WesWorld

Quoted

That is the reserve for the design and not actually fitted with ballast to take off at a later date.

If you sim it that way then there has to be something there to account for those weights and displacements otherwise all the displacements are incorrect.

Quoted

Ship designers almost certainly design larger ships to have a reserve for future items

Yes, but it is not there when the ship is built. It will only be added when it is actually added sometimes in the future and not before so the weights should only be added when the stuff is added to the design and not before.

Looking at the sim of the Varyag class, I think that it has enough stability, more than good enough seaboat rating an enough freeboard to assume that it was designed in a way with possible future additions in mind so that equipment can be added in the future. The only thing that might happen when stuff is added and the ship lies slightly deeper in the water is that steadiness might drop below 70% but I doubt it is not much of an issue whether the steadiness is 71% or 68%. That is just a minor difference.

Quoted

as Brock says most people don't always have a complete, detailed, methodical (to the point of being silly) list of items to tally up every single gram of misc tonnage.

That is something that I can understand. And as I said "other minor assorted equipment I forgot but shall remember a couple months from now." (or just "miscellaneous equipment" or "various") sounds much better and more accurate. Even with all the silliness I came up, I still ran out of ideas for the final 29 tons on the I-310 submarine so listed it as various... but it is still there.

Quoted

Actually, as destroyer guns go, I would agree that the German 15cm SP is an inferior weapon to the Russian 13cm DP. I inherited these ships from Hrolf and I would have never put SP guns on them.

Hush! It's your gun so even if it is inferior you need to convince others that it is actually superior.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

Actually, as destroyer guns go, I would agree that the German 15cm SP is an inferior weapon to the Russian 13cm DP. I inherited these ships from Hrolf and I would have never put SP guns on them.

Hush! It's your gun so even if it is inferior you need to convince others that it is actually superior. :D

They are going to make very superior coast-defense batteries. :)

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

That is the reserve for the design and not actually fitted with ballast to take off at a later date.

If you sim it that way then there has to be something there to account for those weights and displacements otherwise all the displacements are incorrect.

Quoted

Ship designers almost certainly design larger ships to have a reserve for future items

Yes, but it is not there when the ship is built. It will only be added when it is actually added sometimes in the future and not before so the weights should only be added when the stuff is added to the design and not before.

Given the fact that a ships fuel can be used up yet it is represented in the sim at full capacity proves that weights can vary from the design stats without a ship sinking. When your talking about a very small percentage of the ships overall tonnage being "missing" from the design I see little negative effect if at all. I've never heard of an American battleship or destroyer sinking because they procured an ice cream machine.

Zenit Refit, Russian Seaplane Tender laid down 1924, Refitted as Experimental Vessel 1946

Displacement:
3,287 t light; 3,403 t standard; 4,713 t normal; 5,761 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
373.02 ft / 360.89 ft x 55.77 ft x 16.40 ft (normal load)
113.70 m / 110.00 m x 17.00 m x 5.00 m

Armament:
2 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns in single mounts, 81.57lbs / 37.00kg shells, 1924 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount
4 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 15.43lbs / 7.00kg shells, 1946 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 237 lbs / 108 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 10,426 shp / 7,778 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,358 tons

Complement:
283 - 369

Cost:
£0.568 million / $2.274 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 25 tons, 0.5 %
Armour: 15 tons, 0.3 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 15 tons, 0.3 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 343 tons, 7.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,403 tons, 29.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,426 tons, 30.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,500 tons, 31.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
8,348 lbs / 3,786 Kg = 124.5 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 2.5 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 14.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 86 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.08
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.73

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.500
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.47 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 17.06 ft / 5.20 m
- Mid (50 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Stern: 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Average freeboard: 14.99 ft / 4.57 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 63.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 125.8 %
Waterplane Area: 13,406 Square feet or 1,245 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 196 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 71 lbs/sq ft or 346 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.90
- Overall: 1.02
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

Breakdown of Miscellaneous Weights:
- 75 tons for one experimental Systema-10 (4K1) Amur launcher
- 80 tons for electronics
- 145 tons for testing and experimental facilities
- 1300 tons for cargo, storage, workshops, extra crew quarters, etc (original equipment)

Electronics Suite:
- NR-132 surface and air-search radar (2 radars, 15 tons)
- NR-136 height-finding and air-search radar (1 radar, 7.5 tons)
- NR-119 navigational and air-warning radar (1 radar, 2.5 tons)
- NR-160bis fire-control radar (1 radar, 7.5 tons)
- NR-170 AA fire-control radar (1 radar, 2.5 tons)
- NR-222 prototype fire-control radar (1 radar, 30 tons)
- French-built SAGEM HF/DF (3 tons)
- Diesel emergency electric generator (5 tons)
- Gunnery computer for 130mm guns (2 tons)
- Gunnery computer for Systema-10 (4K1) Amur (5 tons)

List of Changes:
- Removal of aft 130mm gun and replacement by experimental rocket launcher.
- Addition of electronics suite including prototype NR-222 radar.
- Refit of internal spaces for testing and experimentation facilities.
- Upgrade of 75mm and 37mm AA defense battery.

