My first few SpringSharp ships

[Barcaii]

This here is my first real try at springsharp. (Not counting one I made together with Korpen when he introduced me to this forum) I first looked at some ships at wikipedia but I'm not sure I understood everything. My biggest problems so far are armour, weapon mounts, block cooefficient and i'm sure there are many more misstakes. :p

Code Select Expand

TBA, TBA TBA laid down 1879

Displacement:
12 009 t light; 12 998 t standard; 14 473 t normal; 15 653 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
410,11 ft / 410,11 ft x 73,82 ft x 27,89 ft (normal load)
125,00 m / 125,00 m x 22,50 m  x 8,50 m

Armament:
      4 - 16,93" / 430 mm guns in single mounts, 2 025,63lbs / 918,81kg shells, 1879 Model
  Breech loading guns in deck mounts
  on centreline ends, evenly spread
      4 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 44,02lbs / 19,97kg shells, 1879 Model
  Breech loading guns in deck mounts
  on side, all amidships
      12 - 2,24" / 57,0 mm guns (4x3 guns), 4,72lbs / 2,14kg shells, 1879 Model
  Breech loading guns in deck mounts
  on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 8 335 lbs / 3 781 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 16,9" / 430 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15,0" / 380 mm 266,57 ft / 81,25 m 10,30 ft / 3,14 m
Ends: 16,5" / 420 mm 143,50 ft / 43,74 m 10,30 ft / 3,14 m
  Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
  Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 15 357 ihp / 11 457 Kw = 18,00 kts
Range 5 000nm at 10,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2 655 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
659 - 857

Cost:
£1,746 million / $6,984 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 042 tons, 7,2 %
Armour: 2 732 tons, 18,9 %
   - Belts: 2 732 tons, 18,9 %
   - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
   - Armament: 0 tons, 0,0 %
   - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0 %
   - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0 %
Machinery: 3 218 tons, 22,2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4 717 tons, 32,6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 464 tons, 17,0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 2,1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
  7 403 lbs / 3 358 Kg = 3,7 x 16,9 " / 430 mm shells or 1,0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,61
Metacentric height 7,0 ft / 2,1 m
Roll period: 11,7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 74 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,28
Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,48

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,600
Length to Beam Ratio: 5,56 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20,25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
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: 20,14 ft / 6,14 m
   - Forecastle (20 %): 14,17 ft / 4,32 m
   - Mid (50 %): 14,17 ft / 4,32 m
   - Quarterdeck (15 %): 14,17 ft / 4,32 m
   - Stern: 14,17 ft / 4,32 m
   - Average freeboard: 14,65 ft / 4,47 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 129,4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 85,3 %
Waterplane Area: 22 142 Square feet or 2 057 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 81 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 147 lbs/sq ft or 719 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,96
- Longitudinal: 1,98
- Overall: 1,03
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily



[Logi]

BC of 0.500 is too thin. BC's typically have BC of ~0.520-0.540.

This is a problem

Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

Why is the end belt more heavily armored than the main belt? Also your main battery and secondary have no armor at all.

Ends:   16,5" / 420 mm   143,50 ft / 43,74 m   10,30 ft / 3,14 m

Too much misc weight for the period. I do believe this is before the heavy FC systems so you don't really need misc weight.

Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 2,1 %

Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,48

Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,61

Excessively seakeeping and stability, mean you can get some composite strength from reducing it.

[Barcaii]

I made a new boat with the help of Snip today. This is what it looks like:

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1880
Barbette ship

Displacement:
   10 361 t light; 10 985 t standard; 11 500 t normal; 11 912 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   360,89 ft / 360,89 ft x 65,62 ft x 29,53 ft (normal load)
   110,00 m / 110,00 m x 20,00 m  x 9,00 m

Armament:
      4 - 16,93" / 430 mm guns in single mounts, 2 062,02lbs / 935,32kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in open barbettes
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      6 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 87,53lbs / 39,70kg shells, 1880 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
     6 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
   Weight of broadside 8 773 lbs / 3 979 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 80
   6 - 17,7" / 450 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:         -            -         14,0" / 356 mm
   2rd:   12,0" / 305 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 4,00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 10 942 ihp / 8 163 Kw = 17,00 kts
   Range 2 000nm at 10,00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 927 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   554 - 721

Cost:
   £1,600 million / $6,401 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1 097 tons, 9,5 %
   Armour: 2 649 tons, 23,0 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0,0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
      - Armament: 1 397 tons, 12,1 %
      - Armour Deck: 1 253 tons, 10,9 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0 %
   Machinery: 2 261 tons, 19,7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 4 129 tons, 35,9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1 139 tons, 9,9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 225 tons, 2,0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     4 527 lbs / 2 054 Kg = 2,2 x 16,9 " / 430 mm shells or 0,8 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,26
   Metacentric height 4,0 ft / 1,2 m
   Roll period: 13,7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,66
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,44

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0,576
   Length to Beam Ratio: 5,50 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19,00 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   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:      18,18 ft / 5,54 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   12,43 ft / 3,79 m
      - Mid (50 %):      12,43 ft / 3,79 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   12,43 ft / 3,79 m
      - Stern:      12,43 ft / 3,79 m
      - Average freeboard:   12,89 ft / 3,93 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 135,5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 63,4 %
   Waterplane Area: 16 929 Square feet or 1 573 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 71 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 160 lbs/sq ft or 779 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,89
      - Longitudinal: 2,85
      - Overall: 1,00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[snip]

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:         -            -         14,0" / 356 mm
   2rd:   12,0" / 305 mm         -               -

Well...your casemate shields are a bit to heavy. 150mm is about the thickest I would go.

[Barcaii]

I lowered the armour and misc weight to get a displacment of 11 000 instead. :)

[Carthaginian]

Those 16.93" guns are monsters!
I know that in the 1890's the Brits tried a 16.25" and found it had a lot of problems.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_162-30_mk1.htm

[snip]

Not so dissimilar from the 17" guns on the Italia class of the mid 1880s, which IIRC is what this design is based off of. Not sure how well those guns worked, but they are feasable.

[Carthaginian]

Well, Snip, the 16" guns on Inflexible, which the 17.7" RML's were built to counter (and by the same British company, no less!), had an effective ROF of about 1 round every five minutes. Though there was nothing that could stand up to their impact, there was very little which they could hit effectively- including the fort at Alexandria!

[Korpen]

Well, Snip, the 16" guns on Inflexible, which the 17.7" RML's were built to counter (and by the same British company, no less!), had an effective ROF of about 1 round every five minutes. Though there was nothing that could stand up to their impact, there was very little which they could hit effectively- including the fort at Alexandria!

Paradoxally the fact that the ships were at anchor on a mirror-blank sea decreased the efficiency at Alexandria as it meant that it was not possible to use the roll of the ship to aim.
It seems that the British themselves considered the gunnery there to have been pretty good given the dispersed targets and other conditions.

[Carthaginian]

Well, Snip, the 16" guns on Inflexible, which the 17.7" RML's were built to counter (and by the same British company, no less!), had an effective ROF of about 1 round every five minutes. Though there was nothing that could stand up to their impact, there was very little which they could hit effectively- including the fort at Alexandria!

Paradoxally the fact that the ships were at anchor on a mirror-blank sea decreased the efficiency at Alexandria as it meant that it was not possible to use the roll of the ship to aim.
It seems that the British themselves considered the gunnery there to have been pretty good given the dispersed targets and other conditions.

Not in the least because the British thought that most engagements would take place at insanely low distance- <1000 yards was considered 'normal.' Also, Alexandria showed the inefficiency of these kinds of guns primarily lay in low ROF- having a 16" shell that can strike a fortification, but having them hit only once every 5 minutes (with fresh crews) or once every 11 minutes (near the end of the battle) means that the enemy will have plenty of time to move away from you.

Simply put- such a slow ROF is ineffective unless bombarding a stationary target in sea state 1 on a cloudless day! Any ship of similar speed, protection and maneuverability could fairly easily remain outside a majority of your firepower- especially for a ship with en echelon turrets like Inflexible.

The most effective vessel at Alexandria was the Condor, a rather humbly armed little ship who got in close (400 yards- prime British gun range) and struck many of the guns which were eluding the vessels firing at longer ranges.

[Barcaii]

Is that really so slow for the time period?(1880) I have no experiance with this but I just reacently read this table:

Code Select Expand

Gun 1897 1907
6in/40 BL one round every 90 seconds one round every 8.2 seconds
6in/40 RF one round every 40 seconds one round every 7.9 seconds
8in/35 one round every two minutes two rounds per minute
12in/35 one round every five minutes one round every 51 seconds (that one round per 20 seconds claimed by the VIRGINIA's captain did seem a little optimistic).

It is from here: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/pdredmdg.htm

[Carthaginian]

I could see 3 rounds a minute with a smaller cannon... but not with the guns on Virginia... at least, not unless he cheated and counted a shot loaded prior to 'time' started. to put it in prospective- I can fire five rounds a minute from a muzzle loading infantry rifle... but only if I cheat and start with one in the barrel.

[Darman]

Jacky Fisher considered the gunnery exhibited at Alexandria to be a severe embarrassment to the Royal Navy.  He was the.... XO(?) on the Inflexible.  Sir Charles Bereford commanded the Condor. 

[Carthaginian]

Jacky Fisher considered the gunnery exhibited at Alexandria to be a severe embarrassment to the Royal Navy.  He was the.... XO(?) on the Inflexible.  Sir Charles Bereford commanded the Condor. 

Fisher was the commander of Inflexible at that time.
Bereford saved the Brit's reputation at Alexandria if you ask me.

[Darman]

Fisher was the commander of Inflexible at that time.

I should have known that... for some reason I thought he was the XO (or equivalent). 

Bereford saved the Brit's reputation at Alexandria if you ask me.

I completely agree.  I forget the exact numbers but the Egyptians had somewhere along the lines of a few dozen heavy guns and the British had 5 times as many and the British still had trouble silencing the Egyptian guns.