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.

61

Friday, November 14th 2014, 12:39am

Quoted

An artifact of RA.

From what I can see, the only cruisers he had simmed with sonar are the San Calepodio class, the Ischia class, and the Rimini/Bari class.

Bari and Rimini, and in a way the Ischia too, are more like oversized destroyers. So that would leave the San Calepodio as being the odd one, but looking at the picture, it makes me wonder if RA had the idea of using that autogyro/helicopter contraption thingie in the ASW role with the sonar being used to locate the submarines...


Far to advanced for the period, dubious value with the technology of the time, and sure to ruffle lots of feathers? It seems exactly like something RA would do.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

62

Friday, November 14th 2014, 12:54am

Quoted

An artifact of RA.

From what I can see, the only cruisers he had simmed with sonar are the San Calepodio class, the Ischia class, and the Rimini/Bari class.

Bari and Rimini, and in a way the Ischia too, are more like oversized destroyers. So that would leave the San Calepodio as being the odd one, but looking at the picture, it makes me wonder if RA had the idea of using that autogyro/helicopter contraption thingie in the ASW role with the sonar being used to locate the submarines...


That could have been his reasoning... if so, I am rather meh about it. And while the second proposed design is far more reasonable, I still see no real reason not to use RA's original San Calepodio class - it does not seem to violate any of our rules.

63

Friday, November 14th 2014, 9:41am

I think this is the danger which we pointed out earlier. Simply resimming when there is no need creates extra work and raises questions of superiority etc. This is why I said before the design issues and infrastructure issues shouldn't really be mixed.

I'm worried the 76mm DP twins seem to have vanished from the inventory to be replaced by 100mm twins. While that's no great problem and the 100mm is an historical weapon and one that was exported in WW, I feel the 76mm would make a lighter and more flexible choice for vessels where tonnage is key. However, I do agree that the San Calepodio was an odd design lacking an intermediate battery. You refitted them with 8x2 76mm (a tad overkill in my eyes) [the sim that exists in the encyclopaedia] but 5x2 76mm would fit or 4x2 100mm as a max battery would fit equally as well. So I've no problem if that change is made. Likewise your retention of sonar makes sense too, to keep with the RA theme. I've no problem with you resimming RA's ships, and if errors are found those should be corrected, if not they should be used with minor armament tweaks only in justified cases like these.

I think the real savings in tonnage is going to come from cutting hull numbers and rejigging lay down dates than resims. I still haven't seen enough, if any, tonnage savings to justify the wholesale resimming of ships. They all look good sims but its not fundamentally altering the problem at hand - the shortage of factories.

64

Friday, November 14th 2014, 2:21pm

I think the real savings in tonnage is going to come from cutting hull numbers and rejigging lay down dates than resims. I still haven't seen enough, if any, tonnage savings to justify the wholesale resimming of ships. They all look good sims but its not fundamentally altering the problem at hand - the shortage of factories.

Exactly so. As we discussed via PM with the other mods before this all came public, I'm fine with resimming certain classes to make them fit into the budget, but we'd prefer not to introduce too many wholesale changes to existing designs. In other words, we'd prefer to resim ships only when the sims are wrong, or when the ship class (even properly simmed) can't fit into the budget unless it's reduced in size and scope.

65

Friday, November 14th 2014, 4:02pm

The 76mm did not enter service untill far after this date, the 100mm was the primary AA gun of the 1930's under RA untill the 76mm replaced it in 1939.

I'm unsure of the best way to continue here, it seems like just going through and eliminating ships might be the best way to go. *starts thinking about how to trim 200,000t of ships*
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

66

Friday, November 14th 2014, 4:09pm

... I'm unsure of the best way to continue here, it seems like just going through and eliminating ships might be the best way to go. *starts thinking about how to trim 200,000t of ships*


I fear you are going to have to start at the beginning - 1929 - and work forward on a quarterly basis, even if only on a spreadsheet. I think it will be the only way to track to the tonnage you have available and the construction to which you are committed. Some of RA's designs may need to be recast, but reduced numbers for each design could be the way to go.

67

Friday, November 14th 2014, 4:31pm

I think the real savings in tonnage is going to come from cutting hull numbers and rejigging lay down dates than resims. I still haven't seen enough, if any, tonnage savings to justify the wholesale resimming of ships. They all look good sims but its not fundamentally altering the problem at hand - the shortage of factories.


'Rejigging lay down dates' is not necessarily a must. After all, according to the sim rules, "A ship may take up to three times its theoretical building time to complete without the ship falling into disrepair" so as long as the infrastructure allows it, it is also possible to spread out the construction and the tonnage they receive each quarter over a longer period of time in order to fit it into the current budget.

It is something I did for example with the Yamato and Musashi. Under normal circumstances they would be completed in 84 months. Starting in January 1936, that would mean they would have been completed January 1943. Instead it was not until December 1944 that they were completed. They would require a minimum of 893 tons per month to be completed in time, but in reality there were quite a few months where it was less than that, in order for everything to fit, not necessarily that particular quarter, but more in the long run.

You will see that in the next bit straight from my spreadsheet for one of the two battleships (the other received the same amount per month), the tonages put into them are all over the place...

1936
Jan 250
Feb 250
Mar 250
Apr 500
May 500
Jun 500
Jul 500
Aug 500
Sep 500
Oct 250
Nov 250
Dec 250
1937
Jan 1000
Feb 1000
Mar 1000
Apr 1000
May 1000
Jun 1000
Jul 1000
Aug 1000
Sep 1000
Oct 100
Nov 100
Dec 100
1938
Jan 400
Feb 400
Mar 400
Apr 1000
May 1000
Jun 1000
Jul 1000
Aug 1000
Sep 1000
Oct 1000
Nov 1000
Dec 1000
1939
Jan 1000
Feb 1000
Mar 1000
Apr 1000
May 1000
Jun 1000
Jul 550
Aug 400
Sep 200
Oct 800
Nov 600
Dec 600
1940
Jan 500
Feb 500
Mar 500
Apr 500
May 500
Jun 500
Jul 500
Aug 500
Sep 500
Oct 500
Nov 500
Dec 500
1941
Jan 500
Feb 500
Mar 500
Apr 1000
May 1000
Jun 1000
Jul 1000
Aug 1000
Sep 1000
Oct 1000
Nov 1000
Dec 1000
1942
Jan 500
Feb 500
Mar 500
Apr 500
May 500
Jun 500
Jul 500
Aug 500
Sep 500
Oct 500
Nov 500
Dec 500
1943
Jan 1000
Feb 1000
Mar 1000
Apr 1000
May 1000
Jun 1000
Jul 500
Aug 500
Sep 500
Oct 500
Nov 500
Dec 500
1944
Jan 600
Feb 600
Mar 600
Apr 1000
May 1000
Jun 1000
Jul 1000
Aug 1000
Sep 1000
Oct 1000
Nov 1000
Dec 550

Exactly so. As we discussed via PM with the other mods before this all came public, I'm fine with resimming certain classes to make them fit into the budget, but we'd prefer not to introduce too many wholesale changes to existing designs. In other words, we'd prefer to resim ships only when the sims are wrong, or when the ship class (even properly simmed) can't fit into the budget unless it's reduced in size and scope.

Looking at it now, resimming to fit the budget is not really going to work, unless the vessel is big and you can reasonably reduce its size or the vessel is reasonable in size and there are many of them.

Unfortunately with the latter, the reasonable sized vessels would be the light and heavy cruisers but there are not enough of them to make a real dent in the amount needed and the really numerous vessels would be anything destroyer-sized and smaller but there is not much tonnage to be gained from such vessels due to their limited amount of tonnage.

So the only real gains that can be made would be by resimming the big ships (the large carriers and battleships) so they end up being lighter than before. The Portaerei 1936 design is not really what you want to do. To save tonnage there, it would probably be better to drop the tonnage of that one to 25,000 tons instead of increasing it to 30,000 tons. Any additional tonnage to be saved would be from reducing the number of ships in the fleet...

68

Friday, November 14th 2014, 4:50pm

I need to take a step back and think. Will update things when ready.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

69

Friday, November 14th 2014, 4:51pm

Quite correct Walter - drawing out the construction time to fit the available tonnage is one way of addressing the problem. I've done it when constructing the Sachsens - essentially suspending them for the best part of a year and then slowing their build tempo.

70

Friday, November 14th 2014, 5:57pm

Quoted

Quite correct Walter - drawing out the construction time to fit the available tonnage is one way of addressing the problem. I've done it when constructing the Sachsens - essentially suspending them for the best part of a year and then slowing their build tempo.

