Here's a riverine gunboat I've been fiddling with based on the steam GB Na'am I inherited. It's meant to be a study to see what I can do with 750hp ICE engines and what I can build immediately, limiting me to 6" and 3" cannons.
GB Study 01, Egypt Large River Gunboat laid down 1912
Displacement:
462 t light; 496 t standard; 506 t normal; 514 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
120.00 ft / 120.00 ft x 28.00 ft x 8.50 ft (normal load)
36.58 m / 36.58 m x 8.53 m x 2.59 m
Armament:
2 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
8 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 270 lbs / 123 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 40.00 ft / 12.19 m 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 51 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm - -
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm - -
- Armour deck: 0.50" / 13 mm, Conning tower: 6.00" / 152 mm
Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Direct drive, 3 shafts, 2,002 shp / 1,493 Kw = 16.00 kts
Range 500nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 18 tons
Complement:
53 - 69
Cost:
£0.054 million / $0.218 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 34 tons, 6.7 %
Armour: 133 tons, 26.3 %
- Belts: 47 tons, 9.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 54 tons, 10.7 %
- Armour Deck: 23 tons, 4.6 %
- Conning Tower: 8 tons, 1.6 %
Machinery: 70 tons, 13.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 205 tons, 40.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 44 tons, 8.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 20 tons, 4.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
512 lbs / 232 Kg = 4.7 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 0.7 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 13.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 26 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.64
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.26
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.620
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.29 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 10.95 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 74 %
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: 12.05 ft / 3.67 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 7.67 ft / 2.34 m
- Mid (50 %): 7.67 ft / 2.34 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 7.67 ft / 2.34 m
- Stern: 7.67 ft / 2.34 m
- Average freeboard: 8.02 ft / 2.44 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 101.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 69.0 %
Waterplane Area: 2,504 Square feet or 233 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 87 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 56 lbs/sq ft or 271 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.84
- Longitudinal: 4.82
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability
And study number 2, a steam-powered one.
GB Study 02 "Mini-mac", Egypt Large River Gunboat laid down 1912
Displacement:
753 t light; 780 t standard; 797 t normal; 811 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
150.00 ft / 150.00 ft x 30.00 ft x 10.00 ft (normal load)
45.72 m / 45.72 m x 9.14 m x 3.05 m
Armament:
2 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
6 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
8 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 108 lbs / 49 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 50.00 ft / 15.24 m 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 51 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm - -
2nd: 6.00" / 152 mm - -
- Armour deck: 0.50" / 13 mm, Conning tower: 6.00" / 152 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 2,931 ihp / 2,186 Kw = 17.00 kts
Range 500nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 31 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
74 - 97
Cost:
£0.065 million / $0.260 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 14 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 234 tons, 29.4 %
- Belts: 119 tons, 14.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 73 tons, 9.2 %
- Armour Deck: 31 tons, 3.9 %
- Conning Tower: 11 tons, 1.4 %
Machinery: 194 tons, 24.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 291 tons, 36.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 44 tons, 5.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 20 tons, 2.5 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,033 lbs / 469 Kg = 76.5 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.02
Metacentric height 0.9 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 13.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 88 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.18
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.620
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 12.25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 70 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 75
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: 12.05 ft / 3.67 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 12.05 ft / 3.67 m
- Mid (50 %): 12.05 ft / 3.67 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 12.05 ft / 3.67 m
- Stern: 12.05 ft / 3.67 m
- Average freeboard: 12.05 ft / 3.67 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 104.0 %
Waterplane Area: 3,353 Square feet or 312 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 50 lbs/sq ft or 244 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.01
- Longitudinal: 8.29
- Overall: 1.25
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
You have to consider that the Nile is not a very wide river - about the same size as the Danube in say Belgrade. 3m is a bit too deep IMHO.
I did, actually. The Nile is rather deep (I've been up it before). It's about 3km wide on average, and somewhere between 8 and 11 meters deep. I could probably cut down on the draft though some.
Nice to see some more river boats.
The belts on these boats are quite a bit shorter than SS wants...
I'm inclined to swap out some of the 3" on each of the designs for a smaller QF gun, something in the 40-50mm range - seem more useful for plinking at shore targets or unprotected riverine vessels.
Thanks, Rock.
The main reason I went with 3" guns is that I'm trying to lay these down in 1912 (I'm working on the HY reports for those right now) too fill some of my spare BP since I really don't have anything else to build. The only guns that would fit on a river vessel that I have available immediately are:
6"
3"
and .5"
So I've limited them to those weapons. The Study 1 is intended to see just what I can do with those diesel engines I have access to, the Study 2 is supposed to be like a casemate ironclad-like vessel like the old CSS Virginia. I figure it'd be a fine type for river warfare. Low, armored, etc.
I do not see much need for naval riverboats on a river that one de facto controls in it entirety.
That said: I think both the boats would improve if the armour was thinned, but made much more extensive. As the mouth of the river is under solid Egyptian control, there is a very little threat from enemy ships with heavy high-velocity guns. A greater threat would then be enemy army units that penetrated to the Nile and the kind of artillery such units would have. This means that the ship should be protected against ~75mm shrapnel shells and ~11cm howitzer shells with AP ammo being unlikely. This makes me think that armour in the 4cm+ (both deck and belt) thickness with maximum coverage would be the best, rather then the very thick but small belts of the designs you posted.
Think I once said something similar about GC river gunboats for the Amazon...
EDIT: http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1352.msg12546#msg12546
The river gunboats have a triple purpose for Egypt. They're to provide fire-support along the coastline and on ships on the river, police the river, and bolster defense of Alexandria and Cairo harbors.
