WesWorld

Quoted

1. Overall size: the Trident class measures 125 meters at the waterline while the Deschimag design measures only 120 meters; it means that the Deschimag design can be built in a Type 1.0 slip while the Trident class requires a Type 1.5 as a minimum.

Length is a good point. No matter which nation you are, it is likely that you have more slips of Type 1 and greater than you have type 1.5 or greater.

Quoted

if we look to the survivability data, it will take 610 kg worth of damage to sink a Deschimag; but only 447 kg to sink a Trident.

Well that is to be expected when a ship has 70% more machinery weight. On the Trident it takes up 50.3% of the ship's normal displacement while with the Deschimag it is only 39.1%. Al that additional volume being taken up has a real negative effect on survivability.

Quoted

It is the A/A defense role that drives the need for higher stability as a gun platform, which can only be obtained at greater cost (tonnage) or a slower top speed.

Looking at its stability, I am sure that the "Steadiness - As gun platform" of the Trident could easily be bumped up to a similar level as the Deschimagm but that would have a negative effect on the survivability.

... but would a lower stability as a gun platform not be better? That way, it makes it more unpredictable and more dangerous for the attacking enemy aircraft.

Quoted

Radar and other electronic sensors, combined with adequate aerial reconnaissance, render day or night torpedo attacks by surface vessels improbable.

I don't know. I'm no real expert but I think that "Radar and other electronic sensors, combined with adequate aerial reconnaissance" could just as much assist in day/night torpedo attacks as it could to avoid, prevent and/or counter it.

Quoted

But then it must be said misc weight accountancy as an art form has gained ground over the years. When I first started playing here it was about 30tons and everything else was thought to be taken care of by under hull fittings etc.

Yes so that is why I mentioned "with the current way I sim ships". My current way of thinking about how to sim ships is a lot different compared to the beginning of the sim and looking at the designs kinda shows that. The old ships that have none or very little miscellaneous weights I consider obsolete (so Pacifica will have to work on the purchased Skopje-class vessels to make them somewhat less obsolete ) However the Trident is a fairly recent design (1944) so the lack of a proper amount of miscellaneous weights on that one kinda makes it obsolete from the start.

Quoted

It never even occurred to us that torpedoes and their mounts were ghosts with mass but no weight.

Torpedoes and torpedo tubes have neither mass nor weight. They do have volume and influence both stability and the seaboat rating but since they add no weight to the vessel, hull strength will remain the same whether you have 12x 24" on your ship or 120x 24".

SS3 actually does have mass for torpedoes, but it is very buggy and unreliable to use so over at Navalism we use miscellaneous weights for the torpedoes and do not use the torpedo entry.

Quoted

I think we've learned over time and we must accept that older designs are not necessarily worse than new designs, but designed to a different philosophy.

Nah. Like I said, I just consider the older designs to be obsolete at this point in time. After all that is what happened in the real world.

Quoted

Of course for refits etc. now to the newer ideals, these old ships are a pain in the backside

I think it has more to do with the rules. In reality when I get something new to put on a ship to make it more up-to-date or I want to add some AA guns and MGs, I add all that stuff and the additional weight of the stuff being added to the ship means it will sit slightly deeper in the water in normal conditions than it did before.

Quoted

I will remind folks that we determined the tubes and the first set of torpedoes that go in them are covered by the weights already in Springsharp.

We? Well definitely not me. And determined by what? When I look at SS, it will actually determine something completely different than what you are determining when I throw numbers into it. Just take one of your sims with torpedoes. It does not matter which one. If you have 10 torpedo tubes on that design, turn that to 1,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000. You will see that the hull strength will always remain the same no matter how many billions of torpedo tubes you throw on the design so the weights in SS do not cover torpedo tubes or torpedoes. After all, how much weight do you think that 1,000,000,000 torpedo tubes would be, let alone the weight of 1,000,000,000 torpedoes? The torpedo option is useless in SS and the only reason I use it is because it looks pretty in the report and it takes up some volume on deck. But for the actual weight I use miscellaneous weights.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

I will remind folks that we determined the tubes and the first set of torpedoes that go in them are covered by the weights already in Springsharp.

We? Well definitely not me. And determined by what? When I look at SS, it will actually determine something completely different than what you are determining when I throw numbers into it. Just take one of your sims with torpedoes. It does not matter which one. If you have 10 torpedo tubes on that design, turn that to 1,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000. You will see that the hull strength will always remain the same no matter how many billions of torpedo tubes you throw on the design so the weights in SS do not cover torpedo tubes or torpedoes. After all, how much weight do you think that 1,000,000,000 torpedo tubes would be, let alone the weight of 1,000,000,000 torpedoes? The torpedo option is useless in SS and the only reason I use it is because it looks pretty in the report and it takes up some volume on deck. But for the actual weight I use miscellaneous weights.

