Quoted
The Atlantean type 8 21" torpedo weighs in at 3,000 lbs. so with enough fish for 2 per tube that's 24 tons. I'd assume the last 2 tons would be for spare electric motors/warheads or maintenance equipment, perhaps even a spare "hail Mary" torpedo.
Quoted
As for the misc. weight breakdown, to be honest I haven't worked it out in detail but it would include standard equipment one would find on a sub - sonar, radar, hydrophones, torpedo handling equipment and limited small arms.
Quoted
As to the design being flat you'll have to talk to Brock as its his design work in subsim to my spec request but the designs have more draft than my D-22 class (15.1') and R-98 class (15.75'). The D-22 beam is also just over 2/3rds the beam on the Type 42 and Type 43, making it roughly the size of a German type VII class boat dimension's wise and tonnage wise similar to a type IX.
Quoted
There is one problem with the Type 42 design, its missing the 75mm gun and small machine guns I would be mounting on it but using springsharp 1x75mm, 2x50 cal and 4x30 cal weapons weigh in at 2 tons.
Okay. I'm always looking at other designs for ideas for the use of miscellaneous weights as well as how much should be assigned.
Unlike what the springstyle notes say, I would think that the depth being 2/3 of beam is completely wrong. Looking at images, when dividing depth by beam, I get 0.97 for the Type VII and 0.88 for the Type IX. The I-201 is actually deeper than it is wide (at 1.21). I have looked at numerous other submarines in the past, and I only think one British WW1 design gave me something like 0.65. All others came in between 0.8 and 1 which is nowhere near the 0.6667 which is supposed to be "typical for subs of pre-nuke era" according to the notes.
I would think that you would only need to check the weight of the 50 cal and 30 cal since that 75mm is going to be entered in subsim.
Quoted
Ironically I do that as well though I also try and keep weights consistent with certain weapons/equipment and lately I've been trying to come up with a list of misc weight objects to work towards standardizing.
Quoted
I'm trying to get away from the habit of designing a ship and then cramming as much misc weight as I can and THEN breaking down that misc weight into a more detailed list.
Quoted
Indeed, but the current design does not have the 75mm gun added and a 1944 design seems a bit early to have fleet subs without a main armament. I'm not sure how much the design would change tonnage wise if rerun in subsim with the correction.
To be honest I'm almost considering using the Springsharp file instead. Its easy enough to modify myself though it does come out more expensive the standard weight is the same. I don't think....there are any errors? only slight problem is using the sun sim stats they have a terrible dive limit compared to other Atlantean subs.....
Caution: Poor stability - excessive risk of capsizing
Quoted
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The subsim designs have nearly twice the diving limit of previous Atlantean submarines. For example, your Springsharp design here has a crush depth of 145 meters compared to 300 meters for the Subsim design I gave you.
Quoted
"However, if your sub has stability less than 1.0, you'll have to redesign it."
Quoted
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The subsim designs have nearly twice the diving limit of previous Atlantean submarines. For example, your Springsharp design here has a crush depth of 145 meters compared to 300 meters for the Subsim design I gave you.
I think he might have been referring to his springsharp sim because he ended up with that low overall hull strength compared to previous Atlantean subs simmed with Springsharp. Probably has to do with the high l:b ratio which causes a higher x-sectional strength and a lower longitudinal strength.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The subsim designs have nearly twice the diving limit of previous Atlantean submarines. For example, your Springsharp design here has a crush depth of 145 meters compared to 300 meters for the Subsim design I gave you.
Yeah, its been a while since I designed a sub in Springsharp, I knew there would be at least one mistake....Caution: Poor stability - excessive risk of capsizing
"However, if your sub has stability less than 1.0, you'll have to redesign it."
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH