OK...
Delta - 'Adjusted Speed' isn't what the ship can make all the time; it is what the ship can make in flat water with almost no wind. You're seldom going to see these guys making the adjusted speed.
Also
you do not have enough machinery weight.
QuoteIf you build to 0.5 Cross Sectional/0.5 Composite and have >60% Machinery Weight, you get a fairly accurate torpedo boat...
You just have to ignore the >24 knot 'Light, Fast Combatant' warning when you do it.
None of your designs have >60% machinery weights, so
none of these ships are valid.
Sorry; they cannot be built.
============================================================================
Jef - depending on your placement on the map, torpedo boats could be a great asset or completely useless. It's all about the needs of a particular nation.
First of all, it does not read as being mandatory. It just says that if you do that, you get a fairly accurate torpedoboat.
Secondly, mayby I am blind but I cannot find it in the "Design Rules for Gentlemen... and Scoundrels".
Quote from: Walter on June 05, 2012, 10:50:40 AM
First of all, it does not read as being mandatory. It just says that if you do that, you get a fairly accurate torpedoboat.
Secondly, mayby I am blind but I cannot find it in the "Design Rules for Gentlemen... and Scoundrels".
It never received any feedback- positive or negative- so I never added it.
I wanted to present the option, hear some input from the community and then make the final decision... much like the discussion K and had about liners. No discussion was forthcoming, so I just kind of let this slip to the back burner for 'lack of interest.'
Thus, in a way, you're right that it isn't mandatory to build to >60% machinery weight... technically, these carft can't be built
at all under any conditions as things stand ATM. But should everyone like the idea of torpedo boats, we will have them added to the design rules and they will have to have >60% that much weight devoted to machinery.
Quote from: Carthaginian on June 05, 2012, 11:16:26 AM
Quote from: Walter on June 05, 2012, 10:50:40 AM
First of all, it does not read as being mandatory. It just says that if you do that, you get a fairly accurate torpedoboat.
Secondly, mayby I am blind but I cannot find it in the "Design Rules for Gentlemen... and Scoundrels".
It never received any feedback- positive or negative- so I never added it.
I wanted to present the option, hear some input from the community and then make the final decision... much like the discussion K and had about liners. No discussion was forthcoming, so I just kind of let this slip to the back burner for 'lack of interest.'
Thus, in a way, you're right that it isn't mandatory to build to >60% machinery weight... technically, these carft can't be built at all under any conditions as things stand ATM. But should everyone like the idea of torpedo boats, we will have them added to the design rules and they will have to have >60% that much weight devoted to machinery.
What rule are these, and my second class TBs, breaking? They seem to be legal by the current rules as written.
I'm NOT in favor of a requirement for +60% machinery, because it will fail miserably in later years as boilers and turbines become more efficient.
Quotetechnically, these carft can't be built at all under any conditions as things stand ATM.
I don't know about that. As I see it, the "Design Rules for Gentlemen... and Scoundrels" says we can... and so does "the Agreement upon Limitations for Naval Vessels"... so I am kind of confused by your words. :-\
Quoteit will fail miserably in later years as boilers and turbines become more efficient.
That is easily solved. Warp Speed, Mr. Sulu. ;D
I managed to find the quote, but it is indeed not in the rules: http://www.navalism.org/index.php/topic,5790.msg75736.html#msg75736
I think that a 60% machinery limit may be too strict because even the example given by Carthaginian is barely within the limits. It will be even more difficult to achieve 60% with the larger torpedo boats as ships up to 500 tons are included, and those larger ships are going to devote more tonnage to armor and armament than smaller ships because at that point speed and size are not going to provide enough protection.
Ok so I split this off so we dont clog Delta's ship thread.
I also feel that 60% is a bit steep, but feel that we do need a cap. In the previous restart attempts a limit of 50% was adopted. I think that 50% serves as a bit better baseline as it allows for slighly more variation. The cap is needed so we dont get people building ubber gunboats that are effectively ultralight under DD rules.
