You are not logged in.

281

Wednesday, June 29th 2016, 7:14pm

I second what Bruce said. Anything over 18-20% starts looking a bit odd to me (unless it's a tanker). Not to say it's "wrong" per se, but it doesn't feel very reasonable. I think it's driven by the very long range in combination with a probably excessive amount of ammunition - I'd expect a max of 600-700 rounds per gun being just as useful.

Also, the rounds for the 75mm gun in the Armament category and in the "Actual rounds per gun" note don't match.

While I'm commenting, I've also noticed that the Japanese designers tend to be particularly gluttonous with their addition of miscellaneous weight for everything including the kitchen sink. It feels like it's starting to get to a place where they're losing sight of what's actually important, and just bolting on more and more "cool stuff". Obviously this is just a personal opinion - there isn't a right or wrong answer - but it's becoming increasingly distinct from what everyone else in the game does, and I just thought it merits comment.

282

Wednesday, June 29th 2016, 8:41pm

Quoted

I am somewhat concerned with the percentage of the ship's displacement absorbed by the bunkers; at maximum displacement it is more than 30% of the total, and more than 27% at normal displacement.

Normally I pay more attention to the "fuel, ammunition & stores" percentage but I kinda neglected to keep an eye on it with this design... and looking back at it, I neglected to do that with the Shonan Maru design. Working with this sim, I knew that the Shonan Maru has even more fuel aboard than the Miyake design but actually did not realize that the "fuel, ammunition & stores" for the Shonan Maru was 34.0%.

On the other hand, the actual percentage of the bunker at normal displacement is only 18.8%. Of the 376 tons of "fuel, ammunition & stores", 117 tons is what I have left for "ammunition & stores" when I set the range to 0nm so your assumption that the bunker at normal displacement is 27% is quite wrong.

Quoted

Also, was this designed using SS3 or SS 2.1?

Not sure why you think that but if it was designed with SS 3, then you would have the number of shells per gun right behind the guns as well as the caliber length of the guns. You will see that those are not present so it should be quite obvious that the sim is an SS 2.1 one. SS 3 would have been a lot easier to use when it comes to figuring out the number of rounds though. I always keep forgetting that I can get the weight required for the magazine very easily from SS 3 and use it for SS 2.1.

Quoted

I think it's driven by the very long range in combination with a probably excessive amount of ammunition - I'd expect a max of 600-700 rounds per gun being just as useful.

Yes, 4200 nautical miles is a very long range indeed. :)

As for the ammunition, the Wesworld Japan 75mm Automatic is somewhat along the lines of the OTL US 3"/50RF and navweaps says about the ammunition stowage per gun of that guns "Typically 200 to 300 in ready use lockers with another 1,200 rounds in magazines" so 1400-1500 rounds. Based on that, I use 1500 round per gun for all the designs with those 75mm guns. That includes the smaller designs as well like this one and the Shonan Maru.

Quoted

Also, the rounds for the 75mm gun in the Armament category and in the "Actual rounds per gun" note don't match.

The calculation is actually based on the magazine weight. The number of shells for the 40mm that I use is lower than what SS assumes with its calculations (If I calculated it right, SS assumes 2500 rounds while I only use 2000 rounds). I calculate the weight of shells for all guns separately, add those weights up and use the resulting tonnage as target to reach when entering the "shells per main gun" (which is quite stupid of me as SS 3 gives me the exact same numbers with a lot less juggling).

4x1500 75mm = 40 tons
12x2000 40mm = 27 tons
16x3000 25mm = 15 tons

Total magazine weight: 40 + 27 + 15 = 82 tons
Magazine weight at 1500 rounds: 88 tons
Magazine weight at 1400 rounds: 82 tons

I use this method for all my recent ships to calculate the shells per gun of all the weapons on the ships, but I think that it is only with ships like these with the 75mm guns as main gun where I have to use a "Shells per gun" in the sim that is lower than the actual Shells per gun for the main gun to get the proper magazine weight.

Quoted

While I'm commenting, I've also noticed that the Japanese designers tend to be particularly gluttonous with their addition of miscellaneous weight for everything including the kitchen sink. It feels like it's starting to get to a place where they're losing sight of what's actually important, and just bolting on more and more "cool stuff". Obviously this is just a personal opinion - there isn't a right or wrong answer - but it's becoming increasingly distinct from what everyone else in the game does, and I just thought it merits comment.