Because of that I think we should keep it simple and look more at the tonnages that need to be saved rather than looking too much to see when everything was laid down and completed.


Looking myself into it (admittedly rather quickly), I think that what I mentioned before based on what I saw snip had in mind was a good start with cutting costs...
- Littorio class: 3x 40,026 tons to 2x 40,000 tons. Saved: 40,078 tons.
- No Pisa conversion: 6x 4,919 rebuild. Saved: 29,514 tons.
- Andrea Doria class: 2x 37,911 tons to 2x 30,000 tons. Saved: 15,822 tons.
- Rimini class: 12x 4,284 tons to 8x 4,284 tons. Saved: 17,136 tons.

Saved so far: 102,550 tons

Some ideas:
- Guiseppe Garibaldi Class: 2x 29,344 tons to 2x 25,000 tons. Saved: 8,688 tons.
- Tripolitania Class: from 2x 45,133 tons to 2x 40,000 tons: Saved: 10,266 tons.
- Zara Class refit instead of reconstruction?: 3x2842 tons. Saved: 8,526 tons.
- Caesar Class: 3x 17,142 tons to 2x 17,142 tons. Saved: 17,142 tons.
- Saint Class: 3x 13,320 tons to 2x 13,320 tons -1x 6,660 reconstruction?. Saved: 19,980 tons.
- Saint Class refit instead of reconstruction?: 2x 3,300 tons. Saved: 6,600 tons.
- Sant' Achilleo Class refit instead of reconstruction?: 2x 1983 tons. Saved: 3,966 tons.
- San Calepodio Class refit instead of reconstruction?: 2x 1726 tons. Saved: 3,452 tons.
- Lombardia Class: 4x 9,910 tons to 3x 9,910 tons. Saved: 9,910 tons.
- Genoa Class: 4x 9,750 tons to 3x 9,750 tons. Saved 9,750 tons.

Saved so far: 200,830 tons.

I assumed with whenever 'reconstructed' was mentioned that it was a "Partial Reconstruction" (i.e. 50%). A bit confusing as the text below pics state "Picture is pre-refit. By RA." which could mean they might actually be Major Refits and not Partial Reconstructions...

If they are "Partial Reconstructions", then delaying that option until the late 1945 or later could save an additional 22,544 tons. If not, not doing the refit until the late 40s would save the amount I mentioned above in the list (except for the removal of the 1 Saint Hull which would be 3300 tons saved from no refit instead of 6600 tons from no reconstruction).

Alternatively cutting an additional ship from the Lombardia and Genoa class could save an additional 19,660 tons.

As I mentioned above, we should keep it simple and thus assume that by cutting the above and probably stretching of construction times would allow everything else to fit in with the budget that would be available each quarter.

Still in the end they are just some ideas... Snip probably has a better view at the numbers and what is available...

71

Saturday, November 15th 2014, 10:43am

I think Walter has some good points here, but I think Bruce's quarter by quarter approach might bear fruit too.

72

Saturday, November 15th 2014, 3:09pm

I think Walter has some good points here, but I think Bruce's quarter by quarter approach might bear fruit too.


For the good of the game I'd go along with Walter's proposal - it would ease the burden on Snip. However, in looking over the details of the Italian sim reports, there is a question in my mind whether the factories built in 1933-34, in 1938-39 and 1940-41 are properly paid for. By my calculations, the factory completed in 1940-41 is a shy 0.5IP. This is why I favor the quarter-by-quarter approach - it makes certain that all infrastructure is properly accounted for. However, I am not adamant on the point.

73

Wednesday, February 25th 2015, 4:27am

Picking up the necessary corrections to the Italian reports again, I have discussed with Brock a solution for the resiming of Italian ships. As I have pointed out previously, I would really like to resim the Italian Navy to ensure there is no question the designs are legal, but I also understand the comments that have been made about wanting to make sure the ships in question are not altered to much from the existing forms. To that end, I present the following solution. When I began work on this, I proposed a change of weapons to that of the historic catalog of Italian weapons. I would like to carry out this change, which would result with some minor changes to the secondary batteries of the Italian Navy. The following guns would be swapped around on a 1-to-1 basis.