Maddox, as usual, came up with a better ship in a matter of minutes. I tweaked it some, mostly getting rid of the 1" guns (which Egypt doesn't have), replacing them with .5" ones, and modifying the freeboard and armor. The 6" guns are howitzers, designed to reach inland from the shores.
al-Sayyid, Egypt Large River Gunboat laid down 1912
Displacement:
976 t light; 997 t standard; 1,044 t normal; 1,082 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
229.66 ft / 229.66 ft x 39.37 ft x 6.56 ft (normal load)
70.00 m / 70.00 m x 12.00 m x 2.00 m
Armament:
2 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
6 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
4 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1912 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 297 lbs / 135 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 0
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.00" / 127 mm 100.28 ft / 30.57 m 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 67 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm - -
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
- Armour deck: 1.25" / 32 mm
Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Direct drive, 3 shafts, 2,250 shp / 1,679 Kw = 16.00 kts
Range 2,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 85 tons
Complement:
91 - 119
Cost:
£0.078 million / $0.312 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 37 tons, 3.6 %
Armour: 352 tons, 33.7 %
- Belts: 173 tons, 16.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 23 tons, 2.2 %
- Armour Deck: 155 tons, 14.9 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 90 tons, 8.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 478 tons, 45.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 68 tons, 6.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 20 tons, 1.9 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
3,184 lbs / 1,444 Kg = 29.5 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 1.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.33
Metacentric height 2.1 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 11.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 69 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.23
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.38
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.616
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.83 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 16.67 ft / 5.08 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 10.61 ft / 3.23 m
- Mid (50 %): 10.61 ft / 3.23 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.61 ft / 3.23 m
- Stern: 10.61 ft / 3.23 m
- Average freeboard: 11.09 ft / 3.38 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 55.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 149.1 %
Waterplane Area: 6,712 Square feet or 624 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 123 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 54 lbs/sq ft or 262 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.20
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Generally speaking, I like it - although she's probably four to six knots faster than she needs to be.
You still need to specify the main battery ammunition count.
Korpen's comments about deck versus belt armor on gunboats is worth noting. Additionally, although in practical terms the ship only has 56% of its hull used for vital stuff, your belt length only works if you're cramming the howitzers amidships.
Oh, that does remind me. They were crammed amidships originally, I accidentally moved them to the ends.
Basically, the ship is intended to supplement and replace the Na'am, so the speed is intended to let it go 12 knots either up or downstream (Na'am's speed), since the Nile has a 4 knot northern current.
I'll continue to tweak the armor placement though, I'm not satisfied with it yet. I also forgot to include this (it's accounted in the SS though):
Misc Weight:
20 tons-Tropicization, fans, ducting and ventilation.
About howitzers, i think you should sim them as ~105mm guns, but with the real shell weight (~40kg), as this would take inte account the much lower weight and power of a howitzer compared to a gun.
EDIT: Springshar put the weight of a single 105mm gun at 4,415 tons.
Most 15 cm howitzers was in the 3-3,5 ton range, with some as heavy as four ton, and some as low as 2 and bit.
Would the howitzers need to be researched as a naval gun, or are we presuming they are coming from already existing army stocks?
I don't think we want a special howitzer tech. Just assume any reasonable army equipment for the era is available.
Maddox and I were talking about it a few days ago and our initial idea was a naval gun in a high-angle mounting, which would give nice range ashore, as well as larger shell size. I could easily replace them with Army howitzers though, probably around 75mm or so.
Quote from: Talos on September 11, 2008, 07:47:09 PM
Maddox and I were talking about it a few days ago and our initial idea was a naval gun in a high-angle mounting, which would give nice range ashore, as well as larger shell size. I could easily replace them with Army howitzers though, probably around 75mm or so.
An army 75mm
howitzer on a ship? Why not a gun instead? The shrapnell shell from a howitzer is pretty useless and the HE shells from so smalle a weapon are not really any good either. Also weight is not that big a deal on a boat, it does not matter all that much if using a 1,2 ton gun or a 600kg howitzer while a range of ~5km or around 8km does matter.
Quote from: Korpen on September 12, 2008, 06:15:58 AM
Quote from: Talos on September 11, 2008, 07:47:09 PM
Maddox and I were talking about it a few days ago and our initial idea was a naval gun in a high-angle mounting, which would give nice range ashore, as well as larger shell size. I could easily replace them with Army howitzers though, probably around 75mm or so.
An army 75mm howitzer on a ship? Why not a gun instead? The shrapnell shell from a howitzer is pretty useless and the HE shells from so smalle a weapon are not really any good either. Also weight is not that big a deal on a boat, it does not matter all that much if using a 1,2 ton gun or a 600kg howitzer while a range of ~5km or around 8km does matter.
That's why I have two 6" howitzers on there now, for the range. There's nothing floating on the river that would need a 6" gun, so they're only for bombardment beyond the shore.
Quote from: Talos on September 12, 2008, 08:09:42 AM
Quote from: Korpen on September 12, 2008, 06:15:58 AM
Quote from: Talos on September 11, 2008, 07:47:09 PM
Maddox and I were talking about it a few days ago and our initial idea was a naval gun in a high-angle mounting, which would give nice range ashore, as well as larger shell size. I could easily replace them with Army howitzers though, probably around 75mm or so.
An army 75mm howitzer on a ship? Why not a gun instead? The shrapnell shell from a howitzer is pretty useless and the HE shells from so smalle a weapon are not really any good either. Also weight is not that big a deal on a boat, it does not matter all that much if using a 1,2 ton gun or a 600kg howitzer while a range of ~5km or around 8km does matter.
