RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/8/2007 8:25:54 PM

steveh11Matrix

Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

Okay, so the design brief is for a 1938 design, with room for expansion of AAA, and a reasonably long range for the Pacific Theatre

With apologies to Tarrantry fans, here's my newly updated Ste Catherine design:

9 x 15", 20 x 5", 30 knots max, 9600 miles @ 16 knots, 12" belt, 12" main turret face, 4" deck.

Length o/a 758', beam 100', draught 28'

No, she's not a wondership. That's because you can't design a wondership in 1938 on a 35,000 ton displacement. Even this one came out at 36,330 by the time I'd fiddled with it to make the composite strength, stability and seaworthiness good enough. The designers of that time had some serious constraints to work within, given what we know now.

So, you can tell me what to add: just also tell me what to subtract. Because, I assure you, there's not a lot of wiggle room, there.

Steve.

In 1938, I *think* only Japan had abrogated the Treaty.

Edit to say what I forgot: Above design done using Springsharp

< Message edited by steveh11Matrix -- 3/8/2007 8:42:29 PM >

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to Akos Gergely)

Post #: 91

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/8/2007 10:21:47 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Agreed. wdolson's statement was just silly. The US launched more Capital Ships during the War than the rest of the world combined..., which would have made those the two most efficient slipways in all of History.

I stand corrected. I recalled reading somewhere that the battleships were canceled because of limits to capital ship construction capacity and I thought I recalled there were only 2 yards capable of building capital ships.

Bloody memory. I need more RAM!

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 92

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/8/2007 10:36:22 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Agreed. wdolson's statement was just silly. The US launched more Capital Ships during the War than the rest of the world combined..., which would have made those the two most efficient slipways in all of History.

I stand corrected. I recalled reading somewhere that the battleships were canceled because of limits to capital ship construction capacity and I thought I recalled there were only 2 yards capable of building capital ships.

Bloody memory. I need more RAM!

Bill

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 93

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 3:18:11 AM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

Starting playing around with SpringSharp. Damn, it's a balancing act to get the right weapons , armor and speed out of a ship. I attempted to recreate the Yamato just to see if it'd assume some things correctly (which it did kinda). I consider most of the anomalies to either be my fault or subtleties of design that simply aren't in the program.

Here's a txt readout of my attempt:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 94

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 7:48:42 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

I had a run-through with SpringSharp and decided to try for an improved Yamato class. I sacrificed some 6.1 inch turrets in return for more AAA fire in terms of 3.9inch and 40mm mounts and more armour than I've ever seen before.

With armour coverage as follows:
Main: 12 inch
Ends: 18 inch
Upper: 24 inch and
Torpedo Bulkheads of 24 inches this ship is calculated to require 34 x 18 inch shells or 31 torpedoes to sink. It is also a very stable gun platform. The only major problem is that it seems to be subject to hull strain in open seas even though it can handle bad seas easily. Go figure.

Shinano, Japan Battleship laid down 1939
Displacement:
59,822 t light; 63,418 t standard; 66,087 t normal; 68,222 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
900.00 ft / 900.00 ft x 120.00 ft x 33.00 ft (normal load)
274.32 m / 274.32 m x 36.58 m x 10.06 m
Armament:
9 - 18.00" / 457 mm guns (1x9 guns), 2,916.00lbs / 1,322.68kg shells, 1939 Model
Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret
on centreline aft
24 - 3.90" / 99.1 mm guns (2x12 guns), 29.66lbs / 13.45kg shells, 1939 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
48 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (3x16 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1939 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 27,050 lbs / 12,269 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 585.00 ft / 178.31 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m
Ends: 18.0" / 457 mm 314.98 ft / 96.01 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m
Upper: 24.0" / 610 mm 585.00 ft / 178.31 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
24.0" / 610 mm 585.00 ft / 178.31 m 31.67 ft / 9.65 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm - -
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm - -
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 118,016 shp / 88,040 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,804 tons
Complement:
2,060 - 2,679
Cost:
�31.308 million / $125.230 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,381 tons, 5.1 %
Armour: 31,979 tons, 48.4 %
- Belts: 11,582 tons, 17.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 16,452 tons, 24.9 %
- Armament: 3,946 tons, 6.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,193 tons, 4.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 21,268 tons, 32.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,265 tons, 9.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
98,708 lbs / 44,773 Kg = 33.9 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 31.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.35
Metacentric height 11.1 ft / 3.4 m
Roll period: 15.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.40
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.649
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
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: 33.00 ft / 10.06 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Mid (50 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Stern: 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Average freeboard: 21.96 ft / 6.69 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 67.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 167.4 %
Waterplane Area: 86,235 Square feet or 8,011 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 193 lbs/sq ft or 944 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.83
- Longitudinal: 0.80
- Overall: 0.81
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 95

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 8:05:32 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Few odd problems with your "design". Two foot thick armor for the Torpedo Bulkheads? If this is mounted on the outside of the bulges it's still going to shatter on impact due to the imcompressability of water...., and if on the inside of the bulge system it's way more than would be necessary to stop fragments and splinters. Just seems quite excessive. And why make the "ends" half again as thick as the main belt? And what about deck armor?

Not to mention that I don't think anyone ever successfully cast good armor plate much in excess of 16" (if that). It just looks as if your armor scheme is too much of a good thing,

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 96

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 8:12:39 AM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Few odd problems with your "design". Two foot thick armor for the Torpedo Bulkheads? If this is mounted on the outside of the bulges it's still going to shatter on impact due to the imcompressability of water...., and if on the inside of the bulge system it's way more than would be necessary to stop fragments and splinters. Just seems quite excessive. And why make the "ends" half again as thick as the main belt? And what about deck armor?

Not to mention that I don't think anyone ever successfully cast good armor plate much in excess of 16" (if that). It just looks as if your armor scheme is too much of a good thing,

I actually think the Japanese solved the problem with cementing unconventionally thick plates of steel. However, due to the time and or materials needed for the process it wasn't used. I also recall seeing something written about how Japan had actually produced the hardest piece of 6" thick armor in the world but it was test in the work. They were actually quite knowledgeable about production, they simply lacked strategic metals in quantity or the time needed for such endeavors.

EDIT: My specs are actually exactly what the Yamato was built by...for the most part. The bulkheads were fudged and the freeboard as well.

< Message edited by Iridium -- 3/9/2007 8:40:17 AM >

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 97

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 8:41:05 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Mike,

I presume Upper = Deck. As to the Ends vs Main thing - probably got over-enthusiastic. As to torp bulkheads. Well,what I know about ship design can be written in really large letters on a really small page so this was just me fiddling around.

What I was surprised with was just how much armour I could actually get on the ship without cramping it. I managed to get about 48% of the ship's total displacement as armour which I think is pretty impressive.

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 98

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 8:52:14 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

That program is interesting if you try to design WWI or pre WWI battleships because in a sense the program is to perfect. Pre WWI ships in specific the building of them was not as highly refined as you might think for such expencive warships outside of the USA (due to the tight budgets that congress put on the navy) ships were built with general specifications in mind but they were built as they were built and as construction progressed generally many changes were made to the designs so that most pre world war 1 battleships were not as good as they could have been.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 99

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 9:26:38 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

I've been fiddling around with the programme some more and have found it very impressive so far. Now I am familiar with this as a warship design programme a simple tank design programme and BTTech programmes BUT is there an airplane design programme for propeller-driven planes?

I've always thought that would be a very interesting programme to try... So, does anyone know of one?

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 100

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 9:51:03 AM

PBYPilot

Posts: 183
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: Marina del Rey, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

And what about deck armor?

Maybe the designer is hoping for 100% pass-throughs!

