You are not logged in.

1

Tuesday, March 15th 2016, 2:00pm

A question....

Looking at our ship refit rules I cannot find a "cost" for adding blisters to the hull of a ship, which are not the same as altering torpedo bulkheads. The historical refit for the H.M.S. Belfast comes to mind, without the back breaking portion.

2

Tuesday, March 15th 2016, 2:25pm

I'd think it ought to be a level 3 refit (25% / 15% LC), so long as the change in displacement remains within a few percent of the pre-refit displacement. I don't know what the ideal number would be without some experimentation - perhaps 5%?

Probably would need to be cautious at blistering anyway, since it could screw with the trim (which is a level 4 reconstruction, IIRC).

Any other alternatives?

3

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 1:16pm

Bump.....

4

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 2:45pm

Maybe 50% given the trim changes and going by the other list of comparable tasks on the current Level 4: Partial Reconstruction list. Generally bulging seems to have been classed as reconstruction rather than a refit item in real life cases.

5

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 4:27pm

What's the size and function of a blister that isn't a torpedo bulge/bulkhead?

6

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 4:35pm

In the few cases I know it was done, I think it was applied in order to add some reserve buoyancy and increase the ship's stability when topweight (radar) was added. I don't have any more details than that.

7

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 4:45pm

So we'd need to sim it as a bulge, then, since SS won't let us plunk individual blisters on a hull.

Maybe:

-Adding or increasing bulges that increase light displacement by no more than 1%, with no alteration to torpedo bulkhead or trim: 25%

8

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 5:03pm

That could probably work.

Is 1% displacement difference going to be sufficient? Just thinking out loud, here: if you're blistering a 10,000 ton cruiser, then you can have no more than a 100 ton increase in displacement (and a 2,500 ton rebuild cost). Seems... low, but perhaps that's best in order to prevent it from getting out of hand? Thoughts?

9

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 6:56pm

I am not really a technical maven, but Rocky's suggestion looks to be reasonable. If a 1% change in displacement seems too small, perhaps a maximum of 2% would be acceptable, but I would not go further than that.

10

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 7:04pm

That could probably work.

Is 1% displacement difference going to be sufficient? Just thinking out loud, here: if you're blistering a 10,000 ton cruiser, then you can have no more than a 100 ton increase in displacement (and a 2,500 ton rebuild cost). Seems... low, but perhaps that's best in order to prevent it from getting out of hand? Thoughts?


I noted some of my ships had torpedo-bulkheads totaling less than 2% of normal displacement, hence the 1% suggestion. 2% may be fine if the non-TBH provision is retained...

11

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 7:40pm

That could probably work.

Is 1% displacement difference going to be sufficient? Just thinking out loud, here: if you're blistering a 10,000 ton cruiser, then you can have no more than a 100 ton increase in displacement (and a 2,500 ton rebuild cost). Seems... low, but perhaps that's best in order to prevent it from getting out of hand? Thoughts?


I noted some of my ships had torpedo-bulkheads totaling less than 2% of normal displacement, hence the 1% suggestion. 2% may be fine if the non-TBH provision is retained...


Seems reasonable.

12

Friday, March 18th 2016, 9:18am

That could probably work.

Is 1% displacement difference going to be sufficient? Just thinking out loud, here: if you're blistering a 10,000 ton cruiser, then you can have no more than a 100 ton increase in displacement (and a 2,500 ton rebuild cost). Seems... low, but perhaps that's best in order to prevent it from getting out of hand? Thoughts?


Funny you should mention that Brock, my question came as a result of an experiment in SS adding blisters to a treaty sized cruiser, which for some reason when I tried to resim her as built came out understrength and I had to reduce speed. In the case of Belfast she had blisters added to increase longitudinal strength as a result of her mine damage and IIRC the Americans entertained the idea of adding blisters to cure the Cleveland class of their stability issues.

Rocky's proposal seems fair at a glance but keep in mind the smaller the ship is the smaller the Blister will be. As a test I blistered my Acestus class with a 2% displacement increase, 2% of 7,963 (light) is 159.2 tons, which means her displacement without trim alterations would have to be 8,122 tons which translates into a 1.1 foot increase in beam or 6.5 inches of blister per side. Doesn't seem like much of a blister.

13

Friday, March 18th 2016, 4:37pm

Would 3% be enough for smaller ships? Though I suspect a vessel under 7,000 tons isn't going to be a candidate for blistering given its size.

14

Saturday, March 19th 2016, 9:45am

Would 3% be enough for smaller ships? Though I suspect a vessel under 7,000 tons isn't going to be a candidate for blistering given its size.


That's a good point because I don't recall anything smaller than a light cruiser around that tonnage getting a blister. Perhaps we should set minimum displacement limits and perhaps base the percentage on beam rather than displacement or perhaps both displacement and beam?