WesWorld

What do you think of this vessel, has it a chance against the ships you guys are planning to build?

Feel free to nit pick just explain why.



Cartoni Animati, laid down 1928

Length, 167.2 m x Beam, 15.5 m x Depth, 5.5 m
6898 tonnes normal displacement (6278 tonnes standard)

Main battery: 8 x 15.2-cm (4 x 2; 2 superfiring)
Secondary battery: 6 x 10.0-cm
AA battery: 2 x 4.0-cm
Light battery: 8 x 1.3-cm

Weight of broadside: 478 kg

4 TT, 53.3 cm

Main belt, 2.4 cm; ends unarmored
Upper belt, 2.0 cm
Armor deck, average 1.8 cm
Conning tower, 4.0 cm

Battery armor:
Main, 2.2 cm / secondary, 2.2 cm shields


Maximum speed for 82333 shaft kw = 36.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 3800 nm / 18 knots

Typical complement: 378-492


Estimated cost, $12.266 million (£3.067 million)

Remarks:

Caution: Hull structure is subject to strain in open-sea
conditions.

Relative extent of belt armor, 177 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Magazines and engineering spaces are cramped, with poor
watertight subdivision.

Roomy upper decks; superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 131 tonnes = 2 pct
Armor, total ..................... 687 tonnes = 10 pct

Belt 369 tonnes = 5 pct
Deck 224 tonnes = 3 pct
C.T. 12 tonnes = 0 pct
Armament 82 tonnes = 1 pct

Machinery ........................ 3435 tonnes = 50 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 1749 tonnes = 25 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 846 tonnes = 12 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 50 tonnes = 1 pct
-----
6898 tonnes = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 1.0 m

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 6052 tonnes
Standard displacement: 6278 tonnes
Normal service: 6898 tonnes
Full load: 7367 tonnes

Loading submergence 1598 tonnes/metre

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.42

Shellfire needed to sink: 854 kg = 17.4 x 15.2-cm shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 0.5
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 50 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.36

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.00

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.48
Sharpness coefficient: 0.32
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 8.81
'Natural speed' for length = 23.4 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 62 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 176 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 155 percent


Displacement factor: 80 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.58
(Structure weight per square
metre of hull surface: 281 kg)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 0.87
(for 5.85 m average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +1.56 m)

Relative composite hull strength: 0.60

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

548.42 x 50.84 x 18.04; 19.19 -- Dimensions
0.48 -- Block coefficient
1928 -- Year laid down
36.00 / 3800 / 18.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
50 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
8 x 6.00; 4; 2 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
6 x 3.94; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
2 x 1.57 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
:
8 x 0.52 -- Fourth (light) battery
4 / 0 / 21.00 -- TT / submerged / size
++++++++++
0.94 / 0.00 / 0.79 / 0.00; 177 -- Belt armor; relative extent
0.71 / 1.57 -- Deck / CT
0.87 / 0.87 / 0.00 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


(Note: For portability, values are stored in Anglo-American units

I am glad some one picked up on the joke.

But first off if any one needs to apologise that would be me. I was just baiting you all to get your attention. I was expecting HoOmAn to react in that manner so in a way I kind of set him up. What I did not expect was you guys coming down on him like that. I am aware of cultural differences and HoOmAn directness but it’s something that I enjoy and look forward to dealing with. It also kind of helps keep me honest and prevents me from getting too slack.

I think that every one should lighten up, at the end of the day its just a game.

The reason for the above sim was to bring every ones attention to some reservation and concerns I have with the sim programs that we are using.

My Cartoni Animati is actually the Italian Washington treaty compliant light cruiser Bartolomeo Colleoni laid down in 1928. Cartoni Animati was the nickname given to the ship by its crew; the English translation is Animated Cardboard, which was a pun on the Italian word for animated cartoon. The nickname itself was adapted due to ship’s light protection and construction.

As a test for spring style to find how accurate it is I decided to sim Colleoni and compare all the data with the real ship. During this test I discovered some major errors crop up. I also decided to run a second test sim with some modification to see what I get. Below is the second test, the major differences being more accurate dimensions and the ships normal engine power entered in place of its normal maximum speed.


Bartolomeo Colleoni, laid down 1928

Length, 167.2 m x Beam, 15.6 m x Depth, 5.3 m
6723 tonnes normal displacement (6105 tonnes standard)

Main battery: 8 x 15.2-cm (4 x 2; 2 superfiring)
Secondary battery: 6 x 10.0-cm
AA battery: 2 x 4.0-cm
Light battery: 8 x 1.3-cm

Weight of broadside: 478 kg

4 TT, 53.3 cm

Main belt, 2.4 cm; ends unarmored
Upper belt, 2.0 cm
Armor deck, average 1.9 cm
Conning tower, 4.0 cm

Battery armor:
Main, 2.2 cm / secondary, 2.2 cm shields


Maximum speed for 74640 shaft kw = 35.29 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 3800 nm / 18 knots

Typical complement: 371-483


Estimated cost, $11.490 million (£2.872 million)

Remarks:

Caution: Hull structure is subject to strain in open-sea
conditions.

