UNK Dreadnought

[Korpen]

Redesign: Upper Deck extended the full length of the Ship/draught increased 2.5'/Redesigned Bulges/TDS consists of 1" 48' splinter-2" 30' main bulkhead-1" 30' sec. bulkhead-1" 24' armored bulge/Turrets redesigned to fit 14"L45 Guns-6" top 7" side/Barbettes 12" above deck 8" below(33% to 50%Coverage)/Magazine Capacity Reduced/Armor deck is 3" Main-1" Decap over Citadel(65%)/Fire Control and Radar Fitted/Torpedos removed/New Oil Fired Machinery Used-Q Turret removed to Fit in extra Boilers and Machinery/Oil Bunkerage reduced/Main Belt thickness increased/Upper belt extended to cover new Upper deck/Secondaries revised-uses older 5"  guns(Savings:$0.25 0.125BP)

Misc. Weight(275 Tons)
250 Tons Fire Control/Wireless Set
25 Tons Huelsmeyer

UK 14" /45 Mark I: 1,586lb ROF=2
US 5"/40 Mark 2-4: 50lb ROF=12
US 3"/50 QF Mark 1-8: 13 lb ROF=15-20
UK 1.85"/50 3 pdr Vickers QF Mark I: 3.3 lb ROF=25

History: The ships have been much delayed in construction and came to the edge of being scrapped or sold. Halted at 20% total completion (much of the lower hull had been completed, a few of the guns ordered, and some of the engines ordered), as steel and resources were diverted to other projects. The plans have been modified (the lower hull completely unchanged) and modernized and will begin construction again shortly.

Great pains were taken to assure that Turrets and Engine weights would match(at the same draught-so as to not stress hull). Additional Charges of $1.9/0.93BP each(50%1909 engines/2x13.4" guns(2H-09 Report)-using $1.48 1.37BP from Monarch overpayment=$1.16/0.25BP total each)

Would it not be much simpler to simply to build a new ship from the keel up? Should be cheaper as well considering the lower part have be left rusting outside for the last four years (and as we have no real rules for modifying ships during constructions other the "please do not"). When does the modification happen, the report here does not mention that but i am guessing that it will be in 1913 as i did not find any recourses spent on them  in 1912, am I correct? (might be wrong as I have some real troubles deciphering the UNK reports).

Also curious as to the motivation for such a radical rebuild?

EDIT: Oh, and a drwaing over the intended armour scheme would be nice, as "21 inch armoured bulge" and uch of the other  is quite confusing, remember, a single picture says more then a thousand words! ;)

[Blooded]

Hello,

When I jumped into Navalism, i felt no fleet could have so few support vessels(only two ancient-overdue colliers and two landing ships). Tail to teeth is more like 10 to 1. So that became my focus. I also realized I needed more dreadnoughts. Other ships became a priority though. After screwing up my SS files(first using SS3, then too high of BCs, then support 'civilian' ships with turbines,etc ad nauseum) and reports a million times I felt I should readdress the lack of drednoughts.

With each redesign I have tried to stay at the same price/weight/ and dock size(which I only discovered was an issue a short time ago). The dreads started out as short ships with .7BC- I didn't find out until much later this was illegal by reading other posts. To bring to ships inline with rules and my cost/wieght criteria often was difficult.

I realized also that they were weak designs so I tried making them into Texas style ships(only too discover that-turrets and engines so stress the hull that they can really only be modified small amounts or the hull could crackup so adding a 5th turret was out-ala the Japanese rebuilds) once again back to the drawing boards. I have tried to incorporate each rule as I have discovered it(thus so many rebuilds-each half year report shows a different weight and cost-but I have always gone back to the originals to redesign)

I should have saved myself the grief and posted my designs for critique( I havent done so due to time issues and general embarrassment of the designs themselves and lack of skill with SS). I have gotten the impression that posting designs is a requirement(though it is not stated in the rules that I could find).

Scrapping was considered many times and selling to other nations was bandied about as well. Since UNK started without any L3 Docks, my size limits were greatly hindered(only recently rectified-only to have their first use by a foriegn power lol). In a way it could be cheaper, but I felt the political hit would be less with a redesign-plus The dock size is still an issue(how much better could i make them with a L2 Dock?).

Resources spent on the Collosi thus far was 3.39 in 1/09, 1 in 1/10, and 2 in 2/10. I am reworking my 2/12 report and was planning on a restart beginning then, with the time in between used to redesign them. Ship design takes many years so It seems like a justifable length of time for the work to be stopped. 14" Guns have been available since 2/10, 15" would be preferred but they are not available until 1/12, and I would need another year or two to design for that I suppose. Incorporating several years to counter rival designs is something I am striving to do.

