WesWorld

Type 4 A-11, Neutral Battleship laid down 1934

Displacement:
42,900 t light; 45,053 t standard; 58,577 t normal; 69,396 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
898.00 ft / 898.00 ft x 100.00 ft (Bulges 108.50 ft) x 31.50 ft (normal load)
273.71 m / 273.71 m x 30.48 m (Bulges 33.07 m) x 9.60 m

Armament:
9 - 15.10" / 384 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,721.48lbs / 780.85kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (6x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships
20 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (10x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1934 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1934 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
51 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1934 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 16,557 lbs / 7,510 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 105
2 - 21.0" / 533 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.5" / 419 mm 583.70 ft / 177.91 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3.50" / 89 mm 583.70 ft / 177.91 m 29.86 ft / 9.10 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.5" / 419 mm 5.50" / 140 mm 9.00" / 229 mm
2nd: 5.00" / 127 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 3.00" / 76 mm
3rd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 14.00" / 356 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus batteries,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 125,857 shp / 93,889 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 28.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 24,342 tons

Complement:
1,882 - 2,447

Cost:
£18.394 million / $73.575 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,070 tons, 3.5 %
Armour: 17,238 tons, 29.4 %
- Belts: 4,891 tons, 8.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,257 tons, 3.9 %
- Armament: 2,883 tons, 4.9 %
- Armour Deck: 6,751 tons, 11.5 %
- Conning Tower: 455 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 3,621 tons, 6.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 19,872 tons, 33.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 15,677 tons, 26.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
126,355 lbs / 57,314 Kg = 73.4 x 15.1 " / 384 mm shells or 25.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 6.3 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 18.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.82
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.57

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle, low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.668
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.28 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.12 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 67
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.97 ft / 9.13 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.90 ft / 6.37 m (24.90 ft / 7.59 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 29.90 ft / 9.11 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 21.90 ft / 6.68 m (23.90 ft / 7.28 m before break)
- Stern: 20.90 ft / 6.37 m
- Average freeboard: 25.75 ft / 7.85 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 60.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 200.4 %
Waterplane Area: 72,985 Square feet or 6,780 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 142 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 192 lbs/sq ft or 935 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.05
- 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

To make it short: Excessive range, excellent seaboat albeit wet forward, good to standard armor (TBs too thick and belt lacks height), standard armament, standard to sub-standard speed, sub-standard number of heavy shells, useless submerged TTs, misc weight entirely missing.

Personal opinion: There are other, better designs of similar size in WesWorld. Better meaning more balanced.

Proposed modifications: Cut her range and TB armor to increase speed and misc weight. Her hull is made for speed after all.

So, which 53,000 ton Wesworld design is better (more ballanced) than this one, Hooman?
Pretty hard to kill this thing.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
So, which 53,000 ton Wesworld design is better (more ballanced) than this one, Hooman?

I'm pretty sure that I'd take Lepanto against any historical ship. Getting twice as many shells on target is extremely useful.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
So, which 53,000 ton Wesworld design is better (more ballanced) than this one, Hooman?
Pretty hard to kill this thing.

Not really that hard to kill it, the barbarettes are very thin, and the armour only covers 46% of the waterline, so i suspect she could be sunk by blasting the unprotected areas.

And i do not think that the freeboard allows B-turret to fire above A turret, judging by other 15" turrets it needs at least 1m more, preferably 2m, so i think it should be simmed as superfiring.

Quoted

I'm pretty sure that I'd take Lepanto against any historical ship. Getting twice as many shells on target is extremely useful.

I was actually thinking of that other one (the Vittorio Emanuele II Class at about 52,000 tons full load).

Quoted

Not really that hard to kill it, the barbarettes are very thin, and the armour only covers 46% of the waterline, so i suspect she could be sunk by blasting the unprotected areas.

I would think that one well placed volley might kill the entire main armament instantly with barbettes that thick (or should I say 'thin').
Actually I was looking at the torps it can take. That ship can take more hits than my Yamato design.
Hmmmm... Perhaps I should drop the speed of that Yamato design by about 8 knots and go for the historical 27 knots.

deleted by me

Quoted

Originally posted by Korpen

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
So, which 53,000 ton Wesworld design is better (more ballanced) than this one, Hooman?
Pretty hard to kill this thing.

