Something truly Swiss. A super torpedo boat, a squadron of these is capable of unleashing 160 Long Lances at any enemy fleet. The armament is concentrated in the front to cover their charge. The 90mm guns are actually mortars that would launch phosphorous shells to provide some cover during their approach.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/ReneJr/torpedo.gif)
New Switzerland Super Destroyer laid down 1922
Displacement:
1,418 t light; 1,479 t standard; 1,624 t normal; 1,740 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
400.00 ft / 400.00 ft x 34.00 ft x 11.00 ft (normal load)
121.92 m / 121.92 m x 10.36 m x 3.35 m
Armament:
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (2x2 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1922 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
2 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns in single mounts, 22.24lbs / 10.09kg shells, 1922 Model
Muzzle loading guns in open barbettes
on centreline, all amidships
4 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 492 lbs / 223 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
16 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
3rd: - - 0.10" / 3 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus diesel motors,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 43,003 shp / 32,080 Kw = 35.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 261 tons
Complement:
127 - 166
Cost:
£0.611 million / $2.445 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 62 tons, 3.8 %
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: 877 tons, 54.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 440 tons, 27.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 206 tons, 12.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 32 tons, 2.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
280 lbs / 127 Kg = 2.6 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 12.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.35
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.73
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.380
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.76 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 63 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
- Mid (50 %): 12.00 ft / 3.66 m (10.00 ft / 3.05 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Stern: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 11.60 ft / 3.54 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 204.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 25.4 %
Waterplane Area: 8,292 Square feet or 770 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 47 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 32 lbs/sq ft or 158 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.49
- Longitudinal: 0.70
- Overall: 0.51
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is extremely poor
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
Quote- Cross-sectional: 0.49
Other than that, very Swiss.
It works if the 90mm guns are removed, which shouldn't weight that much anyway because they are mortars instead of true guns.
Quote from: Desertfox on March 19, 2010, 07:43:12 PM
It works if the 90mm guns are removed, which shouldn't weight that much anyway because they are mortars instead of true guns.
So sim them with guns that weigh what a historical 90mm mortar would weigh.
Twin mounts need mount and hoist. 6" guns on DDs probably do too, but that's not in the rules...
Obligatory Guinness DD harping: BC is too low.
Can she keep her speed if you bump her to 1,500t light (which would up the BC) and swap the 2x2x6 for 2x2x5 and sim the 90s as whatever weights the same as a 90mm mortar?
If she wasn't purposed for torpedo duty she'd be a destroyer leader and thus have one with several lesser destroyers.
In context she's like a Mini-Kitakami (very mini).
You could probably reduce the lenght by 1.92m.
Jef
QuoteTwin mounts need mount and hoist. 6" guns on DDs probably do too, but that's not in the rules...
For some reason SS2 absolutely hates mount and hoist twin 6" mounts on DDs. And it has nothing to do with weight. Seakeeping goes to hell, as does recoil and other stuff, that shouldn't be affected by that. Besides, mount and hoist is not required for these ships, they would have just enough shells on lockers for their charge. After which they can reload while fleeing at very high speeds.
QuoteCan she keep her speed if you bump her to 1,500t light (which would up the BC) and swap the 2x2x6 for 2x2x5 and sim the 90s as whatever weights the same as a 90mm mortar?
I don't have 5" guns nor twin mounts for them. I could go with 3 4" mounts stacked forward, but the 6" guns make them more unique.
The only question I have is, should I stuff even more torps on her? I can probably stuff in another mount or even use quintuples... Twenty-five torpedo broadsides... Mwuahahahaha!!!
hmmm course since you dont have/arnt developing the tech to even put 16 torps on them, I have to assume its a white elephant as tripple mounts are the best the NS curently have. the drawing actualy only shows 12 mounts. I supose you could start researching the 2K ton DD tech in H219 but you cant even think about quintuple mounts till 1924, and that dosnt even get into the problems of luging around 108 pound shells on a DD. Twin Mounts require Hoists, its in the rules and they apply to all of us evenly, and that dosnt even get into how fun it would be to lug around 100 pound shells on a DD (FYI that 100 pounds is just for the shell not the powder and Case, your looking at like another 30 pounds for the Propelant).
Korpen would be proud of you.
I have difficulty accepting that a hull of this size can handle what you have on it here - let alone more torpedoes.
Yes, you need hoists for the guns. No, one hundred shells doesn't change that - if you want to get by with storage rings on deck, you'll be lucky to have room for ten shells per barrel.
Note your cross-sectional hull strength is a little low.
I really don't think that would be a good idea. Imagine the fireball when just one 5.5'' shell hit it.
Also, just think about how unrealistic this is. The low BC is something that shouldn't be found on a ship this size, just ships under 1,000 tons. Not to mention that this ship has no misc. weight for anything besides torpedoes. That means no FC, no weight reserve, and no specizalized shells for the 3.5'' mortars. That also means that there will be no steel protection at all for the torpedo tubes to prevent just a 40 mm pom-pom from setting off the ship. This ship is bait to fast, machine gun heavy ships.
A perfect dance partner for Demarce IIIb Volcano.
I think, I'll go with the 6x4" version with the third mount between the superstructure and funnel.
QuoteKorpen would be proud of you.
*grumbling...* Hey he's the one that stole my idea. *goes back to planning war of revenge...*
QuoteI have difficulty accepting that a hull of this size can handle what you have on it here - let alone more torpedoes.
The US four-stackers stuffed 12x21" torpedoes on a far smaller ship.
QuoteI really don't think that would be a good idea. Imagine the fireball when just one 5.5'' shell hit it.
Only oxygen-fuel torpedoes tend to go BOOM. And well, that is a risk worth taking. Torpedoes going of where they are are a lot less damaging than a magazine explosion.
QuoteAlso, just think about how unrealistic this is. The low BC is something that shouldn't be found on a ship this size, just ships under 1,000 tons.
A lot of ships have such a BC, here and in WW. Something we live with.
QuoteNot to mention that this ship has no misc. weight for anything besides torpedoes. That means no FC, no weight reserve, and no specizalized shells for the 3.5'' mortars.
Anything that does not serve the role of launching lots of torpedoes at high speeds is nothing more than dead weight. Mortar shells shouldnt be more than a couple hundred pounds.
QuoteThat also means that there will be no steel protection at all for the torpedo tubes to prevent just a 40 mm pom-pom from setting off the ship. This ship is bait to fast, machine gun heavy ships.
A perfect dance partner for Demarce IIIb Volcano.
Why I have the rest of my fleet (and a gazillion destroyers). They take care of the escorts, these take care of the heavy ships.
He is not talking about the torpedoes when he says Fireball....all that powder on the deck and in the magazine...and in the torpedoes....not a friendly mix.
Updated design, even included some protection for the torpedoes.
Ivan class, New Switzerland Super Torpedo Boat laid down 1922
Displacement:
1,500 t light; 1,555 t standard; 1,705 t normal; 1,825 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
410.00 ft / 410.00 ft x 34.20 ft x 11.20 ft (normal load)
124.97 m / 124.97 m x 10.42 m x 3.41 m
Armament:
6 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns (3x2 guns), 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1922 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
2 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns in single mounts, 22.24lbs / 10.09kg shells, 1922 Model
Muzzle loading guns in open barbettes
on centreline, all amidships
4 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 252 lbs / 114 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 140
16 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 0.50" / 13 mm 120.00 ft / 36.58 m 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
3rd: - - 0.10" / 3 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus diesel motors,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 43,660 shp / 32,570 Kw = 35.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 269 tons
Complement:
132 - 172
Cost:
£0.584 million / $2.338 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 32 tons, 1.9 %
Armour: 12 tons, 0.7 %
- Belts: 6 tons, 0.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 6 tons, 0.4 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 966 tons, 56.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 457 tons, 26.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 205 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 33 tons, 1.9 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
305 lbs / 138 Kg = 9.5 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 12.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.30
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.73
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.380
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.99 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 67
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: 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
- Mid (50 %): 12.00 ft / 3.66 m (10.00 ft / 3.05 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Stern: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 11.60 ft / 3.54 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 199.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 28.5 %
Waterplane Area: 8,550 Square feet or 794 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 52 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 33 lbs/sq ft or 159 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 0.67
- Overall: 0.51
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
So it actualy has 12 torps still judging by the picture (as curently noone has the 2K ton DD tech which includes quad launchers) and since you brought up the US 4 pipers, im going to have to point out that they could only fire 6 per side as the mounts were 2 tripple mounts on each beam (and yes it took me a long time to figure that out). If you want to build this Can I would recomend the same arangement of 2 launchers per beam for it.
