Quote2nd Rate, Japan Warship laid down 1870
Barbette ship
Displacement:
9,089 t light; 9,532 t standard; 10,577 t normal; 11,414 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
393.70 ft / 393.70 ft x 65.62 ft x 19.69 ft (normal load)
120.00 m / 120.00 m x 20.00 m x 6.00 m
Armament:
6 - 9.84" / 250 mm guns (3x2 guns), 385.81lbs / 175.00kg shells, 1870 Model
Breech loading guns in open barbettes
on centreline, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
Weight of broadside 2,315 lbs / 1,050 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 180
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15.7" / 400 mm 275.59 ft / 84.00 m 9.71 ft / 2.96 m
Ends: 1.97" / 50 mm 118.08 ft / 35.99 m 9.71 ft / 2.96 m
Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: - - 15.7" / 400 mm
- Armour deck: 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 15.75" / 400 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 3,400 ihp / 2,537 Kw = 12.11 kts
Range 3,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,882 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
520 - 677
Cost:
£0.645 million / $2.580 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 250 tons, 2.4 %
Armour: 4,153 tons, 39.3 %
- Belts: 1,925 tons, 18.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 519 tons, 4.9 %
- Armour Deck: 1,546 tons, 14.6 %
- Conning Tower: 163 tons, 1.5 %
Machinery: 833 tons, 7.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,672 tons, 34.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,488 tons, 14.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 180 tons, 1.7 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
12,732 lbs / 5,775 Kg = 38.2 x 9.8 " / 250 mm shells or 2.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
Metacentric height 3.9 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 13.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.13
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.728
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.84 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 29 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 71
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Mid (50 %): 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Stern: 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Average freeboard: 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 47.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 63.8 %
Waterplane Area: 21,225 Square feet or 1,972 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 132 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 138 lbs/sq ft or 673 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.10
- Longitudinal: 0.97
- 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
90 tons misc weight and fittings
90 tons junk rig
Few questions/comments:
I think that 1870 is to early for barrettes.
I think that this is a little early for a ship with more then 4 heavy guns. I wonder if 4 is even to much for an 1870 laydown.
Why is 180 RPG necessary?
Why is this considered a 2nd rate (going by the name) when it is much larger then anything I can find until 1875 and beyond?
Open barbettes might be ok. I need to do some research. I can find quickly ships completed as early as 1876 that had them.
If we protest about Tan's ship, there is no way on earth this one is gunna pass the gauntlet. Some of us want ships and don't want to be forced into building mutant Brandenburgers in response to everyone elses.
BTW, your designs are continually more massive then anyone elses. I must ask, why? I'm not even sure if anyone had the capacity to build a moniter of that size in 1870.
Quote from: snip on July 18, 2011, 03:50:47 PMI think that 1870 is to early for barrettes.
My vague memory is that the French adopted barbettes from the get-go, rather than full turrets; a quick glance at Wiki shows them having such in 1876, as Guinness notes, and before that there seems to've been a nearly fifteen year gap.
Mind, I sincerely doubt that there
was such a gap in actual construction, but at this early 'muse over concepts' stage, I haven't yet expended the effort to track down the data on what was there. It seems excessive for what is, essentially, me sketching in pencil on the back of a used envelope.
Quote from: snip on July 18, 2011, 03:50:47 PMI think that this is a little early for a ship with more then 4 heavy guns. I wonder if 4 is even to much for an 1870 laydown.
The hull is shared between this and two other designs; one of the others has three 350mm guns, and the other is a casement gunship designed to deal with smaller craft.
Quote from: snip on July 18, 2011, 03:50:47 PMWhy is 180 RPG necessary?
My own experience with sweating the ammunition totals for Maori ships used for bombardment duty.
Quote from: snip on July 18, 2011, 03:50:47 PMWhy is this considered a 2nd rate (going by the name) when it is much larger then anything I can find until 1875 and beyond?
