Are we overdesigning destroyers?

[Walter]

When I wanted to make torpedo tubes weight twice as much, I was shouted down that how I dared to think about it.

Well, don't know anything about it and I certainly was not among those shouters, but looking at it from their point of view, it is rather obvious. They want lots of things on their destroyers or torpedo boats (the more the better), but it still has to go as fast as possible with all that stuff on it. Additional miscellaneous weight for the torpedo tubes is a disaster for them since they will need to take a cut out of something on the ship or make the ship bigger and more expensive for the additional weight of the tubes so it is sinful to even think about that.
... so in my eyes that is a good idea.

[P3D]

When I wanted to make torpedo tubes weight twice as much, I was shouted down that how I dared to think about it.

Well, don't know anything about it and I certainly was not among those shouters, but looking at it from their point of view, it is rather obvious. They want lots of things on their destroyers or torpedo boats (the more the better), but it still has to go as fast as possible with all that stuff on it. Additional miscellaneous weight for the torpedo tubes is a disaster for them since they will need to take a cut out of something on the ship or make the ship bigger and more expensive for the additional weight of the tubes so it is sinful to even think about that.
... so in my eyes that is a good idea.

You were in an inactive period during the argument.
The double weight suggestion is based on historical data. This is included in SS3 in the torpedo mount weight calculation (after my suggestion to IRG).

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Let us found the TORPEDOS ARE CRIMINALLY UNDERWEIGHT CLUB.
On my GTB I count 6 torpedos as 18 tonnes, and honi soit qui mal y pense.
Borys

[Logi]

Seems true and I don't mind increasing the weight of the torpedoes, they are designed to carry double the standard torpedo weight.

[Tanthalas]

Seems true and I don't mind increasing the weight of the torpedoes, they are designed to carry double the standard torpedo weight.

and how pray tell do you express this ability on your DDs?  do you add aditional misc. weight to them, or is it more of your atempts to push tech without paying a single Research Dollar.

[Desertfox]

That won't work. The Zionite Lavis at 700 tons are capable of 30knots, have 5x5" guns and 70 tons of misc weight.

[Logi]

@Tan

What are you talking about "attempts to push tech without paying a single research dollar"? What I said is clear, don't take jabs at me just whenever you feel like it; is using allocating double the misc weight to torpedo function somehow prohibited? Right now my DDs carry one in the tube and one reload, a total of 2ts per torpedo tube.

Doesn't your nation's various departments have budget requests? Its that simple.

[Tanthalas]

@Tan

What are you talking about "attempts to push tech without paying a single research dollar"? What I said is clear, don't take jabs at me just whenever you feel like it; is using allocating double the misc weight to torpedo function somehow prohibited? Right now my DDs carry one in the tube and one reload, a total of 2ts per torpedo tube.

Dont get all pissy on me, I was asking a question, and I might add it was the same question I was asked when I said I didnt see the need for the full 250 tons for FC because for Storyline purposes I was already using tripod masts.  as for the other where would you like me to start, How about ill just go with your most recent news item where you talk about upgrading your army to esentialy 1930s Motorization, when we cant even start research on the 1920 level yet.

[Logi]

I talk of the NEED to, not doing so. I know full well that it will not be possible for the RRC to do so anytime soon, its simply not possible. What I did was establish the concern for such and that will produce the funding for motorization upgrade of my army (to whatever tech level I have - 1910 - i believe)

[Tanthalas]

I talk of the NEED to, not doing so. I know full well that it will not be possible for the RRC to do so anytime soon, its simply not possible. What I did was establish the concern for such and that will produce the funding for motorization upgrade of my army (to whatever tech level I have - 1910 - i believe)

That I can somewhat agree with, but what you and many others in the Nverse fail to understand (and I dont blame you for not understanding as you lack the experiance to even know what questions to ask having never served in the Military) is what hide bound foot dragers most senior military personel are.  Take my Beloved Corps as an example.  We held onto our M-60 MBT's into the late 90s even though we as everyone else knew that the M-1 was a superior platform.  Militaries just dont like change and arnt likley to initiate it on theirown baring its forced upon them by an outside force.

[Logi]

My military's only five years old; but I can see what you mean.

[Tanthalas]

My military's only five years old; but I can see what you mean.

thats part of my point ^.^ your guys would still be obsesed with what "worked" in the last war (when you fought the MK that is) and most of your military leaders are going to be relitivly young for their posistions.  Trust me as a young Officer you arnt always that sure of yourself (even when you are you may not be right)

[Guinness]

Ok, here's some preliminary data. Having compiled RN ships up through WW1, I decided to share:

