WesWorld

Anshun - Class

Oceangoing Submarine

Displacement:
1,105 t light; 1,132 t standard; 1,353 t normal; 1,530 t full load

Dimensions:
Length overall water x beam x draught
240.00 ft 240.00 ft x 27.00 ft x 17.00 ft (normal load)
73.15 m 73.15 m x 8.23 m x 5.18 m
8 - 21.0 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion engines plus batteries,
Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 2 shafts, 4,853 shp 3,620 Kw = 19.50 kts
Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 398 tons

Complement:
111 - 145

Cost:
£0.323 million $1.291 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament 0 tons, 0.0%
Machinery 133 tons, 9.8%
Hull, fittings & equipment 692 tons, 51.1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores 248 tons, 18.4%
Miscellaneous weights 280 tons, 20.7%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship)
523 lbs 237 Kg = 4.8 x 6 152 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00) 1.05
Metacentric height 0.8 ft 0.2 m
Roll period 12.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %) 0 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00) 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00) 0.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient 0.430
Length to Beam Ratio 8.89 1
'Natural speed' for length 15.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100) 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward) 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang 0.00 ft 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length)
- Stem 0.00 ft 0.00 m
- Forecastle (20%) 0.00 ft 0.00 m
- Mid (50%) 0.00 ft 0.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15%) 0.00 ft 0.00 m
- Stern 0.00 ft 0.00 m
- Average freeboard 0.00 ft 0.00 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazinesengines, low = better) 115.2%
- Above water (accommodationworking, high = better) 0.0%
Waterplane Area 4,069 Square feet or 378 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement loading) 248%
Structure weight hull surface area 112 lbssq ft or 549 Kgsq metre
Hull strength (Relative)
- Cross-sectional 3.04
- Longitudinal 2.18
- Overall 2.37
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
Caution Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

Misc. Weight:
Ballast - 230 tons
Torpedoes - 28 tons
2 FLying Bombs + launch rail - 22 tons

Non-official informations:
Diving depth 237 feet
Emergency Depth 356 feet
Crush Depth 593 feet
Flying Bomb has a warhead of ~850kg TNT or something similar


[SIZE=1]Thanks to Alex for allowing to use the pic[/SIZE]

Oh, goody.

HMCS Seaview, Canadian Cruiser Submarine laid down 1940

Displacement:
13,021 t light; 13,362 t standard; 13,436 t normal; 13,495 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
475.00 ft / 475.00 ft x 60.00 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
144.78 m / 144.78 m x 18.29 m x 9.14 m

Armament:
4 - 7.50" / 191 mm guns in single mounts, 210.94lbs / 95.68kg shells, 1940 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1940 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 859 lbs / 390 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
12 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 70.00 ft / 21.34 m 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 23 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion generators plus batteries,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 18,169 shp / 13,554 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 120nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 132 tons

Complement:
623 - 811

Cost:
£3.790 million / $15.161 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 129 tons, 1.0 %
Armour: 163 tons, 1.2 %
- Belts: 95 tons, 0.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 68 tons, 0.5 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 486 tons, 3.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,874 tons, 66.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 415 tons, 3.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 3,370 tons, 25.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
12,127 lbs / 5,501 Kg = 57.5 x 7.5 " / 191 mm shells or 2.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 2.7 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 15.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 0 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.92 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.79 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 43 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
- Stern: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
- Average freeboard: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 57.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 0.0 %
Waterplane Area: 19,890 Square feet or 1,848 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 243 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 332 lbs/sq ft or 1,623 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 4.31
- Longitudinal: 2.20
- Overall: 2.60
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

260 ft Operational depth
415 ft Emergency depth
650 ft Crush depth

Quoted

Range 120nm at 10.00 kts

I believe no real threat

Well it could attack the US if based in Lake Superior

Quoted

Armament: 4 - 7.50" / 191 mm guns in single mounts, 210.94lbs / 95.68kg shells, 1940 Model Automatic rapid fire guns in turrets (on barbettes)

No threat at all, it submerges, it sinks! Barbettes are not water tight

Quoted

Originally posted by Earl822

Quoted

Armament: 4 - 7.50" / 191 mm guns in single mounts, 210.94lbs / 95.68kg shells, 1940 Model Automatic rapid fire guns in turrets (on barbettes)

No threat at all, it submerges, it sinks! Barbettes are not water tight

The USN had some thoughts on the concept....


http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/s-file/s584163.jpg


http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/s-file/s584166.jpg


http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/s-file/s584165.jpg


http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/s-file/s584164.jpg

I think the V-1s and Type XXI submarine is a bit of a stretch for 1938. Especially considering that so far China has only built a handful of coastal submarines.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I think the V-1s and Type XXI submarine is a bit of a stretch for 1938. Especially considering that so far China has only built a handful of coastal submarines.

I'm also fuzzy on the general Chinese leap from having nothing on the subject of (modern) rocketry....to having V-1s.

What's the date on this design? If it's 1948, it's not as objectionable as it might otherwise be.

Agreed, and it is a very nice looking Picture (Alex) and design (Walter/Perdedor?).

Obiously China will be getting the V-1s from Mexico...once Mexico figures out that the piloted versions are just not working out.

Quoted

I think the V-1s and Type XXI submarine is a bit of a stretch for 1938. Especially considering that so far China has only built a handful of coastal submarines.

I would love to know what aspect(s) of the Anshun are the same as the XXI. It can't be the SS data since I simmed the Anshun using the stats of the O21 submarine and not those of the XXI.

Quoted

Obiously China will be getting the V-1s from Mexico...once Mexico figures out that the piloted versions are just not working out.

It should be obvious that it would only work for Manzo.

It's a rebuild O21 class sub

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

I think the V-1s and Type XXI submarine is a bit of a stretch for 1938. Especially considering that so far China has only built a handful of coastal submarines.

I would love to know what aspect(s) of the Anshun are the same as the XXI. It can't be the SS data since I simmed the Anshun using the stats of the O21 submarine and not those of the XXI.

Quoted

Obiously China will be getting the V-1s from Mexico...once Mexico figures out that the piloted versions are just not working out.

It should be obvious that it would only work for Manzo.

I know, so I would love to know why RA mentioned the Type XXI. Even if the number is the same, I would think that there is a significant difference between the O21 class and the Type XXI class submarines.

It definitely looks similar to the XXI. Accurate stats are rather difficult with SS.

Which just leaves the V-1s appearing a few years early on the other side of the Pacific. With such poor accuracy and low number are they really an effective weapon?

Quoted

With such poor accuracy and low number are they really an effective weapon?

I doubt it, but don't tell Mexico that.

We don't, you can't tell Mexico anything.....

Those could be used to strike Hong Kong and other large port areas quite easily. It fact if such submarines do get built they are going to be the most de-stabilising ships in the Pacific even if they have no practical anti-ship role.

On the minus those subs are going to be very slow underwater and noisy and would take a long time to dive. Most large subs have been failures and these seem to be likewise. If they are caught by aircraft or ships then these subs are big targets.

I don't see why China would use submarines to hit Hong Kong, when it can do it from land.

I was thinking the same thing until I realized that if China were to get those flying bombs from Mexico, it would make sense to use them from a submarine. They won't see the submarine and all the markings on the remnants would point the finger to Mexico.