58
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Ahoj!
The repeat Juan de Austria:
- with 90:10 coal:oil firing
- 2,5: Armoured Deck
- thicker Conning Tower
- slightly more range
SMS Don Juan de Austria, Habsburgs Schlachtschiff laid down 1908 (Engine 1912)
Displacement:
22 068 t light; 23 276 t standard; 24 585 t normal; 25 632 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
551,18 ft / 551,18 ft x 87,27 ft x 29,23 ft (normal load)
168,00 m / 168,00 m x 26,60 m x 8,91 m
Armament:
8 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1 250,00lbs / 566,99kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
12 - 6,00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108,00lbs / 48,99kg shells, 1909 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
12 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in heavy seas
12 - 3,00" / 76,2 mm guns in single mounts, 13,50lbs / 6,12kg shells, 1908 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 0,43" / 11,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,04lbs / 0,02kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 11 458 lbs / 5 197 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110
4 - 18,0" / 457,2 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13,0" / 330 mm 350,00 ft / 106,68 m 18,00 ft / 5,49 m
Ends: 4,00" / 102 mm 201,00 ft / 61,26 m 12,00 ft / 3,66 m
Upper: 8,00" / 203 mm 350,00 ft / 106,68 m 10,50 ft / 3,20 m
Main Belt covers 98% of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,50" / 38 mm 350,00 ft / 106,68 m 48,00 ft / 14,63 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 13,0" / 330 mm 6,00" / 152 mm 11,0" / 279 mm
2nd: 6,00" / 152 mm - 2,00" / 51 mm
3rd: 0,50" / 13 mm - -
- Armour deck: 2,50" / 64 mm, Conning tower: 12,00" / 305 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 37 738 shp / 28 153 Kw = 22,00 kts
Range 7 000nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2 355 tons (90% coal)
Complement:
981 - 1 276
Cost:
£2,188 million / $8,753 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 412 tons, 5,7%
Armour: 10 319 tons, 42,0%
- Belts: 5 266 tons, 21,4%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 932 tons, 3,8%
- Armament: 2 256 tons, 9,2%
- Armour Deck: 1 645 tons, 6,7%
- Conning Tower: 219 tons, 0,9%
Machinery: 1 639 tons, 6,7%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8 298 tons, 33,8%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 517 tons, 10,2%
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 1,6%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
33 741 lbs / 15 304 Kg = 27,4 x 13,5 " / 343 mm shells or 5,8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
Metacentric height 4,9 ft / 1,5 m
Roll period: 16,6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,73
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,50
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,612
Length to Beam Ratio: 6,32 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23,48 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
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: 29,00 ft / 8,84 m
- Forecastle (20%): 22,00 ft / 6,71 m
- Mid (50%): 19,50 ft / 5,94 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 19,50 ft / 5,94 m
- Stern: 19,50 ft / 5,94 m
- Average freeboard: 20,94 ft / 6,38 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 90,1%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 138,7%
Waterplane Area: 35 577 Square feet or 3 305 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 161 lbs/sq ft or 786 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,93
- Longitudinal: 1,84
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
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
Quote from: Borys on April 23, 2008, 12:36:01 PM
I could live with either - but I think we are on the verge of outgrowing Type 2 DD anyway, which would eliminate the "playing the rules" (in this case slips/DD length) issue.
No matter what rules we have there will always be an element of this. And I do not see much problem with it, it not like dock and slip issues did not affect IRL designs. Adding even more limits to ship designs is in my mind throwing good money after bad. If we have an issue with a ruel i think it is better to either change the rule or remove it rather then add a new rule.
QuoteOr classify designs of 6:1 or 5:1 as "oddballs, moderator aproval".
6:1 is a still a bizare place to draw the line, a bit like saying no ship sould have a draft of more then 6m. If one should have such a limit then 4:1 seems a better ones, as that was at least uncommon.
But i still think that such a rule would do more harm then good, and that it is not nececery in any way.
Quote from: Borys on April 23, 2008, 12:53:05 PM
Ahoj!
The repeat Juan de Austria:
8 - 13,50" / 343 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1 250,00lbs / 566,99kg shells, 1908 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
Why not mount the battery on the centerline at least, it should fit (after fiddeling with my own drawings) even if one gets very little superstructure?
Considering that all of the Rohirrim's modern battleships are under 6:1 I have no idea where this rule came from. None are below 5:1 (I think one type is 5.24:1 and one type with 5.26:1). Wider hull, more stable gun platform for more guns seems to be the general Rohirrim design style. Considering the next class is suppose to be an improved engine version of the latest class in production, that means another two modern battleships with a 5.46:1 ratio.