Not really that hard to kill it, the barbarettes are very thin, and the armour only covers 46% of the waterline, so i suspect she could be sunk by blasting the unprotected areas.

And i do not think that the freeboard allows B-turret to fire above A turret, judging by other 15" turrets it needs at least 1m more, preferably 2m, so i think it should be simmed as superfiring.

what are you talking about? the belt covers 68% of the length?? and that hasnt changed with the revision either. O_O

Quoted

Originally posted by Salaam86

Quoted

Originally posted by Korpen

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
So, which 53,000 ton Wesworld design is better (more ballanced) than this one, Hooman?
Pretty hard to kill this thing.

Not really that hard to kill it, the barbarettes are very thin, and the armour only covers 46% of the waterline, so i suspect she could be sunk by blasting the unprotected areas.

And i do not think that the freeboard allows B-turret to fire above A turret, judging by other 15" turrets it needs at least 1m more, preferably 2m, so i think it should be simmed as superfiring.

what are you talking about? the belt covers 68% of the length?? and that hasnt changed with the revision either. O_O

The belt covers 68% of "normal" length, not total lenght that i was talking about.
pretty clear that 121m is not 68% of 273m.

And what 15" tripple turret had a barbarette less then 2m tall?

If memory serves me well, 100% armor coverage is 62% of the length of the ship. So the belt is 0.62*0.68 = 42% of the ship's length.

deleted by me.

Well, that's pretty much the point of posting designs here (or at warships1, or the Warship Design BB, for that matter). To get feedback and input from the members here. Very few (if any) designs get posted here without someone having some manner of criticism or opinion on the design.

I've never felt this criticism to be personal in nature, or intentionally vicious are harmful. This is people commenting on the designs posted based on their own experience and expertise.

I would humbly suggest that if you cannot take such criticism in the polite and helpful spirit it's being offered here, this board may not be the place for you to post your designs.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I would humbly suggest that if you cannot take such criticism in the polite and helpful spirit it's being offered here, this board may not be the place for you to post your designs.

Salaam,

sadly I have to agree with ShinRa on this one. Nobody´s getting personal, we´re just looking on what you´re presenting and comment on it. Why would you post the stiff if it is not meant to be commented? Nobody is perfect and this is a discussion board - so at least by names sake we´re here to discuss (trading arguments and points of view) whatever is presented.

I´d like to add that it is not our style to delete designs once posted thus rendering the thread obsolete. In the past most of us learnt that it may be quite useful to take a look on old stuff again.

Regards,

HoOmAn

It generally helps us learn from our mistakes or the mistakes of others. Or it helps figure our the design lineage.

If the design was still present I'd draw up a rough of it with the belt shown to demontrate the problem. I had the same problem when I was designing ships here and in Navalism. I found that it gave me a lower limit of cover the vitals, but after drawing the vessel found that it really didn't cover everything correctly. I've modified the designs to reflect this, as that was the goal of the design to be fully protected.

Most comments here are attempts to help the design process. Sometimes it seems like everyone is against a design. But after a while either they give up, or the revisions come out for a much superior vessel on at least some level. (Chile's Armored Cruisers and destroyers went through some intensive redesigned and changes here).

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
It generally helps us learn from our mistakes or the mistakes of others. Or it helps figure our the design lineage.

If the design was still present I'd draw up a rough of it with the belt shown to demontrate the problem. I had the same problem when I was designing ships here and in Navalism. I found that it gave me a lower limit of cover the vitals, but after drawing the vessel found that it really didn't cover everything correctly. I've modified the designs to reflect this, as that was the goal of the design to be fully protected.

Most comments here are attempts to help the design process. Sometimes it seems like everyone is against a design. But after a while either they give up, or the revisions come out for a much superior vessel on at least some level. (Chile's Armored Cruisers and destroyers went through some intensive redesigned and changes here).

No, theres a place to draw the line.

When you get multiple people posting making critiques and nothing else, thats irritating.