All 76mm and 76.2mm weapons (Automatic and Manual) changed to 65mm weapons.
All dedicated 100mm AA guns after 1938 changed to 90mm AA guns. DP mounting introduced in 1942
All 47mm AA guns changed to 37mm guns.
Retention of the 135mm gun as a gun and implementation of historically planed DP mounting. For use in applications where the combo of 152mm and 90mm weapons is unfeasible (for instance Carriers due to more limited effective space)

Additionally, I have kept the 152mm DP mounts even tho they are an RA development. I feel this is a significant flavor piece to the Italian Navy and I would prefer not to loose it due to the roll it plays in may of the designs. Droping it would require more work to create viable designs due to the roll it plays in Air Defense. The complete list of guns and mountings I plan on using is here on the Standardized Weapons and Mountings tab. Please let me know of any questions or concerns you have so that I may address them.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

74

Wednesday, February 25th 2015, 7:37pm

Re-posting the previously discussed Battleship designs due to some modifications.

Corazzata 1934: A slightly altered Littorio. Added some 100mm AA due to the 152mm DP mounts now being a later development then this class. Will be a class of two as opposed to three, in order to save 40,000t

Quoted

Corazzata 1934, Italian Battleship laid down 1934

Displacement:
40,000 t light; 42,123 t standard; 46,092 t normal; 49,267 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
807.08 ft / 787.40 ft x 104.99 ft x 32.81 ft (normal load)
246.00 m / 240.00 m x 32.00 m x 10.00 m

Armament:
9 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,951.09lbs / 885.00kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 5.98" / 152 mm guns (6x2 guns), 110.23lbs / 50.00kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
12 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (6x2 guns), 30.86lbs / 14.00kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.82lbs / 0.83kg shells, 1932 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 1934 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 19,310 lbs / 8,759 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.4" / 340 mm 511.81 ft / 156.00 m 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 511.81 ft / 156.00 m 27.07 ft / 8.25 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.0" / 380 mm 8.66" / 220 mm 11.8" / 300 mm
2nd: 5.31" / 135 mm 2.76" / 70 mm 2.76" / 70 mm
3rd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.72" / 120 mm, Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 160,000 shp / 119,360 Kw = 31.03 kts
Range 4,000nm at 25.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,143 tons

Complement:
1,572 - 2,044

Cost:
£18.741 million / $74.965 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,111 tons, 4.6 %
Armour: 15,365 tons, 33.3 %
- Belts: 5,412 tons, 11.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,009 tons, 2.2 %
- Armament: 3,387 tons, 7.3 %
- Armour Deck: 5,480 tons, 11.9 %
- Conning Tower: 76 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 4,603 tons, 10.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,771 tons, 38.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,092 tons, 13.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
70,581 lbs / 32,015 Kg = 41.8 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 10.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 7.0 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.68
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.595
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.43 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.58 ft / 1.09 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 27.89 ft / 8.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Mid (50 %): 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15.58 ft / 4.75 m (24.61 ft / 7.50 m before break)
- Stern: 15.58 ft / 4.75 m
- Average freeboard: 23.52 ft / 7.17 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 186.9 %
Waterplane Area: 62,702 Square feet or 5,825 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 206 lbs/sq ft or 1,008 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.35
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

2.75m internal deck hight plus .5m Void

Waterline at 2m on 4th deck

Main Belt consists of 280mm main plate in 60mm decaping plate.
Main Belt covers 4th and 5th deck.
Main Belt inclined at 11 degrees. True Hight 5.5m
TDS Extends from bottom of hull to 4th deck

--50t Electronics Fit
----RSC.1 Suface Warning (10t)
----2xRAC.1 Air Warning Radar (10t each)
----2xRCF.1 General Gunnery Director (10t each)
--75t Flag Facilities
--25t Emergency Electrical Generators


Corazzata 1938: An updated Corazzata 1934 to replace the Tripolitania class with. Very analogous to the OTL Littorio. Class of two, for a savings of 9626

Quoted

Corazzata 1938, Italian Battleship laid down 1938

Displacement:
40,300 t light; 42,420 t standard; 46,261 t normal; 49,334 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
807.08 ft / 787.40 ft x 104.99 ft x 32.81 ft (normal load)
246.00 m / 240.00 m x 32.00 m x 10.00 m

Armament:
9 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,951.09lbs / 885.00kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 5.98" / 152 mm guns (4x3 guns), 110.23lbs / 50.00kg shells, 1935 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
12 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns in single mounts, 22.05lbs / 10.00kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.82lbs / 0.83kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 1938 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 19,204 lbs / 8,711 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.4" / 340 mm 511.81 ft / 156.00 m 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.36" / 60 mm 511.81 ft / 156.00 m 27.07 ft / 8.25 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.0" / 380 mm 8.66" / 220 mm 11.8" / 300 mm
2nd: 5.31" / 135 mm 2.76" / 70 mm 2.76" / 70 mm
3rd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.72" / 120 mm, Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 161,000 shp / 120,106 Kw = 31.05 kts
Range 4,000nm at 25.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,914 tons

Complement:
1,576 - 2,050

Cost:
£21.365 million / $85.459 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,099 tons, 4.5 %
Armour: 15,513 tons, 33.5 %
- Belts: 5,413 tons, 11.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,211 tons, 2.6 %
- Armament: 3,321 tons, 7.2 %
- Armour Deck: 5,492 tons, 11.9 %
- Conning Tower: 77 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 4,409 tons, 9.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,765 tons, 38.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,961 tons, 12.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 515 tons, 1.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
71,685 lbs / 32,516 Kg = 42.5 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 10.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 7.0 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 16.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.68
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.597
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.42 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.58 ft / 1.09 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 27.89 ft / 8.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Mid (50 %): 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15.58 ft / 4.75 m (24.61 ft / 7.50 m before break)
- Stern: 15.58 ft / 4.75 m
- Average freeboard: 23.52 ft / 7.17 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 83.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 186.9 %
Waterplane Area: 62,833 Square feet or 5,837 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 206 lbs/sq ft or 1,006 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.36
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

2.75m internal deck hight plus .5m Void

Waterline at 2m on 4th deck

Main Belt consists of 280mm main plate in 60mm decaping plate.
Main Belt covers 4th and 5th deck.
Main Belt inclined at 11 degrees. True Hight 5.5m
TDS Extends from bottom of hull to 4th deck
--240t Gyroscopic Stabalization for 90mm guns (20t per gun)
--120t Electronics fit
----2xRSC.1 Surface Warning (10t each)
----2xRAC.2 Air Warning (10t each)
----4xRCF.2 General Gunnery Directors (15t each)
----4xRCF.3 Anti-Aircraft Director (5t each)
--100t Flag facilities
--35t Crew Comfort considerations


Corazzata 1942: Updated Corazzata 1938 to replace the Leonardo de Vinci class. Class of two, savings of 9150

Quoted

Corazzata 1942, Italian Battleship laid down 1942

Displacement:
40,700 t light; 42,846 t standard; 46,579 t normal; 49,565 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
807.08 ft / 787.40 ft x 104.99 ft x 32.81 ft (normal load)
246.00 m / 240.00 m x 32.00 m x 10.00 m

Armament:
9 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,951.09lbs / 885.00kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 5.98" / 152 mm guns (4x3 guns), 110.23lbs / 50.00kg shells, 1935 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side ends, evenly spread
24 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 22.05lbs / 10.00kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.82lbs / 0.83kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 1942 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 19,469 lbs / 8,831 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 110

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.4" / 340 mm 511.81 ft / 156.00 m 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.56" / 65 mm 511.81 ft / 156.00 m 27.07 ft / 8.25 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.0" / 380 mm 8.66" / 220 mm 11.8" / 300 mm
2nd: 5.31" / 135 mm 2.76" / 70 mm 2.76" / 70 mm
3rd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.72" / 120 mm, Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 162,000 shp / 120,852 Kw = 31.05 kts
Range 4,000nm at 25.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,719 tons

Complement:
1,584 - 2,060

Cost:
£24.232 million / $96.926 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,132 tons, 4.6 %
Armour: 15,659 tons, 33.6 %
- Belts: 5,414 tons, 11.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,312 tons, 2.8 %
- Armament: 3,343 tons, 7.2 %
- Armour Deck: 5,513 tons, 11.8 %
- Conning Tower: 77 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 4,232 tons, 9.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,897 tons, 38.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,879 tons, 12.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 780 tons, 1.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
72,353 lbs / 32,819 Kg = 42.9 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 11.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 6.8 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 16.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.70
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.601
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.41 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.58 ft / 1.09 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 27.89 ft / 8.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Mid (50 %): 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15.58 ft / 4.75 m (24.61 ft / 7.50 m before break)
- Stern: 15.58 ft / 4.75 m
- Average freeboard: 23.52 ft / 7.17 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 186.6 %
Waterplane Area: 63,080 Square feet or 5,860 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 207 lbs/sq ft or 1,010 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.36
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

2.75m internal deck hight plus .5m Void

Waterline at 2m on 4th deck

Main Belt consists of 280mm main plate in 60mm decaping plate.
Main Belt covers 4th and 5th deck.
Main Belt inclined at 11 degrees. True Hight 5.5m
TDS Extends from bottom of hull to 4th deck

--480t Gyroscopic stabalization for 90mm guns (20t per gun)
--150t Electronics Fit
----2xRSC.2 Surface Warning (15t each)
----2xRAC.3 Air Warning (10t each)
----2xRAC.4 Air Warning (15t each)
----2xRCF.5 General Gunnery Directors (15t each)
----2xRCF.4 Light Gunnery Directors (10t each)
----4xRCF.3 Anti-Aircraft Director (5t each)
--125t Flag facilities
--25t Crew Comfort considerations


Any issues with these designs?
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

75

Wednesday, February 25th 2015, 8:11pm

So if I get it correctly, the Torpedobulkhead on all three designs will be useless when the Torpedo is running on the surface or close to the surface....

76

Wednesday, February 25th 2015, 8:32pm

RA had two different scheems, the first was the historical Pulgise system, this would be present on the 1934 design.


The second is this diagram, intended for the Tripolitania


On both these systems, the main belt buts directly up against the TDS, which is maintained in the above designs.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

77

Wednesday, February 25th 2015, 8:58pm

I would assume that the armor lines behind the main belt would be would be extentions of the TBH, so I sime the TBH taller than what you have.... but that is how I would do it.

78

Wednesday, February 25th 2015, 9:23pm

Based on RA's notes, I think those are suppose to be multiple layers of splinter protection. I did not include them to help save weight.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

79

Friday, February 27th 2015, 6:11pm

Reposting previously discussed CVs due to some modification.

Portaerei 1936: In most respects, a Guiseppe Garibaldi modified to fix some of the more outlandish and legally questionable features. I will note I have modified the AA armament somewhat from the Guiseppe Garibaldi, with 8x100mm replacing 4 of the 152mm guns, if this change is felt to be to much I can revise to be closer to the Guiseppe Garibaldi. Only saving 688t over the class of two, but the legal issues called for a resim.

Quoted

Portaerei 1936, Italian Aircraft Carrier laid down 1936

Displacement:
29,000 t light; 29,829 t standard; 34,498 t normal; 38,233 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
856.31 ft / 820.21 ft x 98.43 ft x 29.53 ft (normal load)
261.00 m / 250.00 m x 30.00 m x 9.00 m

Armament:
8 - 5.98" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 110.23lbs / 50.00kg shells, 1936 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (4x2 guns), 30.86lbs / 14.00kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.82lbs / 0.83kg shells, 1932 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 1936 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,164 lbs / 528 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.98" / 152 mm 533.14 ft / 162.50 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: 2.36" / 60 mm 287.04 ft / 87.49 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 533.14 ft / 162.50 m 32.81 ft / 10.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
2nd: 0.12" / 3 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.33" / 110 mm, Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 140,000 shp / 104,440 Kw = 31.81 kts
Range 6,000nm at 25.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,404 tons

Complement:
1,265 - 1,645

Cost:
£8.878 million / $35.512 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 141 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 7,497 tons, 21.7 %
- Belts: 1,576 tons, 4.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,274 tons, 3.7 %
- Armament: 75 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 4,509 tons, 13.1 %
- Conning Tower: 63 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 3,928 tons, 11.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9,733 tons, 28.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,498 tons, 15.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 7,700 tons, 22.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
52,196 lbs / 23,675 Kg = 487.1 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 8.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 7.0 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 15.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 61 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.04
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.43