Quote from: Korpen on April 23, 2008, 01:08:27 PM
6:1 is a still a bizare place to draw the line, a bit like saying no ship sould have a draft of more then 6m. If one should have such a limit then 4:1 seems a better ones, as that was at least uncommon.
What suggestion do you have to eliminate 170.00m long designs with 35m beam? Or 120.00m long designs with 24m beam?
Quote from: P3D on April 23, 2008, 03:09:03 PM
Quote from: Korpen on April 23, 2008, 01:08:27 PM
6:1 is a still a bizare place to draw the line, a bit like saying no ship sould have a draft of more then 6m. If one should have such a limit then 4:1 seems a better ones, as that was at least uncommon.
What suggestion do you have to eliminate 170.00m long designs with 35m beam? Or 120.00m long designs with 24m beam?
Why should they be eliminated at all?
Ahoj!
Korpen, "centerline - distributed" does not change the sim at all :)
But as this is a repeat, I'd prefer to retain the en echelon layout.
Borys
Quote from: Borys on April 23, 2008, 03:42:23 PM
Ahoj!
Korpen, "centerline - distributed" does not change the sim at all :)
But as this is a repeat, I'd prefer to retain the en echelon layout.
Borys
Alright.
But my comment about it fitting was concerned about the deckspace, and echelon saves quite a bit of that. :)
Ahoj!
Aha ...
Well, thinking about it - I'm about Dante Alligheri/Gangut size (I think), and my 2x13,5 turrets are probbly smaller than 3x12" ones, so 4 deck-level centerlines should be possible.
Borys
Quote from: Korpen on April 23, 2008, 03:17:16 PM
Why should they be eliminated at all?
Because it is pure ruleplaying to build up to slip dimensions while disregarding the intent of the rule - to limit ship size.
Never mind that there was hardly ship historically that was leaner than 5.8:1 and a speed at least 20 knots. I could predict a lot of ships of the BC of 0.700, a length of 120m and a L:B of 1:4.5.
Like this ultimate coastal BB, it even fits a lvl 1 slip!
A 8x13.5" or 4x16" version is also possible.
Ultimate CDS laid down 1916
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1916
Displacement:
15,780 t light; 16,768 t standard; 17,941 t normal; 18,880 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
393.00 ft / 393.00 ft x 72.00 ft (Bulges 86.00 ft) x 27.00 ft (normal load)
119.79 m / 119.79 m x 21.95 m (Bulges 26.21 m) x 8.23 m
Armament:
6 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1,687.50lbs / 765.44kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (8x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, all amidships
Weight of broadside 11,125 lbs / 5,046 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 275.00 ft / 83.82 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
Ends: 3.00" / 76 mm 118.00 ft / 35.97 m 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 275.00 ft / 83.82 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.50" / 38 mm 275.00 ft / 83.82 m 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 5.00" / 127 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
- Armour deck: 3.50" / 89 mm, Conning tower: 14.00" / 356 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 26,047 shp / 19,431 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,112 tons
Complement:
774 - 1,007
Cost:
£3.038 million / $12.150 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,391 tons, 7.8 %
Armour: 7,053 tons, 39.3 %
- Belts: 3,139 tons, 17.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 412 tons, 2.3 %
- Armament: 1,843 tons, 10.3 %
- Armour Deck: 1,453 tons, 8.1 %
- Conning Tower: 207 tons, 1.2 %
Machinery: 970 tons, 5.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,065 tons, 33.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,161 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1.7 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
19,525 lbs / 8,856 Kg = 11.6 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 3.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.06
Metacentric height 3.4 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 19.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.72
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.688
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.82 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
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 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Stern: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 18.24 ft / 5.56 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 107.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 99.4 %
Waterplane Area: 22,440 Square feet or 2,085 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 88 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 174 lbs/sq ft or 850 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 2.68
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Quote from: P3D on April 23, 2008, 03:52:09 PM
Quote from: Korpen on April 23, 2008, 03:17:16 PM
Why should they be eliminated at all?
Because it is pure ruleplaying to build up to slip dimensions while disregarding the intent of the rule - to limit ship size.
Never mind that there was hardly ship historically that was leaner than 5.8:1 and a speed at least 20 knots.
But there was heaps of ships with a L:B of around 5,0:1 with a speed less then 20kts, as already been pointed out.
QuoteI could predict a lot of ships of the BC of 0.700, a length of 120m and a L:B of 1:4.5.