Granted, I throw some less serious stuff in there like the mobile food stall, pachinko parlor, karaoke facilities + Kobe Cola vending machines, Onsen and Sauna and Shinto Shrine, but with the serious stuff, if it isn't something that is 'normal' on a ship that is build somewhere between 1850 and 1950, then it requires miscellaneous weights. I would assume that a for of kitchen sink would be available on all ships regardless of the age it was constructed in so that one probably does not require miscellaneous weights but if for example you have something that is on a 1930 vessel that did not exist on an 1880 vessel, then it requires miscellaneous weights. So things like radar, sonar, hydrophones, fire conrol, depth charge racks, depth charge throwers, depth, charges, torpedoes (since SS does not take their weight into account), air condition, degaussing coils, aircrafts, catapults, electric torpedo reloading system, air-powered piston ejection pumps, torpedo service material, schnorkel, oxygen bottles, CO2 removal system + Soda lime, damage control and fire suppression systems, demagnetization cables, desalinization gear, landing crafts, tanks, trucks, jeeps, spare parts, AA Rocket launchers, repair shop, flight operations center, flagship facilities and maybe a few other things. A lot of those are not basic ship stuff thus need miscellaneous weights.

As for "cool stuff", sure something like "electric torpedo reloading system" might sound like "cool stuff" to you, but for a submarine that relies purely on torpedoes as its weapon of attack, getting the tubes loaded a lot faster is quite useful in my opinion. Air condition system is definitely "cool stuff" and it makes working on ships a lot more pleasant as well. Having a Shinto Shrine on a ship might sound like "cool stuff" to you but I can assure you that it was merely me being silly. :)

283

Wednesday, June 29th 2016, 8:53pm

Quoted

On the other hand, the actual percentage of the bunker at normal displacement is only 18.8%. Of the 376 tons of "fuel, ammunition & stores", 117 tons is what I have left for "ammunition & stores" when I set the range to 0nm so your assumption that the bunker at normal displacement is 27% is quite wrong.


And I quote from the sim

Quoted

Fuel, ammunition & stores: 376 tons, 27.3 %


Perhaps if you set the range to zero you get a more accurate weight of fuel; that does not obviate the fact that at maximum displacement the 479 tons of bunkers exceeds 30% of the maximum displacement. And that is my concern.

Quoted

Yes, 4200 nautical miles is a very long range indeed. :)


The high cruising speed specified masks the extremely large radius of the vessel at lower speeds, as your own sim demonstrates. The design is extremely sharp and the hull scantlings barely adequate, saved only by the high speed.

284

Wednesday, June 29th 2016, 10:07pm

Quoted

Yes, 4200 nautical miles is a very long range indeed. :)


The high cruising speed specified masks the extremely large radius of the vessel at lower speeds, as your own sim demonstrates.

Eyup, that's exactly what I was noticing.

285

Wednesday, June 29th 2016, 11:01pm

Quoted

And I quote from the sim

Quoted

Fuel, ammunition & stores: 376 tons, 27.3 %

Well, your post specifically mentioned "bunkers". "Fuel" = "Bunkers". "Fuel, ammunition & stores" =/= "Bunkers". Therefore I'm sorry to say this but your assumption in that post that the bunker at normal displacement is 27% is still quite wrong.

Quoted

Perhaps if you set the range to zero you get a more accurate weight of fuel;

More? A lot more I think (granted not 100% (maybe not even 80%) because it is still a sim and not a real design). You get an accurate weight for the ammunition & stores which in turn allows you to get separate accurate weight values for fuel, ammunition and stores. Doing a quick test with SS, it assumes that all ammunition of the ship is part of the normal displacement so you get:

- 82 tons for magazines (as indicated by SS on the gun tab) (6.0% of normal displacement)
- 376 - 117 = 259 tons of fuel. (18.8% of normal displacement)
- 117 - 82 = 35 tons for stores. (2.5% of normal displacement)

Quoted

that does not obviate the fact that at maximum displacement the 479 tons of bunkers exceeds 30% of the maximum displacement. And that is my concern.

Like I said it was just me neglecting to keep an eye on it. The main culprit of course is the 20 knot cruise speed. I underestimated the effect that increasing the range would have on the "fuel, ammunition & stores" percentage...

... though it is interesting that you apparently weren't concerned about the 40% of the Shonan Maru's maximum displacement being fuel. :)

Still, when I sim the OTL I-400 with SS (which I agree is an extreme example but it is a real world example), I get a "Fuel, ammunition & stores" percentage of 46.5 and a maximum displacement percentage of 60 (and those two values will be higher than that when you look at displacements when it is surfaced).