Notes:
822 tons to refit. The French, as the primary developer of the electronic systems, are paying for and conducting the refit. This vessel shall be used to conduct sea trials with experimental systems for fleet air defense.

So what must I imagine with the rockets it fires? Something like the Rheintochter or Wasserfall or V1 or V2 or something else?

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

So what must I imagine with the rockets it fires? Something like the Rheintochter or Wasserfall or V1 or V2 or something else?

They're French-designed rockets made in Russia, so the design will be over-hyped engineering demanding exacting tolerances, specialized alloys and precision engineering, but manufactured on the cheap with I'm-sure-that'll-do wood and mild steel in a factory originally intended to build pianos. ;)

Let me put it differently. Regardless of cheapness, rubbishness and reliability issues of the rocket, are we talking about an surface to air rocket like Japan's crappy 12 cm AA rocket or are we looking at some surface to surface rocket or an anti submarine weapon? Just curious about it.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

So what must I imagine with the rockets it fires? Something like the Rheintochter or Wasserfall or V1 or V2 or something else?

Seriously, though. It's something like Rheintochter and Wasserfall, but it doesn't work as well.

Edit: Ninja'd.

Basically, the Amur rockets are going to be a failure. They're intended to be a sort of response to the appearance of jet aircraft as well as radio-guided bombs. The rockets themselves work just fine (and will make great sounding rockets) but their accuracy against airborne targets is too low for successful use. That's the fault of the guidance / homing system, and it basically comes down to flinging a bunch of "guided" rockets at a patch of sky in the hopes that they get close enough to find an airplane. The French, although the primary developers, will never deploy the system operationally, and focus on upgrading their carrier aircraft. The Russians will try a bit harder and spend a lot more money, and will at some point declare that the system is "operational with the fleet", but only by hideously abusing the definition of the word "operational." If Amur actually worked in combat, the Russians would be more surprised than anyone. :P

I have a more in-depth writeup that I'll post, possibly in late 1946 or 1947 when sea trials of Amur begin.

Basically, this is the Franco-Russian equivalent to Hood's "Brakemine", and one of the foundation stones for French and Russian SAMs that might appear in the 1950s - S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline), Masurca, stuff like that.

I would expect them on one hand to be more effective than the Japanese 12cm AA rockets. You're talking overall about 22.5kg vs 1,748kg (when assuming that your rocket is like the Rheintochter) and an explosive charge of 0.72kg vs 136kg. On the other hand the 12cm rocket system is probably much easier to handle and quicker to operate. It can also fire 14 toothpicks at a target in 10 seconds according to navweaps. Personally I thought that this would be a good first step to something bigger and more effective along the lines of the Rheintochter when it comes to Japan.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

I would expect them on one hand to be more effective than the Japanese 12cm AA rockets. You're talking overall about 22.5kg vs 1,748kg (when assuming that your rocket is like the Rheintochter) and an explosive charge of 0.72kg vs 136kg. On the other hand the 12cm rocket system is probably much easier to handle and quicker to operate. It can also fire 14 toothpicks at a target in 10 seconds according to navweaps.

I'd agree that "Amur" is almost certainly more effective on a per-shot basis. I've never made up any specs, but I figure it has a ~50kg warhead and a 20-30km maximum range. Even near-hits can be pretty damaging.

On the flip side, the "Amur" is bulky enough that only a few can be loaded and ready-to-fire at any given time. One of your Ashida class CLs can fire off 112 rockets in short order, while the Zenit only carries four "Amur" rockets on the launcher. The proposed Admiral Lazarev can only fire twelve rockets - and due to the limitations of the electronics, can only target one aircraft at any given moment. Chaff and emergency maneuvers can also completely befuddle an "Amur". Finally, both the rocket proper and the radar and associated systems are much more expensive than the 12cm AA rockets.

So even if "Amur" is more effective than the Japanese rockets, I'm making the claim right up front that "Amur" is not effective enough to be an operational weapon system.

...Although that's not going to prevent me from building the Admiral Lazarev and the Admiral Kolchak as follow-ons to Zenit. They're quirky, and even though their main weapon is a flop, I want to build them anyway.

Rheintochter is certainly not precision built, having looked over one at the RAF Museum Cosford its not much more than a metal tube with wooden wings bolted on. Actually most of the German ASMs look rough and ready. Still for one-shot stuff I suppose it doesn't make a massive difference as long as it holds together long enough!
Comparing German and Allied aircraft at both Hendon and Cosford, the fit and finish of German aircraft are poorer (even with allowances made for museum restoration and most of the German ones are probably still fairly stock condition).

Sounds an interesting programme.
I was toying with playing around with the historical Naval BEN, but I've really seen the need yet. I might make some moves nearer the 50s to get experience for the Sea Slug (though the WW version might be different).

Classical design, good looking. Like it! :)

Quoted from "HoOmAn"

Classical design, good looking. Like it! :)

Thanks! I re-worked Hrolf's version of Wes's drawing of the prototype Turkish and German ships, but added a few of those classic Russian design cues like the Tashkent bridge...