Some other interesting things about the design - The 1 x 9 main guns means all 9 eighteen inch guns are in a single turret, which would be some pretty impressive marine engineering all by itself. Though I suppose it is a way of saving weight.....

I really like Springsharp. It gives a better than first approximation look at the design tradeoffs warship designers have to make. Springsharp

Michael

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 101

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 3:42:43 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Mike,

I presume Upper = Deck. As to the Ends vs Main thing - probably got over-enthusiastic. As to torp bulkheads. Well,what I know about ship design can be written in really large letters on a really small page so this was just me fiddling around.

What I was surprised with was just how much armour I could actually get on the ship without cramping it. I managed to get about 48% of the ship's total displacement as armour which I think is pretty impressive.

I had wondered about "upper", as it is commonly used to describe the upper portion of the belt (above water), as opposed to the "lower belt" which often thins out towards the bottem because the water provides some penetration protection of it's own. The program sounds like fun..., but the results given towards the "skewed ends" of the possibilities seem to be coming out a bit wierd. You have almost 32,000 tons of armor on a not quite 60,000 ton vessel..., and virtually all of it too thick to be worked into the structural strength of the design. It's interesting, but I wouldn't want to go sailing on it.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 102

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 4:14:07 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Mike,

Aye well, as I said, I know next to nothing about warship design and was just messing around. it sounds like the way to go is to modify from a currently incorporated design rather than creating a new one as the documentation doesn't adequately explain the ramifications of all of the choices.

So, does anyone know of any propeller-driven plane design programmes?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 103

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 7:16:07 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Maybe we need SpringSharp competition now !

Just found this proggie..very very neat !!

SpringSharp

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 3/9/2007 7:34:18 PM >

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 104

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 7:52:14 PM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

muhahaha i am the bringer of gifts.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 105

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/9/2007 10:26:18 PM

Tiornu

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

An upper belt is the strake of protection above the main belt. Few battleships built after WWI had an upper belt.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 106

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/10/2007 12:13:12 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

An upper belt is the strake of protection above the main belt. Few battleships built after WWI had an upper belt.

Technically correct. But as he had made no reference to the "lower belt" it was unclear just what was meant by "upper".

(in reply to Tiornu)

Post #: 107

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/10/2007 1:34:29 AM

Tiornu

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

I believe the creator of the program is present on some internet forums, so it may be easy to clarify how he is using his terms.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 108

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/10/2007 1:37:53 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

I think Pacific War SpringSharp competition might be fun...BB, CA, CL etc. classes.. Now just need the bunch of judges...

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 3/10/2007 1:52:35 AM >

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Tiornu)

Post #: 109

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/10/2007 2:54:46 AM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

And parameters for the designs. 'Twould be interesting though.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 110

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/11/2007 2:09:06 AM

PBYPilot

Posts: 183
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: Marina del Rey, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think Pacific War SpringSharp competition might be fun...BB, CA, CL etc. classes.. Now just need the bunch of judges...

Wow, wouldn't that be an incitement to riot??? Given all the different opinions about what was the best actual ship design, what would the discussion be like for ships that are never more than specs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

And parameters for the designs. 'Twould be interesting though.

Certainly trying to come up with a balanced design within some historic or possible traty limits would be a good challenge.

But IMHO, the most appropriate and realistic limiting parameter would be $.

Michael

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 111

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/11/2007 2:51:26 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

And parameters for the designs. 'Twould be interesting though.

To be really challenging, they ought to be Treaty-limited. Anybody can build a good CA displacing 15,000 tons..., but doing it with 10,000 is a real juggling act. Asme for other ships. And unlike the Axis powers, no "cheating" allowed.

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 112

RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... - 3/11/2007 4:08:48 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

It should be noted that the system was designed intially calling it spring style for use on making cruisers in the time between ww1 and 2 crusiers and BBs it does very well on but is less effective for destroyers or light cruisers.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 113

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War...