Now on the other hand, I can remember that waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay in the past that there were discussions of diesel fuel vs oil fuel and that you do not require as much diesel fuel as you would need oil fuel for the same distance though the diesel engines would weigh more than the oil fuel engines. We decided back then not to apply that to the sim, but I think that if that is true, those ships, being powered by diesel engines, would not actually need as much fuel for those distances as SS tells us. So is that percentage actually an issue for a diesel-powered vessel or are we just too focused on what SS tells us?

While I am not sure if the values are right in the Navalism universe, but by applying Navalism's 75% bonus to range for diesels I would actually only need a range of 2400 nm to sim a diesel range of 4200 nm and using that range I end up with a "Fuel, ammunition & stores" percentage of 19.2 and a maximum displacement percentage of 18.6. However, this here is not Navalism and we do not apply those tech rules here in Wesworld thus for a range of 4200 nm I need to sim it as 4200 nm.

Quoted

The high cruising speed specified masks the extremely large radius of the vessel at lower speeds, as your own sim demonstrates.

I know. Sorry but I was just in the mood to say that. :D

On the other hand, isn't the radius of the vessel as it is simmed not 2100nm at 20 knots and the action radius even less than that (maybe something like 1500 nm)? From what I understand, radius =/= range.

... of course if you go for a low enough speed, all ships will have extremely large ranges. After all, with a cruising speed of 7.55 knots, the Miyake has the same 37500nm range as the I-400 submarine. :)

Quoted

The design is extremely sharp and the hull scantlings barely adequate, saved only by the high speed.

... I'm sorry but you lost me there (that bit goes beyond the limits of my English). ?(

286

Wednesday, June 29th 2016, 11:45pm

He means it has a very low block coefficient, so there's not a great deal of internal space.

There's nothing in the design that's technically against the rules, but what we're trying to point out is that you're powergaming the design, particularly in terms of weights / range / ammo capacity. It feels like you're trying to dismiss our concerns through debates about technical minutiae and pedantic definitions. Kinda what I feel RA always did. :(

To recap (and then I'm bowing out of the discussion), I think the weights for fuel+ammunition are too high for a combatant ship. As stated, this doesn't violate any rules, but I feel it is poor design practice.

287

Thursday, June 30th 2016, 3:40am

Quoted

He means it has a very low block coefficient, so there's not a great deal of internal space.

Okay. Funny because during the design process I actually decreased BC as well as the draught in order to increase the length and beam because I though the design required more deckspace.

Quoted

but what we're trying to point out is that you're powergaming the design, particularly in terms of weights / range / ammo capacity.

I would like to point out to you that you gain the most hull strength per ton from increasing draught closely followed by BC. You get the least hull strength gain per ton from increasing length or beam. Also increasing the amount of fuel eats up quite a bit of hull strength. IIRC from tests in the past, it eats up more hull strength than you can regain by increasing draught (and as I said, you gain the most hull strength per ton from that). If I really wanted to "powergame the design", I would increase draught and BC and decrease length and beam in order to gain hull strength so I can throw more stuff on it, not the other way around. Not to mention I would go for a speed of 24.01 knots and significantly reduce range which allows me to add even more stuff to the design. I am fairly sure that with those steps and with some fine-tuning to get the light displacement back to 1,000 tons, I could easily get 4 additional 75mm mounts on it + 3x5 24" TTs a bunch more ASW stuff and a seaboat rating of 2.00 even though the design obviously does not have the deck space for all that stuff.

Now I look at France's Le Breton. It is only 10 feet longer, 1.2 feet narrower, 1 foot deeper, has a BC that is 0.01 greater and is 170 tons heavier. Now I am not denying that internal space is probably an issue with the Miyake because SS clearly indicates "Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better)" on that design is 111.2 %, but it is actually worse on the Le Breton with 119.2 %. Add in fuel to the mix, the Le Breton only has 38 tons less fuel. It has 3x2 100mm which probably requires a bit more space than the 2x2 75mm guns on the Miyake. It also has 2x3 (I assume) 550mm TTs which take up quite a bit of space, especially when both are on the center line where you also have your superstructure and smoke stacks and of course those three 100mm twin turrets.