Could have 4 twin launchers with 1 reload per tube. That would be 16.
Quote from: Sachmle on March 22, 2010, 06:15:06 PM
Could have 4 twin launchers with 1 reload per tube. That would be 16.
Your absolutly correct, but he lists 16 above watter tubes, perhaps 4 of them are Bow tubes that would explain it I supose.
Quote from: Tanthalas on March 22, 2010, 06:21:37 PM
Quote from: Sachmle on March 22, 2010, 06:15:06 PM
Could have 4 twin launchers with 1 reload per tube. That would be 16.
Your absolutly correct, but he lists 16 above watter tubes, perhaps 4 of them are Bow tubes that would explain it I supose.
Some have started listing Torpedoes instead of tubes in the SS. I'm never sure which is the 'approved' way anymore. I list tubes and then list total torps in the misc weight. However I also breakdown my misc weight unlike some.
Maybe he's anticipating having quad carriages by the time he gets around to building it.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on March 22, 2010, 06:35:12 PM
Maybe he's anticipating having quad carriages by the time he gets around to building it.
and 1920 engines (neither of which the NS have started researchingas of their last HY report)
I repeat Guinness' comment, the BC is too low. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. For me, I had to force dropping stuff and compromising on my DD just to get BC above 0.4. Have you drawn a top view of the ship, I'm not quite sure everything will fit.
No FC....never a good idea on a ship of this size.
Unless one plans to always be very close to the enemy in combat....which is generally considered to be too close.
It's four quads, and its a future design.
QuoteI repeat Guinness' comment, the BC is too low. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. For me, I had to force dropping stuff and compromising on my DD just to get BC above 0.4. Have you drawn a top view of the ship, I'm not quite sure everything will fit.
Unless all previous DDs are resimmed (which won't happen) I'll keep the current BC. I need every ounce of fighting power I can get from my ships, I've been screwed enough already by the rules, and my entire DD fleet is borderline obsolescent.
QuoteNo FC....never a good idea on a ship of this size.
FC for 4" guns is a waste of weight and space. Besides this ship will either be shooting at: a) big, slow, unmaneuvering battleships or b) screening DDs at pointblank range.
Fighting against screening destroyers that can hit you with their Fire Control...or slow Battleships that can hit you from far outside your guns range....okay.
I think their point of the BC being low was because it is dangerous...it makes the ship weak if I recall correctly. Something about trouble in high speed/rough water conditons or tight turns...if I'm remembering things correctly. It wasn't as bad on the really tiny ships because there honestly isn't a way to sim really tiny ships in SS2 without that...it gets more noted the larger one gets...though these are still relatively light enough I suppose.
Amusingly, when I was putting together my very first destroyer designs, I recall being told that such craft were too small and unstable to serve as effective medium or long range gunnery platforms no matter what kind of fire control they mounted.
I'm not sure that even a 1500 ton boat really *needs* fc. And this coming from someone who has built FC into every boat over 500t he's designed.
I seem to recall that Friedman spoke to this point in his RN DD books. Something about FC being included for torpedoes, not guns. The Brits at the time were operating on the priniciple that mass long-range torpedo shots would be used as "browning shots" to break up enemy capital ship formations before the RN's own capital ships moved in.
Gunnery, especially around 1920 is another question. If I have time tonight, I'll go looking in Friedman's books to see what he says on that subject. My guess is "FC" was likely nothing more than a central post rangefinder and follow the pointer with no rangetable or "computer" in use.
The mechanical calculators associated with FC are perfectly capable to give a usable resolution to aim torpedo's in a leading angle.
So a simple rangefinder, some estimate of speed, and a run trough the room sized mechanical abbacus can yield some fun things.
Destroyers (WWI) did have fire control for guns - rangefinders, Dreyer tables and whatnot.
Wasn't that just the destroyer leaders?
I vaguely recall some older ones (M?s) refitted, plus all the Vs getting them.