It was determined in a discussion several years ago by the player-base at large. I think it may have been in a Dutch design thread, since I remember Kirk was confused on that issue and may have initiated the discussion.

I'm well aware of the issues you're pointing out. The issue I have, however, is that not all players used miscellaneous weights to sim torpedo tubes (as you do) - particularly on older designs, but also often on newer designs. I certainly did not use miscellaneous weights for torpedo tubes on my first destroyer designs, simply because I didn't know Springsharp didn't represent them in the weights and mass calculations. If we adhered strictly the idea that Springsharp doesn't give mass or weight to torpedo tubes added in the main window and it has to be dealt with in miscellaneous weights, then someone might argue that a ship without any miscellaneous weight earmarked for TTs does not have torpedoes, despite the Springsharp report saying it does.

Therefore, the compromise position is that the tubes and the first torpedo load are included (despite the weights not reflecting it) - and miscellaneous tonnage covers reloads, or heavier-duty launchers or reloading equipment. The compromise still gives an advantage to those who use miscellaneous weights, while not unduly penalizing older designs (or designs by players who don't know about the tubes-weights-and-masses issue).

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "Hood"

It never even occurred to us that torpedoes and their mounts were ghosts with mass but no weight.

I will remind folks that we determined the tubes and the first set of torpedoes that go in them are covered by the weights already in Springsharp. Adding miscellaneous weight permits reloads.

That's what I recall also, even though some didn't agree that SS simmed the weight of the first load of torpedo's, as Brock stated it was a compromise due to SS's ambiguity on that design parameter.

Also while I'll agree older destroyer designs will be inferior they will not be to the point of near uselessness. They can still hurt surfaced subs and still have their torpedo's.

I vaguely remember something about such a discussion but I can't remember anything actually being agreed upon (or me agreeing to it). There is nothing in the Design Rules for Gentlemen to suggest that it was accepted.

Now to be honest, I really have no idea about torpedo tube weights, so for Japan I have 2 tons for the 21" torpedoes and 3 tons for the 24" while the weight of those torpedoes is less than that so a small part of the torpedo's weight would be for the launcher. It is possible that it is not enough so the "used miscellaneous weights to sim torpedo tubes (as you do)" you mentioned might actually not be entirely true for me either.

Now I was thinking about this. We had a number of occasions where something was changed with the rules and that certain ships no longer were legal with those new rules so we decided to apply the grandfather clause to all those ships.

... so why couldn't something like that be applied to the torpedoes? Why couldn't it be said back then that "we will assume that ships prior to date 'X' will have a set of torpedoes that would fall under the hull and fittings while those ships built after date 'X' need to have the proper weights for all torpedoes"? To me this really comes over as people here not wanting to add a few more tons of miscellaneous weights to their ships as this would be too much of an impact on their designs ad design ideas, especially those of destroyer and torpedoboats.

.. but if you are really adamant on doing this, then I guess you will not have any problems with me subtracting the weight of the torpedo tubes from my subsim subs (where TT weight is added) and correct the light displacement of those subs to reflect this...

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

.. but if you are really adamant on doing this, then I guess you will not have any problems with me subtracting the weight of the torpedo tubes from my subsim subs (where TT weight is added) and correct the light displacement of those subs to reflect this...

Subsim has its own rules and foibles; the program needs to be taken into account on its own merits. Let's not blur one design program's foibles and quirks into a completely different design program.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Now I was thinking about this. We had a number of occasions where something was changed with the rules and that certain ships no longer were legal with those new rules so we decided to apply the grandfather clause to all those ships.

... so why couldn't something like that be applied to the torpedoes? Why couldn't it be said back then that "we will assume that ships prior to date 'X' will have a set of torpedoes that would fall under the hull and fittings while those ships built after date 'X' need to have the proper weights for all torpedoes"?

I technically have no problems with that, provided it was universally accepted and done across the board by everyone in the game. The lack of universal acceptance for that method was why we had to adopt our compromise in the first place, however.

I for one would not favor Walter's proposal vis-à-vis codifying a new rule for torpedo tubes etc.

First and foremost, it is, in my opinion, an extremely minor point. Yes - I can see someone taking advantage of the current compromise to cram a huge number of torpedo tubes on a hull - but that is a matter for a peer review reality check.

Secondly - it would require agreement on the weights for torpedoes and their launchers. Finding the weight of historical torpedoes is possible; the launch equipment is more nebulous.

Thirdly - it would set the precedent for demanding standardization of miscellaneous weights for all classes of subsidiary equipment

I agree with Bruce here.

For my designs I always worked with the idea in mind a first set of torpedos comes with the launchers, thinking this is common ground - or the compromise accepted as Brock called it.

Also, I may add to Bruce' statement about subsidiary equipment: We do not even have to deal with minor equipment. We would have to deal with a ships major parts and how SS sims 'em. We all know that SS overestimates the power required for a given speed, which is why you cannot get the same speed out of a historical DD design when you sim it in either springstyle or springsharp.

