Japanese Ship Designs 1912+

[Kaiser Kirk]

I would like to hear Kirk's thoughts on the included Out-Of-Port resupply tonnage being usable by the ship its based on. That is admittedly a scenario I did not envision when writing that provision of the rules.

Honestly, I'm trying to go by what's written.

There are a great number of deteal type things that are not written, but I want to minimize the number of 'mod calls'.
Like -  it should be understood that the size of the tonnage block dedicated to Fleet Supply does kinda indicate it's range of capabilities.  100 x 30t fleet supply is not the same as 3000t.
Does that ship really have room for armor furnaces, gun relining, reserve shells, or other stuff - no.


In this case, I've built cruisers with miscellaneous weight for extra stores to allow longer raiding time. I believe I set aside 300 odd tons...but for a 7000 ton ship. Similar concept. 
I think I also designed my destroyer leaders to care for their DDs and themselves...maybe just the DDs.
Fox has built one that just uses the existing rule architecture.

Should that tonnage be sufficient to allow it to keep distant station for long periods of time without deterioration - yeah, extra stores/spare parts, etc.
Did ships get outfitted for long distance self- support...yeah, mainly in the sailing navy where fuel wasn't an issue.

So it makes the rule test.
It makes the 'I can see how that works' test.
I'm inclined to allow it, though other points of view are welcome.

The bit that bothers me is actually the twin 8" on that hull- especially that beam, but the hull in general.  Very low displacement, minimal hull girder, narrow beam.
Also, with that BC, it's going to be very narrow where the turrets are.

This might be one of those ships that can't actually fire it's guns without distorting and damaging her own hull. .. like Renown, Repulse, Furious, a number of Japanese ships, ..and then there were the various Japanese vessels that just were built to light for their size and had to put back in for reinforcement.


Fox... can you provide an example of a ship with twin 8"/40 or 8"/45 (ie similar ME) and a 14m beam?



So -

[Desertfox]

I think the namesake qualifies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thonburi-class_coastal_defence_ship

[Kaiser Kirk]

I think the namesake qualifies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thonburi-class_coastal_defence_ship

Yes...

First, I'll point out that it's 14.4m, and yours is 14.3m.
That is minor.
You can easily expand without disrupting the design greatly.

When dealing with a minimum hull like this, we are using it as the minimum valid vessel.
The fact it's an interwar Japanese design does raise a caution flag.  Carriers, cruisers, destroyers, they kept pushing to the minimum hull, and having to fix things.
Designs that aren't repeated or get changed in later vessels of the same class (Italian Condottori) are also caution flag.
The fact it's 1938, when metallurgy was much better is also a problem, but at least it isn't US with all the STS steel construction.

But beam - ok, 14.4 is apparently a minimum beam. 

The other concern I mentioned was Hull strength. Can that hull take the shock of those guns firing, or the concentrated weight of the turret.

There .. the linked vessel is 76.5m long, 14.43m wide, 4.17m draft, 2265t,
From a picture in Janes- freeboard seems to be ~15-18ft foreward, 8-10ft aft...presuming those Thai sailors are about 5ft.

The ship you posted :    (103.63 m / 103.63 m) x 14.33 m  x (3.63 / 3.83 m) 3,145 t full load   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.540 / 0.548       - Average freeboard:      10.64 ft / 3.24 m

So you've taken the minimum hull, shaved 0.1m in beam.. again fixable.
You've then added ~40% in length, while decreasing the draft by .54m (1/8),  - which reduces the strength of the hull girder.   Longer means more stress on the ship, and shallower means less rigidity and strength to resist that.

So had an idea for a final test :
Your empty hull with just dimensions and turrets : 2.35
Same BC, but original ship dimensions and turrets : 2.54

So yeah, what the longer, skinnier hull girder means is ...you have a weaker hull than the "minimum ship".

If built, this vessel is is potentially subject to catastrophic failure.

Sidenote : If model 5" breechloaders, you get 5" breechloaders. There is a weight difference between BL and QF and AA settings. Plus 5" is a heavier weapon than the 3" they had.

[Desertfox]

A few more close examples, both the Ushakov and the Väinämöinen mounted 10" guns on 52ft and 55ft respectively, the Odin stuffed two 9.4" single turrets side by side on 48ft, and the much larger Aoba mounted twin 8" turrets on 52ft, the Arkansas class monitors stuffed a twin 12" turret into only 50ft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Ushakov-class_coastal_defense_ship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_coastal_defence_ship_V%C3%A4in%C3%A4m%C3%B6inen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin-class_coastal_defense_ship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aoba-class_cruiser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas-class_monitor

[snip]

What I think Kirk is trying to say is that while the design is technically feasible (as you have provided historical examples), it is a design that would be subject to additional stresses then its OTL equivalents and as such is at greater risk of issues resulting from those stresses. Not an assured problem, but something to be aware of from a design perspective. Whether the risk is worth the gains in capability is your decision from a player preservative.

[Desertfox]

What I'm trying to argue, is that while I don't expect this ship to survive Mogami (Midway) levels of punishment, it shouldn't reach Tomozuru incident levels either. Basically, probably more vulnerable to battle damage but not to self-sabotage.

[Kaiser Kirk]

What I'm saying is that if you take the minimum ship, and then weaken it further and try to cram the same or more (5" instead of 3") into it, you should expect a poor result.

For N7, That ship risks self-damage from firing, and hull failure in very large storms, and damage from combat could combine with existing stresses.

Can you make it - sure.
That's up to you.

I'm telling you how it's been judged.

I'm not sure what the point of posting those wiki posts are.. a bunch of larger ships, most with greater BC, all with more beam, and substantially more draft.
The Odin class mounts old guns with low MVs, one's a monitor-different fish. 
The Aoba's have the problem that I remember reading about the single turret Japanese cruisers- may have been Furutaka's being so lightly built that the hull distorted and they couldn't fully traverse the guns, leading to reconstruction. The fact the Aobas put in for a major overhaul where they rebuilt them suggests they may have shared that problem. So they are not a good example.

[maddox]

What I'm trying to argue, is that while I don't expect this ship to survive Mogami (Midway) levels of punishment, it shouldn't reach Tomozuru incident levels either. Basically, probably more vulnerable to battle damage but not to self-sabotage.

Let RNGus shine upon you.

[Desertfox]

But is the Thonburi a "minimum" ship? Neither of the two ships are reported to have suffered structural issues and the Thonburi herself not only capsized and sank, but was refloated and repaired, not what one would do to a structurally weak ship. The Thonburis also had 8/50 guns, heavier and more powerful than the 8/45s on this design.

The Furutakas and Aobas where also designed to go 35knots, that in itself puts a lot of strain on the hull. The other ships are examples of cramming very big guns into very small ships with small beams.

I just don't feel that a ship that meets all of the rules should be penalized by being "at risk of moderator-inflicted incidents". Those cases are clearly spelled out in the rules and this particular design doesn't fall under any of them. I mean I'd rather not have them, but if there are going to be beam-gun restrictions, shouldn't they spelled out in the Ship Design Guidelines?

[Desertfox]

Well increased the beam and ended up adding more misc weight.

Surabaya, Japan Colonial Gunboat laid down 1913

Displacement:
   2,494 t light; 2,665 t standard; 2,930 t normal; 3,142 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (340.00 ft / 340.00 ft) x 49.00 ft x (11.40 / 12.04 ft)
   (103.63 m / 103.63 m) x 14.94 m  x (3.47 / 3.67 m)

Armament:
      4 - 8.00" / 203 mm 45.0 cal guns - 258.18lbs / 117.11kg shells, 140 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1913 Model
     2 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      4 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1913 Model
     4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      20 - 2.00" / 50.8 mm 45.0 cal guns - 4.03lbs / 1.83kg shells, 250 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1913 Model
     4 x Quintuple mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 1,366 lbs / 619 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   2.00" / 51 mm   190.00 ft / 57.91 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 86 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   4.00" / 102 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      4.00" / 102 mm
   2nd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 2.00" / 51 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 8,132 shp / 6,067 Kw = 20.00 kts
   Range 5,400nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 477 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   198 - 258

Cost:
   £0.272 million / $1.088 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 288 tons, 9.8 %
      - Guns: 288 tons, 9.8 %
   Armour: 511 tons, 17.4 %
      - Belts: 169 tons, 5.8 %
      - Armament: 92 tons, 3.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 233 tons, 7.9 %
      - Conning Tower: 18 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 347 tons, 11.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 962 tons, 32.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 436 tons, 14.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 385 tons, 13.1 %
      - Hull below water: 250 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 90 tons
      - Above deck: 45 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     3,570 lbs / 1,620 Kg = 13.9 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells or 1.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.29
   Metacentric height 2.7 ft / 0.8 m
   Roll period: 12.5 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.38
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.06

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.540 / 0.548
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.94 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 18.44 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 66
   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:   50.00 %,  14.00 ft / 4.27 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Aft deck:   5.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Average freeboard:      10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 99.7 %
   Waterplane Area: 11,519 Square feet or 1,070 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 74 lbs/sq ft or 360 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.88
      - Longitudinal: 1.15
      - Overall: 0.90
   Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
   Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Adequate accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

30t - FC
25t - LR Wireless
10t - 4 x 18" TT
60t - 2 x Extra boats
20t - Spare or Mines
250t - Out-of-port Resupply

[Desertfox]

Or better yet, drop the extra boats and add more armor/hull strengthening.