The Justification for this particular design is the large amount of many slow heavily armored vessels being built by CSA( This was also key in the amount of armor placed in the Monarch hull, contrary to your statement that there was no basis for this-CSA needs to justify the Heavy armor issue-mine was in response to their 1905 design with 14.7" belt and 3.5" deck). In using your arguments the speed will keep CSA type vessels at a distance while the 14" guns can still damage them. Currently only the King PDs protect the UKA, not that I view the CSA as an enemy but I need to design against somebody.

If others feel it should cost more or would be impossible I'll certainly change if needed. This is a bit rambling, sorry I'll clarify as needed. All that said I have learned a great deal about ship construction(and reconstruction-lol) my thanks to Navalism!

[Blooded]

BTW, The only other option I could think of was as large depot/accomedations ships, so that will be the designation if many have problems with the recent incarnation. Scrapping isn't that desireable to me(15% of value).

[The Rock Doctor]

I contemplated trying to buy one and having it completed as an amphibious assault command ship - with troop quarters and landing craft replacing the aft main battery - but decided I couldn't afford it.

There's no rule saying that you have to post a ship design, but it's always good to create an opportunity for discussion.  In the best case, people simply fawn over your product; in the worst case, you'll know what not to do next time.

There's some validity in concern about the hull condition while sitting on the stocks for that time.  I assume efforts would be taken to protect the hulls from the elements as they sit on the stocks, but it might be worth considering a small "clean-up/prepare to resume work" charge.  Maybe the equivalent of active-status maintenance on the incomplete hulls for the hiatus?

[Blooded]

Hello,

Valid point on the 'rust upkeep' better than rolling 'catastrophic failure' and having the ship break in two. Anyone know how delayed vessels were protected?(Graf Zepplin/Many German-British-French vessels during WW1 and 2 come to mind)

[The Rock Doctor]

Just guessing - erection of a basic "timbers and tarpaulins" shell around the hull to keep the rain and snow out, and perhaps a coat of paint to prevent rusting, with regular inspections to make sure nothing's getting through.

[Blooded]

Hello Again,

(might be wrong as I have some real troubles deciphering the UNK reports).

In regards to this part. As stated I have revised them many times, but the last entry should be gospel for the next. Honestly I thought that the very simple 'normal' reports don't give enough info and actually make it harder to figure out. I was hoping with so many breakdowns and details it would be clearer. If there are parts that don't make sense please help me make them easier to understand.

At the top I place a breakdown of every penny earned and spent(rounded out to hundredths position). Then use subtables to explain what exactly it was spent on.

My construction table shows what was spent this half/total needed/total spent so far/date started/how many months left to build(at the start of that half) and the total time needed.

Many others dont state half of that, so you wonder how much has been spent or how long it has been building.

The fleet total is new, and I still need to work on it a bit.

Any ideas on how to clarify would be put to use.

Thanks.

[Korpen]

Hello Again,

(might be wrong as I have some real troubles deciphering the UNK reports).

My construction table shows what was spent this half/total needed/total spent so far/date started/how many months left to build(at the start of that half) and the total time needed.

Any ideas on how to clarify would be put to use.

One thing that would help allot is to explain the breakdowns allot more.
For example:

#4:Type 3 Dock:
DKB CA: $4.45/4.0BP ($15.65/15.65BP) Spent:$3.5/3.5BP Started 1/12 (18.7/24.7 Months)

Nowhere is it explained what is what, is it 4 BP that is spent this half or is it 3,5? Is 4 the amount spent previously, or is that 3,5?

While i see nothing wrong with a very detailed breakdown, i think you need to be clearer and explain a bit more what the numbers are, or all the information is just confusing for one that is not intimately familiar with you budget.

With each redesign I have tried to stay at the same price/weight/ and dock size(which I only discovered was an issue a short time ago). The dreads started out as short ships with .7BC- I didn't find out until much later this was illegal by reading other posts. To bring to ships inline with rules and my cost/wieght criteria often was difficult.

There are not any rules concerning beam and L:B ratio, there is just thoughts, recommendation and someone's opinions on those subjects.

I should have saved myself the grief and posted my designs for critique( I havent done so due to time issues and general embarrassment of the designs themselves and lack of skill with SS). I have gotten the impression that posting designs is a requirement(though it is not stated in the rules that I could find).

While no rule is forcing anyone to post designs in this forums, I think it is usually a good idea for several reasons, especially for more unconventional ships or construction processes. The first one is that people notice the design, and this weed out the most glaring rule errors, and eliminates the risk that people will simply miss the design completely (a large risk if one is editing in several designs in a single post in ones fleet section rather then making one post per design). This can also reduce the amount of grief down the road if a design is in violation with rules and goes unnoticed for some time.

And the second reason is that one learns SS much better if people comment on you ship, there is no requirement to heed them, and personally I like when people question my design choices as that makes me think more about them. I live in the hope that arguments about designs also bring more knowledge, as when everyone agrees on everything no one learns anything new.

Thirdly, it is more fun for the rest of the players to see and hear about the ships other people are building, or consider building, or just playing around with. :)