You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

1

Wednesday, November 8th 2006, 4:41am

Questions

So I've managed to generate some questions which I hope folks have answers for .

1) Submarines. I’ve been trying to model historic subs to get a better feel for what’s reasonable. I notice most of them come out around 100% hull volume, before I add miscellaneous tonnage. While I can up torpedo tubes/engines with comp hull to spare, the little warning light in my mind is going off indicating that, perhaps for subs, one should try to make sure hull volume is around 100-110% (for sail) or less. Sound logical, or can I pump it up to 200% and add misc to get it to 300% and still be happy ?

1a) Now that I’m playing with subs, I realized that RAM or I messed up the O-1 design and dropped the stability <1.00, so I need to fix that as that’s not allowed, probably just reduce misc. weight.

2) TDS. Historically, the French used water exclusion material – foam (?), in the Richelieu class BBs. I presume there is a weight to this. Any idea how to model that?

3) Reconstruction : Often, the first carriers had a number of problems. I was thinking of rebuilding the superstructure of CVxHund for faster elevators, better work spaces, better armanents handling, new fire suppression…same SIM, just an “in game” better vessel. Would this be a 15% refit for superstructure modifications or 25% major?

4) Armored directors – how to go about simming them? Historically they not heavily armored as they were high up and weighty. I’ve used two, single superimposed 6” guns with 0.8” splinter armor on some designs- figuring a 25’ long tube of steel was a reasonable analogy for a director. This may overstate though and winds up reserving space for shells, so flawed.

5) Diesel & electric engines- historically had a weight/hp penalty not reflected in SS. I’ve assessed 10% for the electric drive (based off something I read ages ago re: USN BBs) on some ships, not all. There doesn’t seem to be a habit of this, so I was planning on dropping it.

6) “Creep” motors – how much weight…any ideas?

7) Howitzers…. OTL, howitzers were lighter for weight than guns. I was thinking that for a gunfire support vessel, 12” howitzers might be useful. The problem is to figure out how much they would weigh. A little book on artillery gives the WWI Italian 305mm/17 Model 17 as originally a coast defense weapon, converted to field piece. Instead of a conventional artillery carriage, a “heavy steel ground platform; on this went the top carriage, with a system of carrying the hydro-pneumatic recoil cylinders, was fitted to the carriage, and the gun tube slide into the cradle and bolted to the recoil pistons”. This to me sounds like a good parallel for a naval fitting.
Would there be objections if I modeled a vessel using guns displacing 33,770kg –whatever their bore size- and calling them surrogates for the howitzer? Does somebody have a better technique?

2

Wednesday, November 8th 2006, 7:07am

To answer #3, I would think a 25% refit would cover all the bases. I would assume the faster lifts would require improved auxillary motors ect.

Heres the stats on 15/25% refits for easier referance, I've highlighted the likely alterations as per your discription.

2.2.2.2 Level 2: Minor Refits (cost = 15%)

-Changes to radar: P
-Alterations to guns of 155mm and smaller not involving barbette alterations or hoists: T
-Changes to depth charge racks and throwers: T
-Changes to torpedo carriages: T
-Changes to gun directors: T
-Minor changes to superstructure (enclosing a bridge, adding a searchlight platform): T


2.2.2.3 Level 3: Major Refits (cost = 25%)

-Changes to catapults and/or above-decks seaplane hangers: P
-Changes to deck mount or turret armor: P
-Changes to conning tower armor: P
-Changes to external armor belts: P (upper), D (ends, main)
-Changes to underwater torpedo tubes: D
-Changes to sonar: D
-Alterations to guns of 195mm and smaller not involving barbette alterations: P
-Refurbishment of internal fittings for life-extension purposes: P

Note: I highlighted the Seaplane hangar bit because IMO there isn't too much dissimilarity between it and a carriers hangar other than the obvious size difference.

You'd likely have to tinker with the Misc weight as well to sim the various additions of new equipment.

I'm also interested in the refit of Carriers as my Arrogant class are in serious need of a refit to remove the forward flying off deck, replace obsolete AA ect. so it will be interesting to see what others think.

3

Wednesday, November 8th 2006, 11:47am

2) - No idea, other than, perhaps, counting 2 mm or so of the TDS armor for this purpose. Historically, most of these ideas did not work out well in practice, the materials becoming waterlogged.

3) - 25% sounds right for an update to the carriers.

4) - I'd expect this to be covered, indirectly, in the conning tower armor. Modelling it seperately, other than via misc. weight, seems unnecessary in SS2 (we'll see if SS3 supports it or not).

5) - SS2 also doesn't model the lower fuel consumption of diesels, so there's a trade there. So far there's no pattern on this, so I'd feel comfortable dropping your extra tonnage.

6) - Seems like RA might have something here, I don't really.

7) - Seems a good way to go.

4

Wednesday, November 8th 2006, 4:27pm

1. Use the spreadsheet instead. It is massively better.

2. Have a look at its density (which'll be <1.0) work out how much volume you need then multiply to find the weight. Considering that we can't estimate the increased (if any) effectiveness vs. torpedos I can't see the point. I just stick with fuel oil for the liquid loaded sections, density is c. 0.90-0.95 so doesn't make a great deal of difference if replaced by water.

3. I'd go for 15% instead as its not a life-extension refit.

4. Don't bother. Don't armour directors as they'll play havoc with stability. Their protection was being high up and small, and having some redundancy in the system

5. The specific weights I can get a close value to from the Diesels/Motors on submarines. These'll be heavier for larger ships. Trying to find a volume they take up will be much harder. Fuel comsumption changes as a function of speed. 10knts and reciprocating are the way to go. 15knts and turboelectric. 15knts+ and youu want pure turbines.

6. About 40hp per ton, but SS doesn't particularly model low speeds well so I'd put a design factor of 5-10 in.

5

Wednesday, November 8th 2006, 4:36pm

Regarding Hund, if by armaments handling you mean the aircraft ordnance, I think 15% would be adequate.

6

Wednesday, November 8th 2006, 5:01pm

For submarines I will be basing my designs on historical submarines. Its simpler, and you know how the sub will behave.

7

Wednesday, November 8th 2006, 5:10pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
For submarines I will be basing my designs on historical submarines. Its simpler, and you know how the sub will behave.


Hopefully it'll sink.

8

Wednesday, November 8th 2006, 5:26pm

Quoted

Hopefully it'll sink.


More than once.

9

Wednesday, November 8th 2006, 5:58pm

Why am I thinking about Hunley now...

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

10

Thursday, November 9th 2006, 3:07am

1. I find Dutch submarines have a distinct habit of sinking, luckily it's reversible.

Anyhow, reverse engineering historical designs is what led me to question if the % hull vol. shouldn't be important in SS them.

As for the spreadsheet, I suppose I could try it, but truthfully unless we all agree that for Subs- use the spreadsheet, all else SS... I think I'd rather use SS with logic checks.

2. I was asking as- compared to Hood's tubes, or the sodden wood in other TDSs, I had read Richeleau's had worked. However RA has a good point, so I'll drop the idea.

3. Yeah, I read through the reconstruction rules, but was uncertain.
It would be for CV Hund, with the principle change is elevator lift devices. Hanger is full length, would like fire shutters and a new sprinkler system. From there we go to reworking the armanents chain to be more flash proof. I was thinking each step was more around the level of enclosing a bridge, so 15%, but stretching it. On the other hand I would *not* be extending the flight deck/hanger, altering catapults, etc.

I've got a vote for 15, a vote for 25, and a "so it will be interesting to see what others think." More votes/comments ?

4. The thought of splinter armor came out of thinking of doctrine calling for HE if unlikely to actually penetrate to vitals. Likewise bomb damage. I'm perfectly happy to go with 'conning tower armor' or misc. weight, or plan for armored directors and pay the stability/wieght penalty for the luxury.

5. I'll quit worrying about adjusting for diesels then.

6. Thanks RA.

7. Looks like I can start playing with gunfire support vessels.

Thanks all.

-Kirk

11

Thursday, November 9th 2006, 7:55am

Meh, go with a 15% refit with Hund you already have 2 votes for it anyway.

12

Thursday, November 9th 2006, 10:01am

4. If you're using HE then the damage will be mostly from blast than splinters. It'd be a bummer if a HE shell exploded next to your nicely armoured director causing no damage to it - but inside the crew are all dead with trickles of blood from their ears, the overpressure being more lethal in this case.

13

Thursday, November 9th 2006, 1:53pm

The armored directors that I'm familiar with (the German armored AA directors) were armored mostly against aircraft strafing, so just a little armor was sufficient.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

14

Friday, November 10th 2006, 7:45am

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
4. If you're using HE then the damage will be mostly from blast than splinters. It'd be a bummer if a HE shell exploded next to your nicely armoured director causing no damage to it - but inside the crew are all dead with trickles of blood from their ears, the overpressure being more lethal in this case.


Gee, that might just impair it's functioning...

You may have a point there. I was thinking purely on the splinter level, overpressure didn't enter into it. I guess I should drop this idea as a seperate item, just presume the light armor Hrolf references.

Again, thanks all for the input.