Ship Year Norm. Displ. SS BC Guns TTs Trial Speed Fuel SS Speed SS Avg Fbrd SS Seakping Notes HMS Albatross 1900 430 0.421 1x3in, 5x2.24in 2x18" 31.4 Coal 27.4 8.3 0.79 Trial at "light displacement" HMS Kennet 1903 540 0.441 1x3in, 5x2.24in 2x18" 25.89 Coal 25.89 8.14 0.7 Trial run at 600t displacement HMS Velox 1904 400 0.44 1x3in, 5x2.24in 2x18" 27 Coal 27 7.94 0.59 Trial speed is rated "normal" speed HMS Swift 1909 2170 0.533 3x4in 2x21" 35.037 Oil 32.9 13.05 0.69 Trial run at "normal displacement" HMS Acasta 1912 892 0.46 3x4in 2x21" 29 Oil 30.2 9.14 0.5 Trial run at full load, 8 hours running time HMS Maori 1914 972 0.503 3x4in 4x21" 34 Oil 34 8.92 0.21 Trial at "normal displacment" HMS Matchless 1914 971 0.507 3x4in, 2x2pounder 2x21" 34 Oil 35.01 9.63 0.25 Trial run at "normal displacement". Very low steadiness in SS HMS S-Class 1918 1000 0.537 3x4in, 1x2pounder 4x18" 36 Oil 33.35 10.24 0.39 Trial run at "normal displacement" HMS W-Class 1918 1379 0.55 4x4.7in, 2x2pounders 6x21" 34.8 Oil 33.3 12.3 0.62 Trial run at "normal displacement"

Notes: With the exception of the S-Class, the BC is what I guessed at it being based on length, beam, draught and displacement. Unfortunately, Friedman doesn't list BCs in the tables of ship particulars at the back of his newest book. Misc weights include only torpedoes, as allocated under our rules.

Sweeps: Friedman also discusses weights of other equipment at length. For instance, the RN shipped various "sweeps" for minesweeping and anti-submarine use during WW1, culminating in one which could sweep mines at 24 knots, and could trail explosive paravanes for anti-submarine use at variable depth. Friedman attributes this entire system as weighing 9 tons. That number seems to include winches, etc., but not any necessary local hull strengthening. So I think 10 tons for a decent minesweeping installation may be reasonable for our purposes.

Kite Baloons: By the end of the war, the standard kite balloon installation on a destroyer included 2.5 tons of hydrogen bottles for topping off the balloons. This was in addition to winches and other gear for the balloon. So something like 4 or 5 tons for a kite balloon may be reasonable.

Mines: Many RN ships were fit for carrying mines. The two early war standard mines are attributed weights of about 1200 lbs and about 1700 lbs. Ships of the K class (for instance) could ship 22 mines without landing any armament except their sweeps. Later in the war, the R class could carry 38 type H mines while losing it's after gun platform (and presumably the gun itself). The V class was rated at 44 type H mines, having landed their after tubes and after gun.

ASW: Later in the war, most RN destroyers shipped 4 depth charges in single racks aft. Specialized ASW escorts carried considerable more, including 2 or even 4 throwers (howitzers in WW1 RN parlance), but at the expense of other armament.

Wireless sets: the standard RN equipment list for a WW1 destroyer was two sets, both of which I expect we'd consider "short ranged" sets.

Comparisons: When compared post war to the German B98, the RN assessed that their own most modern types (the S, and V&W classes) had equivalent overall speed, despite very different reported trial speeds, somewhat better seakeeping, and fuller hulls (BC of 0.537 for the British ship, compared to 0.475 for the German). The German ship was at considerable disadvantage in many respects because it was not oil fired.

When compared with the US flush deckers, the Brits found the US ships to be significantly more lightly built. They reported that the USN expected that firing main armament at 0 elevation was expected to cause damage to the decks. RN analysts were split as the merits of the US flush deck design. It seems from comments that the flush deckers were not revealed to be appreciably worse seaboats than the modern RN designs, despite lower freeboard forward. The comment is made that the length and character of the waves seem to matter most when the flushdeckers were steaming into a headsea, and elsewhere the observation is made that in the shorter choppier waves of the Irish sea, the shorter older RN boats fared better than the more modern types.

Finally, in it's own designs, the RN attributed "seakeeping" mostly to two factors: the distance of the forward gun(s) and bridge from the bow, and hence how much water both shipped, and the sheer and flare of the bow. Hull depth (and therefore freeboard) aft seemed mostly to be dictated by structural concerns, and not keeping various on-deck bits dry. It deserves notice that the BC's of all the ships I simmed above were generally higher than those we see in our boats.

Oh, and almost all of these, when simmed, have SS trim settings of 100 (ie all the way to right).

[Tanthalas]

well then I think I was proly in the right when I redid the 1916 class DDs for Rohan (even though it felt horible droping Seakeaping that much)

[miketr]

Thank you very much Guinness for the info.  If we are talking about TB/DD's I have the following other comments.

If we are going to restrict guns and torp mounts then lets do it. Tie the number of weapons / mounts to the tech level or something.  I looked at a number of USN DD's of WW2 and some, many, of ours have more firepower.

Can we change it that if you add or remove things noted in misc weight like depth charges or mine sweeping gear, etc it can be done with just time along side the pier and no other cost?

Michael