Like Rooijen10 said...what ship on this forum is better at 42,000 or 39,000 tons light.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Well, that's pretty much the point of posting designs here (or at warships1, or the Warship Design BB, for that matter). To get feedback and input from the members here. Very few (if any) designs get posted here without someone having some manner of criticism or opinion on the design.

I've never felt this criticism to be personal in nature, or intentionally vicious are harmful. This is people commenting on the designs posted based on their own experience and expertise.

I would humbly suggest that if you cannot take such criticism in the polite and helpful spirit it's being offered here, this board may not be the place for you to post your designs.

It's all lines in the sand.

And all this thread got was criticism.

Although don't take that the wrong way. I'm not trying to be mean, in this post or any post before.

Quoted

Originally posted by Salaam86

Like Rooijen10 said...what ship on this forum is better at 42,000 or 39,000 tons light.

I will give it a shot, but since the design no longer appears present, it's a little hard to tell.

DISCLAIMER : From you're post you're disgruntled no one is putting up a comparison, just nit picking. So ok, I'll put up a comparison. Hopefully I can recall your vessel sufficiently. Forgive me if I get something terribly wrong.

WHAT I RECALL :
I believe I saw it briefly but lacked the time to really look at it. Something like 9x15" standard shells, 28kts, 5" deck and 16.5" belt but only 3.5m high and short? Excellent seakeeping and massive range. I don't recall the secondary (was this the 8"?) /tertiary or stuff like barbette thicknesses. Huge floatation, correct?

If I'm way off, then it's all invalid anyhow

As for what is better... always arguable. However my predecessor RAM had his Utrecht. Only 37,158 light, so a bit hard to compare.

Primary : 9x15"- check. Edge Utrecht. RAM specified heavy shells, so better long range deck pen. Utrecht's weakness is barely adequate barbette thickness.

Secondary : Utrecht has 16x 6.1 and 16x100mm- plenty to riddle ends or blanket a foe with HE. Call that a draw.

Speed : Think you had 28, Utrecht had 29, a draw.

Deck : You had 5 " (?), Utrecht has 6". Combine with the heavier shells and Utrecht would be getting deck penetrations while still invulnerable. Edge Utrecht.

Belt : 16.5" vs. Utrecht's inclined 320mm...oh but RAM simmed a 80mm decapping plate as the upper belt. 80mm is actually overkill for a 15" shell, but will strip the cap off and significantly erode penetration. The design would be better as 50+350, but still is sufficiently similar to be a draw. BUT... Utrecht's belt is taller and covers a longer % of hull, meaning a greater protected bouyancy.
Edge Utrecht.

Floatation- you had something huge 100k+...Utrecht has half that- Edge you.

Seakeeping- you had it up to excellent, no? Edge you.

Final : Utrecht a 1924 design, and smaller. Yet she has the same speed, comparable to superior main battery, better deck armor, comparable but more extensive belt armor. Your ship is bigger & harder to sink via ventilation with better seakeeping. But in a beat down, where penetration to the vitals matter... they are (as I recall) close despite Utrecht being older and smaller...and Utrecht is more capable of putting one through your decks into the magazines at range. Advantage : Utrecht.


Lastly, not a nit pick but an observation on the entire bunkerage issue.

Try this :
1) Look at the report for hull % : "Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): " is the listing.

2) Take the main guns off the ship. Look at the % Hull space listed- it drops. Conclusion- guns and magazines take space. Comp hull also skyrockets. Not astonishing.

3) Now, Double the design's bunkerage. Look at the % Hull space listed.

4) Now for Utrecht it went from
with 15" guns : Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 94.2 %
No 15" guns : Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 51.6 %
No 15" guns, range doubled from 10,000nm to 20,000 : Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 51.6 %

Now, to me the final two numbers are the interesting ones. She goes from 3,332 bunkerage to 6,664 bunkerage without a change in internal volume usage. My conclusion- Springsharp doesn't sim fuel tanks well (if at all), and most definitely does not account for them below the waterline.

I've come to the same conclusion myself, Fuel seems to be drastically underestimated in reguards to its effects on the design hence the birth of wesworld "boilers".