That's why I have two 6" howitzers on there now, for the range. There's nothing floating on the river that would need a 6" gun, so they're only for bombardment beyond the shore.
You mange to confuse me quite a bit. You got 15cm howitzers for range (not that they are that long ranged, up to about 10-11km)? But 15cm gun are overkill and will be used for bank bombardment?
But that do not answer anything about my question about 75mm howitzers...
Sorry, let me lay it out then.
The weapon listed on the SS and what me and Maddox were talking about was a 6"/152mm naval gun mounted on a high-angle mount to basically expand the range of NGS out from the river.
The 3"/76.2mm naval guns are for sinking anything floating on the river. Small boats, etc.
A ~75mm Army howitzer would be much shorter range (but greater then a 75mm gun) and less firepower then the 6" piece for shore bombardment and wouldn't be as useful except for maybe closer range work.
The basic idea is that the ship has direct-fire guns for anti-ship and right-on-the-shore targets with howitzers for distance shots.
Quote from: Talos on September 12, 2008, 10:16:31 AM
The basic idea is that the ship has direct-fire guns for anti-ship and right-on-the-shore targets with howitzers for distance shots.
See, that is what confuse me: a howitzer will only have ½ to 2/3rd the range of a gun of the same calibre (while weighing about half of a gun).
Also if engaging targets in the open, or when wants to suppress a target, shrapnel is the shell of choice. With shrapnel a high velocity is far superior to a low velocity gun, as the give far larger leather are, at least 3x difference between a gun and howitzer of the same calibre would not surprise me.
Here is a supply and depot ship designed primarily to support the operations of the Red Sea fleet when it is deployed out to the Egyptian portion of the Chagos. Misc weights based on a GC sub depot ship.
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1913
Displacement:
10,370 t light; 10,607 t standard; 11,624 t normal; 12,437 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
524.93 ft / 524.93 ft x 65.62 ft x 19.69 ft (normal load)
160.00 m / 160.00 m x 20.00 m x 6.00 m
Armament:
4 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1913 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread
2 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1913 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 54 lbs / 25 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 4,983 shp / 3,717 Kw = 14.20 kts
Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,830 tons (60% coal)
Complement:
559 - 727
Cost:
£0.434 million / $1.735 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 7 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 6 tons, 0.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 6 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 207 tons, 1.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,651 tons, 31.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,253 tons, 10.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 6,500 tons, 55.9 %
- -2,000 t: Accommodation for 1000 enlisted men
-1,000 t: Accommodation for 250 officers
-2000 t: Fuel
-500 t: Workshops and parts
-500 t: Ordnance reloads
-300 t: Amenities (library, canteen, etc)
-100 t: Derricks
-25 t: Command facilities
-50 t: Medical facilities
-25 t: Wireless
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
20,543 lbs / 9,318 Kg = 1,521.7 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells or 2.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 2.7 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 16.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.600
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.91 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 24 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 26
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: 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Stern: 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Average freeboard: 23.16 ft / 7.06 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 67.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 192.8 %
Waterplane Area: 24,642 Square feet or 2,289 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 167 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 92 lbs/sq ft or 451 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.04
- Longitudinal: 1.89
- Overall: 1.10
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
Is this a cost-effective alternative to enlarging whatever base facilities exist in the Egyptian Chagos now?
Design-wise, you have some extra hull strength - I would reduce the length of the ship until hull strength reaches 1.00. The result, I think, would be better stability (and a less expensive hull).
Chagos basically has nothing right now. Being built to mercantile standards, I think a pair of these ships would be far cheaper then establishing a supply base and enlarging facilities there. They can also be used for general cargo when not in use for fleet operations.
I'll reduce the length and see what I come up with.
I relaunch this topic. Too many holes in the order of battle of the Egyptian Fleet.
Well, this supply ship is not perfect, but I think he constitue a good departure. I'm going to work on this ship. Is somebody else than the Rock have an idea ?
Well I have a notion that you wish to use this in lieu of a support base, i.e. as a tender.
The first 3000 tons seem devoted to troop transport. In my opinion, which may differ from others, there also seems to be 3,000 tons devoted to tender-like functions, but I at least would rather see it specified that these are the tender attributes . Say
Tender
-2000 t: Fuel
-500 t: Workshops and parts
-500 t: Ordnance reloads1000t - tender- stores, etc.
that would establish that this ship is intended to support 12,000 (I think) tons of shipping.
Other than that I see no issues.
I think that Egypt especially needs transport ships for troops and military equipment. These ships will be very useful for the liaisons between Egypt and Sudan, and farther, towards Chagos Islands. What do you think of that :
- 2,000 t: Accommodation for 1000 enlisted men
- 1,000 t: Accommodation for 250 officers
- 450 t: Workshops and parts
- 250 t: Amenities (library, canteen, etc)
- 250 t: Ordnance reloads
- 25 t: Command facilities
- 50 t: Medical facilities
- 25 t: Wireless
So, 4050 tons of load.
Quote from: ciders on August 24, 2009, 08:48:59 AM
I think that Egypt especially needs transport ships for troops and military equipment. These ships will be very useful for the liaisons between Egypt and Sudan, and farther, towards Chagos Islands. What do you think of that :
- 2,000 t: Accommodation for 1000 enlisted men
- 1,000 t: Accommodation for 250 officers
- 450 t: Workshops and parts
- 250 t: Amenities (library, canteen, etc)
- 250 t: Ordnance reloads
- 25 t: Command facilities
- 50 t: Medical facilities
- 25 t: Wireless
So, 4050 tons of load.