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (8x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, all amidships
Weight of broadside 11,125 lbs / 5,046 kg
You right there is a problem with that ship; there is no way that 16 127mm gun will fit int the superstructure at deck level, there is only around 25m available, less if the midship guns are going to have decent firing angles. This also rules out the 8x343mm guns unless two turrets are elevated.
Otherwise the ship reminds me allot of Tsarevich in shape. :)
And if we get ships like that, why is that such a problem? If one is willing to scrifice speed to build fat ship i really fail to see why that is such an issue.
No matter what kind of rule limits we set we will build to the limits, and often try to minimise their impact, and why is that such a bad thing? In my experience, the more detailed rules, the more rule-lawering and ruleplaying it will be.
Quote from: Korpen on April 23, 2008, 04:22:53 PM
You right there is a problem with that ship; there is no way that 16 127mm gun will fit int the superstructure at deck level, there is only around 25m available, less if the midship guns are going to have decent firing angles. This also rules out the 8x343mm guns unless two turrets are elevated.
Otherwise the ship reminds me allot of Tsarevich in shape. :)
And if we get ships like that, why is that such a problem? If one is willing to scrifice speed to build fat ship i really fail to see why that is such an issue.
No matter what kind of rule limits we set we will build to the limits, and often try to minimise their impact, and why is that such a bad thing? In my experience, the more detailed rules, the more rule-lawering and ruleplaying it will be.
The main gun turrets are quads, and the secondaries are also turreted. Most probably they can be tailored to fit.
About ruleplaying. The relatively low number of rules did not prevent people to exploit them in N2-verse. And I can only repeat myself that several rules are there so that people won't design Washington Treaty cruisers laid down in 1905. Or 2000t destroyers with 3T2x5" armament. Were the relatively free rules of N2-verse retained, it would have happened.
The other solution is that players would try to refrain from building with excessive hindsight, and a design would be rejected if judged too modern. Unfortunately, the latter would work only in ideal circumstances.
As I have every other time this issue has come up since I've been here, I will note that 'playing a game' has really nothing at all to do with 'ensuring historical accuracy'. Which fact I'm quite satisfied with, thank you, until people start trying to shut down the former in favor of the latter.
Quote from: P3D on April 23, 2008, 06:37:22 PM
About ruleplaying. The relatively low number of rules did not prevent people to exploit them in N2-verse. And I can only repeat myself that several rules are there so that people won't design Washington Treaty cruisers laid down in 1905. Or 2000t destroyers with 3T2x5" armament. Were the relatively free rules of N2-verse retained, it would have happened.
The other solution is that players would try to refrain from building with excessive hindsight, and a design would be rejected if judged too modern. Unfortunately, the latter would work only in ideal circumstances.
Well awere of the motivation for quite a few of the rules.
First, I feel that often "hindsight" is simply a lack of understanding of why things were done the way they were done IRL, and applying it too much results in ships with inferior performance to ship designed to be effective in the period.
That said, I still do not think there is a problem with short fat ship, and in fact not seen any argument for why it is problematic.
Sure one can built rather extreme short ships such as a 170m long ship of 35kton, but really any rule can be stretched, and adding rules to block it will affect perfectly normal designs more then it will affect the extremes. So I think trying to limit beam is a remedy that is worse then the problem it is trying to solve.
When considering rule changes it is iportant to consider "Will this change makes Navalism better, easier and more fun or will it not?"
I've no interest in enforcing a rule about L:B ratio.
If somebody design something really odd, without historical precedent, it's my view that they are responsible for demonstrating that it's plausible - preferrably with a scaled top and side drawing.
At any rate, the Hapsburger design is not unreasonably extreme, and the L:B ratio there is more an artifact of our arbitrary slipway classification scheme. I'm giving some thought about alternatives to the current slipway/dock scheme, and if I ever come up with something workable, I may propose it.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on April 24, 2008, 07:15:36 AM
I'm giving some thought about alternatives to the current slipway/dock scheme, and if I ever come up with something workable, I may propose it.
Alternative is to allow arbitrary dock and slipway length.
Slipways should cost, say, $2 for every 100ft.
Bit cheaper than today.
Docks should cost $3 plus $1 for every 2500t capacity.
I.e. $3 + full displacement x .0004
Length is whatever the player wants, but it must be stated. So people could build long docks for fast ships and deep docks for bathtubs.
We might just delete the BP cost.
Upgrade would be a bit trickier, but with some application of common sense could be solved.
Why not just put width limits to current slips/dock? Say, slips measure 170m AND 35m. So a fat 170m ship would need the next up slip. Simple, neat, and allows historical designs.