QuoteTransporteur, French Armed Banana Boat laid down 1919 (Engine 1916)
Displacement:
1.487 t light; 1.528 t standard; 1.834 t normal; 2.079 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
393,70 ft / 390,42 ft x 35,17 ft x 9,84 ft (normal load)
120,00 m / 119,00 m x 10,72 m x 3,00 m
Armament:
2 - 2,76" / 70,0 mm guns in single mounts, 10,47lbs / 4,75kg shells, 1919 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward
2 - 1,46" / 37,0 mm guns in single mounts, 1,55lbs / 0,70kg shells, 1919 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 24 lbs / 11 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,00" / 25 mm - -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 3 shafts, 26.505 shp / 19.773 Kw = 30,00 kts
Range 6.000nm at 14,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 552 tons
Complement:
139 - 182
Cost:
£0,389 million / $1,557 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3 tons, 0,2%
Armour: 3 tons, 0,2%
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 3 tons, 0,2%
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 885 tons, 48,2%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 416 tons, 22,7%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 348 tons, 18,9%
Miscellaneous weights: 180 tons, 9,8%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
536 lbs / 243 Kg = 51,2 x 2,8 " / 70 mm shells or 0,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,39
Metacentric height 1,9 ft / 0,6 m
Roll period: 10,9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 77 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,23
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0,475
Length to Beam Ratio: 11,10 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19,76 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 63
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -5,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21,33 ft / 6,50 m
- Forecastle (30%): 18,04 ft / 5,50 m (11,48 ft / 3,50 m aft of break)
- Mid (50%): 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
- Quarterdeck (10%): 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
- Stern: 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
- Average freeboard: 13,85 ft / 4,22 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 167,9%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 140,8%
Waterplane Area: 8.947 Square feet or 831 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 84%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 27 lbs/sq ft or 131 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,51
- Longitudinal: 0,86
- Overall: 0,54
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
LOL... dem betta be sum gud bananas, yah mon!
Expensive little transport, and barely armed enough to do any good.
Being built to destroyer standards makes her easily lost in a hurricane. But then again, if the French build a batch of mistakes, they can just throw the whole class away and start again. So, I guess, these are experimental ships that 'don't quite work right.'
You're right Carthaginian, those 2 37mm AA guns won't help a damn against pirates in the caribean.
Maybe replacing all of the guns and a tad of the cargo capacity with a single 165mm?
That would probably work, and a pair of 57mm QF's would discourage any small boats not worthy of the big guns.
Let me resim that.
A 165mm/6.5" is a tad too big. But I believe France has a giant factory shitting out the 5.5" L50's
QuoteTransporteur, French armed banana boat laid down 1919 (Engine 1916)
Displacement:
1.499 t light; 1.545 t standard; 1.853 t normal; 2.100 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
393,70 ft / 390,42 ft x 35,17 ft x 9,84 ft (normal load)
120,00 m / 119,00 m x 10,72 m x 3,00 m
Armament:
1 - 5,51" / 140 mm guns in single mounts, 92,59lbs / 42,00kg shells, 1919 Model
Quick firing gun in deck mounts
on side, all forward
2 - 2,24" / 57,0 mm guns in single mounts, 5,65lbs / 2,56kg shells, 1919 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 104 lbs / 47 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2,00" / 51 mm 1,00" / 25 mm -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 3 shafts, 26.756 shp / 19.960 Kw = 30,00 kts
Range 6.000nm at 14,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 556 tons
Complement:
140 - 183
Cost:
£0,404 million / $1,615 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 12 tons, 0,6%
Armour: 7 tons, 0,4%
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 7 tons, 0,4%
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 876 tons, 47,3%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 424 tons, 22,9%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 355 tons, 19,1%
Miscellaneous weights: 180 tons, 9,7%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
535 lbs / 243 Kg = 6,4 x 5,5 " / 140 mm shells or 0,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,39
Metacentric height 1,8 ft / 0,6 m
Roll period: 10,9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 76 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,06
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,21
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0,480
Length to Beam Ratio: 11,10 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19,76 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 63
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -5,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21,33 ft / 6,50 m
- Forecastle (30%): 18,04 ft / 5,50 m (11,48 ft / 3,50 m aft of break)
- Mid (50%): 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
- Quarterdeck (10%): 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
- Stern: 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
- Average freeboard: 13,85 ft / 4,22 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 168,2%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 140,4%
Waterplane Area: 8.986 Square feet or 835 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 81%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 27 lbs/sq ft or 133 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,51
- Longitudinal: 0,86
- Overall: 0,54
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Yes! That can carry...500 men short range. Romania will take 4, please!
Men????
Bananas, pineapples, mangos ,all kinds of tropical fruits that are in high demand in Glorious France, and therefore very profitable.
Oh my! Mommy I want some!!! I should look into special version of some of my destroyer classes, could come in handy...
I don't get it?
If Glorious France wanted to move men, Gents, I seriously doubt that they would only move a few dozen of them at a time on something such as this. I mean, c'mon... this is FRANCE, king of "why do it big if you can do it STUPID BIG!" You honestly think that France is gonna move troops on something like this when they already have the largest troop transport in the world?
Shesh, you guys need to start looking at the world form an economically-minded standpoint.
YOU might think these are 'troop transports,' but France just sees them as priority transports for perishable goods. After all, bananas fetch a good price in the Old World, and mangoes are one of the most exotic fruits out there.
