Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/22/2009 1:21:12 PM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

I kind of enjoyed the last 2 threads so i thought i would start a thread to discuss some alternative scenario designs.

2 ships each week one allied and one Japanese.

The best design will be noted. Bonus points for designs based on real proposals ,cheap / cost effective designs or ones which have springgsharp data ( if they are a bit questionable). The goal is not to rort the system but to build good designs with our 20/20 hind sight . The best option may be not to build it or to build more of an existing class.

Last week we talked about a 6-8K CL design for Japan from the Katori onwards and i think Terminus proposal was best - build no CL.

This week i will cover some Capital ships.

Japan gets 70% allowance from the Washington Naval treaty so has built the Kaga and Tosa.

US:
Rumours are around that Japan has allocated resources for up to 8 Battleships in 37-42. Japan pulled out of the Naval treaty in 35 and unless it joins you can build anything in 38. 4 South Dakotas have just been layed down and the escalator treaty is in effect. What does the US build / do congress is sympathetic to increasing the budget to address the deficient battle line ?

Japan:
The Kaga and Otari are in the line. Japan needs some BC / fast battleships and the Yamatos have been delayed. With 60K-90K tons what does Japan build ? Japan has seen some Blue prints from the South Dakotas . Options:
- Do you build the BC64 / SUper cruiser ?
- Do you refit some early BBs and recycle the turrets for a cheap new BB
- Do you create a new gun ?
- Do you build the proposed 18" gun BC ?

< Message edited by bklooste -- 12/22/2009 1:22:44 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/22/2009 4:40:05 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Build all 4 South Dakotas, with 16-inch guns per the escalation clause. Move up the Iowas.

For the Japs, drop the Yamatos. Refit the Ise, Hyuga, Fuso and Yamashiro by removing two turrets from each and upgrading the powerplant to allow 28 knots. Assign the turrets to a new, fast BB design, with 2 ships. Build a couple of B-64s with 31cm guns, if nothing else than to make the US waste money on the Alaskas.

Drop all other capital ship building.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 2

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/22/2009 5:03:20 PM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

Weren't the South Dakotas laid down in 39/40 (not 38)? Something to do with the CNO not liking the North Carolina design... So if they were laid down in 38, they would need to be repeat NC's. And if your worry was matching Japanese construction, wouldn't the Admirals favour something more akin to the Montana's instead of the Iowa's - certainly designs with 12 x 16" were looked at when designing the follow on from the South Dakota's.

Does this extend to RN ships as well? It seems unlikely that their lordships would be happy over the Japanese getting the 70% and that this would be used to fuel the argument to get the Lion's built.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 3

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/22/2009 6:07:30 PM

Iridium

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

What happened to Akagi and Tosa in this scenario? Do we assume Tosa's hull was damaged during the earthquake or can both be used in their fast BB/BC configuration?

Dur, just noticed you mentioned they've been built as originally designed. Hmm...

I always did like the 18" BC designs, if one was of the configuration of something like 3 x 2 18" guns, 8 x 2 3.9" guns, ~40,000 tons, 34 Kts...etc

It would make for a decent CV escort and seems on par with Japanese thought on outmaneuvering an opponent to defeat them.

< Message edited by Iridium -- 12/22/2009 6:27:46 PM >

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

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

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 4

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/22/2009 8:01:15 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Hmm, I'll look into this and see what I can come up with. I love a challenge.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 5

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/22/2009 11:30:43 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

OK, for the Japan fast BB design I came up with this (done in SpringSharp 2.2). I went with a design more capable of being a carrier escort, high speed with good AAA:

Mino, Japan Battleship laid down 1938

Displacement:
33,666 t light; 35,417 t standard; 38,272 t normal; 40,555 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
761.42 ft / 738.19 ft x 101.71 ft (Bulges 108.27 ft) x 27.89 ft (normal load)
232.08 m / 225.00 m x 31.00 m (Bulges 33.00 m) x 8.50 m

Armament:
9 - 14.17" / 360 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,423.57lbs / 645.72kg shells, 1938 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
20 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (8 mounts), 30.51lbs / 13.84kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
48 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (16x3 guns), 0.49lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
24 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (8x3 guns), 0.49lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
16 - 0.52" / 13.2 mm guns (8x2 guns), 0.07lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1938 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 13,459 lbs / 6,105 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 130
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 479.82 ft / 146.25 m 12.11 ft / 3.69 m
Ends: 2.99" / 76 mm 258.33 ft / 78.74 m 12.11 ft / 3.69 m
Upper: 4.92" / 125 mm 479.82 ft / 146.25 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
2.13" / 54 mm 479.82 ft / 146.25 m 26.77 ft / 8.16 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.8" / 325 mm 12.8" / 325 mm 12.8" / 325 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -

- Armour deck: 3.94" / 100 mm, Conning tower: 12.80" / 325 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 147,600 shp / 110,110 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 11,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,138 tons

Complement:
1,367 - 1,778

Cost:
�17.795 million / $71.181 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,682 tons, 4.4 %
Armour: 12,716 tons, 33.2 %
- Belts: 4,124 tons, 10.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,010 tons, 2.6 %
- Armament: 3,097 tons, 8.1 %
- Armour Deck: 4,172 tons, 10.9 %
- Conning Tower: 313 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 4,042 tons, 10.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,976 tons, 39.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,606 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 250 tons, 0.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
57,657 lbs / 26,153 Kg = 40.5 x 14.2 " / 360 mm shells or 9.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 6.3 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 18.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 54 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.89

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.601
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.82 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.64 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28.87 ft / 8.80 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Stern: 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Average freeboard: 23.03 ft / 7.02 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 86.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 165.7 %
Waterplane Area: 57,284 Square feet or 5,322 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 192 lbs/sq ft or 940 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.24
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 6

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 1:44:34 AM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

What is SpringSharp 2.2 ?

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 7

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 4:06:18 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Springsharp is a programme that allows you to design warships for simulation purposes.

You can read up on it better than I can explain it, website is here: http://www.springsharp.com/

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 8

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 5:16:46 AM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

A little comment on springsharp designs;

I suggest you adopt the same guidelines as on NavWeaps for designs, meaning that seakeeping and stability should both be atleast 1.1 or more.

Apart from that (Seakeeping of 0.89!) theres two things I'd point out on your design.
1) Inadequate deck protection for a 35,000ton ship, especially a CV escort. Something like 140+mm would be nice.
2) Old style armour scheme with end and upper belt - any reason for this choice instead of a longer/deeper main belt and the associated weight savings?

Also, note the Japanese 36cm was actually 35.6cm (14in).

Here is my own suggestion; a 6 x 16 Renown-Style BC, with superfiring 6.1in as in Yamato, and sizeable secondary 3.9in battery.

Dewa, Japan Battlecruiser laid down 1938

Displacement:
34,783 t light; 36,833 t standard; 39,500 t normal; 41,634 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
836.61 ft / 836.61 ft x 91.86 ft (Bulges 101.71 ft) x 32.81 ft (normal load)
255.00 m / 255.00 m x 28.00 m (Bulges 31.00 m) x 10.00 m

Armament:
6 - 16.14" / 410 mm guns (3x2 guns), 2,248.72lbs / 1,020.00kg shells, 1938 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
6 - 6.10" / 155 mm guns (2x3 guns), 123.17lbs / 55.87kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
20 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (10x2 guns), 28.66lbs / 13.00kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
36 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (12x3 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
16 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 14,829 lbs / 6,726 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 541.34 ft / 165.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.38" / 35 mm 501.97 ft / 153.00 m 28.38 ft / 8.65 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 17.7" / 450 mm 11.8" / 300 mm 12.6" / 320 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.20" / 5 mm 0.20" / 5 mm 0.20" / 5 mm

- Armour deck: 6.10" / 155 mm, Conning tower: 11.81" / 300 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 136,386 shp / 101,744 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,801 tons

Complement:
1,400 - 1,821

Cost:
�18.055 million / $72.221 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,742 tons, 4.4 %
Armour: 13,302 tons, 33.7 %
- Belts: 3,523 tons, 8.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 726 tons, 1.8 %
- Armament: 2,773 tons, 7.0 %
- Armour Deck: 5,985 tons, 15.2 %
- Conning Tower: 295 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 3,735 tons, 9.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,604 tons, 39.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,717 tons, 11.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 1.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
57,006 lbs / 25,857 Kg = 27.1 x 16.1 " / 410 mm shells or 8.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 17.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.52
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.16

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.495
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.23 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.56 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 44
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: 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Mid (55 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Stern: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Average freeboard: 21.44 ft / 6.54 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 148.9 %
Waterplane Area: 53,015 Square feet or 4,925 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 113 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 197 lbs/sq ft or 960 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.14
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

< Message edited by JuanG -- 12/23/2009 5:39:05 AM >

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 9

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 7:08:52 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Ok, I've revised my design a bit, improving the areas you suggested and increasing the main battery size. I also swapped to using the 3.03beta version on Springsharp which has much better interface. The new ship:

Mino, Japan Battleship laid down 1938

Displacement:
43,901 t light; 46,552 t standard; 49,771 t normal; 52,346 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(880.12 ft / 853.02 ft) x 91.86 ft (Bulges 101.71 ft) x (33.46 / 35.04 ft)
(268.26 m / 260.00 m) x 28.00 m (Bulges 31.00 m) x (10.20 / 10.68 m)

Armament:
9 - 16.14" / 410 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,248.72lbs / 1,020.00kg shells, 130 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
3 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
20 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 33.83lbs / 15.35kg shells, 400 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
4 x 2-gun mounts on sides, forward deck aft
2 raised mounts - superfiring
6 x 2-gun mounts on sides, aft deck forward
2 raised mounts - superfiring
72 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 0.52lbs / 0.24kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
24 x Triple mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 - 0.52" / 13.2 mm 76.0 cal guns - 0.08lbs / 0.04kg shells, 2,500 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
8 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 20,954 lbs / 9,504 kg
Main Torpedoes
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m torpedoes - 2.476 t each, 19.808 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes
2nd Torpedoes
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m torpedoes - 2.476 t each, 19.808 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted reloads

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.8" / 350 mm 511.81 ft / 156.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 15.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.13" / 54 mm 511.81 ft / 156.00 m 31.27 ft / 9.53 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 82.02 ft / 25.00 m

- Hull Bulges:
2.13" / 54 mm 656.17 ft / 200.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.7" / 400 mm 12.8" / 325 mm 15.7" / 400 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 5.91" / 150 mm
Forecastle: 4.92" / 125 mm Quarter deck: 3.94" / 100 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 15.75" / 400 mm, Aft 15.75" / 400 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 152,813 shp / 113,999 Kw = 29.50 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,794 tons

Complement:
1,665 - 2,165

Cost:
�22.286 million / $89.144 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,349 tons, 6.7 %
- Guns: 3,285 tons, 6.6 %
- Weapons: 64 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 16,740 tons, 33.6 %
- Belts: 3,898 tons, 7.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,259 tons, 2.5 %
- Bulges: 677 tons, 1.4 %
- Armament: 3,974 tons, 8.0 %
- Armour Deck: 6,013 tons, 12.1 %
- Conning Towers: 918 tons, 1.8 %
Machinery: 4,184 tons, 8.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 19,628 tons, 39.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,870 tons, 11.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
69,213 lbs / 31,395 Kg = 32.9 x 16.1 " / 410 mm shells or 5.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 5.1 ft / 1.6 m
Roll period: 18.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 56 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.75
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.12

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.600 / 0.603
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.39 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.21 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 29.89 ft / 9.11 m, 24.44 ft / 7.45 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 24.44 ft / 7.45 m, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m, 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Average freeboard: 21.36 ft / 6.51 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 69.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 129.1 %
Waterplane Area: 57,312 Square feet or 5,324 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 239 lbs/sq ft or 1,167 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.14
- Longitudinal: 1.20
- Overall: 1.14
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

< Message edited by Shark7 -- 12/23/2009 7:20:57 AM >

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 10

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 7:33:51 AM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

I personally prefer version 2, as I feel that v3 tends to be a little too 'generous' sometimes. Still, your definately right in the it has a bunch of nicer tools included.

A few comments on your newer design if I may;
-Why the overall hull strength of 1.14? This is wasteful, and means the hull is overbuilt. Some people like to leave 1.01/1.02 to support extra things like AA guns, but its really not necessary on a hull that size.
-Stability is better, but still below 1.1.
-No Miscellaneous weight allocated on this design. The last one had 250tons which is a reasonable reserve. While you dont really need it since youve got that excess hull strength, it would probably be more efficient to do it the other way. A decent rule of thumb is 50-100tons per 10,000tons of ship.
-Minor point, but why not increase the turret faceplates some. Its some of the cheapest armour you can get weight wise, and another 50-100mm would not hurt at all.
-Why the torpedoes!?!?

Otherwise though, its a nice designs, something of an Japanese South Dakota or Iowa hybrid...

< Message edited by JuanG -- 12/23/2009 7:37:07 AM >

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 11

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 7:45:17 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

I personally prefer version 2, as I feel that v3 tends to be a little too 'generous' sometimes. Still, your definately right in the it has a bunch of nicer tools included.