At a very minimum I think that you can leave out the posts I marked bold. This due to the fact that all that is part of the ordinary fittings of a ship of any size, and given that the actual crew will only be a fraction of what SS assumes I think it is safe to just count all such things as normal fittings. Springsharp is not all that good for transport ship due to the fact that they are volume, not weight critical while springsharp do not really handle volume at all.
Yep. It will be easier to " find " than to build civil ships. :-[
I wasn't trying to imply that you shouldn't have troop transport capacity, rather that if you intend for the ship to act as a tender under the rules, it would be nice to have the weight assigned to that function specifically noted. You currently have
Quote
Miscellaneous weights: 6,500 tons, 55.9 %
- -2,000 t: Accommodation for 1000 enlisted men
-1,000 t: Accommodation for 250 officers
-2000 t: Fuel
-500 t: Workshops and parts
-500 t: Ordnance reloads
-300 t: Amenities (library, canteen, etc)
-100 t: Derricks
-25 t: Command facilities
-50 t: Medical facilities
-25 t: Wireless
For example you could say :
Miscellaneous weights: 6,500 tons, 55.9 %
- -2,000 t: Accommodation for 1000 enlisted men
-1,000 t: Accommodation for 250 officers
Tender -2000 t: Fuel
Tender -500 t: Workshops and parts
Tender -500 t: Ordnance reloads
Tender -300 t: Amenities (library, canteen, etc)
-100 t: Derricks
-25 t: Command facilities
-50 t: Medical facilities
-25 t: Wireless
or consolidate as :
Miscellaneous weights: 6,500 tons, 55.9 %
- -2,000 t: Accommodation for 1000 enlisted men
-1,000 t: Accommodation for 250 officers
Tender -3800 t:
-100 t: Derricks
-25 t: Command facilities
-50 t: Medical facilities
-25 t: Wireless
The derricks should be standard fittings, so I presume you simply want "extra".
So what is the current Egyptian order of battle?
Not very terrific. And I don't know the status of some ships :
- 4 armored cruisers (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=2836.0) : your Campeon and your Paladin, and two Bardai class
- 2 protected cruisers, Saada Class (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=2837.0)
- 7 " light cruisers " ( Egyptian term ) : 5 Fleurus-II ( French sloops ) and 2 Madness class
- 4 destroyers, 1905-class ( Italian )
- 10 Torpedoes ram ( 6 A-Class, 4 E-Class from CSA )
- 8 riverine gunboats (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=2839.0)
And maybe :
- 3 battleships of Kuffrah class : but they disappear of the sim reports of Talos in 1913 ; so scrap ?
- 10 torpedoes boats of 1891, with two torpedoes each, TB-class
- 6 TR-class ( maybe the 6 TR-113 sold for scrap to the CSA )
Foxy can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the three Kuffrah class battleships and the ex-CSA TR-113 group were both sold to New Zion. If so, New Zion presumeably gave you something for them around 1914 or so.
I suspect the 1881 torpedo-boats might have been scrapped by now - they'd be hopelessly obsolete.
QuoteI suspect the 1881 torpedo-boats might have been scrapped by now - they'd be hopelessly obsolete.
Yep. But, as we say in France, " on fait avec ce qu'on a ". ;)
QuoteInsert Quote
Foxy can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the three Kuffrah class battleships and the ex-CSA TR-113 group were both sold to New Zion
The TR-113 were sold to CSA. This is the one thing I'm totally sure.
QuoteWe do it with what we have
QuoteWe doen het met wat we hebben.
well put Ciders
Talos made a deal to send back 6 TR-113s (which the plan was to scrap) and cash in exchange for 6 A-class boats (3 refit, 3 not refit) and 2 E-class boats, with options to buy up to 4 more, which he subsequently exercised for 2 more.
The TR-113s were indeed originally sold to NZ. I believe they were part of the big ship swap between NZ and Egypt then NZ and the Ottomans that resulted in Confederate pre-dreads sailing with the Ottomans during the last Crusade.
Okay, so I'm thinking that Egypt would benefit from:
-Minesweepers
-Submarine chasers/patrol boats
-Refits to the Campeons, and possibly others
-New destroyers to supplement your few modern units
For auxiliaries:
-A couple of transports could be handy
-Possibly a couple of tenders, as noted
-A royal yacht might keep the king from constantly borrowing your warships
-A couple of older ships assigned to training duties
Egypt probably could use a small number (say 4) of modern submarines too. There's lots of choke points in the Med where a sub might be useful in smiting Egypts enemies.
Quote from: Guinness on August 26, 2009, 09:45:37 AM
Egypt probably could use a small number (say 4) of modern submarines too. There's lots of choke points in the Med where a sub might be useful in smiting Egypts enemies.
You forgot the zero. As I guess you meant 40, not just 4?
-one can never have too many submarines.
I bought 4 ex-CSA BBs, and 21 TR-113 class DDs. I then sold 2 BBs to the Ottomans, and traded the other 2 and 6 TR-113s to Egypt in exchange for the 3 Kuffrahs and all the (1890?) class TBs.
Quote-Minesweepers
-Submarine chasers/patrol boats
-Refits to the Campeons, and possibly others
-New destroyers to supplement your few modern units
For auxiliaries:
-A couple of transports could be handy
-Possibly a couple of tenders, as noted
-A royal yacht might keep the king from constantly borrowing your warships
-A couple of older ships assigned to training duties
Personnaly ( yes I'm French and I love the Youth School ;) ), I think Egypt needs too some light units : cruisers ( 10000 t or less ), submarines or torpedoes boats ( in the Red Sea, a well-placed submarine, and we play to captain Weddingen versus the three old
Cressy cruisers, off the Belgium ) and maybe, one or two battleships ( no flagships, what a heresy ).