Le Magnificent (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3398.msg53807#msg53807) just came from the dock after being repaired and refitted. After all, she was in use since 1904 and torpedo'd twice.
And she takes a quarter corps in one go.
The banana boat can take a lot of banana's or a nice load of Gold Bullion, but not a regiment worth of troops.
To defend the expensive banana's...
QuoteIntimitadeur, French Monitor laid down 1920
Displacement:
2.837 t light; 3.277 t standard; 3.557 t normal; 3.780 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
229,66 ft / 229,66 ft x 32,81 ft (Bulges 49,21 ft) x 14,44 ft (normal load)
70,00 m / 70,00 m x 10,00 m (Bulges 15,00 m) x 4,40 m
Armament:
1 - 19,69" / 500 mm guns in single mounts, 4.409,25lbs / 2.000,00kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading gun in casemate mount
on centreline forward
6 - 1,46" / 37,0 mm guns (2x3 guns), 1,55lbs / 0,70kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 4.419 lbs / 2.004 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5,00" / 127 mm 206,69 ft / 63,00 m 15,00 ft / 4,57 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 138% of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10,0" / 254 mm 5,00" / 127 mm 10,0" / 254 mm
2nd: 0,50" / 13 mm 0,50" / 13 mm -
- Armour deck: 3,00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 10,00" / 254 mm
Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 3.853 shp / 2.874 Kw = 15,00 kts
Range 5.200nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 503 tons
Complement:
229 - 299
Cost:
£1,223 million / $4,893 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 478 tons, 13,4%
Armour: 1.190 tons, 33,5%
- Belts: 633 tons, 17,8%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 153 tons, 4,3%
- Armour Deck: 354 tons, 10,0%
- Conning Tower: 50 tons, 1,4%
Machinery: 120 tons, 3,4%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 999 tons, 28,1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 720 tons, 20,2%
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 1,4%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2.439 lbs / 1.106 Kg = 0,6 x 19,7 " / 500 mm shells or 0,7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,48
Metacentric height 1,8 ft / 0,6 m
Roll period: 15,2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,63
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,22
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,763
Length to Beam Ratio: 4,67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15,15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
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: 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Forecastle (5%): 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Mid (50%): 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Quarterdeck (5%): 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Stern: 10,60 ft / 3,23 m
- Average freeboard: 10,65 ft / 3,25 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 116,9%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 56,2%
Waterplane Area: 6.382 Square feet or 593 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 67%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 88 lbs/sq ft or 428 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,90
- Longitudinal: 2,44
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
She's.... odd. I guess that's a good thing here. :)
I wonder about the gun mount. How much could it really traverse in a casemate in a hull this size? Beam is probably only about 8m, maybe less in way of the gun mount, total hull depth is 6.63m. It may not have much room to point more than 15 degree on either beam.
Obviously it would have trouble hitting anything if moving (either it or the target), unless at really close range. If the range has to be close, elevation of the main gun won't be much of a problem, but in that case, wouldn't torpedoes do the job too cheaper?
If the mission is shore bombardment, and if the gun can be elevated high enough, it could have quite the range. In that case a mounting fixed firing on one beam might make more sense though.
I think for a general use monitor, 1 or 2 380mm or 400mm guns in a turret or gunhouse would have greater utility.
I the gun points forward, it cannot be realistically aimed at anything but the ocean or a smaller continent, as the roll cannot be compensated accurately (which was a real problem with firing very close to the beam). The bulge increases roll further.
It would do hell with the trim angle aimed to the beam.
Unless it has a ~3 min loading cycle moving the gun sideways or an ~50t counterweight on the other side.
I will buy! :)
The UK M class submarines used a 12" mount. Aiming was done by pointing the hull for close range fire.
One of my solutions for this one would like that.
Just like the tank destroyers, aiming won't be done with the gun on a pivot, but pivot the entire ship. Using a lot of heavy anchors can achive a good accuracy.
I like Bananas
QuoteFlambeur, French Armored Siege Barge laid down 1920
Displacement:
11.517 t light; 12.700 t standard; 13.919 t normal; 14.893 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
393,70 ft / 390,42 ft x 59,06 ft (Bulges 78,74 ft) x 19,69 ft (normal load)
120,00 m / 119,00 m x 18,00 m (Bulges 24,00 m) x 6,00 m
Armament:
6 - 14,96" / 380 mm guns in single mounts, 1.807,79lbs / 820,00kg shells, 1915 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, evenly spread
4 - 1,46" / 37,0 mm guns in single mounts, 1,55lbs / 0,70kg shells, 1916 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 10.853 lbs / 4.923 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15,0" / 381 mm 234,25 ft / 71,40 m 10,00 ft / 3,05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 15,0" / 381 mm 234,25 ft / 71,40 m 10,00 ft / 3,05 m
Main Belt covers 92% of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15,0" / 381 mm 15,0" / 381 mm 3,00" / 76 mm
- Armour deck: 4,50" / 114 mm, Conning tower: 15,00" / 381 mm
Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 9.724 shp / 7.254 Kw = 16,00 kts
Range 5.000nm at 16,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.193 tons
Complement:
639 - 832
Cost:
£3,560 million / $14,240 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1.256 tons, 9,0%
Armour: 5.977 tons, 42,9%
- Belts: 3.152 tons, 22,6%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 953 tons, 6,8%
- Armour Deck: 1.684 tons, 12,1%
- Conning Tower: 187 tons, 1,3%
Machinery: 340 tons, 2,4%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3.544 tons, 25,5%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2.401 tons, 17,3%
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 2,9%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
15.359 lbs / 6.967 Kg = 9,2 x 15,0 " / 380 mm shells or 2,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,35
Metacentric height 3,9 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 16,8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,42
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,61
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,805
Length to Beam Ratio: 4,96 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19,76 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 66
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -5,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Forecastle (20%): 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Mid (50%): 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Quarterdeck (20%): 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Stern: 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Average freeboard: 13,39 ft / 4,08 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81,4%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 79,2%
Waterplane Area: 20.233 Square feet or 1.880 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 81%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 116 lbs/sq ft or 566 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,55
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
all 6 main guns are mounted on the starboard
100 tons FC
25 tons long range Marconi
25 tons ERADe
100 tons damage controle
100 tons workshops
50 ton crew comfort.