A few comments on your newer design if I may;
-Why the overall hull strength of 1.14? This is wasteful, and means the hull is overbuilt. Some people like to leave 1.01/1.02 to support extra things like AA guns, but its really not necessary on a hull that size.
-Stability is better, but still below 1.1.
-No Miscellaneous weight allocated on this design. The last one had 250tons which is a reasonable reserve. While you dont really need it since youve got that excess hull strength, it would probably be more efficient to do it the other way. A decent rule of thumb is 50-100tons per 10,000tons of ship.
-Minor point, but why not increase the turret faceplates some. Its some of the cheapest armour you can get weight wise, and another 50-100mm would not hurt at all.
-Why the torpedoes!?!?

Otherwise though, its a nice designs, something of an Japanese South Dakota or Iowa hybrid...

I still haven't quite gotten the art of balancing stability vs seakeeping down yet, I fix one, and get the other too low. It also shows in my overengineering of the ship.

Let me see if I can't make a few more small changes and get this down right.

Torpedos...given the Japanese fascination with them... And the fact that Kii and No. 13 classes were designed with them originally, I'm going with the idea they might include them. Plus I like torpedos.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 12

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 8:01:15 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

And Version 3:

Mino, Japan Battleship laid down 1938

Displacement:
42,218 t light; 44,833 t standard; 47,982 t normal; 50,500 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(881.41 ft / 853.02 ft) x 91.86 ft (Bulges 101.71 ft) x (32.81 / 34.36 ft)
(268.65 m / 260.00 m) x 28.00 m (Bulges 31.00 m) x (10.00 / 10.47 m)

Armament:
9 - 16.14" / 410 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,248.72lbs / 1,020.00kg shells, 130 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
3 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
20 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 33.83lbs / 15.35kg shells, 400 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
4 x 2-gun mounts on sides, forward deck aft
2 raised mounts - superfiring
6 x 2-gun mounts on sides, aft deck forward
2 raised mounts - superfiring
72 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 0.52lbs / 0.24kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
24 x Triple mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 - 0.52" / 13.2 mm 76.0 cal guns - 0.08lbs / 0.04kg shells, 2,500 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
8 x Twin mounts on side ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 20,954 lbs / 9,504 kg
Main Torpedoes
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m torpedoes - 2.476 t each, 19.808 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes
2nd Torpedoes
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m torpedoes - 2.476 t each, 19.808 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted reloads

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.8" / 350 mm 554.46 ft / 169.00 m 12.30 ft / 3.75 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 15.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.13" / 54 mm 554.46 ft / 169.00 m 30.81 ft / 9.39 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 82.02 ft / 25.00 m

- Hull Bulges:
2.13" / 54 mm 656.17 ft / 200.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 20.5" / 520 mm 13.8" / 350 mm 16.7" / 425 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 5.91" / 150 mm
Forecastle: 4.92" / 125 mm Quarter deck: 3.94" / 100 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 15.75" / 400 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 143,416 shp / 106,988 Kw = 29.21 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,668 tons

Complement:
1,620 - 2,107

Cost:
�21.751 million / $87.004 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,349 tons, 7.0 %
- Guns: 3,284 tons, 6.8 %
- Weapons: 64 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 16,762 tons, 34.9 %
- Belts: 3,909 tons, 8.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,344 tons, 2.8 %
- Bulges: 677 tons, 1.4 %
- Armament: 4,454 tons, 9.3 %
- Armour Deck: 5,929 tons, 12.4 %
- Conning Tower: 448 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 3,927 tons, 8.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,680 tons, 36.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,764 tons, 12.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 1.0 %
- Hull below water: 100 tons
- Bulge void weights: 100 tons
- Hull above water: 100 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
- Above deck: 100 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
70,110 lbs / 31,801 Kg = 33.3 x 16.1 " / 410 mm shells or 5.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 5.6 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 18.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.74
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.590 / 0.593
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.39 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.21 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 41
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 17.50 %, 32.12 ft / 9.79 m, 26.28 ft / 8.01 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 26.28 ft / 8.01 m, 20.44 ft / 6.23 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 20.44 ft / 6.23 m, 20.44 ft / 6.23 m
- Quarter deck: 17.50 %, 20.44 ft / 6.23 m, 20.44 ft / 6.23 m
- Average freeboard: 22.75 ft / 6.93 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 70.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 141.2 %
Waterplane Area: 56,778 Square feet or 5,275 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 113 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 217 lbs/sq ft or 1,057 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.01
- Longitudinal: 1.14
- Overall: 1.02
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 13

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 8:20:03 AM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

Kii and No.13 would have included them because it was standard procedure to include torpedoes on BBs in that era. None but the Nelsons had them left by the time WW2 came around.

Last design looks good though, interesting choice in choosing to max the hull out at its optimal speed. Suppose thats one way to avoid wasting engine power going beyond it.