Because there's another design earning the title of 1st Rate, and since it has much smaller guns it obviously can't be counted in the same class. Eventually, when proper predreadnoughts start showing up, some shining light will get the idea of combining the three supposedly complimentary lineages and wham, continuity.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 18, 2011, 04:15:49 PMBTW, your designs are continually more massive then anyone elses. I must ask, why? I'm not even sure if anyone had the capacity to build a moniter of that size in 1870.
Probably I don't have my instincts recalibrated properly, yet.
I have done some rather extensive research on all topics about guns and mounts on ships lately. Personaly I view Barbs as more of an 1880 thing, pre 1880 (1875 at the earliest). As for number of Heavy guns, well 1860 is the earliest use of 6 guns on on 3 turrets for a ship, and it was 3X2X10" (basicly the same layout shown here) and did 12 knots top end (so I find the 12.1 totaly acceptable). My issue is it did it on about 1/3 your current tonage, used Muzzle Loading guns (which for main guns I feal we all should till around 1880), and I cant find an 1870 ship with anywhere near that heavy of armor (its heavier then the british 1880 ships honestly). for 1870 the range is ok IMHO (My Developer concept is based on a OTL british ship and has 2200@10 in 1865), however I have given up on using tripple turret ships pre 1880 (ok so I have a 1875 CDBB on 3kish tons with 6X10" AQY but thats it pre startup)
OH and as to the ammo loads, uhm barrel life is about 100 rounds on the 11" guns im marginaly basing mine off.
No way that it is too early for barbettes... a barbette is just a turntable with a stationary armor belt around it. Its the equivelent of a stationary mount on land.
A LOT of ships with more than 3 main gun mounts existed in this time. I have no idea why Brandenburg keeps coming up with so many other historic examples out there.
LOL Carth because its the "most famous" and its a spring sharp basic ship (the ones that come pre simmed in SS2 even if they did a bad job at it) as you know I want to go AQY from the get, while I havnt given up on doing it from the get, I am making contingancy plans incase im not allowed to (and honestly I kind of like some of them)
QuoteProbably I don't have my instincts recalibrated properly, yet.
Eh wot?
Quote from: Tanthalas on July 18, 2011, 04:24:12 PMMy issue is it did it on about 1/3 your current tonage, used Muzzle Loading guns (which for main guns I feal we all should till around 1880), and I cant find an 1870 ship with anywhere near that heavy of armor (its heavier then the british 1880 ships honestly). for 1870 the range is ok IMHO (My Developer concept is based on a OTL british ship and has 2200@10 in 1865), however I have given up on using tripple turret ships pre 1880 (ok so I have a 1875 CDBB on 3kish tons with 6X10" AQY but thats it pre startup)
The tonnage difference probably means that I have once again been led by inexperience to use tonnage inefficiently. I'll work on that.
I consider that the triumph of the muzzle-loader over the Armstrong system was political, rather than practically grounded, and am quite willing to endure mod-ruled disadvantage in-game on the subject if they choose to disagree.
Surely my armor fetish can't come as a surprise at this late date.
Quote from: Tanthalas on July 18, 2011, 04:24:12 PMOH and as to the ammo loads, uhm barrel life is about 100 rounds on the 11" guns im marginaly basing mine off.
Huh. Hadn't known that. Hmmm. Will keep that in mind.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 18, 2011, 04:31:36 PMEh wot?
A battleship that's two thirds the size of the (relatively small) Maori Kerykeions and
one third the size of Cross Mirage (quite compact compared to a number of faster vessels with barely half her fighting power) doesn't
feel 'big' to me.
After accounting for suggestions and feedback and going back to the drawing board...
QuoteFirst Rate (Revised), Japan Warship laid down 1870
Barbette ship
Displacement:
8,000 t light; 8,344 t standard; 8,584 t normal; 8,776 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
363.26 ft / 357.94 ft x 59.65 ft x 19.88 ft (normal load)
110.72 m / 109.10 m x 18.18 m x 6.06 m
Armament:
3 - 14.31" / 364 mm guns in single mounts, 1,033.42lbs / 468.75kg shells, 1870 Model
Breech loading guns in open barbettes
on centreline ends, majority aft
Weight of broadside 3,100 lbs / 1,406 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.3" / 364 mm 250.56 ft / 76.37 m 5.96 ft / 1.82 m
Ends: 11.9" / 303 mm 107.35 ft / 32.72 m 5.96 ft / 1.82 m
Upper: 11.9" / 303 mm 250.56 ft / 76.37 m 5.96 ft / 1.82 m
Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: - - 14.3" / 364 mm
- Armour deck: 1.19" / 30 mm, Conning tower: 14.33" / 364 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 5,000 ihp / 3,730 Kw = 13.98 kts
Range 1,500nm at 7.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 432 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
445 - 579
Cost:
£0.775 million / $3.100 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 385 tons, 4.5 %
Armour: 3,022 tons, 35.2 %
- Belts: 1,989 tons, 23.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 523 tons, 6.1 %
- Armour Deck: 380 tons, 4.4 %
- Conning Tower: 129 tons, 1.5 %
Machinery: 1,225 tons, 14.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,068 tons, 35.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 584 tons, 6.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 3.5 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
6,068 lbs / 2,753 Kg = 5.9 x 14.3 " / 364 mm shells or 1.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
Metacentric height 3.1 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 14.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 67 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.30
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.19
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.708
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.92 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 38 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.66 ft / 0.81 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 9.94 ft / 3.03 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 9.94 ft / 3.03 m
- Mid (50 %): 9.94 ft / 3.03 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9.94 ft / 3.03 m
- Stern: 9.94 ft / 3.03 m
- Average freeboard: 9.94 ft / 3.03 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 73.3 %
Waterplane Area: 17,231 Square feet or 1,601 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 133 lbs/sq ft or 651 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.26
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Armor is wrought-iron, not compound or steel.
80 tons junk rigged sails
80 tons misc overruns
No smaller guns?
Also "interesting" choice of gun caliber and armor thickness. Any specific reason for that?
Quote from: Nobody on July 21, 2011, 12:57:36 PM
No smaller guns?
Also "interesting" choice of gun caliber and armor thickness. Any specific reason for that?
I suspect I can answer that, he is using Japanese measurements with 30,3mm to the inch, so the guns are 12 inches, the end and upper belt 10 inches.
I like it! :)
Quote from: Nobody on July 21, 2011, 12:57:36 PM
No smaller guns?
Proly somthing to do with the rules, as most early turret ships had no smaller guns (note I say most not all as there were a few with them)
This early is probably too early for QF guns as it is, so really no need for alternate calibers.
my 1870 BB type calls for I think 4X6" in wing turrets (ok so they are wing deck mounts realy)
Quote from: Korpen on July 21, 2011, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: Nobody on July 21, 2011, 12:57:36 PM
Also "interesting" choice of gun caliber and armor thickness. Any specific reason for that?
I suspect I can answer that, he is using Japanese measurements with 30,3mm to the inch, so the guns are 12 inches, the end and upper belt 10 inches.
I like it! :)
Okay, shall I use one of the Prussian* Inches then? The one from 1755 (26.1545 mm) or the decimal one from 1816 (37.6625 mm)?
Could lead to confusing treaties. I'm only allowed to use 12 Inch guns? No problem that would still be 451.95 mm! ;)
*) of course I could also use units from Baden(1 Inch = 3 cm), Bavaria (1 Inch = either 24.3216 mm or 29.18592 mm) or a Saxon (1 Inch = 23.6 mm)
Korpen has indeed picked out the reason for the measurements.
The main guns have a bore of one shaku, two bu and are hence shakunibu; they fire shells massing 125 kan each, and so forth.
The lack of secondary guns is a direct reflection of their close descent from the 'monitor type'. Plus, of course, anything that gets tagged by a 14.3" gun, even a low-velocity one, during this period is going to be having what you might call a real bad day.
Presumably, international treaties would specify the measurement system used to define their units. Given that Springsharp works quite happily in Metric, the most plausible/universal candidate, I think it's disingenuous to claim that this represents some kind of 'real' increase in complexity for those not interested in investing that much detail in their design practices.
Actually, the more I think about it the more interesting the idea of using different measuring systems becomes. Imagine a ship class were each ship was build on a different yard with slightly different systems. That could be the base for a very good story - if simming them all differently wouldn't be so much work.
oh I agree Nobody, im actualy going the other Direction myself (every ship is a logical extention of the previous class till 1880 when I have a Eureka moment and then go back to making gradual improvements)
This is what I found for the normal Monitor thingy.
I am actually not sure if this is an offical version or if I made this.
Monitor, United States Ironclad laid down 1861
Central citadel ship
Displacement:
897 t light; 979 t standard; 987 t normal; 989 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
172.00 ft / 172.00 ft x 41.50 ft x 10.50 ft (normal load)
52.43 m / 52.43 m x 12.65 m x 3.20 m
Armament:
2 - 11.00" / 279 mm guns (1x2 guns), 376.15lbs / 170.62kg shells, 1861 Model
Muzzle loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret
on centreline amidships
Weight of broadside 752 lbs / 341 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 107.00 ft / 32.61 m 6.00 ft / 1.83 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.00" / 178 mm - -
- Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 216 ihp / 161 Kw = 8.00 kts
Range 300nm at 3.00 kts (Bunkerage = 14 tons)
Complement:
87 - 114
Cost:
£0.120 million / $0.479 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 94 tons, 9.5 %
Armour: 102 tons, 10.3 %
- Belts: 88 tons, 8.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 7 tons, 0.8 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 6 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 67 tons, 6.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 634 tons, 64.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 90 tons, 9.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
336 lbs / 153 Kg = 0.9 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 1.8 ft / 0.5 m
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 11 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.02
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.02
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.461
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.14 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 13.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 26 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 100
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: 0.50 ft / 0.15 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 0.50 ft / 0.15 m
- Mid (50 %): 0.50 ft / 0.15 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 0.50 ft / 0.15 m
- Stern: 0.50 ft / 0.15 m
- Average freeboard: 0.50 ft / 0.15 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 5.0 %
Waterplane Area: 4,595 Square feet or 427 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 128 lbs/sq ft or 623 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.18
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability
Different from what I simmed. I looked at Wiki, and while it is a bit of a guess, using the cross section there, I determined the freeboard to be about 2 feet, which I think is a lot better and safer than the 0.5 feet of the sim you posted.
USS Monitor, Union Monitor laid down 1861
Central citadel ship
Displacement:
985 t light; 1,020 t standard; 1,039 t normal; 1,053 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
172.00 ft / 172.00 ft x 41.50 ft x 10.50 ft (normal load)
52.43 m / 52.43 m x 12.65 m x 3.20 m
Armament:
2 - 11.00" / 279 mm guns (1x2 guns), 133.50lbs / 60.55kg shells, 1861 Model
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret
on centreline amidships
Weight of broadside 267 lbs / 121 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 111.80 ft / 34.08 m 6.00 ft / 1.83 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100% of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 9.00" / 229 mm -
- Armour deck: 0.60" / 15 mm, Conning tower: 9.00" / 229 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 224 ihp / 167 Kw = 8.00 kts
Range 500nm at 5.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 33 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
90 - 118
Cost:
£0.122 million / $0.489 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 94 tons, 9.1%
Armour: 293 tons, 28.2%
- Belts: 121 tons, 11.7%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0%
- Armament: 102 tons, 9.9%
- Armour Deck: 50 tons, 4.8%
- Conning Tower: 20 tons, 1.9%
Machinery: 63 tons, 6.0%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 535 tons, 51.5%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 54 tons, 5.2%
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0%
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
442 lbs / 200 Kg = 1.2 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.04
Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 14.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 32 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.04
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.26
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.485
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.14 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 13.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 27 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 78
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: 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
- Forecastle (20%): 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
- Mid (50%): 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
- Stern: 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
- Average freeboard: 2.00 ft / 0.61 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): 19.0%
Waterplane Area: 4,498 Square feet or 418 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 88%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 102 lbs/sq ft or 499 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.12
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability
Either one shows something that no one may argue with - CHARLIE DON'T SURF!!!
Anyone who takes these boats off a river and onto more than a placid bay deserves to drown.
Charlie only has CANOES! Charlie ain't got a boat like THAT! We You Yanks do did! ;D
That's what you get for sticking to a historical freeboard. The vertical hull sides themselves are only 6 feet high (hence the 6 feet belt). The rest of the underwater hull is at an angle. As a result, SS gives a low and crappy seaboat rating, but considering how SS sims it, I think it is a miracle that it got over 0.25! :D
Quote from: Walter on July 22, 2011, 11:36:23 AM
Charlie only has CANOES! Charlie ain't got a boat like THAT! We You Yanks do did! ;
Who are you calling a Yank?
My family is not now- nor have they ever been- dirty, rotten, yellow-bellied Billy Yanks.
ANd you're right- she was never meant to do anything other than float... and just barely that.
Sorry to tell ya, but after Reconstruction, to the rest of the world...everyone in the United States is a Yank. Everyone. Be they from New York, Maine, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, or California. To the rest of the world, we are all Yanks.
QuoteWho are you calling a Yank?
Not you anyway. :D Monitor was a Union ship and the last time I checked, Alabama is not listed among the Union states. So in reality I was referring to anyone here on the board who hails from *looks for list* California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia or Wisconsin. :D
QuoteMy family is not now- nor have they ever been- dirty, rotten, yellow-bellied Billy Yanks.
Good for you, Johnny Red. :)
QuoteTo the rest of the world, we are all Yanks.
Yes, and you should blame the Yanks for that. ;D
I'd blame the British.
See, guys, thats the difference between me and some others... I don't blame- I educate. :) Just ask the members of H.M.'s Armed Forces I worked with.
QuoteI'd blame the British.
I guess more precisely the evil English, right? :)
QuoteI don't blame- I educate.
So I guess you want to teach us Europeans that it is called the 1st/2nd Battle of Manassas and not the 1st/2nd Battle of Bull Run as 'Those People' call it and that, unlike what 'Those People' say, Sherman was a crazy, murdering, looting, burning and pillaging war criminal who should burn in hell for all the atrocities he and his troops committed. :o ;D
Quote from: Walter on July 23, 2011, 04:55:53 AM
So I guess you want to teach us Europeans that it is called the 1st/2nd Battle of Manassas and not the 1st/2nd Battle of Bull Run as 'Those People' call it and that, unlike what 'Those People' say, Sherman was a crazy, murdering, looting, burning and pillaging war criminal who should burn in hell for all the atrocities he and his troops committed. :o ;D
LOL... all that, in addition to the fact that Andrew Jackson is a lying, murderous bastard who should have been strung up rather than elected President. :D There are a lot of different views on who was 'right' and who was 'oppressed' and by whom when it comes to the early to mid-19th century in my country, Walter. I sit on a different side of those views than the ones taught in public school, I guess. :'( History gets written by the victors- and the opinions of those who get defeated are lost... sometimes.
And Sherman was the worst kind of murdering bastard... his actions during the war are but some of the reasons he should be regarded as a poor example of a human, and more of a bigot than many of the men he fought.
"
The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year, for the more I see of these Indians, the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers."-- General William T. Sherman, USA
I would just like to mention, that I have absolutely no idea what in gods name you are arguing about, ever since someone said "yanks".
Carth is from Alabama, in what would have been part of the Confederate States of America. He takes offense to being called a "Yank" or "Yankee" as that is a term intended to represent those who reside North of the Mason-Dixon line and fought for the Union during the War of Secession (Or US Civil War as it is usually, inaccurately referred to).
As to Sherman, I'm from Ohio (Unfortunately) and I think he was a Monster, I can't imagine what someone from the South thinks of him. When we go to Georgia, we rent a car and tell no one where we are from for fear of shattered windows, flat tires, and spit (or worse) in our food.
Strangely I'm from Georgia, and none of the stuff that bothers Carthaginian seems to both me. I was born astride the northern defensive lines of the city of Atlanta, and I live within spitting distance of the point of view of the Cyclorama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Cyclorama_%26_Civil_War_Museum).
*shrug*
Quote from: Guinness on July 25, 2011, 10:08:31 AM
Strangely I'm from Georgia, and none of the stuff that bothers Carthaginian seems to both me.
*shrugs back*
Some people are bothered by different things.
I've met Welsh and Scots who didn't mind being called 'British' and I met those who'd pull your ears off for the same. I have met people who have native blood- some don't mind being called 'Indians', some want to be called 'Native Americans,' and some insist that they are [insert tribe here] and not to be lumped in with historic enemies- though the feuds are centuries past.
Different cultures, different points of view... sometimes even within the same lines on a map.
I wonder some times why Sherman gets the blame for things he didnt do and doesnt get blamed for some of the things he actually did ???
If the Confederate Troops set fire to their military stores while they are fleeing a city and the fire spreads to most of the City well I guess the guy who didnt arrive in time to put out the fire is truely to blame. :-X
That would I guess make Grant completely responsible for the destruction of Richmond which was largely caused by the Fire set at the Confederate munitions works and armory which set off over 100,000 rounds of munition. Which helped burn down most of the city.
History can be very critical of men who lived in their time and with the values of that time. Lincoln the great amancipator was fully infavor of sending all the Freed slaves back to Africa.
And Sherman got some real bad press in the South considering he broke the back of the Confederacy well that isnt going to make him a popular guy down south. Heck I am not sure he was ever a real popular guy anywhere.
I always contest the idea that "History is written by the victors". I point to the American Civil War. Who wrote the history on that? Southerns usually. Which side gets glorified the most in that war? The South.
But whenever I have two friends from the Northeast and Southeast fightng over the war, I point something out to them...the cause for the war was the West. As Californian I can say we were the cause of the war...the imbalance in Congress as the nation spread west was more a factor than anything else...a balance that had been setup from the start due to the imbalance in population size from north to south. Slavery was a cause for that imbalance due to the slaves not counting for a full person, and that the one does not have large population centers when one is growing massive amounts of export crops...you simply don't have the space for cities when you do that. While in the north, industry happens, and you need lots more labor for that stuff than you do for picking cotton and tabacco. Thus the differences in the House...only being equal in the Senate if the number of states remains equal. So without the West, the balance would be maintained...but with the West...there is a reason for imbalance and the South to walk away and start their own country...because if they didn't they felt the North would dominate them in Congress and enact whatever the hell legislation they wanted without the South being able to do a damn thing.
The irony of this is that they left before Lincoln took office...and he had said that he would do whatever to took to maintain the Union...even bend backwards for the Southern states. They left before he could prove it. If they waited a few months they might have gotten what they wanted from the President. Instead they got blood, glory, and suffering. And a history they won't forget (or let anyone else forget either).
-------------------
On topic:
What sort of ironcladish warships would be suted for the Sea of Japan and the Yello Sea regions?
also desiring to get back on topic- one example that would be what NOT to do might be th former Stonewall, comissioned into the IJN as Koketsu. another would be the massively over-armed Unebi.
a ship that I can think of which was very successful might follow the example of the Elswick cruisers ordered by the Chinese. I used one as the model for my Great Lakes cruiser.
Texy here shall plan war of revenge on Santa Anna. See; we don't really care as much about Sherman as we do about those atrocities carried out by Ureba and Santa Anna (which were arguablly worse; execution of prisoners?)
Actually they were not really atrocities, as they were not prisoners of war but rather traitors. Those captured at Goliad where either Mexican citizens of foreign mercenaries. Neither is covered under rules of war, and both can be executed.
I'd ask about Polish ironclads, but they would be similar to Russian Black Sea designs as well as a Baltic Sea force to counter the Nordic style monitors. That region I have seen designs for. Asia I have seen fewer (well fewer that I like...I never liked the Sino-Japanese War era Chinese warships, and liked some of the Japanese warships)
I think Poland is too limited; you're caged into the Baltic. Korea is probably a better choice...
My reasons for hoping Ithekro will prefer Poland are entirely selfish; if Korea isn't controlled by a player, then I'll have a much easier time inducing and taking advantage of a civil war there.
That said, I'm honestly kind of surprised that no one's compared these designs to HMS Monarch. I'm thinking a little of her and a little of the Italian Duilios, I'd say... I want to say that there was a turret ship the CSA ordered overseas that was a much more successful design than Monitor, but I haven't been able to find her again on Wiki, so that could be a complete illusion on my part.
Looking on the Europe map N4 Poland seems to be the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth) minus parts of historical Kaiser's Germany. So modern day Poland (minus parts of Prussia), Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, and Latvia.
I'd disagree with that, mainly cause "The victors write the history". Besides, I don't think that those at Goliad were "mercenaries"; volunteers from another nations might describe it better.
In any case, Santa Anna's treatment of prisoners, from the Yucatan to Zacatares (spelling?) to Texas to Vera Cruz...all over, was simply atrocious. The fate of the Mier Expedition, with the bean out of a pot execution of members of a nation Mexico recognized, was espicially gruelling.
The Confederate turret ships would be the British built HMS Wivern and HMS Scorpion
CSS Stonewall had a turret. It was French built. Her sister ship SMS Prinz Adalbert had one as well.
Denmark was had no turrets, but was British built.
Like you said "Victors write history" and in this case Texas won...
That said Santa Anna was particularly brutal, heck I don't like the guy. But during this time period, it was normal to do such sort of stuff. Had the signers of the Declaration of Independence been caught they would have hung as traitors, and most of the members of the Saint Patrick's Battalion where executed by the US military despite fighting in the uniform of the Mexican Army.
BTW, what is "La Raza"? Some people in Tahoe were trying to get me to donate to "free Texas and southwest America from Anglo oppression"
The Scorpion class are the ships I was thinking of, thanks, Ithekro.
The only reference my brain returns for 'La Raza' is a Journey song, sorry.
Quote from: Valles on July 25, 2011, 08:37:06 PM
The Scorpion class are the ships I was thinking of, thanks, Ithekro.
I simed them actualy, I was considering building a few as "Cruisers"
Quote1st Rate (Light), Japan Warship laid down 1870
Barbette ship
Displacement:
3,500 t light; 3,690 t standard; 3,986 t normal; 4,223 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(254.49 ft / 248.52 ft) x 44.75 ft x (19.88 / 20.89 ft)
(77.57 m / 75.75 m) x 13.64 m x (6.06 / 6.37 m)
Armament:
3 - 11.93" / 303 mm 20.0 cal guns - 661.39lbs / 300.00kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in open barbette mounts, 1870 Model
2 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
1 x Single mount on centreline, aft deck forward
Weight of broadside 1,984 lbs / 900 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.9" / 303 mm 149.11 ft / 45.45 m 8.04 ft / 2.45 m
Ends: 1.77" / 45 mm 99.38 ft / 30.29 m 8.04 ft / 2.45 m
Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: - - 11.9" / 303 mm
- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 1.18" / 30 mm
Forecastle: 1.18" / 30 mm Quarter deck: 1.18" / 30 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 11.93" / 303 mm, Aft 11.93" / 303 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 2,003 ihp / 1,494 Kw = 12.21 kts
Range 1,500nm at 10.07 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 533 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
250 - 326
Cost:
£0.247 million / $0.987 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 180 tons, 4.5 %
- Guns: 180 tons, 4.5 %
Armour: 1,400 tons, 35.1 %
- Belts: 707 tons, 17.7 %
- Armament: 383 tons, 9.6 %
- Armour Deck: 181 tons, 4.5 %
- Conning Towers: 129 tons, 3.2 %
Machinery: 491 tons, 12.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,356 tons, 34.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 486 tons, 12.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 74 tons, 1.9 %
- Hull below water: 37 tons
- Above deck: 37 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
4,454 lbs / 2,020 Kg = 7.5 x 11.9 " / 303 mm shells or 1.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.30
Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 12.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.55
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.65
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.631 / 0.636
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.55 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.76 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 40 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 16.70 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.98 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 9.94 ft / 3.03 m, 9.94 ft / 3.03 m
- Forward deck: 25.00 %, 9.94 ft / 3.03 m, 9.94 ft / 3.03 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 9.94 ft / 3.03 m, 9.94 ft / 3.03 m
- Quarter deck: 20.00 %, 9.94 ft / 3.03 m, 9.94 ft / 3.03 m
- Average freeboard: 9.94 ft / 3.03 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 56.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 62.3 %
Waterplane Area: 8,230 Square feet or 765 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 134 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 115 lbs/sq ft or 562 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.89
- Longitudinal: 2.90
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Cramped accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
37 tons extra weights
37 tons junk rig
Wrought-iron armor
Quote from: TexanCowboy on July 25, 2011, 08:22:59 PM
BTW, what is "La Raza"? Some people in Tahoe were trying to get me to donate to "free Texas and southwest America from Anglo oppression"
"La Raza" = "The Race". They claim the southwestern U.S. was "settled by the Mexicans first and stolen" and advocate ethnic cleansing of Anglos from it. >_>
Cool ship. ^_^
Quote from: Ithekro on July 25, 2011, 08:06:25 PM
CSS Stonewall had a turret.
Eh... I think it had a bow casemate that could fire as a chaser or into either broadside- but the Conway's entry does not show a true 'turret.'
What about in the back? It looks like a turret, but I don't think it is powered...could be a round gunhouse? ( the holes seem to be in odd places). It is called a turret, but not an Ericsson/Cole style turret. More like a castle turret...though I wonder why they holes don't face broadside.
"La Raza" fails to remember that:
A) They asked for people to come settle Texas.
B) Texas fought a revolution against them and won.
C) The Americans won the Mexican War 12 years later.
D) Even though the Americans won that war, they still paid Mexico for the land. (18 million US dollars and the forgivenesss any debt the Mexican goverment had to any U.S. Citizens.)
E) The southern most part of New Mexico and Arizona was purchased from the Mexican governement with no war for 10 milliion US dollars. (for the railroad)
F) Roughly 1% of the Mexican population was in the land the American took from them (which they took from Spain, who took it from the natives).
G) The discovery of gold in California right after the war was a fluke. Had it happened earlier, the asking price would have gone up and the Mexicans (or Spanish even) would have defended it much more than they did historically. Had it happened later, the extra drive west would have been delayed, perhaps reducing the increasing number of states by a bit and stalling the beginning of the Civil War even more (it could have started in 1850 when California became a state if cooler heads had not stopped it...and if the President hadn't died).
H) Had the Americans not had such a large problem with the idea of Catholics in their Protestant country (or more likely the idea of Indian "mix breed"/non-white people becoming US citzens) they might have just annexed the entire country of Mexico in 1848.
Quote from: Ithekro on July 25, 2011, 10:49:07 PM
What about in the back? It looks like a turret, but I don't think it is powered...could be a round gunhouse? (is so the hole seem to be in odd places).
Just an armored broadside gun battery... nothing as fancy as a turret.
Stonewall though powerful, was a really crappy ship made too tall of freeboard and too shallow of draft.
She was a very bad seaboat, and not exactly what any navy would want unless they intended her to operate on a large river.
The Japanese seemed to like it...though probably because it was powerful and no other reason.