IMO, 15" guns are too heavy for 120m hull lenght & the speed too short.
Old 12" PDN on side alterned is an other possibility.
Jef ;)
I think the main problem with this ship is it's suspectibility to MTB's. If the goal is for coastal bombardment, only a few cruisers can get that shallow. With that being the case, no secondary, and only 4 machine guns, is going to mean that any MTB can deliever a torpedo into the side of this ship, and no nation would mind losing a 20-60 ton ship for a 11,000 ton one. Perhaps with 6 11'' guns, and more secondary? The case where 15'' guns are needed for shore bombardment is very rare.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on February 22, 2010, 03:31:38 PMThe case where 15'' guns are needed for shore bombardment is very rare.
If you ask me and Tan, and probably our other ex-grunts, you'll find that statement dramatically false, TC.
The bigger the shell that you can lob at a stationary, hardened target (like anything being bombarded ashore prior to an amphibious landing) you are MUCH better off firing an 15" than you are an 11". In fact, if you can drop in a 16" or 18" shell, that beats a 15". If there had been anything better than a 16" naval artillery shell at the time of the Normandy or Iwo Jima invasions, you'd better believe that they would have been slinging them by the bushel barrel at whatever was on shore.
Large caliber HE makes for a good area denial weapon too, and is useful to interdict roads if you can deliver it accurately enough.
These are all exercises in indirect fire mostly though. I would worry that mounted in casemates, these guns couldn't be elevated high enough to make full use of them. Or by casemate, do we really mean something more like the 18" mount on HMS General Wolf?:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/GeneralWolfeStarboardQuarter.JPG)
I think that mount might better be simmed as a sort of fixed turret or gunhouse.
If we HAD to sim something like that, I'd say that we go with a turret and barbette' mount with very thin armor.
But Carth, that's for warfare in Atlantic Wall/Iwo Jima type conditions...Not to be rude, but I think Navalism is severelly lacking in Coastal Defense. What, we have Fortress Manilla, a few CSA items, the Darian Line and El Toro's/Russian gunned-Columbian batteries, a crud-load of old Russian and Ukrainian stuff, and the fortresses at Suez and Bopherous. Is that enough to warrent that kind of payload...oh, and the fortress Goa,(who got that anyway?)
The truth is, other than maybe Fort Drum and some installations in Scandinavia, there really wasn't any sort of a system like the German Atlantic wall. In other words, Hitler's coast defenses were the exception, not the rule. The US Third System and contemporary British works, for instance, weren't mean to defend against an amphibious assault, but rather were meant to defend key sites, mainly naval bases, from enemy bombardment.
It wasn't really until after WW1 that the idea of using coastal guns, etc. to oppose an amphibious assault came up in any serious way.
So all that said, it may be true that a purpose designed vessel for bombarding coast defense in the Nverse may be before it's time. It makes sense to me that the Colombians are interested in such things, as they've also been at the forefront of heavy coast defense guns as well. I suppose the French might want something because, well, their France.
I think the largest batteries we have here are the Columbian, French, Russian, and CSA 14''/15'' batteries. Probebly the only thing that could have the use of this. You may just be better of mounting a modern Tzar Howitzer, or Gustav...1, no more.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on February 22, 2010, 06:14:18 PM
But Carth, that's for warfare in Atlantic Wall/Iwo Jima type conditions...Not to be rude, but I think Navalism is severelly lacking in Coastal Defense. What, we have Fortress Manilla, a few CSA items, the Darian Line and El Toro's/Russian gunned-Columbian batteries, a crud-load of old Russian and Ukrainian stuff, and the fortresses at Suez and Bopherous. Is that enough to warrent that kind of payload...oh, and the fortress Goa,(who got that anyway?)
The answer is simple TC- collateral damage.
The more of it you do to the areas surrounding the enemy's position, the worse off the enemy is. Speaking as a man who saw an Iraqi ammunition dump go off at a distance of 5 klicks (or maybe a bit more) you really have to see something like that to believe it.
Imagine sitting in the passenger seat of a car in a 25 MPH head on collision.
Imagine getting that same effect from something THREE MILES away- literally enough to knock you off your feet and onto your 4th point of contact. ;) Imagine your eyes watering, your ears ringing like from a rifle fired by your head, and your body involuntarily shuddering a bit with the first few concussions. That was THREE MILES from me.
Imagine that kind of effect, now, A FEW HUNDRED FEET AWAY. Imagine the shrapnel ripping through the air... hear the symphony of destruction: the whistle of shrapnel, the screams of the panicked and wounded, the smell of smoke and earth. Imagine the utter disorientation to those who are sufficiently dug in or protected caused by the earth leaping and receding beneath their prone bellies.
