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.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

161

Thursday, July 22nd 2010, 4:25pm

What other historical LST designs are there than the US ones? Had the British or the Japanese build such vessels in greater number?

We need a rule that applies all of WesWorld and fits within the existing environment.

162

Thursday, July 22nd 2010, 4:36pm

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
What other historical LST designs are there than the US ones? Had the British or the Japanese build such vessels in greater number?

The German Marinefahrprams are similar in concept, as appropriate for short-ranged European operations.

The British LSTs were the converted tankers - the Misoa-class, followed by the Boxer-class, which displaces probably twice as much as an LST-2. They were unsuitable for the purpose and they were converted to amphibious command ships. After that, the British elected to let the US develop all the LSTs, as the US had better designs in development and could produce them faster, cheaper, and more efficiently than the British. (Economic rationalization.)

The Japanese No.101 class is pretty much a copy of the LST, and 69 ships were supposedly completed.

163

Thursday, July 22nd 2010, 4:50pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
The thought occurs to me that the USN's LSTs weren't really built for heavy weather, although they did make ocean crossings. Might it perhaps be more appropriate to sim them with <1.0 hull strength to reflect this?


You could..... but to get my posted design to carry the actual tonnage carried you'd drop the strength to 0.14. I've got a design that is fairly representative of the LST at deep load (deep displacement's right, cargo tonnage is in the range at 1800 tons, speed's accurate, etc), but it's light displacement is WAY off (2925 tons versus 1625-1700) because SS isn't really written to handle this type of ship.

164

Thursday, July 22nd 2010, 4:57pm

The Marinefahrprams are really more like LCTs than an LST, they're far smaller.

The Brits actually had a couple designs:: the Maracaibo conversions and the LST Mk3s. The Mk3's were larger and faster than the LST(2)s, but didn't carry much more, they had a light displacement of about 2140 tons and a full-load displacement of about 5000 tons.

165

Sunday, July 25th 2010, 5:41pm

I can live with Hoo's compromise solution.....

166

Sunday, July 25th 2010, 11:51pm

I agree the latest compromise preposal isn't ideal for everyone but it is a compromise that I can live with.