RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... (3/8/2007 8:25:54 PM)

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



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

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



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


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

[:D] [:D]



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

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:



Nemo121 -> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... (3/9/2007 7:48:42 AM)

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



Mike Scholl -> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... (3/9/2007 8:05:32 AM)

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,



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

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.



Nemo121 -> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... (3/9/2007 8:41:05 AM)

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.



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

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.



Nemo121 -> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... (3/9/2007 9:26:38 AM)

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?



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


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

And what about deck armor?



Maybe the designer is hoping for 100% pass-throughs! [:D]

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



Mike Scholl -> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... (3/9/2007 3:42:43 PM)


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.



Nemo121 -> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... (3/9/2007 4:14:07 PM)

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?



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

Maybe we need SpringSharp competition now ! [:D]

Just found this proggie..very very neat !!

SpringSharp



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

muhahaha i am the bringer of gifts.



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

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



Mike Scholl -> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... (3/10/2007 12:13:12 AM)


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".



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

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.



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

I think Pacific War SpringSharp competition might be fun...BB, CA, CL etc. classes.. Now just need the bunch of judges...[8D][:D]




Nemo121 -> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... (3/10/2007 2:54:46 AM)

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



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


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think Pacific War SpringSharp competition might be fun...BB, CA, CL etc. classes.. Now just need the bunch of judges...[8D][:D]



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



Mike Scholl -> RE: Design your BB for Pacific War... (3/11/2007 2:51:26 AM)


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.



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

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.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.8125