Relative extent of belt armor, 166 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Magazines and engineering spaces are cramped, with poor
watertight subdivision.

Roomy upper decks; superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 131 tonnes = 2 pct
Armor, total ..................... 677 tonnes = 10 pct

Belt 347 tonnes = 5 pct
Deck 238 tonnes = 4 pct
C.T. 12 tonnes = 0 pct
Armament 81 tonnes = 1 pct

Machinery ........................ 3114 tonnes = 46 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 1910 tonnes = 28 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 840 tonnes = 13 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 50 tonnes = 1 pct
-----
6723 tonnes = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 0.8 m

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 5883 tonnes
Standard displacement: 6105 tonnes
Normal service: 6723 tonnes
Full load: 7191 tonnes

Loading submergence 1607 tonnes/metre

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.20

Shellfire needed to sink: 976 kg = 19.9 x 15.2-cm shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 0.6
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 70 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.48

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.00

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.48
Sharpness coefficient: 0.32
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 8.88
'Natural speed' for length = 23.4 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 61 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 165 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 155 percent


Displacement factor: 84 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.65
(Structure weight per square
metre of hull surface: 311 kg)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 0.93
(for 5.73 m average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +1.47 m)

Relative composite hull strength: 0.67

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

548.42 x 51.14 x 17.48; 18.79 -- Dimensions
0.48 -- Block coefficient
1928 -- Year laid down
35.29 / 3800 / 18.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
50 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
8 x 6.00; 4; 2 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
6 x 3.94; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
2 x 1.57 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
:
8 x 0.52 -- Fourth (light) battery
4 / 0 / 21.00 -- TT / submerged / size
++++++++++
0.94 / 0.00 / 0.79 / 0.00; 166 -- Belt armor; relative extent
0.75 / 1.57 -- Deck / CT
0.87 / 0.87 / 0.00 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


(Note: For portability, values are stored in Anglo-American units)


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Once again the hull strength is extremely low despite the data entered during the programs prompt being accurately based on the real ship. I know that every one is aware that the problem of simming small light ships is due to spring style and spring sharp overestimating the power plants weight but this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are several other areas where problems appear not only in small fast ships but also capital ships as well.

The following figures are comparisons between those given by spring sharp and the actual data from the ship

First of I will start with the armour, according to spring sharp the weight of the hulls vertical and horizontal armour should be 585 tonnes but the real ships is actually 531 tons
The main discrepancy in the above figures are found in the belts armour The reason for this is that the sims not only overestimates the weight of the ships power plant but also its volume which compounds the lack of hull strength

While overestimating some weights both programs also underestimate weights such as armament and fuel required for a given range. Spring sharp is the bigger culprit of the two when it comes to underestimating fuel.

Below are comparisons the second figure is the actual weight of the real ship


Armament .......................131 tonnes = 2 pct..510 tons
Armor, total ...................677 tonnes = 10 pct..562 tons

Belt.......................347 tonnes = 5 pct..291 tons
Deck.......................238 tonnes = 4 pct..241 tons
C.T. .......................12 tonnes = 0 pct..30 tons
Armament....................81 tonnes = 1 pct

Machinery ......................3114 tonnes =46 pct ..1330 tons
Hull and fittings; equipment ...1910 tonnes =28 pct ..2712 tons
Fuel, ammunition, stores ........840 tonnes =13 pct ..1517 tons
Miscellaneous weights ............50 tonnes = 1 pct ..20 tons
-----
6723 tonnes =100 pct

Bartolomeo Colleoni...................................6651 tons



Hull and fittings; equipment break down

Hull.......1678
Fittings....802
Equipment...240

Total......2712


Fuel, ammunition, stores break down

Fuel........1130
Ammunition...181
Stores.......206

Total......1517



The fuel loading of 1130 is misleading and should not be taken at face value. The fuel required for 3800 nm is actually 1290 tons of which 1240 is actually usable. This amount of fuel is part of the ships maximum loading (full load) while 1130 tons is carried at normal displacement

Apart from the above problems the spring style overestimates the wetted surface area as being 2844 square metres while the actual figure is 2767 this may partially explain the reason why our ship designs fall short of the speeds achieved by real ships of similar tonnage and dimensions. Admittedly this is based on the assumption that the wetted surface area is part of the calculations for speed achieved at a given engine power rating.

So why have I brought this up, well I was wondering if their was a need in adding 25 tonnes for every catapult on a ship such as a cruiser and if a better weight allocation for an aircraft and its consumable would be 20 tonnes.

Apart from the above I also recommend we should allow lightly armoured ships to be built with the following hull strengths.

We could use the following brackets for fast lightly armoured ships as long as the hull failure warning does not appear in the report.

As low as 0.5 for ships up to 4000
As low as 0.6 for ships between 4001 and up to 6000
As low as 0.75 for ships between 6001 to 7000
As low as 0.95 for ship between 7000 to 8000

Just some thoughts

Harry