Salaam, I have to agree with the others, if you find the constructive critisism highly irritating then this isn't the place for you.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Originally posted by Salaam86

Like Rooijen10 said...what ship on this forum is better at 42,000 or 39,000 tons light.

I will give it a shot, but since the design no longer appears present, it's a little hard to tell.

DISCLAIMER : From you're post you're disgruntled no one is putting up a comparison, just nit picking. So ok, I'll put up a comparison. Hopefully I can recall your vessel sufficiently. Forgive me if I get something terribly wrong.

WHAT I RECALL :
I believe I saw it briefly but lacked the time to really look at it. Something like 9x15" standard shells, 28kts, 5" deck and 16.5" belt but only 3.5m high and short? Excellent seakeeping and massive range. I don't recall the secondary (was this the 8"?) /tertiary or stuff like barbette thicknesses. Huge floatation, correct?

If I'm way off, then it's all invalid anyhow

As for what is better... always arguable. However my predecessor RAM had his Utrecht. Only 37,158 light, so a bit hard to compare.

Primary : 9x15"- check. Edge Utrecht. RAM specified heavy shells, so better long range deck pen. Utrecht's weakness is barely adequate barbette thickness.

Secondary : Utrecht has 16x 6.1 and 16x100mm- plenty to riddle ends or blanket a foe with HE. Call that a draw.

Speed : Think you had 28, Utrecht had 29, a draw.

Deck : You had 5 " (?), Utrecht has 6". Combine with the heavier shells and Utrecht would be getting deck penetrations while still invulnerable. Edge Utrecht.

Belt : 16.5" vs. Utrecht's inclined 320mm...oh but RAM simmed a 80mm decapping plate as the upper belt. 80mm is actually overkill for a 15" shell, but will strip the cap off and significantly erode penetration. The design would be better as 50+350, but still is sufficiently similar to be a draw. BUT... Utrecht's belt is taller and covers a longer % of hull, meaning a greater protected bouyancy.
Edge Utrecht.

Floatation- you had something huge 100k+...Utrecht has half that- Edge you.

Seakeeping- you had it up to excellent, no? Edge you.

Final : Utrecht a 1924 design, and smaller. Yet she has the same speed, comparable to superior main battery, better deck armor, comparable but more extensive belt armor. Your ship is bigger & harder to sink via ventilation with better seakeeping. But in a beat down, where penetration to the vitals matter... they are (as I recall) close despite Utrecht being older and smaller...and Utrecht is more capable of putting one through your decks into the magazines at range. Advantage : Utrecht.


Lastly, not a nit pick but an observation on the entire bunkerage issue.

Try this :
1) Look at the report for hull % : "Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): " is the listing.

2) Take the main guns off the ship. Look at the % Hull space listed- it drops. Conclusion- guns and magazines take space. Comp hull also skyrockets. Not astonishing.

3) Now, Double the design's bunkerage. Look at the % Hull space listed.

4) Now for Utrecht it went from
with 15" guns : Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 94.2 %
No 15" guns : Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 51.6 %
No 15" guns, range doubled from 10,000nm to 20,000 : Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 51.6 %

Now, to me the final two numbers are the interesting ones. She goes from 3,332 bunkerage to 6,664 bunkerage without a change in internal volume usage. My conclusion- Springsharp doesn't sim fuel tanks well (if at all), and most definitely does not account for them below the waterline.

Mine had originally 114,000 lbs flotation, then revised (2,000 tons heavier light) 124,000 lbs flotation.

I'd have to say...that the Type 4 would win.

Given circumstances. My main belt did cover all the engineering and magazine spaces. As for the rest, the flotation would almost certainly mean your ship would sink. My design seems to have more than twice as much flotation.

Plus my armor belt is kind of irrelevant. I can make it cover 100% of the ship length and only lose like...
.3 hull strength.