Another thing is the differences between the miscellaneous weights being assigned to the various things. I probably overestimate the weights required and that means I naturally end up with a higher miscellaneous weight requirement than if you were to do it. Couldn't find what exactly the SAGEM HF/DF is so ignoring that one, you have 3 radars for 11 tons while I have 2 radars for 30 tons. You have 6 tons for firecontrol while I use 15. You have 15 tons for hydrophones and ASDIC and I use 50 tons for hydrophones and 2 sonars (and thus 30 tons for hydrophones and 1 sonar). You have a total of 40 tons for for electronics, hydrophones and ASDIC. If I were to sim it, I would probably end up with at least 3 times as much miscellaneous weights. Looking at other things, you use 35 tons for 128 Depth Charges while I use 40 tons for 120 Depth Charges. You use 25 tons for your ASW rockets while I use 60 tons for the ASW mortars + ammo and another 2 tons for an army 81mm mortar with ammunition. And ECM gear? I never even crossed my mind to put something like that on a ship as that to me seems out of place on a ship of this era. (And you accuse me of bolting on more and more "cool stuff"? :) )

All in all, to me the Le Breton looks like a much better and more flexible but also more cramped design with more equipment for less miscellaneous weights and better equipment, is less than 200 tons heavier and the design is 5 years older than mine and it actually has 0.18 more Cross-sectional hull strength than my design. So if you say that I am powergaming the design, then tell me what I should think of that design of yours? To me this is yet another thing that comes over as "It's okay if I do it but it is not okay if you do it."

As for range, why bring that in? Like I said, if you go for a low enough cruising speed, all ship will have an extremely large ranges. Bunker weight is the issue. As I said, I neglected to keep an eye on the percentage. I should have paid more attention. But I do find it weird that percentage of maximum displacement is all of a sudden the big thing and very important. I have never seen that appear in discussions before. Not even when I posted the Shonan Maru design almost a year ago which has an even bigger percentage. It would have been great if that had been brought up when I posted the Shonan Maru.

As for Ammo capacity, to me it is quite clear what it says on navweaps (1400-1500 rounds per gun) so why is that one an issue?

Quoted

It feels like you're trying to dismiss our concerns through debates about technical minutiae and pedantic definitions.

As I mentioned, the design uses diesel and would in reality require less tons of fuel (and more tons for the machinery) than if it were oil-firing so to me you two seem to make a much bigger issue of it than it really is. That does not mean that I won't do anything about it (after all, lower range is better) but I feel you are overreacting.

And "Technical minutiae"? "Pedantic definitions"? WTF?? And even my spelling checker (which is set to English) has absolutely no idea what Bruce meant with "scantlings", putting a red line underneath it.

Quoted

I think the weights for fuel+ammunition are too high for a combatant ship. As stated, this doesn't violate any rules, but I feel it is poor design practice.

Yes, I am aware that wasting valuable hull strength on fuel is and extremely poor design practice. That was something I realized when I was working on rebuild plans for my Boilers. If I knew back then what I know now with high amounts of fuel, I would never have designed the Fuso and Nagato like I did. So I should pay more attention and avoid it unless a rare design actually demands that I do that (like the I-400's 37,500 nm @ 14 knots range).

288

Thursday, June 30th 2016, 10:30am

From Wiki: "In shipbuilding, the scantling refers to the collective dimensions of the framing (apart from the keel) to which planks or plates are attached to form the hull. The word is most often used in the plural to describe how much structural strength in the form of girders, I-beams, etc. is in a given section. The scantling length refers to the structural length of a ship.

In shipping, a "full scantling vessel" is understood to be a geared ship, that can reach all parts of its own cargo spaces with its own gear."

289

Thursday, June 30th 2016, 11:31am

Thanks Wes. Not am I guilty of not paying attention to the percentages, I am guilty of laziness as well by not bothering to look those things up with wiki (actually it was getting quite late when I was busy with that post). :)

Quoted

I am fairly sure that with those steps and with some fine-tuning to get the light displacement back to 1,000 tons, I could easily get 4 additional 75mm mounts on it + 3x5 24" TTs a bunch more ASW stuff and a seaboat rating of 2.00 even though the design obviously does not have the deck space for all that stuff.

Well, I actually tried this but apparently I seriously overestimated SS's abilities a bit. But still, If I want to "powergame the design", I'd go for something along the lines of this...


HIJMS This-is-not-a-really-serious-design-so-dont-start-whining-that-the-design-is-completely-unrealistic-how-things-dont-fit-at-all-on-the-design-and-that-it-seriously-lacks-deckspace-and-that-the-stability-is-way-too-low-for-any-wesworld-designed-ship-etc-etc-etc, Japan Kaibokan laid down 1947

Displacement:
1,000 t light; 1,174 t standard; 1,307 t normal; 1,413 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
249.21 ft / 230.00 ft x 32.00 ft x 13.00 ft (normal load)
75.96 m / 70.10 m x 9.75 m x 3.96 m

Armament:
10 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (5x2 guns), 12.00lbs / 5.44kg shells, 1947 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 3 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
16 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.57lbs / 0.26kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 153 lbs / 69 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 1,500
4 - 24.0" / 609.6 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Conning tower: 2.75" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 9,635 shp / 7,188 Kw = 24.01 kts
Range 5,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 239 tons

Complement:
108 - 141

Cost:
£0.639 million / $2.554 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 23 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 24 tons, 1.8 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 17 tons, 1.3 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 7 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 238 tons, 18.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 395 tons, 30.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 307 tons, 23.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 320 tons, 24.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,050 lbs / 476 Kg = 81.6 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.03
Metacentric height 1.0 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 13.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.50
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.81

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.478
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.19 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.85 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 68 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 28
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 35.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.00 ft / 0.30 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 17.50 ft / 5.33 m
- Mid (50 %): 17.50 ft / 5.33 m
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 17.50 ft / 5.33 m
- Stern: 17.50 ft / 5.33 m
- Average freeboard: 18.01 ft / 5.49 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 110.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 78.8 %
Waterplane Area: 4,997 Square feet or 464 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 130 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 32 lbs/sq ft or 157 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 8.48
- Overall: 0.67
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

290

Thursday, June 30th 2016, 3:59pm

As for the actual design, I really feel that I should not go for a shorter vessel or a narrower vessel so the only things left to work with are draught and BC and since you guys were already complaining about the low BC, I just decided to make the design slightly larger than before (+200 tons). This will have no real important effect on the H3/47 report and only requires some editing of my spreadsheet in order to put a few more tons into the ships that are to be built in one of the coming quarters.


Miyake, Japan Kaibokan laid down 1947

Displacement:
1,200 t light; 1,314 t standard; 1,563 t normal; 1,762 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
323.12 ft / 305.00 ft x 35.00 ft x 10.50 ft (normal load)
98.49 m / 92.96 m x 10.67 m x 3.20 m

Armament:
4 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 12.00lbs / 5.44kg shells, 1947 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
16 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.57lbs / 0.26kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 81 lbs / 37 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 1,400

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Conning tower: 2.75" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 17,427 shp / 13,000 Kw = 27.86 kts
Range 3,500nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 449 tons

Complement:
123 - 161

Cost:
£0.815 million / $3.259 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 12 tons, 0.7 %
Armour: 17 tons, 1.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 9 tons, 0.5 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 8 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 431 tons, 27.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 391 tons, 25.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 363 tons, 23.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 22.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
896 lbs / 407 Kg = 69.6 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 13.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.14
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.488
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.71 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.18 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 35.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.60 ft / 6.58 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 14.60 ft / 4.45 m
- Mid (50 %): 14.60 ft / 4.45 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 14.60 ft / 4.45 m
- Stern: 14.60 ft / 4.45 m
- Average freeboard: 15.16 ft / 4.62 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 124.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 165.4 %
Waterplane Area: 7,315 Square feet or 680 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 118 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 29 lbs/sq ft or 143 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.04
- Overall: 0.58
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

291

Thursday, June 30th 2016, 4:06pm

JMHO, I think that looks like a better ship now.

292

Friday, July 1st 2016, 5:52pm

Nah. Same Sh*t, different package. :D

293

Saturday, July 2nd 2016, 2:54pm

Having looked at it a bit more, I thought it would a bad thing to have the aft 75mm guns blow holes into the guys working with the ASW gear on the quarterdeck so I lowered that part and slightly decreased speed to keep the cross-sectional hull strength at 0.50...

Miyake, Japan Kaibokan laid down 1947

Displacement:
1,200 t light; 1,314 t standard; 1,563 t normal; 1,762 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
324.63 ft / 305.00 ft x 35.00 ft x 10.50 ft (normal load)
98.95 m / 92.96 m x 10.67 m x 3.20 m

Armament:
4 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 12.00lbs / 5.44kg shells, 1947 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
16 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.57lbs / 0.26kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 81 lbs / 37 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 1,400

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Conning tower: 2.75" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 17,000 shp / 12,682 Kw = 27.70 kts
Range 3,500nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 449 tons

Complement:
123 - 161

Cost:
£0.804 million / $3.216 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 12 tons, 0.7 %
Armour: 17 tons, 1.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 9 tons, 0.5 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 8 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 420 tons, 26.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 402 tons, 25.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 363 tons, 23.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 22.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,010 lbs / 458 Kg = 78.5 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 13.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.16
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.488
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.71 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.18 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 35.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 23.75 ft / 7.24 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 16.75 ft / 5.11 m
- Mid (40 %): 16.75 ft / 5.11 m
- Quarterdeck (30 %): 9.75 ft / 2.97 m (16.75 ft / 5.11 m before break)
- Stern: 9.75 ft / 2.97 m
- Average freeboard: 15.07 ft / 4.59 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 122.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 189.7 %
Waterplane Area: 7,315 Square feet or 680 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 120 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 30 lbs/sq ft or 147 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.06
- Overall: 0.58
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

294

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 3:56am

In order to give Brock some bad good ideas when it comes to the miscellaneous weights breakdown... :D

When I originally designed her about a year ago, the Ishinagenjo was slightly shorter and lighter than Brock's Terrible. Then back in May, I came with the *ahem* 'brilliant' idea to make the design a bit more like the OTL Shinano though a bit different for it being a purpose built design rather than a conversion and based on the Wesworld Yamato instead of the OTL Yamato. Of course that made her quite a bit bigger (and more expensive) than the original design (about 12% bigger) though it does carry significantly more miscellaneous weights than the first design (about 48% more). Also the notes below became a bit more complex with the addition of using miscellaneous weights to sim armor on the ship. But I guess you guys are a bit used to me making things a bit bigger, whether it is a destroyer, a submarine, a battleship or a carrier. :)

One thing I noticed was that adding armor does not alter space below waterline and survivability but the miscellaneous weights do meaning that those values are no longer correct when you use miscellaneous weights to sim armor. It is quite odd that stability-wise miscellaneous weights act as something located somewhere high in a ship's superstructure but volume-wise it affects the vessel's space below the waterline (and that is ignoring the fact that part of the miscellaneous weights of a carrier sim is actually there to create extra space).

Ishinagenjo, Japan Carrier laid down 1948


Displacement:
72,345 t light; 74,503 t standard; 85,784 t normal; 94,810 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
1,013.50 ft / 940.00 ft x 124.00 ft (Bulges 134.00 ft) x 37.00 ft (normal load)
308.92 m / 286.51 m x 37.80 m (Bulges 40.84 m) x 11.28 m

Armament:
24 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 12.00lbs / 5.44kg shells, 1948 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
36 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1948 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
128 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (32x4 guns), 0.57lbs / 0.26kg shells, 1948 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
48 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (12x4 guns), 0.00lbs / 0.00kg shells, 1948 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 433 lbs / 196 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 1,440
336 - 4.7" / 120 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.50" / 114 mm 665.00 ft / 202.69 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 2.00" / 51 mm 665.00 ft / 202.69 m 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
Main Belt covers 109 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3.75" / 95 mm 665.00 ft / 202.69 m 37.00 ft / 11.28 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.68" / 43 mm, Conning tower: 2.75" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 201,634 shp / 150,419 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 20,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 20,307 tons

Complement:
2,506 - 3,258

Cost:
£24.429 million / $97.715 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 66 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 9,510 tons, 11.1 %
- Belts: 3,043 tons, 3.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 3,414 tons, 4.0 %
- Armament: 52 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 2,887 tons, 3.4 %
- Conning Tower: 115 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 4,928 tons, 5.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 20,891 tons, 24.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 13,440 tons, 15.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 36,950 tons, 43.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
123,551 lbs / 56,042 Kg = 9,598.3 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 22.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 8.2 ft / 2.5 m
Roll period: 19.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.81

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.644
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.01 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 35.46 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 39
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 40.92 degrees
Stern overhang: 21.50 ft / 6.55 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 60.00 ft / 18.29 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 60.00 ft / 18.29 m (28.00 ft / 8.53 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Stern: 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Average freeboard: 36.00 ft / 10.97 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 80.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 177.4 %
Waterplane Area: 92,654 Square feet or 8,608 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 151 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 156 lbs/sq ft or 760 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.25
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

12x4 25mm mounts (4th gun) simmed for AA Rocket launcher mount.
12cm Rockets simmed as Torpedoes.
75mm => 1500 rpg = 240 tons
40mm => 2000 rpg = 80 tons
25mm => 3000 rpg = 122 tons
Total magazine weight: 442 tons = 1440 rounds

Actual range: 17500 nm @ 18 knots (= max 17803 tons bunker).
1234 tons of bunker fuel for simming extra aviation fuel (= 1,607,522 liters @ 0.78kg/l).
Baseline aviation fuel = 883,263 liters (part of the misc for planes). (*)
Total aviation fuel in tanks = 2,490,785 liters
1200 tons of bunker fuel for simming extra aircraft ammunition.

3.5" armored flight deck over the hangar (5424 tons miscellaneous weights) (**)
2" remainder of armored flight deck (3431 tons miscellaneous weights) (***)
1.75-2.5" hangar deck (4489 tons miscellaneous weights) (****)
1.25-1.75" protective deck (= deck armor) (*****)
940x33 2" Hangar deck side armor (2295 tons miscellaneous weights) (******)
Upper belt connected to the bottom of the hangar deck side armor.
TBH - Bulge: 0.75", Outer bulkhead: 0.7", Middle bulkhead: 0.4", Inner bulkhead: 0.4", Holding bulkhead: 1.5".

Correct survivability: 174,560 lbs / 79,179 Kg = 13,561.0 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 41.8 torpedoes (*******)
Correct space - hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 56.8 % (*******)


- 11025 tons for 70 aircraft (157.5 tons per aircraft).
- 13610 tons for armored decks located much higher in the ship than the baseline deck armor.
- 2295 tons for hangar side armor located higher in the ship than the baseline side armor.
- 750 tons for 20 spare planes in crates (37.5 tons per aircraft).
- 560 tons for spare parts (8 tons per operational aircraft).
- 460 tons for repair shop (6 tons per operational aircraft, 2 ton per spare aircraft).
- 750 tons for steam catapults (250 tons per catapult, 2 bow and 1 port side).
- 300 tons for jet blast deflectors+deck cooling (100 tons per set, 2 bow and 1 port side)
- 1300 tons for flight deck port overhang and support.
- 700 tons for flight deck starboard overhang and support.
- 300 tons for elevators.
- 100 tons for landing aid system.
- 280 tons for flight operations center (4 tons per operational aircraft).
- 140 tons for briefing room (2 ton per operational aircraft).
- 250 tons for flagship facilities.
- 100 tons for carrier command center.
- 350 tons for fire control and fire control center.
- 400 tons for radar systems and sonar.
- 4 tons for 4 paravanes (2 port, 2 starboard).
- 724 tons for damage control and fire suppression systems (1 ton per 100 tons light displacement).
- 181 tons emergency diesel generators (1 ton per 400 tons light displacement).
- 724 tons for air condition system (1 ton per 100 tons light displacement).
- 300 tons for enhanced fuel pumping capacity.
- 203 tons for degaussing coils (1 ton per 5 feet of length (oa)).
- 92 for mount improvements.
--- 48 tons for 75mm mounts.
--- 12 tons for 40mm mounts.
--- 32 tons for 25mm mounts.
- 75 tons for 12x28 12 cm AA Rocket launchers.
- 977 tons for crew comforts (kept short this time instead of the detailed stuff).
Total: 36950 tons.

(*) Based on wiki info on USS Essex's SCB-27 upgrade.
(**) Calculated using SS3. Based on a 134 ft wide ship and 700 ft long hangar.
(***) Rough estimate needed for the remaining flightdeck area not over the hangar.
(****) Calculated using SS3. Based on a 134 ft wide ship and 700 ft long hangar. Hangar floor 2.5", rest of ship's length 1.75".
(*****) Calculated using SS3. Forward 15% and aft 15% of the ship's length 1.25", center part 1.75". 1.68" average used in sim to get required weight.
(******) Calculated using SS3. Based on a 134 ft wide ship.
(*******) Based on sim with miscellaneous weight armor being simmed as actual armor and a 1.09 stability.

295

Wednesday, December 21st 2016, 7:27pm

Something else I was messing around with using the book of the USS Antietam Intrepid from the Anatomy of the Ship series (and a little bit from the Yamato book as well). It's nowhere near complete but will give you a little bit of an idea how it would look like internally.

296

Thursday, December 22nd 2016, 9:40am

Not sure I have any meaningful comments other than "its big".
I won't comment on the detailed footnotes other than to say, its damn technical stuff but assuming SS3 calcs translate well into SS2 it seems logical enough.
I suspect the reason misc weight takes rather than gives space is the simple fact that its meant to be the weight of extra equipment; i.e. physical stuff with three dimensions and mass that actually occupies space. The only way to buy a margin for space would be to provide excess hull strength I think.

Nice work on the internal diagram too.

297

Thursday, December 22nd 2016, 8:11pm

Quoted

Not sure I have any meaningful comments other than "its big".

Well, you could make it slightly different by saying "It is huge". :)

Quoted

I won't comment on the detailed footnotes other than to say, its damn technical stuff but assuming SS3 calcs translate well into SS2 it seems logical enough.

Well, I tried to sim the carrier in SS3 and ended up with a hull strength of 0.94... so I hope it translates well enough to SS2. I do know that changing the location of the forecastle break and the quarterdeck break affects the weight distribution of the deck armor so by calculating at which points those breaks need to be for a 700 ft long hangar, I expect the value I get to be decent enough for the different thicknesses to use which is probably better than just guessing with the SS2 values.