Read about the Battle of Passchendaele if you would doubt the successful devastation that can be caused simply by the NEARBY detonation of massive amounts of high explosives. And entire German DIVISION was literally obliterated and thousands of prisoners taken... just from one massive mine (1,000,000 pounds of TNT).
Heavy naval artillery isn't just about DIRECT damage- it's about the INDIRECT damage as well.
But in that case, wouldn't it be better to dump the 15''/45's, and build something similar to a larger banana moniter seen earlier in the thread, with a 19.7'' howitzer? With the ammo dump's you are talking about, was fire velocity really needed to set it off? Did it really need a FPS of 4,000, like those French guns have? Or would a larger howitzer, with a heavier shell and less FPS, do the same job?
Dear god, a freaking Iraqi ammo dump going off? I saw a video of one online. The camera lens was shattered by the shock wave....
Hat gun? You wouldn't happen to mean THIS, would you?
(http://longstreet.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83542d51e69e20115702ea88e970c-500wi)
Quote from: TexanCowboy on February 22, 2010, 06:37:04 PM
But in that case, wouldn't it be better to dump the 15''/45's, and build something similar to a larger banana moniter seen earlier in the thread, with a 19.7'' howitzer? With the ammo dump's you are talking about, was fire velocity really needed to set it off? Did it really need a FPS of 4,000, like those French guns have? Or would a larger howitzer, with a heavier shell and less FPS, do the same job?
Dear god, a freaking Iraqi ammo dump going off? I saw a video of one online. The camera lens was shattered by the shock wave....
Howitzers are good for high-angle shots... dropping a payload down on the generally much thinner armor on top of a target, or down into trenches and behind revetments, or for (after their invention) airbursting over 'soft targets' to achieve a maximum shrapnel spread.
Heavy naval cannon are good for long and very-long range bombardment, or for piercing heavy armor on facing targets at closer ranges. Mid-caliber naval guns are good for similar types of jobs at shorter ranges. Both types can be used in roles similar to mortars, if the elevation permits, but that only happens much later on, like the 40's.
Also, guns are, as a rule, more effective when used in groups.
It aids in sighting and in 'area effect.'
Well, that latest French fruit - I think "pumpkin" is more appropriate than "banana" in this case - is something.
If it slipped down the coast and showed up off the Darien Canal, I'd probably find myself without a functioning canal soon afterwards.
Speaking generally to coastal defence - the six heavy Colombian batteries are a relic from when my industrial capacity was limited and "in-game" pre-occupied with building the canal. It was much easier to build these batteries than capital ships, and would have been enough to keep the French honest at the time. The profusion of smaller 140mm batteries reflects my desire to create a nuisance for anybody planning to land at one of my port towns.
Generally speaking - I liked monitors. They have utility to them. Apart from being a testbed for my triple 35 cm turret, the Sucre would be quite useful for supporting landings or used in combination with minelayers and torpedo-boats in a coastal defence role: exactly how she's deployed in Zaire right now.
I am New Switzerland and I approve of this ship.*
*Paid for by the Council for Anti-French Schemes.
NS had the Vesuvious, could do the same job better for 1/10 the cost. Which reminds me, I need more dynamite ships.
Never a good idea...read up one what happened to the USS Essex when it was built with carronades. Not something you want, and with dynamite shells...the less said, the better.
The RRC actually has a few 14" coastal batteries. I guess the trump is that my batteries were built during 1918.
Now where was that quote about the effect of larger caliber guns? Ah, here it is:
QuoteThe Armor Piercing (AP) shell fired by these guns is capable of penetrating nearly 30 feet (9 m) of concrete, depending upon the range and obliquity of impact. The High Capacity (HC) shell can create a crater 50 feet wide and 20 feet deep (15 x 6 m). During her deployment off Vietnam, USS New Jersey (BB-62) occasionally fired a single HC round into the jungle and so created a helicopter landing zone 200 yards (180 m) in diameter and defoliated trees for 300 yards (270 m) beyond that.
That's NavWeaps description of the 16" guns that the Iowas carried. I would imagine that kind of destructive power for shore bombardment is carried to a large extent to 15" and 14" guns.
Logi, you just gave me another use of the Pumpkin. Create airship landing zones. A profound pounding of a certain part of African jungle creates a landing zone for an airship. It hovers, landing harpoon hooks are fired, and personel is rappeled down.
Depending on the job, the personel dropped creates a better landing spot, or cuts the harpoons and go out to have fun.
A type 2 airship has a suitable payload of 9 tons, That means an action time of 20 hours. Following the troop transport rules, it means 9 commandos can be dropped in a few minutes time at any place inside an action radius of a 400 nautical miles inside a day. With the airship having a reasonable chance returning home.
Who can design me a Type 2 Airship tender?
Requirements are simple. max speed of no concequence, cruise speed 16 kts, range 6000nm.
Supply 1 type 2 airship with an hangar, and a second one with replenishment facilities.
Quote from: maddox on February 23, 2010, 01:21:03 AM
Who can design me a Type 2 Airship tender?
Requirements are simple. max speed of no concequence, cruise speed 16 kts, range 6000nm.
Supply 1 type 2 airship with an hangar, and a second one with replenishment facilities.
I like Zeppelins so I took a short look into this.
A type 2 airship is supposed to be 40000 m² in size. For comparison I choose a similar sized Zeppelin from this list (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_aller_Zeppeline). Closest match seems to be 35800 m², I choose LZ 65/95 (http://sebastianrusche.com/airships/data/zeppelin/125-lz65) as data basis, which tells us that such a Zeppelin would probably at least 180 meters long an 19 m in diameter. If you want to house two of those you would probably need a hanger at least 44 meters wide, 200 m long and some 25 to 30 meters high mounted well above the water line (with only 2 meters of safety distance between the Zeppelins itself and the hangar walls). I'm looking forward to some type 5 sized ships.
On a side note, or air ship rules seem to be extremely conservative, as LZ 65/95 was smaller than our rules permit and was both faster ~50 knots and carried more "cargo" (~17 tons).
I hate to break the news to people but I have 5 Large Costal Fortifications
2 in the Blantrye straits into the Southern Rift Sea.
8x12" Guns, 8x10.8" Guns, and 24x6" guns
1 at Nacala oposite Blantrye in the Indian Ocean
4x12", 4x10.8" and 12x6"
1 at Montivideo Uraguay
4 x 14" 4x 12", 4x10.8" and 12x6"
1 Guarding the Port of Nuevo Lipari on the Islands in the South Atlantic
4 x 14" 4x 12", 4x10.8" and 12x6"
So Shhhh.... dont tell anyone...
Quote from: Nobody on February 23, 2010, 03:09:33 AM
I like Zeppelins so I took a short look into this.
So do I. I'm planning to visit the Zeppelin museum in Friedrichshaven sometime later this year.
(maybe during the Conquering Europe Tour, when going for a visit of all European Nverse Members.)QuoteA type 2 airship is supposed to be 40000 m² in size. For comparison I choose a similar sized Zeppelin from this list (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_aller_Zeppeline). Closest match seems to be 35800 m², I choose LZ 65/95 (http://sebastianrusche.com/airships/data/zeppelin/125-lz65) as data basis, which tells us that such a Zeppelin would probably at least 180 meters long an 19 m in diameter. If you want to house two of those you would probably need a hanger at least 44 meters wide, 200 m long and some 25 to 30 meters high mounted well above the water line (with only 2 meters of safety distance between the Zeppelins itself and the hangar walls). I'm looking forward to some type 5 sized ships.
Is going to be very expensive, but in the end, you're talking Habakkuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk).
But there is a type 3 drydock. Once Montmedie is floating out, it could be used. So, have a go at a Ultra Patoka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Patoka_(AO-9))
Reminder, armament and armor cannot take more than 2% of the total light weight.
The hangar could be part of the hull.
QuoteOn a side note, or air ship rules seem to be extremely conservative, as LZ 65/95 was smaller than our rules permit and was both faster ~50 knots and carried more "cargo" (~17 tons).
I agree, but that had a reason when we started with the Airship rules for Nverse III. We don't want to see the whole Nverse zooming around in airships. We have seen that in the past... No thanks.
Quote from: maddox on February 23, 2010, 08:00:39 AM
I'm planning to visit the Zeppelin museum in Friedrichshaven sometime later this year.
Good idea it's a quite interesting place, it might even be multilingual.
Quote (maybe during the Conquering Europe Tour, when going for a visit of all European Nverse Members.)
But tell me beforehand, will you? I have to clean my room before that ;)
Quote
QuoteA type 2 airship is supposed to be 40000 m² in size. For comparison I choose a similar sized Zeppelin from this list (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_aller_Zeppeline). Closest match seems to be 35800 m², I choose LZ 65/95 (http://sebastianrusche.com/airships/data/zeppelin/125-lz65) as data basis, which tells us that such a Zeppelin would probably at least 180 meters long an 19 m in diameter. If you want to house two of those you would probably need a hanger at least 44 meters wide, 200 m long and some 25 to 30 meters high mounted well above the water line (with only 2 meters of safety distance between the Zeppelins itself and the hangar walls). I'm looking forward to some type 5 sized ships.
Is going to be very expensive, but in the end, you're talking Habakkuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk).
But there is a type 3 drydock. Once Montmedie is floating out, it could be used. So, have a go at a Ultra Patoka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Patoka_(AO-9))
Reminder, armament and armor cannot take more than 2% of the total light weight.
The hangar could be part of the hull.
I see no way to put even a single a 200 m Zeppelin in a 220 m hull - even if we treat the hanger as a space-shuttle-like-cargo-bay which can be opened and release the airship. (hardly doable with 1920 tech)
Usually you would need a circular flat square being at least twice the airship length in diameter with a mooring tower in the middle.
Assuming I need a 200 m hanger and at least 50 m of clear deck on the stern behind it, leaves 70 m for bow and superstructure on a max sized type 5 hull - not too much if you ask me.
Trying to do this, by heightening the hull over 200 m length by 30 m I ended up with ships in the 60 to 80 thousand tons (light!) which need some 6 to 12 % of armor as counterweight, so that they reach 1.0 stability. They also ended up much wider for the same reason enabling them to carry even the next generation of airships (Type 3).
The Orange Republic offers to build such a ship for a mere payment of 6 BP and 8 $ per HY over the course of the building.