But royal yacht and auxiliaires, I totally agree. Destroyers... it's really useful ? Egypt have yet 10 ex-CSA destroyers, plus the four 1905-class.
EDIT :
QuoteI bought 4 ex-CSA BBs, and 21 TR-113 class DDs. I then sold 2 BBs to the Ottomans, and traded the other 2 and 6 TR-113s to Egypt in exchange for the 3 Kuffrahs and all the (1890?) class TBs.
And I sold three BB's to Gran Colombia, and 6 TR-113's to CSA.
You (well, Talos) sold the old ex-Caliphate battleships to me. I think you would probably have the ex-CSA ships still in your inventory.
Sure hope so. The CSA would be none to keen for those BBs to end up in Colombian hands. It would probably have repercussions for future relations.
In fact, all the Egyptian battleships have strangely disapparead in a dark night. No ? ::)
It's gotta be the 3 round BBs as the other three are in Zionite service. The 1890 TBs should be listed as sold not scrapped. You should have the 2 ex-CSA BBs I sold to Egypt. I don't think they went anywhere.
I find it very interesting that the CSA sold me the DDs, which I then sold to Egypt, which sold them BACK to the CSA! Maybe the CSA could just have kept them...
Quote from: Desertfox on August 26, 2009, 06:03:29 PM
I find it very interesting that the CSA sold me the DDs, which I then sold to Egypt, which sold them BACK to the CSA! Maybe the CSA could just have kept them...
It depends. If purchase price < (sale price + maintenance savings) Then the CSA came out ahead.
Actually, in this case, the CSA came out ahead, as those ships were destined to a couple more years in reserve, then the scrapyard.
This way I got some $ for them, then got them back to scrap them.
Not that I'd designed it that way...
sure you didn't.... ;)
So in fact, I have two battleships. But what kind of battleships ?
On my part of the forum, I have only 6 battleships : three sold to Gran Colombia and the three Kuffrah class.
Ex-CSA Texas class, by the looks of it.
The Texas's:
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=742.msg4915#msg4915
So, CSS Texas and CSS California are mine. Huhu, I can conquer Suez now. No, I didn't say I would conquer Suez. :P
OK, two battleships in the OOB of Egypt. Good day isn't it ? ;)
Also, if you are interested in getting those two ships a refit, send me a PM, we might be able to work something out. Confederate yards, are, after all, familiar with the design. :)
Nothing radical, but maybe a refreshing of the equipment and machinery, etc. etc. Might be a fun springsharp project for one of us if you are game.
You can easely conquer Suez. There is only half a corp, and no permanent fleet.
And Glorious France has yards available where any of your dreams of power can be worked out. Pity the only type 5 drydock in Marseille is in use.
Pfff... With your only detachment in Djibouti, you can destroy all my poor fleet. The Egyptian Fleet is the biggest joke who sailed these last years. ::)
Thanks for your proposition Guiness, but I think it's easily for me to buy two " new " battleships. I must use my $40 of revenue. ;)
Ohhh, I wouldn't say that. You had guns in your fleet that had more than 4.72''. I had a grand total of 17 warships, and 8 of them were 76 tons. 12 of them quailifed as destroyers at my tech level, and 4 more at the next one. :)
*chuckles*
Its all a matter of perspective and looking up hill....Both of you are larger then New Zion, and are smaller then the Mid Level Powers, which are smaller then the Large Power who then are smaller then say Rohan and France.
A PDN or two for presitge purposes is fine but realistically both your nations need strong costal defense forces to protect your costal waters. Actual Torpedo Boats using the MAS rules small costal subs, and mine warfare ships and Destroyers.
Good Alliance or relations with your neighbors wouldnt hurt either. As an Example Italia couldnt Survive with a Hostile France on our Borders. Find a friendly person nearbye and work something out. Oh an always get it in writting :)
Yes. Here's the problem. Borys doesn't respond to anything. No one plays the Ottomans, and even though they have milktr, signing a alliance with them would be a bad idea, with the southern cross(AKA Gran Columbia) and Austria-Hungray breathing down my back, along with the Barvarian's(Lepizing pact)Then there's Russia, who, doesn't respond, and Egypt, who is too weak to force the Dardellens if need be(War Plan Orion). That leaves me with three options. Joining the Southern Cross Allaince, which I may do, if not for VERY bad relations with the Ottomans. Then we have the Nassau and the Lepizing Pact. Both somewhat hate each other, and I have good relation with the Lepizing's. However, the only navy who could crack the Dardellens if need be is the ESC and the Dutch, both too far way to do a thing. The Nassau's do have a good navy that could crack the Dardellens, all of them, but that would mean sacificing my econmic and military ties to the Lepizing, which, while not a allainces yet, is the closest thing I have besides the RRC, who is WAY too far away and has a very weak navy. So, what should I do.
Leach and hope, while spaming Borys with PMs. Atleast thats what I would do in your posistion
Borys will answer, he was on vacation. He ALWAYS answers. And good relations w/ the Austrians has benifits. ;)
However, while NPC, Romania kinda pissed off Austria and Russia by not letting either of them move troops through Romania. The Austrians to attack the Ottomans, the Russians to prevent the Austrians from taking Romania while they were there. I think the Leipzig Pact stood up for Romania during that event.