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 14

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 11:51:32 AM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

What happened to Akagi and Tosa in this scenario? Do we assume Tosa's hull was damaged during the earthquake or can both be used in their fast BB/BC configuration?

Dur, just noticed you mentioned they've been built as originally designed. Hmm...

I always did like the 18" BC designs, if one was of the configuration of something like 3 x 2 18" guns, 8 x 2 3.9" guns, ~40,000 tons, 34 Kts...etc

It would make for a decent CV escort and seems on par with Japanese thought on outmaneuvering an opponent to defeat them.

Quite a cruiser killer with those 18" , can you land enough rounds ? At least with an 18" 16K yards is fairly flat tradjectory.

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 15

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 12:00:55 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

The Japs wouldn't have put torpedo tubes on a battleship laid down in 1938.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 16

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 12:01:42 PM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

18in is really overkill for cruisers. Unless your shooting HE chances are its going to go right through without exploding. A high velocity smaller caliber gun would probably be preferable. Like the 31cm/50, or even the Kongo's 36cm/45.

One concept for a cruiser-killer I had some time ago was a ship carrying a liscensed version of the German 28cm/54.5 from the Scharnhorst. The design was something like 9 x 28cm/54.5, 20 x 10cm/65 and 33knots with moderate armour - it weighed in at the surprisingly light weight of 23,000tons standard.

Another possiblility is as someone said reworking the Fuso/Ise's by removing central turrets, and then using those 16 turrets to produce 5 'super cruisers' with 6 x 36cm/45, 16 x 10cm/65 and good speed. Should also weigh in only around 25,000tons.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 12/23/2009 12:04:13 PM >

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 17

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 12:05:35 PM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Build all 4 South Dakotas, with 16-inch guns per the escalation clause. Move up the Iowas.

I think this likely .. Without a Yamato i dont think the Montanas are on the cards mainly because of the quantity of the Japanese line ( even though its inferior ) . How much can you advance the Iowas ? Iowas in 42 would be nice and a challange for the Japanese.

quote:

For the Japs, drop the Yamatos. Refit the Ise, Hyuga, Fuso and Yamashiro by removing two turrets from each and upgrading the powerplant to allow 28 knots. Assign the turrets to a new, fast BB design, with 2 ships. Build a couple of B-64s with 31cm guns, if nothing else than to make the US waste money on the Alaskas.

Drop all other capital ship building.

What sort of belt are we looking on these new fast BBs and what speed ? I like cheap options are 14" turrets good enough vs the US ships.

I did some numbers on the B-64 and if you didnt up armour them you could run 4*2*31cm or 3*3*31cm on a Takao class hull with a Tone style powerplant and some extra bulges ( looking at 17K tons for 4*2 and 18K for 3*3). A nice cruiser killer , ok for some bombardment but a lot cheaper than a B-64 . I dont see what the armour buys you anyway except the Alaskas ( except for some night fighting) vs any cruisers you win ( if you can keep the range) , vs a BB your toast. And the US will still build the Alaskas when they see 12" cruisers , display her in mid 1941...

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 18

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 12:11:33 PM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

18in is really overkill for cruisers. Unless your shooting HE chances are its going to go right through without exploding. A high velocity smaller caliber gun would probably be preferable. Like the 31cm/50, or even the Kongo's 36cm/45.

One concept for a cruiser-killer I had some time ago was a ship carrying a liscensed version of the German 28cm/54.5 from the Scharnhorst. The design was something like 9 x 28cm/54.5, 20 x 10cm/65 and 33knots with moderate armour - it weighed in at the surprisingly light weight of 23,000tons standard.

Another possiblility is as someone said reworking the Fuso/Ise's by removing central turrets, and then using those 16 turrets to produce 5 'super cruisers' with 6 x 36cm/45, 16 x 10cm/65 and good speed. Should also weigh in only around 25,000tons.

I dont think 18" round will go thrugh a cruiser those are big ships , a few roudns should kill one . It is overkill but i would rather sink a CA than an old BB in most cases.

With regard to the cruiser killer have a look at the BC-64 i posted a modified one with standard CA armour at 17-18K sort of a Cruiser Battle Cruiser concept.

I like the super cruisers but what is the smallest/cheapest ship you fit 8 14" guns on ( im no fan of 6 gun ships) ? And the question is how will your battle line deal with the US line ?
The turrets carry far too much armour to fit on a cruiser / light ship. If your looking at redesigning ships also look at the Kaga , Nagato etc.