Quoted

I suspect the reason misc weight takes rather than gives space is the simple fact that its meant to be the weight of extra equipment; i.e. physical stuff with three dimensions and mass that actually occupies space.

I forgot that. I was thinking of posting the design earlier but tossed that post away. In that earlier post attempt I mentioned that miscellaneous weights is about volume while SS handles armor a bit more like structure. It is more of an issue what miscellaneous weights do in the design. Like I said, stability-wise miscellaneous weights act as something located somewhere high in a ship's superstructure but volume-wise it affects the vessel's space below the waterline. Using my image, space-wise miscellaneous weights is in the red-painted area of the hull below the waterline but stability-wise it is located where the carrier's island is.

Looking at my breakdown, I expect about 85-90% of the miscellaneous weights to be located above that green line you see in the side view of the internal diagram (which represents the freeboard as it is in the sim) so should have no effect on the space below the waterline but actually on the space above the waterline (at least for the stuff that takes up space).

Quoted

The only way to buy a margin for space would be to provide excess hull strength I think.

I do not think it is proper to use excess hull strength and then say that it is there for the hangar and flight deck armor. Using armor would be better but in both cases stability would not be correct. When I checked the correct survivability and space - hull below water by changing the miscellaneous weights for armor to actual armor, IIRC I ended up with a stability of around 1.25 which I think is a fairly big difference compared to the 1.09 I have now with the sim using miscellaneous weights for armor.

Quoted

Nice work on the internal diagram too.

It is nowhere near complete, but gives a bit of an impression how it probably should be within the vessel. The cross sectional views were made much earlier than the internal diagram from the side so they are a bit crappy. It is something that would need to be altered when the side view is done.

298

Friday, December 23rd 2016, 9:47am

I agree the misc weight is an odd thing in the calculations.

Quoted

I do not think it is proper to use excess hull strength and then say that it is there for the hangar and flight deck armor.

I would agree, I was referring to space, gaining physical 3-D structure to put stuff in rather than armour. I always feel armour is something "hung on" but indeed it does play an important structural role.

Whatever method we try I don't think SS will ever handle carriers well. I not realty sure it matters whether we get as accurate as possible or not, since in WW physics we rely on what SS tells us and so all previous simmed carriers in WW regardless of flaws are no less incorrect or inferior to one designed using whatever new fangled methods we come up with. We are rather pushing the envelope here and in effect mixing two different programme outputs. I think we've certainly pushed SS2 to its limits!

299

Saturday, December 24th 2016, 9:59pm

It is not just carriers but some other types of ships as well. The way it handles miscellaneous weights is the main culprit, though from attempting to sim the carrier in SS3, I got the impression that it handled the miscellaneous weights much better than SS2. When you sim a submarine with SS2, the miscellaneous weights you use for the ballast is actually floating somewhere above the water and that creates stability issues that should not really be there in the first place.

Left: where it should be. Right: where SS puts it.

We never pushed SS2 to its limits. It was already pushed beyond its limits before we even started with Wesworld with the incorrect way submarines are simmed which is why I eventually decided to go for subsim instead as that one gives a much better representation of a submarine than SS2.

... speaking of submarines, while I was working on that carrier picture, I was also messing around with a few submarine pictures to create this...

300

Tuesday, April 25th 2017, 2:08am

The Shinobi I and Shinobi II classes are old and neglected. The Ninjas, threatening to go on strike, demand that the Navy takes action and give them some proper replacements. The Navy quickly designed the below one to make the Ninjas happy... or shut them up permanently when the subs catch fire. :)


IN-1 class, Japan Submarine for crazy ninjas
Date: 1948
Type: Coastal
Length: 65.0m
Beam: 6.0m
Draft: 6.3m
Crush depth: 225.0m
Light Displacement 915t
Loaded Displacement 1090t
Full Displacement 1219t
wt fuel&batts: 190t
Reserve buoyancy: 11%

Armament:
- 2 x man-sized (bow)
- 0 tons for mines or reload torpedoes
ElecHP: 150hp
DieselHP: 4500hp
H2O2HP: 10000hp
Speed:
- Max Surf Speed: 18.0 knots
- Max Sub Speed: 23.2 knots
Range:
- Surfaced: 4,900nm@10 knots
- Submerged: 3,623nm@5 knots
Tons Oil: 75.0t
Tons Battery: 15.0t
Tons H2O2: 100.0t
Miscellaneous Weight: 205 tons
Crew: 54

205 tons for schnorkel, electronics and a bunch of ninjas squeezed into every nook and cranny aboard the submarine.