Then, you see, I have 2 options. The Lepizing and the Nassau. I'm leaning toward the nassau, because they have more obsolete ships I can buy at cheaper prices then the Lepizing, but that ignoreing a lot of aid ive recieve. The most recent was from the ESC, and it was essential.
Alternately, you make Romania a tought little nut to crack, and stay neutral while playing larger powers against each other if necessary.
What do you think I'm doing right now? :D But, on the downside, if Borys invades, or the ottomans, or Ukraine, im toast.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on August 27, 2009, 04:19:19 PM
Ohhh, I wouldn't say that. You had guns in your fleet that had more than 4.72''. I had a grand total of 17 warships, and 8 of them were 76 tons. 12 of them quailifed as destroyers at my tech level, and 4 more at the next one. :)
Bah humbug, I had 12 vessels with 105mm guns as the largest, a total displacement of 14,000 tons, and storyline limitations on personnel.
QuoteThen we have the Nassau and the Lepizing Pact. Both somewhat hate each other,
And I wouldn't say the Nassau and Leipzig pacts hate each other, just certain members don't get along. Other members get along quite well.
QuoteSo, what should I do.
Now now, the fun is figuring that one out.
The truth is that even among the three big alliances, there are plenty of friends:
Sure the Dutch and Iberians aren't too friendly. The French and the Dutch not so much either. And yes, the CSA and GC have been known to have their disagreements from time to time.* But generally the Peruvians and Confederates are on good terms. France and Bavaria are doing ok. And France and Iberia seem to be settling into a good relationship of benign indifference. And heck, you don't even have to be in alliance to be pulled into the nexus of relationships: witness Austria.
If I had to predict the future, knowing what I know, I expect that our alliances will morph and evolve. Some, like the Norman/French relationship and the Colombian/Iberian relationship I expect to endure. Others, who knows? If you look closely there are cracks already forming.
A skillfully lead small country could benefit greatly from astute judgments of these changing relationships and actions based on those judgements. It does take the desire to role play, though of course.
* Hey Rocky: we sent you a dead possum in a bag, addressed for the Presidential Palace in Cartagena. Did you get that? The post can be so unreliable.
Quote from: Kaiser Kirk on August 27, 2009, 07:31:33 PM
Quote from: TexanCowboy on August 27, 2009, 04:19:19 PM
Ohhh, I wouldn't say that. You had guns in your fleet that had more than 4.72''. I had a grand total of 17 warships, and 8 of them were 76 tons. 12 of them quailifed as destroyers at my tech level, and 4 more at the next one. :)
Bah humbug, I had 12 vessels with 105mm guns as the largest, a total displacement of 14,000 tons, and storyline limitations on personnel.
Bah Humbug!?!? I have a very small army, with no railguns or armor(yet). You have on of the largest armies in contintial europe. You could repel a seaborn invasion. With me, they could sail straight up the Danube to Burcresti and bombard the place to smithereens.
QuoteHey Rocky: we sent you a dead possum in a bag, addressed for the Presidential Palace in Cartagena. Did you get that? The post can be so unreliable.
The President's chef was uncertain as to how to prepare it, so it ended up being fed to the dogs. Appreciate the thought, though.
Possum Pie.... man I have an Alliance with the CSA and they dont send me fresh Possum :'( :o
As noted Leipzig and Nassau have some strained relationships but as an Example the Empire of Italia and the Kingdom of Bavaria have Familial Relations and recently celebrated a Royal Wedding to end their joint claims to the Area around Trieste. We even have a treaty and non agression pact. So I dont see any straining in my relations with my Cousing Father in Law ;D
As for the ESC as an Example the Empire of Italia just doesnt have much dealing with them and a very neutral relationship. The Dutch well currently they are pushing a few of the Empire hot buttons but the war is very far away and I would very much like to stay non involved.
Think your in a bad shape? I played New Zion! Its bad when your pitiful small army consumes 90% of your military income and you have a major power next door that wants you removed from the face of the Earth. Yet in one year I turned the Zionite navy from one barely able to handle pirates, to one that can give an enemy quite some problems. You just have to get creative.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on August 27, 2009, 07:44:06 PM
Bah Humbug!?!? I have a very small army, with no railguns or armor(yet). You have on of the largest armies in contintial europe. You could repel a seaborn invasion. With me, they could sail straight up the Danube to Burcresti and bombard the place to smithereens.
The Bavarians have built a respectable army because when I took over it was still smaller than that of her neighbors despite excess $ and unsettled borders. Treaties guarded the French and Hapsburg borders, but the Italia, ESC, and Ukraine borders were less settled.
Their most vulnerable frontier, that with the ESC, they have secured, and their riverine trade routes to the Atlantic are safe. While the French have dropped our treaty, relations remain good. An understanding has been reached with Italia, so that border is contented. However, the French (especially), the Hapsburgs, and Ukrainians all field quite considerable forces.
As for a seaborne invasion, that would be why I have a list somewhere of places to put coastal batteries to cover my 70km of coastline. :)
You have a strategic resource of value, Mines and coastal guns can close the Danube, fortifications multiply the effectiveness of your defenders. Rumania can tip the balance in struggles between any two of her neighbors.
As for Foxy's Zion, yes great example of how to be a pain in the tuckus :)
Quoteand Egypt, who is too weak to force the Dardellens if need be(War Plan Orion).
But I can attack the west coast of Arabia, or the Syrian coast. And then, I can force Ottomans to divise their forces. :)
QuoteBah Humbug!?!? I have a very small army, with no railguns or armor(yet). You have on of the largest armies in contintial europe. You could repel a seaborn invasion. With me, they could sail straight up the Danube to Burcresti and bombard the place to smithereens.