< Message edited by bklooste -- 12/23/2009 12:33:00 PM >

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 19

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 12:19:07 PM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Weren't the South Dakotas laid down in 39/40 (not 38)?� Something to do with the CNO not liking the North Carolina design... So if they were laid down in 38, they would need to be repeat NC's.� And if your worry was matching Japanese construction, wouldn't the Admirals favour something more akin to the Montana's instead of the Iowa's - certainly designs with 12 x 16" were looked at when designing the follow on from the South Dakota's.

Does this extend to RN ships as well?� It seems unlikely that their lordships would be happy over the Japanese getting the 70% and that this would be used to fuel the argument to get the Lion's built.

They are laid down when designed , hold it scrap it , complete it - thats up to you , your the CNO here thoguh remember you have more weight and budget because of the 2 Kaga class ships. 38 maybe a bit early for a supersize ship but its an option no Panama transits though. The question you have to ask is Japan has a 26knot battle line with quite a few ships ( 3 Kongos , 2 Fuso , 2 Ise , 2 Nagato (16") , 2 Kaga (16") is the Montana good at fighting this.

Sure you can include the UK , though i would not imaging more BBs i coudl see bigger ones since Japan now has 2 more 16" ships ( from 1922) .

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 20

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 12:26:57 PM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

re springsharp

I use the 3 beta , and its a lot harder to get sea keeping , even a lot of historical CA designs get 0.6-0.8 though for BBs its easy. I normally use historical designs and then i change things try to keep the seakeeping and stability the same makes it more realistic IMHO.

Here is the Harima with re-used turrets worth comparing to Sharks design. The question on this ship is do you have enough to hold the 1944 US battle line ? An 18" gun BC is tempting.. These 2 together will cost about 80M in springsharp dollars ( not that usefull except for comparison to other spring sharp designs) .

Harima, Japan Battleship laid down 1937 (Engine 1940)

Displacement:
28,620 t light; 30,320 t standard; 31,996 t normal; 33,337 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(658.59 ft / 645.75 ft) x 90.60 ft (Bulges 104.00 ft) x (28.75 / 29.82 ft)
(200.74 m / 196.82 m) x 27.61 m (Bulges 31.70 m) x (8.76 / 9.09 m)

Armament:
8 - 14.00" / 356 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,383.71lbs / 627.64kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1937 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 28.66lbs / 13.00kg shells, 400 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1941 Model
10 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
10 raised mounts
32 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm 65.0 cal guns - 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 1,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1937 Model
16 x Twin mounts on side ends, evenly spread
16 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 11,661 lbs / 5,289 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 330.00 ft / 100.58 m 11.50 ft / 3.51 m
Ends: 5.00" / 127 mm 135.00 ft / 41.15 m 11.50 ft / 3.51 m
180.75 ft / 55.09 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 79% of normal length
Main Belt inclined 20.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
5.00" / 127 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 90.60 ft / 27.61 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 7.00" / 178 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 7.00" / 178 mm
Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 5.00" / 127 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 150,347 shp / 112,159 Kw = 31.74 kts
Range 7,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,017 tons

Complement:
1,196 - 1,555

Cost:
�14.694 million / $58.776 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,131 tons, 6.7%
- Guns: 2,131 tons, 6.7%
Armour: 12,006 tons, 37.5%
- Belts: 3,557 tons, 11.1%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,498 tons, 7.8%
- Armament: 2,068 tons, 6.5%
- Armour Deck: 3,775 tons, 11.8%
- Conning Tower: 109 tons, 0.3%
Machinery: 4,020 tons, 12.6%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,413 tons, 32.5%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,376 tons, 10.6%
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.2%
- Hull above water: 50 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
53,974 lbs / 24,482 Kg = 39.3 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 9.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.25
Metacentric height 6.5 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 17.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 57 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.63
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.26

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.580 / 0.583
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.21 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.91 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 63 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 30.00%, 42.00 ft / 12.80 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forward deck: 20.00%, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Aft deck: 20.00%, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Quarter deck: 30.00%, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Average freeboard: 33.20 ft / 10.12 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.5%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 223.0%
Waterplane Area: 43,750 Square feet or 4,065 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 190 lbs/sq ft or 928 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 3.02
- Overall: 1.02
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Cost is $18-20M cheaper as Turrets re-used ,487 days on slip 900 total based on Kongo class. I would have really liked a few more knots but here i can use a common power plant without pushing anything.

< Message edited by bklooste -- 12/23/2009 12:56:40 PM >

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 21

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 1:04:10 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

It doesn't matter what you design, you'll never have enough to hold the 1944 US Navy. If the war goes on for that long, it's lost.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 22

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 3:44:35 PM

Iridium

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

What happened to Akagi and Tosa in this scenario? Do we assume Tosa's hull was damaged during the earthquake or can both be used in their fast BB/BC configuration?

Dur, just noticed you mentioned they've been built as originally designed. Hmm...

I always did like the 18" BC designs, if one was of the configuration of something like 3 x 2 18" guns, 8 x 2 3.9" guns, ~40,000 tons, 34 Kts...etc

It would make for a decent CV escort and seems on par with Japanese thought on outmaneuvering an opponent to defeat them.

Quite a cruiser killer with those 18" , can you land enough rounds ? At least with an 18" 16K yards is fairly flat tradjectory.

I always figured the combo of 34 kt top speed and 18" guns would enable the ship to stay at range from large combatants and kill CAs with ease. Only need one 18" hit to mission kill a CA...6 barrels should be enough assuming the gunnery crews aren't drunk. Been playing with SpringSharp but I keep going between crazy huge and well armored and CA level armor while in the 30,000 ton range. Haven't gotten the knack for it yet.

Example, the build I just made is HUGE...sure it goes fast but I can only imagine that it's turning radius is horrible.

quote:

IJN Hoshi, Japan Battlecruiser laid down 1938

Displacement:
45,943 t light; 47,989 t standard; 51,171 t normal; 53,716 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(1,185.62 ft / 1,148.29 ft) x 82.02 ft (Bulges 98.43 ft) x (32.81 / 34.25 ft)
(361.38 m / 350.00 m) x 25.00 m (Bulges 30.00 m) x (10.00 / 10.44 m)

Armament:
6 - 18.11" / 460 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,995.22lbs / 1,358.61kg shells, 90 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, forward deck aft
1 raised mount - superfiring
1 x 2-gun mount on centreline, aft deck aft
16 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 33.42lbs / 15.16kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
8 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
48 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 0.52lbs / 0.24kg shells, 2,500 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
24 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 18,531 lbs / 8,406 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 787.40 ft / 240.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 105 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.95" / 75 mm 787.40 ft / 240.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 9.84" / 250 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.59" / 15 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.20" / 5 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck: 4.92" / 125 mm For and Aft decks

- Conning towers: Forward 11.81" / 300 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 231,614 shp / 172,784 Kw = 34.05 kts
Range 8,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,727 tons

Complement:
1,700 - 2,211

Cost:
�23.912 million / $95.649 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,597 tons, 7.0 %
Armour: 11,717 tons, 22.9 %
- Belts: 4,832 tons, 9.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 847 tons, 1.7 %
- Armament: 2,056 tons, 4.0 %
- Armour Deck: 3,632 tons, 7.1 %
- Conning Tower: 351 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 6,342 tons, 12.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 23,787 tons, 46.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,227 tons, 10.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 1.0 %
- Hull below water: 250 tons
- Hull above water: 250 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
64,729 lbs / 29,361 Kg = 21.8 x 18.1 " / 460 mm shells or 8.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.02
Metacentric height 3.8 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 21.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 63 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.96
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.483 / 0.486
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.89 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 40 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 33.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 35.00 %, 37.27 ft / 11.36 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Forward deck: 25.00 %, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Aft deck: 20.00 %, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Quarter deck: 20.00 %, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Average freeboard: 25.62 ft / 7.81 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 164.2 %
Waterplane Area: 61,800 Square feet or 5,741 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 123 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 237 lbs/sq ft or 1,157 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.20
- Longitudinal: 0.95
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

< Message edited by Iridium -- 12/23/2009 3:58:19 PM >

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

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

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 23

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 5:25:46 PM

Skyros

Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline

Yes thats true, but they get to watch some cool looking ships sink.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It doesn't matter what you design, you'll never have enough to hold the 1944 US Navy. If the war goes on for that long, it's lost.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 24

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 5:39:10 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

And here is my entry for the Japan Battlecruiser category:

Niitaka, Japan Battlecruiser laid down 1938

Displacement:
35,968 t light; 38,176 t standard; 40,521 t normal; 42,398 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(857.81 ft / 839.57 ft) x 83.01 ft (Bulges 97.60 ft) x (27.56 / 28.81 ft)
(261.46 m / 255.90 m) x 25.30 m (Bulges 29.75 m) x (8.40 / 8.78 m)

Armament:
8 - 16.14" / 410 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,248.72lbs / 1,020.00kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm 40.0 cal guns - 59.90lbs / 27.17kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
8 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
48 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 0.53lbs / 0.24kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
16 x Triple mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 0.53lbs / 0.24kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck aft
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
Weight of broadside 18,982 lbs / 8,610 kg
Main Torpedoes
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m torpedoes - 2.476 t each, 19.808 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes
2nd Torpedoes
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m torpedoes - 2.476 t each, 19.808 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted reloads

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 280 mm 545.73 ft / 166.34 m 10.93 ft / 3.33 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.13" / 54 mm 545.73 ft / 166.34 m 26.08 ft / 7.95 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 75.46 ft / 23.00 m

- Hull Bulges:
1.46" / 37 mm 437.17 ft / 133.25 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14.8" / 375 mm 11.8" / 300 mm 13.8" / 350 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 4.33" / 110 mm
Forecastle: 5.51" / 140 mm Quarter deck: 4.33" / 110 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.60" / 320 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 137,650 shp / 102,687 Kw = 29.50 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,222 tons

Complement:
1,427 - 1,856

Cost:
�19.235 million / $76.941 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,975 tons, 7.3 %
- Guns: 2,910 tons, 7.2 %
- Weapons: 64 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 12,667 tons, 31.3 %
- Belts: 2,713 tons, 6.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,120 tons, 2.8 %
- Bulges: 232 tons, 0.6 %
- Armament: 3,973 tons, 9.8 %
- Armour Deck: 4,309 tons, 10.6 %
- Conning Tower: 320 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 3,769 tons, 9.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,158 tons, 39.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,553 tons, 11.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 1.0 %
- On freeboard deck: 250 tons
- Above deck: 150 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
56,227 lbs / 25,504 Kg = 26.7 x 16.1 " / 410 mm shells or 4.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 4.6 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 19.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 49 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.86
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.11

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a straight bulbous bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.628 / 0.628
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.60 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.50 degrees
Stern overhang: 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 17.50 %, 31.86 ft / 9.71 m, 26.08 ft / 7.95 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 26.08 ft / 7.95 m, 20.28 ft / 6.18 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 20.28 ft / 6.18 m, 20.28 ft / 6.18 m
- Quarter deck: 17.50 %, 20.28 ft / 6.18 m, 20.28 ft / 6.18 m
- Average freeboard: 22.57 ft / 6.88 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 146.2 %
Waterplane Area: 52,314 Square feet or 4,860 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 212 lbs/sq ft or 1,035 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.04
- Longitudinal: 0.99
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Skyros)

Post #: 25

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 5:41:05 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

Afaik, Kongos had 35,6cm - not 36cm. The gun was of British design, so it was in inch, not cm. The Nagato has 41cm, of course, as well as B-64 has 31cm.

< Message edited by Historiker -- 12/23/2009 9:57:53 PM >

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 26

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 11:21:11 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Afaik, Kongos had 35,6cm - not 36cm. The gun was of British design, so it was in inch, not cm. The Nagato has 41cm, of course, as well as B-64 has 31cm.

Hello Historiker, I haven't seen you around for a while. How have you been ?

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 27

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 11:23:07 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

The IJN changed their official calibre designations of all guns and cannons, completely irrespective of country of manufacture, to the metric system in 1917.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 28

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/23/2009 11:33:11 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Afaik, Kongos had 35,6cm - not 36cm. The gun was of British design, so it was in inch, not cm. The Nagato has 41cm, of course, as well as B-64 has 31cm.

Hello Historiker, I haven't seen you around for a while. How have you been ?

Busy...
Many ideas, too few time to execute them. I decided to start a business to offer trips to Ghana with a friend living there. I'm also working on establishing a new political journal in Germany/Austria/Switzerland and am negotiating with authors...

I also wasn't much around here as it has turned out, I don't fit in here too well. The "discussions" in THE THREAD showed that quite well. I never intended anything bad, but was permanently misunderstood. Whether this was due to language or cultural differences, I don't know. But what I knew that it is obviously better to stay away...
This way, no one is insulted, no one gets angry, no one gets hurt and no one is misunderstood

< Message edited by Historiker -- 12/23/2009 11:37:46 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 29

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge - 12/24/2009 12:04:03 AM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

Historiker I don't know what your discussions in the thread were and personally i do not care what they were and with who they where but you have come up with some good ideas and data for this game. Regarding being misunderstood it does happen when players come from different countries/languages/cultures its normal you just have to go the extra mile to explain. Well to cut it shortly i loved your posts as they were very informative if not blunt but fun so it is a pleasure to see you posting again. Regarding work and political views most of us work have family's but we still work and post here in my case i normally check the forum by PDA to keep up to date as I normally work 14-15 hours daily, Mon-Sat So please if you can find the time continue posting here and just remember that diplomacy is the first rule on forums.

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Page: [1] 2 next > >>