Aeroflot 1, France Airship-carrier laid down 1920
Displacement:
82.247 t light; 84.131 t standard; 89.102 t normal; 93.080 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
1.049,87 ft / 1.049,87 ft x 213,25 ft x 20,01 ft (normal load)
320,00 m / 320,00 m x 65,00 m x 6,10 m
Armament:
8 - 5,51" / 140 mm guns in single mounts, 83,72lbs / 37,97kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all forward
20 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns in single mounts, 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 12 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 709 lbs / 321 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3,15" / 80 mm 984,25 ft / 300,00 m 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
Ends: 1,97" / 50 mm 65,61 ft / 20,00 m 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
Upper: 1,18" / 30 mm 656,17 ft / 200,00 m 131,23 ft / 40,00 m
Main Belt covers 144% of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,57" / 40 mm 984,25 ft / 300,00 m 29,53 ft / 9,00 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3,15" / 80 mm - 1,97" / 50 mm
2nd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -
- Armour deck: 0,39" / 10 mm, Conning tower: 1,97" / 50 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 46.746 shp / 34.873 Kw = 18,00 kts
Range 6.000nm at 16,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8.949 tons
Complement:
2.578 - 3.352
Cost:
£7,521 million / $30,083 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 89 tons, 0,1%
Armour: 10.801 tons, 12,1%
- Belts: 7.633 tons, 8,6%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1.693 tons, 1,9%
- Armament: 88 tons, 0,1%
- Armour Deck: 1.302 tons, 1,5%
- Conning Tower: 85 tons, 0,1%
Machinery: 1.634 tons, 1,8%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 69.222 tons, 77,7%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6.856 tons, 7,7%
Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 0,6%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
4.004.257 lbs / 1.816.301 Kg = 47.826,5 x 5,5 " / 140 mm shells or 5.215,8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,00
Metacentric height 15,5 ft / 4,7 m
Roll period: 22,8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,02
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2,00
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise aft of midbreak, low quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0,696
Length to Beam Ratio: 4,92 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32,40 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 21 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
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: 39,37 ft / 12,00 m
- Forecastle (10%): 32,81 ft / 10,00 m
- Mid (20%): 32,81 ft / 10,00 m (147,64 ft / 45,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (17%): 49,21 ft / 15,00 m (147,64 ft / 45,00 m before break)
- Stern: 49,21 ft / 15,00 m
- Average freeboard: 108,20 ft / 32,98 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 10,3%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 1.742,7%
Waterplane Area: 178.811 Square feet or 16.612 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 583%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 217 lbs/sq ft or 1.057 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,71
- Longitudinal: 20,39
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
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
Capeable of carrying 2 airships up to 200 m in length and 25 m diameter (~70000 m³ --> Type 3) or 3 airships up to 200 m in length and 19 m diameter (~36000 m³ --> Type 2)
Aeroflot 2, France Airship-carrier laid down 1920
Displacement:
60.410 t light; 61.769 t standard; 65.479 t normal; 68.447 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
1.049,87 ft / 1.049,87 ft x 196,85 ft x 21,33 ft (normal load)
320,00 m / 320,00 m x 60,00 m x 6,50 m
Armament:
6 - 5,51" / 140 mm guns in single mounts, 83,72lbs / 37,97kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward
32 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (16x2 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 10 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 565 lbs / 256 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1,18" / 30 mm 918,64 ft / 280,00 m 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 135% of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,57" / 40 mm 918,64 ft / 280,00 m 26,25 ft / 8,00 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,97" / 50 mm - -
- Armour deck: 0,79" / 20 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 34.799 shp / 25.960 Kw = 18,00 kts
Range 6.000nm at 16,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6.678 tons
Complement:
2.046 - 2.660
Cost:
£5,540 million / $22,161 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 71 tons, 0,1%
Armour: 4.211 tons, 6,4%
- Belts: 725 tons, 1,1%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1.405 tons, 2,1%
- Armament: 37 tons, 0,1%
- Armour Deck: 2.043 tons, 3,1%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 1.217 tons, 1,9%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 54.412 tons, 83,1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5.070 tons, 7,7%
Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 0,8%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
3.050.780 lbs / 1.383.811 Kg = 36.438,3 x 5,5 " / 140 mm shells or 3.378,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,00
Metacentric height 13,9 ft / 4,2 m
Roll period: 22,2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2,00
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise aft of midbreak, low quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0,520
Length to Beam Ratio: 5,33 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32,40 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 19 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
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: 36,09 ft / 11,00 m
- Forecastle (20%): 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Mid (20%): 22,97 ft / 7,00 m (131,23 ft / 40,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (17%): 32,81 ft / 10,00 m (131,23 ft / 40,00 m before break)
- Stern: 32,81 ft / 10,00 m
- Average freeboard: 93,90 ft / 28,62 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 10,8%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 1.713,5%
Waterplane Area: 140.251 Square feet or 13.030 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 849%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 215 lbs/sq ft or 1.048 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,74
- Longitudinal: 15,53
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
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
Capeable of carrying 2 Airships up to 200 m in length and 24 m diameter (~60000 m³ --> Type 3)
Quote from: Nobody on February 23, 2010, 09:14:48 AM
Quote from: maddox on February 23, 2010, 08:00:39 AM
I'm planning to visit the Zeppelin museum in Friedrichshaven sometime later this year.
Good idea it's a quite interesting place, it might even be multilingual.
It is , and I can read ,and understand spoken German. Babeth(Phoenix) is better in that respect, as she can write and speak it.
QuoteQuote (maybe during the Conquering Europe Tour, when going for a visit of all European Nverse Members.)
But tell me beforehand, will you? I have to clean my room before that ;)
I don't have any problems with messy rooms. There is a reason our house is called House of Chaos.
Last year we had a very feeble attempt to gather at Borys families Dacha in Poland, but the timing was rather badly chosen.
On that 100 000 monster. It's a full military vessel, with a very very limited payload, not enough to say it can do more than shelter 2 airships, not maintaining or supplying even 1.
On the other hand, it's the best torpedo catcher I have seen with SS2 ever...
I'm afraid , even if the offer is tempting ,it would take 15 hy's to be build.
In mercantile version it should be more interesting I have to admit. Just a 18 kts hull with a light hangar as superstructure, and a lot more misc weight, like 20 to 30 Ktons?
And, it's a mistake, the dock in marseilles, where Montmedie is buing build, is a type 5 drydock.
Nobody, I believe it was either the Shenandoah or the Los Angeles that the United States Navy successfully docked to a mast on a tender substantially smaller than it was, so clearly such dockings are, in fact, possible. I suspect that the procedure is to have both airship and tender match speed and course into the wind, so that events turn into something more like an aerial refueling docking. Likewise, I don't see why a segmented 'roof' shouldn't be possible, retracting like a garage door to either side.
Maddox, could you or one of your contemporaries expand on N2 (I'm guessing) airship operations and what was found so undesirable about them?
QuoteI'm afraid , even if the offer is tempting ,it would take 15 hy's to be build.
... and he could easily stretch the building time while France still has to pay the fixed 6 BP and 8 $ per HY. The longer it takes Orange to build it, the more France will have to pay for it. :D
Quote from: Valles on February 23, 2010, 09:40:02 AM
Nobody, I believe it was either the Shenandoah or the Los Angeles that the United States Navy successfully docked to a mast on a tender substantially smaller than it was, so clearly such dockings are, in fact, possible. I suspect that the procedure is to have both airship and tender match speed and course into the wind, so that events turn into something more like an aerial refueling docking. Likewise, I don't see why a segmented 'roof' shouldn't be possible, retracting like a garage door to either side.
It was Patoka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Patoka_(AO-9)), an oiler rebuild as airship tender. But she couldn't do more than providing a moring mast and resupply consumables. Helium, ballast, fuel and other things that keep the crew going.
QuoteMaddox, could you or one of your contemporaries expand on N2 (I'm guessing) airship operations and what was found so undesirable about them?
See PM.
Quote from: Valles on February 23, 2010, 09:40:02 AM
Nobody, I believe it was either the Shenandoah or the Los Angeles that the United States Navy successfully docked to a mast on a tender substantially smaller than it was, so clearly such dockings are, in fact, possible. I suspect that the procedure is to have both airship and tender match speed and course into the wind, so that events turn into something more like an aerial refueling docking.
Of course anchor a large Zeppelin to a small ship, maybe even at sea state 2 - but not beyond that. I understood this more as a request for a
mobile hangar which can give the airship shelter in bad weather - if securely fixed in it's position inside.
QuoteLikewise, I don't see why a segmented 'roof' shouldn't be possible, retracting like a garage door to either side.
Do you want do design a a 200 meter long and 30 to 60 m wide roof which can be opend on a ship - which would bend in heavy seas?(around 3:20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jgb8e-03Ew))
Quote from: Walter on February 23, 2010, 09:58:13 AM
QuoteI'm afraid , even if the offer is tempting ,it would take 15 hy's to be build.
... and he could easily stretch the building time while France still has to pay the fixed 6 BP and 8 $ per HY. The longer it takes Orange to build it, the more France will have to pay for it. :D
16 HYs actually(15.333...), and we would of course offer a contract with fixed delivery date.
Quote from: maddox on February 23, 2010, 09:31:19 AM
On that 100 000 monster. It's a full military vessel, with a very very limited payload, not enough to say it can do more than shelter 2 airships, not maintaining or supplying even 1.
I'm sure I read before that it was not possible/allowed to build a carrier to mercantile standards and this is pretty much the same. Besides I didn't know yet, that you wanted a tender when I designed them.
Why not? I admit the misc isn't nearly as huge as the hull, but the hanger is part of the hull - which is the main problem of the ship btw - the airship itself weights nothing. Subtract some 50 t per movable mooring tower leaves some 100 t of cargo per airship enough for 6 (Type 3) to a dozed sorties (Type 2 Airship).
Quote
On the other hand, it's the best torpedo catcher I have seen with SS2 ever...
LOL I didn't see that during the design (I was too busy trying go get both seekeeping and stability above 1.0 while keeping steadiness above 70(slow roll!)), I remembered some 120 but not over 5000!
Quote
In mercantile version it should be more interesting I have to admit. Just a 18 kts hull with a light hangar as superstructure, and a lot more misc weight, like 20 to 30 Ktons?
I tried to make it smaller the second version, which is hardly smaller, posted above was the outcome.
The problem is both the extra large hull and misc weight greatly reduce stability, how should I counter that? Armor, beam and fuel (which I didn't use so far because I didn't exceed the 6000 nm @ 16 kn requirement) can counter that and as long as you have no other idea there isn't much I can do about the size or the military standard.
Aeroflot 3, France Airship-carrier laid down 1920
Displacement:
83.002 t light; 85.126 t standard; 96.005 t normal; 104.708 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
1.049,87 ft / 1.049,87 ft x 213,25 ft x 22,97 ft (normal load)
320,00 m / 320,00 m x 65,00 m x 7,00 m
Armament:
8 - 5,51" / 140 mm guns in single mounts, 83,72lbs / 37,97kg shells, 1920 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all forward
20 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns in single mounts, 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1920 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 12 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 709 lbs / 321 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 500
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Ends: Unarmoured
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,18" / 30 mm 984,25 ft / 300,00 m 29,53 ft / 9,00 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3,15" / 80 mm - 1,97" / 50 mm
2nd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -
- Conning tower: 1,97" / 50 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 46.101 shp / 34.392 Kw = 18,00 kts
Range 14.000nm at 16,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 19.583 tons
Complement:
2.726 - 3.545
Cost:
£7,576 million / $30,303 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 89 tons, 0,1%
Armour: 1.447 tons, 1,5%
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1.270 tons, 1,3%
- Armament: 88 tons, 0,1%
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Conning Tower: 89 tons, 0,1%
Machinery: 1.612 tons, 1,7%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 69.854 tons, 72,8%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 13.003 tons, 13,5%
Miscellaneous weights: 10.000 tons, 10,4%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1.937.626 lbs / 878.892 Kg = 23.142,9 x 5,5 " / 140 mm shells or 1.100,9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,01
Metacentric height 15,8 ft / 4,8 m
Roll period: 22,5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,02
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2,00
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise aft of midbreak, low quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0,654
Length to Beam Ratio: 4,92 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32,40 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 21 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
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: 39,37 ft / 12,00 m
- Forecastle (10%): 32,81 ft / 10,00 m
- Mid (19%): 32,81 ft / 10,00 m (147,64 ft / 45,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (17%): 49,21 ft / 15,00 m (147,64 ft / 45,00 m before break)
- Stern: 49,21 ft / 15,00 m
- Average freeboard: 109,35 ft / 33,33 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 21,4%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 1.604,8%
Waterplane Area: 172.063 Square feet or 15.985 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 624%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 220 lbs/sq ft or 1.072 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,71
- Longitudinal: 20,50
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
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
Capeable of carrying 2 airships up to 200 m in length and 25 m diameter (~70000 m³ --> Type 3) or 3 airships up to 200 m in length and 19 m diameter (~36000 m³ --> Type 2)
If buildable to tender rules OR offers this ship for 2 BP (shipbuilding steel) and $ 8 per HY to be paid over 16 HYs and delivery after 17 (because enlarging a dock/slip delays this by 7 months)
Glorious France would rather buy the design then from the OR, as France has the type 5 dock already available.
I don't mind France building this one bit! ;D
That said, why would you need an airship carrier? Airships are long legged enough that they can deploy wherever they want, while airship hangers are pretty cheap. A floating drydock type would probably be better than an SS2 design.
Quote from: maddox on February 23, 2010, 10:50:36 AM
Glorious France would rather buy the design then from the OR, as France has the type 5 dock already available.
Hmm... what does France offer for the toughest, most robust and imperishable (as well as biggest) ship ever designed? :D
Quote from: Valles on February 23, 2010, 09:40:02 AM
Nobody, I believe it was either the Shenandoah or the Los Angeles that the United States Navy successfully docked to a mast on a tender substantially smaller than it was, so clearly such dockings are, in fact, possible. I suspect that the procedure is to have both airship and tender match speed and course into the wind, so that events turn into something more like an aerial refueling docking. Likewise, I don't see why a segmented 'roof' shouldn't be possible, retracting like a garage door to either side.
Maddox, could you or one of your contemporaries expand on N2 (I'm guessing) airship operations and what was found so undesirable about them?
I determined airship performance numbers after a staring at
my navel the specs for historical airships then putting a linear fit over the numbers (range vs. payload vs weight). One can build larger or more airships to increase capacity.
The problem was an anime-steampunk fun appearing, building a huge airship fleet in [a fictional country in the same location as] Alaska, and invading the Caribbean flying 1000s of ships across North America. Then Maddox as sole moderator did not have the data to fight her and call it lunacy. N2verse collapsed soon after.
The mechanical engineer in me says the hangar walls would flex a lot, and the hangar must be rigid cross-sectionally, i.e. rigid roof beams. Longitudinally the hangar cannot be rigid due to the enormous depth of the structure. If it is rigid, you end up with the numbers and topweight in nobody's ship.
So the best bet is to have the hangar segmented that each piece could flex towards/from each other, with nonrigid coverings (sliding steel plates and canvas/rubber) between.
That also means the hangar would be open at one or both end, with tower-mast on the side carrier-style.
Quote from: Nobody on February 23, 2010, 11:03:21 AM
Quote from: maddox on February 23, 2010, 10:50:36 AM
Glorious France would rather buy the design then from the OR, as France has the type 5 dock already available.
Hmm... what does France offer for the toughest, most robust and imperishable (as well as biggest) ship ever designed? :D
Let us discus that over less obvious "diplomatical" means. PM's for example.
Quote from: maddox on February 24, 2010, 08:23:49 AM
Quote from: Nobody on February 23, 2010, 11:03:21 AM
Quote from: maddox on February 23, 2010, 10:50:36 AM
Glorious France would rather buy the design then from the OR, as France has the type 5 dock already available.
Hmm... what does France offer for the toughest, most robust and imperishable (as well as biggest) ship ever designed? :D
Let us discus that over less obvious "diplomatical" means. PM's for example.
We will humbly await your messenger.
We might even be able to offer a smaller design with the same capabilities.