Hi hi. You have railways, not Egypt. ;D
...
I play Egypt. It's not easy too. I don't have fortress or coastal defences. My fleet is old ( fortunateLy, I have some modern destroyers ), I have two seas to be defended. I have no more Suez canal, my neighbours aremore powerful than me. My army is weak, my fleet is weak. And my technology... arf. But I can make a lot of things. And I'm feeling lucky tha Persia and Ottomans are not playing this time.
But I choose Egypt. And I like it. A minor power, not agressive, not threatening, who live in this part of the map. But a living country, which can hit if the moment is good, which can be made friends. I know, Egypt never will be a major power. But if I can make of the Egypt a medium power in the Middle East... I will be very happy. ;)
The Suez Canal is rather free to be used . France isn't very restricting there.
Just announce when a warship is passing, and it will be admitted.
Don't complain :-\
Have you seen Ireland? Its NZ except surrounded by two powers and with a far worst army and navy.
Yep Maddox, but with Suez, you have the Sinai. And the mines of coal and iron of this area. ;)
Logi, you have only $15 of revenue. Don't invest $2 for five submarines. ;D
Yea, cause I could build 5 submarines. Oh wait, I can't.
Point.
A small project, taken out of my sick head. I wait your opinions.
...
Courrier du Nil, Egypt River Auxiliary Ship laid down 1918 (Engine 1905)
Displacement:
1 539 t light; 1 572 t standard; 1 690 t normal; 1 784 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
229,66 ft / 229,66 ft x 49,21 ft x 9,51 ft (normal load)
70,00 m / 70,00 m x 15,00 m x 2,90 m
Armament:
2 - 0,98" / 25,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,48lbs / 0,22kg shells, 1905 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1 lbs / 0 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0,98" / 25 mm - -
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 2 288 shp / 1 707 Kw = 15,00 kts
Range 2 000nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 211 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
131 - 171
Cost:
£0,161 million / $0,645 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 0 tons, 0,0 %
Armour: 1 tons, 0,0 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 1 tons, 0,0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0 %
Machinery: 191 tons, 11,3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 397 tons, 23,5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 151 tons, 8,9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 950 tons, 56,2 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1 732 lbs / 786 Kg = 3 633,3 x 1,0 " / 25 mm shells or 0,8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,11
Metacentric height 2,1 ft / 0,6 m
Roll period: 14,2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 78 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,56
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,550
Length to Beam Ratio: 4,67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15,15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
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: 16,67 ft / 5,08 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Mid (50 %): 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Stern: 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Average freeboard: 11,08 ft / 3,38 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98,0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 121,5 %
Waterplane Area: 7 888 Square feet or 733 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 127 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 39 lbs/sq ft or 190 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,73
- Longitudinal: 1,61
- Overall: 0,79
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
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
800 tons : 400 soldiers ( two compagnies )
150 tons : cargo
That's an awful big boat for river service, even on the Nile, I think.
EDIT: correcting myself, maybe not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Queen_%28steamboat%29
382 feet long.
I wonder if you still might not want her to draw less though. She may also have an overabundance of freeboard for a riverine craft.
I don't know, I don't found any reliable informations about the Nil's depth. And I must consider the modern informations with caution. In 1918, the Nile is always a savage river.
But I think that 3 meters are a good draught. This ship is conceived to go from Aswan to Cairo ( 900 km ).
Under gunned, even for riverine duty. Too slow for DD rules (15kts), to weak for normal rules:
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,73
- Longitudinal: 1,61
- Overall: 0,79
I did some poking about without great luck, as I have
a limited appetite for Nile research.
At this time frame the Assiut Barrage and Old Aswan dam were historically already built by the British, and the channel cut through the Sudd to allow navigation in Sudan to Omdurman. I presume Navalism echos that.
According to a site on river cruises, the maximum draft of current vessels is 1.5m. http://www.cruisecritic.com/ports/article.cfm?ID=168 (http://www.cruisecritic.com/ports/article.cfm?ID=168)
According to Wiki, the Assiut barrage has a lock 262.5 ft (80.0m) long and 52.8 ft (16.1m) wide " capable of passing the largest Nile cargo ships and barges"
I tried to find the lock dimensions for the Old Aswan dam, but other than that there was a 32m elevation difference and 5 locks, no idea.
http://books.google.com/books?id=cwuydax9e4AC&pg=PA600&lpg=PA600&dq=Nile+Navigation+draft+limits&source=bl&ots=JBZFla9RDQ&sig=JBydHq1PrGW4AsmVkSuPGi11G-o&hl=en&ei=MBafSqWTC4SqswOQm534Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=cwuydax9e4AC&pg=PA600&lpg=PA600&dq=Nile+Navigation+draft+limits&source=bl&ots=JBZFla9RDQ&sig=JBydHq1PrGW4AsmVkSuPGi11G-o&hl=en&ei=MBafSqWTC4SqswOQm534Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
1.5 m ? For the first river of the world ? ???
So, I must reduce the draft. If you have an idea for a transport ship, I listen. :)
I'm sure it varies with flows and the subsurface strata, but that also represents the shallowest points, not the average or deepest. Still, since the Nile is not central to what I do, I didn't spend too much time looking.
Similarly, I haven't come up with a Danube depth by Passau yet and I was annoyed to find similar depths for my section of the Rhine, 1000 ft wide and 4.5 feet deep near Strassbourg, So much for the dream of US Civil war style ironclads.
Still, between the draft and the lock dimensions, you can field small monitors along the river. I think the Rhine river monitor with a 6" howitzer I recently posted would work, as would more armored versions with a 3-4" how. This would both control riverine traffic and make it difficult for potential foes to camp on, or anchor a flank on, the Nile.
Egypt have yet 8 gunboats. The two most modern are bigger than the others : 2 m and 3.50 m of draft. But, for now, I think monitors are not a priority.
Egyptian territory is... large. 900 km bewteen Cairo and Aswan, 1200 km between Khartoum and Port-Sudan... and no railways. But I have the Nile. And six cataracts ( actually, the ships can go to the south of Aswan, at the second cataract, but no more after without transshipment )... If I can transport some thousands troops between Cairo and Aswan, and some guns and artillery, I would be relieved.
So, I'm trying to modify my ship, reduce the draft and increase the power of fire.
The Colombian Condor class might offer inspiration. They have 1.25 m draft, and function primarily as transports.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=52.msg17763#msg17763
Another try :
...
Courrier du Nil, Egypt River Auxiliary Ship laid down 1918 (Engine 1905)
Displacement:
1 028 t light; 1 053 t standard; 1 165 t normal; 1 255 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
229,66 ft / 229,66 ft x 65,62 ft x 4,92 ft (normal load)
70,00 m / 70,00 m x 20,00 m x 1,50 m
Armament:
1 - 3,00" / 76,2 mm guns in single mounts, 13,50lbs / 6,12kg shells, 1905 Model
Breech loading gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
4 - 0,50" / 12,7 mm guns in single mounts, 0,06lbs / 0,03kg shells, 1905 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 14 lbs / 6 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 0,98" / 25 mm 147,64 ft / 45,00 m 9,02 ft / 2,75 m
Ends: 0,98" / 25 mm 82,02 ft / 25,00 m 9,02 ft / 2,75 m
Upper: 0,98" / 25 mm 82,02 ft / 25,00 m 7,38 ft / 2,25 m
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0,98" / 25 mm - -
2nd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -
- Armour deck: 0,39" / 10 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 2 160 shp / 1 611 Kw = 15,00 kts
Range 2 000nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 202 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
99 - 129
Cost:
£0,125 million / $0,501 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2 tons, 0,1 %
Armour: 203 tons, 17,4 %
- Belts: 124 tons, 10,7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 2 tons, 0,2 %
- Armour Deck: 77 tons, 6,6 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0 %
Machinery: 180 tons, 15,4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 294 tons, 25,2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 137 tons, 11,7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 30,0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1 762 lbs / 799 Kg = 130,5 x 3,0 " / 76 mm shells or 1,2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,85
Metacentric height 7,2 ft / 2,2 m
Roll period: 10,3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 65 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,31
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,550
Length to Beam Ratio: 3,50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15,15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
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: 16,67 ft / 5,08 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Mid (50 %): 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Stern: 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Average freeboard: 11,08 ft / 3,38 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): 214,4 %
Waterplane Area: 10 517 Square feet or 977 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 126 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 26 lbs/sq ft or 125 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,47
- Longitudinal: 0,97
- Overall: 0,50
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
You might also look to make a few Dredges to patrol the Nile all the way to Aswan, they can dredge up the Silt and pump it onto flat barges and sell it to farmers or simply dontate it to farmers not found directly on the flood plain.
It would increase productivity of Farms and allow easier navigation of the Nile.
Charles
Good idea. But you know how create a dredge with Springsharp ? :-[
No But Im sure I can fake it....
A 500 Ton or so boat with lot of Misc Tonage for the Dredges and mayb 5 knots hmm.... lets give it a try.
Charles
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dredge-dustpan-specs.htm
The Dredges shown here were built in 1932 & 33 and were repowered several times during their life time they are used on the Mississippi river by the US Army Corp of Engineer.
More realistically a simple Clam Shell Dredge would be used lower it into the water grab a handful of Sand and or Silt lift it out by a Crain and dump it on a barge. Slow but steady.
Below is a crude approximation of a Dredge for the Nile River
Quote
Nile Dredge, Egypt Dredge laid down 1917 (Engine 1902)
Displacement:
404 t light; 413 t standard; 416 t normal; 418 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
120.00 ft / 120.00 ft x 40.00 ft x 6.00 ft (normal load)
36.58 m / 36.58 m x 12.19 m x 1.83 m
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 259 ihp / 193 Kw = 10.00 kts
Range 200nm at 5.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
45 - 59
Cost:
£0.037 million / $0.149 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 45 tons, 10.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 109 tons, 26.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 11 tons, 2.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 250 tons, 60.2 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
414 lbs / 188 Kg = 3.8 x 6 " / 152 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.26
Metacentric height 1.9 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 12.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 48 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.91
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.505
Length to Beam Ratio: 3.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 10.95 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
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: 5.05 ft / 1.54 m
- Forecastle (80 %): 3.67 ft / 1.12 m
- Mid (0 %): 3.67 ft / 1.12 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 3.67 ft / 1.12 m
- Stern: 3.67 ft / 1.12 m
- Average freeboard: 4.11 ft / 1.25 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 100.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 49.9 %
Waterplane Area: 3,213 Square feet or 298 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 122 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 31 lbs/sq ft or 152 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.59
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
250T Clam Shell Crane and Dredge.
Would the dredge be under steam the whole time - remaining stationary against river current - or would it anchor, dig, move, and anchor again?
If the former, I think the range might need an increase.
Nope Anchor, and then when Coal is low simply have one of the Barges come back loaded with coal in 50 Lb bags and have the crew load them before filling the Barge with Silt.
Charles