Quote from: Walter on June 05, 2012, 11:30:47 AM
Quoteit will fail miserably in later years as boilers and turbines become more efficient.
That is easily solved. Warp Speed, Mr. Sulu. ;D
Heh. I've tried to get to +60% machinery on my 1908 TBS design, and to do that you have to try to drive it at 27 knots, which drives the cross-sectional strength down to 0.49 with a 0 nm range at 20 knots. Ie, it's not possible, and that's not even considering the horrendous seakeeping at 27 knots (0.21). Even switching to pure oil firing (not allowed, but worth testing) doesn't help, you still have a range of 0 nm (though the cross-sectional strength is now up to 0.50).
Quote from: KWorld on June 05, 2012, 11:21:58 AM
What rule are these, and my second class TBs, breaking? They seem to be legal by the current rules as written.
I'm NOT in favor of a requirement for +60% machinery, because it will fail miserably in later years as boilers and turbines become more efficient.
These specifically don't meet the >24 knotrequirement for 'Light, Fast Combatant' base speed in Springsharp; your light TB does not meet this requirement, either.
Thus, the designs cannot be built.Having a 60% machinery requirement is there to ensure that a proper amount of ship displacement is devoted to engine weight... to prevent people from building slow mini-ships to destroyer rules and overloading them with weaponry. There has to be some kind of limiting agent to ensure that the designs stay reasonable, and since the engine is the heaviest part of a small torpedo boat, that is why I chose it. I simmed multiple Japanese torpedo boats (among the earliest) and a couple of British and French ones (possibly the earliest) as well. The results consistently gave me a >60% engine weight.
Pull out a copy of Conway's and give it a go for yourself. It's pretty reliable.
I could see
possibly see lowering the weights required to 55% if a good case could be made... but nothing will really get me to go lower than that. Springsharp occasionally requires artificial 'corrections' because of it's flaws- we know this. Ensuring that engines take up an appropriate weight is just one of those.
Quote from: Walter on June 05, 2012, 11:30:47 AM
Quotetechnically, these carft can't be built at all under any conditions as things stand ATM.
I don't know about that. As I see it, the "Design Rules for Gentlemen... and Scoundrels" says we can... and so does "the Agreement upon Limitations for Naval Vessels"... so I am kind of confused by your words. :-\
Quoteit will fail miserably in later years as boilers and turbines become more efficient.
That is easily solved. Warp Speed, Mr. Sulu. ;D
Springsharp says you can't.
The rules say you can build the ships...
if you can get them to work in Springsharp. As I realize this is well nigh impossible, I wanted to add some looser requirements
specifically for these ships. Remember, Rule #1 says that we use Springsharp 3.0b3 to build ships; if you can't build it in Springsharp, then you can't build it. ;)
And yes, this will HOPEFULLY also allow us to build the extremely fast light TBs of later time periods... and can be adjusted later if need be.
This one's legal by SS3.3, but not by the +60% rule.
TBS-08, Columbiad Republic Torpedo Boat, Second Class laid down 1908
Displacement:
99 t light; 102 t standard; 111 t normal; 118 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(123.75 ft / 123.03 ft) x 11.48 ft x (7.22 / 7.50 ft)
(37.72 m / 37.50 m) x 3.50 m x (2.20 / 2.29 m)
Armament:
2 - 1.97" / 50.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 3.85lbs / 1.74kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1908 Model
2 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 0.43" / 11.0 mm 90.0 cal guns - 0.04lbs / 0.02kg shells, 1,200 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1905 Model
4 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 8 lbs / 4 kg
Main Torpedoes
2 - 17.7" / 450 mm, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m torpedoes - 0.901 t each, 1.801 t total
In 1 sets of deck mounted centre rotating tubes
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 3,179 shp / 2,371 Kw = 24.00 kts Trial speed = 29.66 kts
Range 130nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 15 tons (90% coal)
Caution: Delicate, lightweight machinery
Complement:
16 - 22
Cost:
£0.013 million / $0.051 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 6 tons, 5.1 %
- Guns: 2 tons, 1.8 %
- Weapons: 4 tons, 3.3 %
Machinery: 63 tons, 56.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 31 tons, 27.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 12 tons, 10.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
24 lbs / 11 Kg = 6.2 x 2.0 " / 50 mm shells or 0.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 0.2 ft / 0.1 m
Roll period: 9.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 42 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.21
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.68
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.380 / 0.388
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.71 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 11.09 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 72 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 8.20 ft / 2.50 m, 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 6.56 ft / 2.00 m, 5.74 ft / 1.75 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 5.74 ft / 1.75 m, 5.74 ft / 1.75 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 5.74 ft / 1.75 m, 5.74 ft / 1.75 m
- Average freeboard: 6.16 ft / 1.88 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 187.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 43.2 %
Waterplane Area: 858 Square feet or 80 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 31 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 14 lbs/sq ft or 66 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 4.77
- Overall: 0.62
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Extremely poor accommodation and workspace room
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability
Well, SS told me I can build them... but then I realized that it is about the really small TBs that are simmed with a speed <24 knots while mine are somewhat bigger and >24 knots. Silly me. :-[
The problem with the 24+ knot speed limit is that it would mean torpedo boats under 210 tons in 1895 would have a top speed of around 30 knots. That is quite speedy, and from what I have seen from US torpedo boats of the era (they were 180 tons and of course from only one nation, so this might not always hold true) nothing went that fast.
I think that a machinery tonnage of 55% or possibly 50% is best. Most of the torpedo boat designs that have been put up thus far are within the 55-60% ballpark range. That said, I am not sure if we need strict limits on machinery weight as we do not have specific tonnage categories at start, so "cheating" to get into one category or another is not that large a concern. I guess it would allow you to get "bonus" speed and have to devote less to the engines, but that "bonus" speed helps out the most at very high speeds where ever more power is going into kicking up a big wave and trying to overcome drag as opposed to propelling the ship forward. The biggest boost comes for those ships under 250 tons, and I don't think that we have to worry too much about someone piling up a massive amount of armament on such a small hull, so 50% machinery does not seem too extreme.
Quote from: Delta Force on June 05, 2012, 12:04:12 PM
The problem with the 24+ knot speed limit is that it would mean torpedo boats under 210 tons in 1895 would have a top speed of around 30 knots. That is quite speedy, and from what I have seen from US torpedo boats of the era (they were 180 tons and of course from only one nation, so this might not always hold true) nothing went that fast.
I think that a machinery tonnage of 55% or possibly 50% is best. Most of the torpedo boat designs that have been put up thus far are within the 55-60% ballpark range. That said, I am not sure if we need strict limits on machinery weight as we do not have specific tonnage categories at start, so "cheating" to get into one category or another is not that large a concern. I guess it would allow you to get "bonus" speed and have to devote less to the engines, but that "bonus" speed helps out the most at very high speeds where ever more power is going into kicking up a big wave and trying to overcome drag as opposed to propelling the ship forward. The biggest boost comes for those ships under 250 tons, and I don't think that we have to worry too much about someone piling up a massive amount of armament on such a small hull, so 50% machinery does not seem too extreme.
Ok... first off the limit isn't about 'categories', it's about 'overloading.'
I don't want to see 'torpedo boats' with 16 torpedoes flying around our oceans.
I'm trying to get a good balance of 'historic small TB' and 'SS crazy NEDS' in our designs. The heavy engine weight limits are to ensure that ships don't get to capable for their size. There was even a discussion on the previous incarnation about limiting DD's to ">X% Machinery" because of a similar problem.
Delta,
Trial Speed is not Top Speed. :)
The Trial Speed is what the ship can make in calm seas with a clean bottom and generally just a light load of fuel. It's not what the ship will make loaded under normal operational conditions. You can generally bet that you're going to loose a knot or so off your service speed under most conditions. Ships like this will seldom do more than their SS speed... though I'm planning on this being the way I score them in the battle sims:
Trial Speed = only in perfect conditions
SS Speed = Speed in Service
Poor Weather = TS - 50%
Bad Weather = tied alongside a pier with the crew in barracks
Poor weather is going to be anything between 5-10' seas.
Anything beyond that, and the little buggers simply can't sail.
I know that trial speeds are wildly optimistic, but I don't think that torpedo boats of 1895 managed to go anywhere near 30 knots even during their trials. 24+ knots to get into the light and fast category is very hard to get seeing as many torpedo boats of the 1890s were within a few knots of that base speed even in the best of conditions. Making all ships have to reach 24+ knots in effect means the 1895 torpedo boats are reaching speeds of nearly 30 knots for their trials.
Quote from: Delta Force on June 05, 2012, 12:36:14 PM
I know that trial speeds are wildly optimistic, but I don't think that torpedo boats of 1895 managed to go anywhere near 30 knots even during their trials. 24+ knots to get into the light and fast category is very hard to get seeing as many torpedo boats of the 1890s were within a few knots of that base speed even in the best of conditions. Making all ships have to reach 24+ knots in effect means the 1895 torpedo boats are reaching speeds of nearly 30 knots for their trials.
So, should the Trial Speed item be dropped entirely?
http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=2066
This would be considered if people think it appropriate.
Maybe just dropping it for pre-startup TBs and DDs, or ships under a set tonnage (ex. 500t normal)? Do recall that the trial calculator was originally intended for light displacement.
Wiki indicates that Turbinia's top speed was 34.5 knots. How much slower would she be with a pair of torpedoes?
Quote from: Carthaginian on June 05, 2012, 12:42:21 PM
Quote from: Delta Force on June 05, 2012, 12:36:14 PM
I know that trial speeds are wildly optimistic, but I don't think that torpedo boats of 1895 managed to go anywhere near 30 knots even during their trials. 24+ knots to get into the light and fast category is very hard to get seeing as many torpedo boats of the 1890s were within a few knots of that base speed even in the best of conditions. Making all ships have to reach 24+ knots in effect means the 1895 torpedo boats are reaching speeds of nearly 30 knots for their trials.
So, should the Trial Speed item be dropped entirely?
http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=2066
This would be considered if people think it appropriate.
I suppose ships being unable to reach 30+ knots is really more of the exception than the rule. You are right to point out that around the turn of the century torpedo boats started to near speeds closer to 30 knots. Perhaps we should have some kind of cutoff date for the 24 knots rule to come into effect? I doubt that 1895 ships are going to be able to reach it, but by 1910, if the current system makes it possible, we should have torpedo boats that are able to surpass 30 knots quite easily.
Quote from: snip on June 05, 2012, 12:55:58 PM
Maybe just dropping it for pre-startup TBs and DDs, or ships under a set tonnage (ex. 500t normal)? Do recall that the trial calculator was originally intended for light displacement.
My intent for trial speed is that the
service speed can be <24 kts as long as the
trial speed is >24 kts.
This is the whole reasoning behind bringing trial speed in anyway.
When simming the oddball
Hayabusa, I noted that the Service Speed was in line with the other TB speeds on the page, but that the Trial Speed was in line with the one given by G's calculator. This made me think that the speed given for it was trial, while the slower speed for other vessels were service speeds.
Quote from: Carthaginian on June 05, 2012, 01:04:32 PM
Quote from: snip on June 05, 2012, 12:55:58 PM
Maybe just dropping it for pre-startup TBs and DDs, or ships under a set tonnage (ex. 500t normal)? Do recall that the trial calculator was originally intended for light displacement.
My intent for trial speed is that the service speed can be <24 kts as long as the trial speed is >24 kts.
This is the whole reasoning behind bringing trial speed in anyway.
When simming the oddball Hayabusa, I noted that the Service Speed was in line with the other TB speeds on the page, but that the Trial Speed was in line with the one given by G's calculator. This made me think that the speed given for it was trial, while the slower speed for other vessels were service speeds.
That is something I think should happen, I was concerned that they had to hit at least 24 knots in SpringSharp. If you cannot hit 24 knots you do not really have a torpedo boat.
DD & TS didn't need added rules.
We have enough constraints:
- Cross sectionnal limit to 0.5
- Date - 1901 is "better" than 1896... of course!!!
- Engine technos
- Coal... with 10% oil.
We can just made very small adjustements for our personnal conception.
The only rule that we could add is the minimal speed: 24kts
Jef
Quote from: Jefgte on June 05, 2012, 03:22:17 PM
DD & TS didn't need added rules.
We have enough constraints:
- Cross sectionnal limit to 0.5
- Date - 1901 is "better" than 1896... of course!!!
- Engine technos
- Coal... with 10% oil.
We can just made very small adjustements for our personnal conception.
The only rule that we could add is the minimal speed: 24kts
Jef
The problem with a simple speed requirement is that while 24 knots might be a good speed for an early torpedo boat, in a few years that will be easily achievable by even a heavily armed gunboat. Also, at 24 knots 25% of the best case speed will be coming from the "bonus" speed.
Jef, surly you remember the ultra-light cruisers that got built under the DD rules in N3. I only read the relevant threads and saw the designs later as it was before my time, but that is not something I want to have happen again.
As on of those guilty of DD cruisers, I gotta say that even some of them would have been able to use the speed boost.
Comments as a player/rulemaker:
Without being able to test things (at work with a non-SS equipped comp), 55% seems about right to me. With the desire on my end to keep things rule-light, I would propose that we adopt the 55% of normal displacement ,how it is displayed in the weight breakdown section of SS reports, as a component of the rules for DDs and other "light fast combatants" in place of the 24knts floor. I think being able to game the system to make ultra-light cruisers would be hard if not imposible, and with that in mind I invite someone (*cough*Foxy*cough*) to try and break this proposal. I will try as well when I have a comp with SS available this evening.
Comment as a mod:
Great discussion here guys. Makes me feel that Carth and I made the right call with the rule setup. Keep up the great work!
Quote
Jef, surly you remember the ultra-light cruisers that got built under the DD rules in N3. I only read the relevant threads and saw the designs later as it was before my time, but that is not something I want to have happen again.
N3- Spakreuzer...
CL use 6" gun a big DD use not.
You forget too TB, DD & CL displacement min & max allowed in each category.
Copnfusion is not possible.
Note, I have posted last week DE1-1909-995t-
10x100+4TTx450-
24kts-without reaction.
This DE is made to protect BBs & ECs vs DDs actions. That's all.
Jef
Quick and dirty, mini-cruiser, machinery at 62%:
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1910
Displacement:
1,056 t light; 1,100 t standard; 1,152 t normal; 1,194 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(300.00 ft / 300.00 ft) x 28.00 ft x (12.00 / 12.28 ft)
(91.44 m / 91.44 m) x 8.53 m x (3.66 / 3.74 m)
Armament:
4 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1910 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 252 lbs / 114 kg
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 3 shafts, 37,242 shp / 27,782 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 1,500nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 94 tons (90% coal)
Complement:
98 - 128
Cost:
£0.149 million / $0.598 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 38 tons, 3.3 %
- Guns: 38 tons, 3.3 %
Machinery: 718 tons, 62.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 299 tons, 26.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 96 tons, 8.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
214 lbs / 97 Kg = 3.4 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.39
Metacentric height 1.3 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 10.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.29
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.81
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.400 / 0.405
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.71 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.32 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 70 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m, 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 11.00 ft / 3.35 m, 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 11.00 ft / 3.35 m, 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Average freeboard: 12.40 ft / 3.78 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 211.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 119.8 %
Waterplane Area: 5,171 Square feet or 480 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 33 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 30 lbs/sq ft or 144 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.48
- Longitudinal: 2.10
- Overall: 0.56
Extremely poor machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Adequate accommodation and workspace room
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
55% min for the engines ?
Jef
This is not a cruiser Foxy, the mini displacement required in the rules for a cruiser is 3000t
QuoteSection 5.03 Light Cruisers
A Light Cruiser, shall for the purposes of this treaty, heretofore be classified by the following qualifications. Any ship meeting one of these qualifications shall be termed a Medium Cruiser.
(a) a vessel with four or more guns of no greater than 6.1"/155mm.
(b) a vessel with no more than two guns of 7.64"/180mm, and which mounts an equal or greater number of secondary guns greater than 6.1"/155mm.
(c) a vessel of more than 3,000 tons normal load.
A Light Cruiser may not in any way exceed the following qualifications.
(a) a vessel with a displacement of greater than 6,000 tons normal load.
(b) no aircraft may be embarked in any way aboard a light cruiser.
This is a DD
Jef, Foxy's attempting to produce a mini-cruiser that can be built within the DD ruleset. This has no bearing on the treaty text. Yes, my proposal would have the DD rules contain a min of 55% of total wieght for engines.
Foxy, While that is quite a powerful DD there are a few issues with it. Cross sectional is below .50 and some of her other charicteristcs are questionable at best. Can you trim the engines to 55% of the displacement and see what comes out?
Guys... this isn't about confusing the classifications.
The powerplant restrictions DO NOT need to apply to destroyers or cruisers, Jef.
This is about finding a systems that will allow us to build the small torpedo craft that existed in the late 1800s and down as far as the 1920's. It is VERY VERY HARD to make them work in SS. I was simply trying to make the Torpedo Boat category a bit more workable.
Well, seems I got confused as well :o
On the topic of mini cruisers, after playing a bit more with the above design:
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1910
Displacement:
1,138 t light; 1,195 t standard; 1,250 t normal; 1,294 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(323.00 ft / 320.00 ft) x 29.00 ft x (12.00 / 12.27 ft)
(98.45 m / 97.54 m) x 8.84 m x (3.66 / 3.74 m)
Armament:
6 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1910 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck aft
Weight of broadside 378 lbs / 172 kg
Main Torpedoes
6 - 20.0" / 508 mm, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m torpedoes - 1.689 t each, 10.136 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
Mines
50 - 500.00 lbs / 226.80 kg mines - 11.161 t total
in Above water - Stern racks/rails
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
- Conning towers: Forward 1.00" / 25 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm
Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 3 shafts, 28,792 shp / 21,479 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 1,500nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 100 tons (90% coal)
Complement:
104 - 136
Cost:
£0.157 million / $0.628 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 84 tons, 6.7 %
- Guns: 58 tons, 4.6 %
- Weapons: 27 tons, 2.1 %
Armour: 10 tons, 0.8 %
- Armament: 8 tons, 0.6 %
- Conning Tower: 3 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 708 tons, 56.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 309 tons, 24.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 112 tons, 9.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 27 tons, 2.2 %
- Hull above water: 15 tons
- On freeboard deck: 12 tons
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
244 lbs / 111 Kg = 3.9 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.25
Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 11.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.46
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.04
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.393 / 0.398
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.03 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.89 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 65 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 67
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 25.00 %, 17.00 ft / 5.18 m, 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 11.00 ft / 3.35 m, 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Aft deck: 30.00 %, 11.00 ft / 3.35 m, 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 11.00 ft / 3.35 m, 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Average freeboard: 12.50 ft / 3.81 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 198.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 108.5 %
Waterplane Area: 5,685 Square feet or 528 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 45 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 30 lbs/sq ft or 144 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.82
- Overall: 0.57
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Adequate accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
How about allowing transom sterns on torpedo boats? Provided they meet certain criteria, like say over 20kts and under 200 tons, and they get say an automatic 10% boost in regular speed?
Quote from: Desertfox on June 05, 2012, 06:49:34 PM
How about allowing transom sterns on torpedo boats? Provided they meet certain criteria, like say over 20kts and under 200 tons, and they get say an automatic 10% boost in regular speed?
No.
Too far out of period.
Call back in the 30's.