Surabaya, Japan Colonial Gunboat laid down 1913

Displacement:
   2,494 t light; 2,665 t standard; 2,930 t normal; 3,142 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (340.00 ft / 340.00 ft) x 49.00 ft x (11.40 / 12.04 ft)
   (103.63 m / 103.63 m) x 14.94 m  x (3.47 / 3.67 m)

Armament:
      4 - 8.00" / 203 mm 45.0 cal guns - 258.18lbs / 117.11kg shells, 140 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1913 Model
     2 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      4 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1913 Model
     4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      20 - 2.00" / 50.8 mm 45.0 cal guns - 4.03lbs / 1.83kg shells, 250 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1913 Model
     4 x Quintuple mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 1,366 lbs / 619 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   2.00" / 51 mm   200.00 ft / 60.96 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Ends:   1.00" / 25 mm   140.00 ft / 42.67 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
     Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   4.00" / 102 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      4.00" / 102 mm
   2nd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 2.00" / 51 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 8,132 shp / 6,067 Kw = 20.00 kts
   Range 5,400nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 477 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   198 - 258

Cost:
   £0.272 million / $1.088 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 288 tons, 9.8 %
      - Guns: 288 tons, 9.8 %
   Armour: 570 tons, 19.4 %
      - Belts: 227 tons, 7.8 %
      - Armament: 92 tons, 3.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 233 tons, 7.9 %
      - Conning Tower: 18 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 347 tons, 11.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 964 tons, 32.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 436 tons, 14.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 325 tons, 11.1 %
      - Hull below water: 250 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 30 tons
      - Above deck: 45 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     3,590 lbs / 1,629 Kg = 14.0 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells or 1.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.32
   Metacentric height 2.8 ft / 0.9 m
   Roll period: 12.3 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 67 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.37
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.540 / 0.548
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.94 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 18.44 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 66
   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:   50.00 %,  14.00 ft / 4.27 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Aft deck:   5.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Average freeboard:      10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 99.7 %
   Waterplane Area: 11,519 Square feet or 1,070 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 74 lbs/sq ft or 360 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.88
      - Longitudinal: 1.10
      - Overall: 0.90
   Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
   Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Adequate accommodation and workspace room

30t - FC
25t - LR Wireless
10t - 4 x 18" TT
80t - 2 x Extra boats
250t - Out-of-port Resupply

[Kaiser Kirk]

But is the Thonburi a "minimum" ship? 

I just don't feel that a ship that meets all of the rules should be penalized by being "at risk of moderator-inflicted incidents". Those cases are clearly spelled out in the rules and this particular design doesn't fall under any of them. I mean I'd rather not have them, but if there are going to be beam-gun restrictions, shouldn't they spelled out in the Ship Design Guidelines?

The 'minimum ship' is the concept that 'hey it worked here, and it's a similar type of ship, so I guess it's probably workable.' So the fact the Thonburi did not have known problems, and did not wind up needing a reconstruction probably means that those guns on that hull appear to work. 

Technically the Thonburi were 200mm not 203mm, wiki is incorrect on that. Still a little heavier, and I didn't compare the ME. But I don't think 3mm or 5calibers is a groundbreaking difference.

The design you put forward is slightly more guns, on a weaker hull.
The assumption does not apply.


I can design a twin 15" turreted vessel that 40m long with a 10m beam and 9m draft...SS says that's fine.
SS doesn't error check very well.
We do not spell these things out in excruciating detail because we're trying to use the KISS principle. 
Which works fine until folks start looking for the edges.

Interplayer review of designs is supposed to highlight potential problems. Part of that is that a number of things have kinda been agreed in the course of play
The 'mod' may or may not bother to look at posted vessels because I only have so much time to put into this.

We do want players pointing out percieved problems with designs.
However we don't want players arguing about borderline calls and what BC is ok, what beam, etc. Too many bitter fights in Wesworld over the years.
So that burden falls on the Mod. <looks around>. So I'm the one you get to throw things at.

Personally, I'd rather not have to burn time on these issues, but it's part of what I've volunteered on. So I draw on what I remember reading, I may check my various books or do some looking online.. and then I make a call.  I try to explain a bit so if I've missed something fundamental, it can be pointed out.  I don't see that here.

So, your naval architects are telling you it's a bad idea to build that as proposed.
You can build it as proposed
You could build the OTL Thonburi
You could build your version but with a stronger hull.

[Desertfox]

But shouldn't we be seeking those edges?

All I'm trying to say is that if something is significant enough to invoke the "at risk of moderator-inflicted incidents" rule, its should be significant enough to be stated in the Ship Design Guidelines. Specifically so the mod has less work to do. At the end of the day we all use SS3 (with all its problems) and the same rules and guidelines, so whether our ships are historical or not, we are all on the same playing field, and as long as a SS3 design meets all the rules and guidelines, it shouldn't be unfairly penalized. Otherwise, we will all end up with Clevelands. 

[The Rock Doctor]

250 t for extra supplies seems like a dilution of the ship's ability.  Use it for combat capabilities and build a small depot ship to go with it, I'd say.

[The Rock Doctor]

Oh God Cleveland.