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.507
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.33 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.14 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.31 ft / 1.62 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 53.31 ft / 16.25 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 54.95 ft / 16.75 m (17.22 ft / 5.25 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 17.22 ft / 5.25 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17.22 ft / 5.25 m
- Stern: 17.22 ft / 5.25 m
- Average freeboard: 24.64 ft / 7.51 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 146.0 %
Waterplane Area: 56,278 Square feet or 5,228 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 143 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 122 lbs/sq ft or 595 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.00
- Longitudinal: 1.01
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

2.75m Internal deck hight plus .5m Void

Hanger hight is 11m

Misc Wieght breakdown
--5184t for 72 Aircraft.
--1350t for 30mm flightdeck armor
--500t for crated spares, parts, and workshops
--150t Aircraft Operations Center
--150t Flag Facilities
--100t RADAR
----2xRSC.1 Suface Warning (10t each)
----2xRAC.1 Air Warning (10t each)
----6xRCF.1 General Gunnery Directors (10t each)
--125t Inert gas shielding for AVGAS lines and tanks
--50t Two hydraulic catapults on bow-end of flight deck
--50t Crew Comfort considerations
--16t Reserve


Portaerei 1940: An updated Portaerei 1936. Some minor improvements due to both time and operational experience. Savings of 17572 over the Andrea Doria for a class of two.

Quoted

Portaerei 1940, Italian Aircraft Carrier laid down 1940

Displacement:
29,150 t light; 29,986 t standard; 34,491 t normal; 38,095 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
856.31 ft / 820.21 ft x 98.43 ft x 29.53 ft (normal load)
261.00 m / 250.00 m x 30.00 m x 9.00 m

Armament:
8 - 5.31" / 135 mm guns in single mounts, 72.75lbs / 33.00kg shells, 1940 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 2.56" / 65.0 mm guns in single mounts, 8.82lbs / 4.00kg shells, 1939 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.82lbs / 0.83kg shells, 1932 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
48 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (12x4 guns), 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 1933 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 779 lbs / 353 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.94" / 100 mm 533.14 ft / 162.50 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: 2.36" / 60 mm 287.04 ft / 87.49 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.76" / 70 mm 533.14 ft / 162.50 m 32.81 ft / 10.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.33" / 110 mm, Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 140,000 shp / 104,440 Kw = 31.81 kts
Range 6,000nm at 25.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,108 tons

Complement:
1,265 - 1,645

Cost:
£9.759 million / $39.035 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 98 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 7,548 tons, 21.9 %
- Belts: 1,121 tons, 3.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,784 tons, 5.2 %
- Armament: 72 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 4,508 tons, 13.1 %
- Conning Tower: 63 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 3,743 tons, 10.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9,651 tons, 28.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,341 tons, 15.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 8,110 tons, 23.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
53,163 lbs / 24,114 Kg = 708.2 x 5.3 " / 135 mm shells or 9.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 6.9 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 15.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 61 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.03
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.43

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.506
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.33 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.14 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.31 ft / 1.62 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 53.31 ft / 16.25 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 54.95 ft / 16.75 m (17.22 ft / 5.25 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 17.22 ft / 5.25 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17.22 ft / 5.25 m
- Stern: 17.22 ft / 5.25 m
- Average freeboard: 24.64 ft / 7.51 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 80.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 145.9 %
Waterplane Area: 56,272 Square feet or 5,228 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 144 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 121 lbs/sq ft or 590 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.00
- Longitudinal: 1.00
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

2.75m Internal deck hight plus .5m Void

Hanger hight is 11m

Misc Wieght breakdown
--5184t for 72 Aircraft.
--1350t for 30mm flightdeck armor
--600t for crated spares, parts, and workshops
--200t Aircraft Operations Center
--250t Flag Facilities
--130t RADAR
----2xRSC.2 Suface Warning (15t each)
----2xRAC.3 Air Warning (10t each)
----2xRAC.4 Air Warning (15t each)
----2xRCF.4 Light Gunnery Directors (10t each)
----6xRCF.6 Anti-Aircraft Directors (5t each)
--150t Inert gas shielding for AVGAS lines and tanks
--50t Two deck-edge elevators.
--50t Two hydraulic catapults on bow-end of flight deck
--50t Crew Comfort considerations
--40t Seaplane servicing equipment
--21t Reserve


Any issues with these designs?
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

80

Saturday, February 28th 2015, 11:27am

All of these BB and CV designs look ok to me and seem very sensible designs.
The use of historical weapons probably is a good move too.