Type 4 A-11, Neutral Battleship laid down 1934

Displacement:
42,900 t light; 45,053 t standard; 58,577 t normal; 69,396 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
898.00 ft / 898.00 ft x 100.00 ft (Bulges 108.50 ft) x 31.50 ft (normal load)
273.71 m / 273.71 m x 30.48 m (Bulges 33.07 m) x 9.60 m

Armament:
9 - 15.10" / 384 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,721.48lbs / 780.85kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (6x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships
20 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns (10x2 guns), 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1934 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1934 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
51 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1934 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 16,557 lbs / 7,510 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 105
2 - 21.0" / 533 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.5" / 419 mm 583.70 ft / 177.91 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
3.50" / 89 mm 583.70 ft / 177.91 m 29.86 ft / 9.10 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.5" / 419 mm 5.50" / 140 mm 9.00" / 229 mm
2nd: 5.00" / 127 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 3.00" / 76 mm
3rd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 14.00" / 356 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus batteries,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 125,857 shp / 93,889 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 28.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 24,342 tons

Complement:
1,882 - 2,447

Cost:
£18.394 million / $73.575 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,070 tons, 3.5 %
Armour: 17,238 tons, 29.4 %
- Belts: 4,891 tons, 8.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,257 tons, 3.9 %
- Armament: 2,883 tons, 4.9 %
- Armour Deck: 6,751 tons, 11.5 %
- Conning Tower: 455 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 3,621 tons, 6.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 19,872 tons, 33.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 15,677 tons, 26.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
126,355 lbs / 57,314 Kg = 73.4 x 15.1 " / 384 mm shells or 25.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 6.3 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 18.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.82
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.57

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle, low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.668
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.28 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.12 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 67
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.97 ft / 9.13 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.90 ft / 6.37 m (24.90 ft / 7.59 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 29.90 ft / 9.11 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 21.90 ft / 6.68 m (23.90 ft / 7.28 m before break)
- Stern: 20.90 ft / 6.37 m
- Average freeboard: 25.75 ft / 7.85 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 60.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 200.4 %
Waterplane Area: 72,985 Square feet or 6,780 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 142 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 192 lbs/sq ft or 935 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.05
- 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

Quoted

Like Rooijen10 said...what ship on this forum is better at 42,000 or 39,000 tons light.

39,000 => RM Principe Eugenio di Savoia (at 38,787 close enought to 39,000 tons). This one is also my choice when it comes to a ship with a displacement (doesn't matter to me what kind of displacement) around 53,000 tons (Your original design was about 53,500 normal, the PEdS is 52,188 tons full load)
42,000 => That one would have been laid down in Q1, 1933 if I hadn't changed my plans and designs. The displacement of the design is now something completely different.

Quoted

Now, to me the final two numbers are the interesting ones. She goes from 3,332 bunkerage to 6,664 bunkerage without a change in internal volume usage. My conclusion- Springsharp doesn't sim fuel tanks well (if at all), and most definitely does not account for them below the waterline.

Quoted

No 15" guns, range doubled from 10,000nm to 20,000 : Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 51.6 %

Doesn't say bunkerage in that part so it should be quite obvious that the bunkerage does not change the internal volume (maybe in a future version of Sharp, that might be changed). What I do find surprising is that the internal volume increases when you add miscellaneous weights, even if the things that the miscellaneous weights are used to sim are located on the deck or the superstructure where it shouldn't influence the internal volume at all.

Quoted

I've come to the same conclusion myself, Fuel seems to be drastically underestimated in reguards to its effects on the design hence the birth of wesworld "boilers".

A ship is big and there's plenty of space to dump all that fuel...
... Whether there will be any place for the crew quarters after adding all that fuel is another matter. :-)

Quoted

Given circumstances. My main belt did cover all the engineering and magazine spaces.

According to the sim, it should be enough, but in reality it might be different.

According to the sim I made of the Yukino, I need a 419 feet belt to cover the internal volume.

Quoted

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 97.5 %

Looking at the picture (1 foot = 1.27887 pixels), I need a coverage of 441 feet to protect the area from the aftmost turret to the forwardmost turret, and not the 419 feet that Springsharp gives me.
However a long, long time ago...
I asked Hooman about the belt coverage (he'll probably have forgotten about it because it was a couple of years back). With one design, I asked him if I should stick to what Springsharp told me or what the picture gave me. He told me to stick to what Springsharp told me to use. I have been using that approach ever since.