If we follow down this path, we end up in bad need for a completely new sim program - one potentially realistic but almost too-complex-to-use-tool, as I fear. We discussed that in the past also. To no avail, IIRC, and there was nobody to provide us such tool.

So my point of view is: If you think you have found a method to make your SS sim more realistic, to make it fit your knowledge about ship design, and it is generally accepted by the player base for your designs at least, then go with it. But don't expect to see everybody else follow your example. Yes, this might end up in ship designs by different players that do not compare completely, but to me that is a no issue as long as it is accepted (and story telling can deal with it).

Edit: I may add that my Trident is an evolutionary step forward from my older Weapon class design but during design process I compared it with the Allen M Summer class as in Whitley, except that I replaced the upper aft torpedo launcher on the Summer with a forth main gun mount while replacing the historical designs 4cm quads with 57mm twins amidship. I think the final result can easily be compared with the Allen M Summer class - except probably that I went with the heavier, more powerful engines of the German Typ 36B (Mob) which made 36kn on 70,000 WPS as does the Trident (well, almost) because SS would not allow me the Summers 36,5kn on 60,000 WPS. So whatever weight distribution is, either by myself regarding misc weight or SS in general, the end result is very comparable to a historical design - and that's my goal first place.

An initial draft of my 1947 Class destroyer using an array of equipment from around the world.
These will replace the hard-used Mendoza class.


1947 Class Project 455, Argentina Destroyer laid down 1947

Displacement:
2,057 t light; 2,205 t standard; 2,465 t normal; 2,673 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
388.21 ft / 377.30 ft x 40.03 ft x 13.75 ft (normal load)
118.33 m / 115.00 m x 12.20 m x 4.19 m

Armament:
6 - 5.04" / 128 mm guns (3x2 guns), 64.00lbs / 29.03kg shells, 1947 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 2.17" / 55.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 5.08lbs / 2.30kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 426 lbs / 193 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 400
4 - 24.5" / 622.3 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.59" / 15 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Conning tower: 0.98" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 45,000 shp / 33,570 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 5,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 468 tons

Complement:
174 - 227

Cost:
£1.950 million / $7.802 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 63 tons, 2.5 %
Armour: 29 tons, 1.2 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 25 tons, 1.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 4 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,025 tons, 41.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 800 tons, 32.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 408 tons, 16.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 140 tons, 5.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
881 lbs / 400 Kg = 13.8 x 5.0 " / 128 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.23
Metacentric height 1.9 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 12.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.48
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.08

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.416
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.43 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.53 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 67 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.28 ft / 7.40 m
- Mid (45 %): 24.28 ft / 7.40 m (12.47 ft / 3.80 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 12.47 ft / 3.80 m
- Stern: 12.47 ft / 3.80 m
- Average freeboard: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 162.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 136.4 %
Waterplane Area: 9,744 Square feet or 905 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 85 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 42 lbs/sq ft or 203 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.45
- Overall: 0.58
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Class Names:

Misc weight includes:
One Briitsh Type 144Q ASDIC
One British Type 145 depth finding ASDIC
One Chilean surface search RDF set
One Chilean aerial search search RDF set
One German main director with RDF
One German HA/ AA director with RDF
HF/DF
Air conditioning
2x DCT for 24 DC
1 British Squid A/S mortar

A competing design, flush decked and slightly more horsepower - based on the Italian Sarandi class hull but 10m shorter.
Misc weight and stuff same as before.

Project 455A, Argentina Destroyer laid down 1947

Displacement:
2,183 t light; 2,336 t standard; 2,688 t normal; 2,971 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
404.74 ft / 393.70 ft x 40.03 ft x 14.93 ft (normal load)
123.37 m / 120.00 m x 12.20 m x 4.55 m

Armament:
6 - 5.04" / 128 mm guns (3x2 guns), 64.00lbs / 29.03kg shells, 1947 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 2.17" / 55.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 5.08lbs / 2.30kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 426 lbs / 193 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 400
4 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.59" / 15 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Conning tower: 0.98" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 48,343 shp / 36,064 Kw = 34.42 kts
Range 3,800nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 635 tons

Complement:
186 - 242

Cost:
£2.085 million / $8.338 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 63 tons, 2.3 %
Armour: 29 tons, 1.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 25 tons, 0.9 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 4 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,125 tons, 41.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 826 tons, 30.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 506 tons, 18.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 140 tons, 5.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
920 lbs / 417 Kg = 14.4 x 5.0 " / 128 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 1.8 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 12.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.51
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.09

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.400
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.84 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.70 ft / 5.70 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Stern: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 17.42 ft / 5.31 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 161.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 135.9 %
Waterplane Area: 10,067 Square feet or 935 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 88 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 42 lbs/sq ft or 204 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.11
- Overall: 0.58
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent