TheCSANavy
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 3
(4/29/03 3:46:21 am)
Reply Light Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Note: Mind you this is for the 1950's and it is off a Dutch design that I just messed around with plus I could not add the SSM's to make it a offensive weapon so theres just the 6' on there.....sad I know tell me what you think)
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1950
Displacement:
11,035 t light; 11,335 t standard; 11,335 t normal; 11,335 t full load
Loading submergence 638 tons/feet
Dimensions:
598.50 ft x 57.50 ft x 22.00 ft (normal load)
182.42 m x 17.53 m x 6.71 m
Armament:
8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 2 guns)
8 - 1.57" / 40 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 880 lbs / 399 kg
Armour:
Belt 4.00" / 102 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main belt does not fully protect magazines and engineering spaces
Main turrets 4.00" / 102 mm, AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower 4.00" / 102 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 4.00" / 102 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
geared drive, 2 shafts, 92,291 shp / 68,849 Kw = 32.08 kts
Range 0nm at 15.00 kts
Complement:
549 - 714
Cost:
£6.158 million / $24.633 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 110 tons, 1.0 %
Armour: 3,815 tons, 33.7 %
Belts: 578 tons, 5.1 %, Armament: 275 tons, 2.4 %, Armour Deck: 1,652 tons, 14.6 %
Conning Tower: 44 tons, 0.4 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,267 tons, 11.2 %
Machinery: 2,208 tons, 19.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,827 tons, 42.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 300 tons, 2.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.7 %
Metacentric height 2.2
Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 8,587 lbs / 3,895 Kg = 79.5 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.9
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 68 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.23
Relative quality as seaboat: 0.85
Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.524
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.15
'Natural speed' for length: 24.46 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim: 81
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)
Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 110.8 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 121.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 123 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.43
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 133 lbs / square foot or 648 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.33
(for 15.68 ft / 4.78 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 0.15 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.36
King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 90
(4/29/03 5:55:33 am)
Reply Re: Light Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Range 0nm at 15.00 kts"
Do you have also build a tug for her?
For 11kts it is a weak design.
TheCSANavy
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 4
(4/29/03 3:34:19 pm)
Reply Honest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well not much of a suggestion there just telling me its weak....so.....why dont you explain yourself and give me some suggestions.
TheCSANavy
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 5
(4/29/03 4:02:33 pm)
Reply Hello
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1950
Displacement:
11,326 t light; 11,642 t standard; 12,166 t normal; 12,536 t full load
Loading submergence 678 tons/feet
Dimensions:
624.50 ft x 57.50 ft x 22.00 ft (normal load)
190.35 m x 17.53 m x 6.71 m
Armament:
8 - 5.90" / 150 mm guns (3 Main turrets)
6 - 2.24" / 57 mm guns (3 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
14 - 1.57" / 40 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 883 lbs / 400 kg
Armour:
Belt 4.00" / 102 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main belt does not fully protect magazines and engineering spaces
Main turrets 6.00" / 152 mm
Armour deck 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower 4.00" / 102 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 5.00" / 127 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
geared drive, 2 shafts, 93,847 shp / 70,010 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 7,000nm at 12.00 kts
Complement:
579 - 752
Cost:
£6.281 million / $25.125 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 110 tons, 0.9 %
Armour: 4,496 tons, 37.0 %
Belts: 601 tons, 4.9 %, Armament: 441 tons, 3.6 %, Armour Deck: 1,756 tons, 14.4 %
Conning Tower: 46 tons, 0.4 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 1,652 tons, 13.6 %
Machinery: 2,245 tons, 18.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,474 tons, 36.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 840 tons, 6.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Metacentric height 2.2
Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 11,420 lbs / 5,180 Kg = 111.2 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 4.3
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 82 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.31
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.05
Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.539
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.30
'Natural speed' for length: 24.99 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim: 78
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)
Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 104.0 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 148.3 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 123 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.14
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 111 lbs / square foot or 543 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.23
(for 19.00 ft / 5.79 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 3.25 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.15
King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 94
(4/29/03 6:14:04 pm)
Reply Hmmmm....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was at work so pardon me for not giving any explanations.
To put it bluntly: The design is crap - more or less. Sorry.
Reasons:
1) The relation between size (11+kts) and armament is unbalanced. Using 15cm guns you should get ~12 of them on a 11kts hull and many more smaller guns, maybe including torpedos as well.
2) The relation between size, armament and armor is off balance. While a 102mm belt normally offers at least medium protection (little bit thin for the ships size and time frame) it is not a good idea to have it too short. Your belt doesn´t even protect the ships vitals.
3) While turret armor is okay, the designs deck armor is somewhat thick. 102mm on a cruiser is quite a lot if it is a single layer. But given this is 1950 and long range fire can be expected, it maybe is a good idea to have good deck protection. But still, 80mm would be enough, though.
4) What good is a 4" CT for? Too weak against direct hits of larger caliber shells, too heavy as splinter protection.
5) A torpedobulkhead of 127mm?! That´s even more than your belt!!! Thin it down to ~30mm if you will stick to it. Otherwise try without. For ships below capital unit level springstyle normally gets much better results without torpedobulkheads. A cruisers hull is not beamy enough for a decent TDS anyway....
6) Your ships speed is okay, more or less, but its range is not. 7000nm @ 12kn in 1950 ?!? Make that at least 20kn...
7) No misc weight for catapults, planes or electronic equipement. Add at least 100ts.
A stability of 1,00 is poor even though you don´t get a warning for it. The reason is - most likely - the thick deck armor. A stability so low offers no reserve for modifications for example. Adding more range helps to get a better stability (ooil is rated as low in the hull).
9) You have still a lot of hull strength to play with. Use it.
Just a few thoughts....
Have fun.
TheCSANavy
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 6
(4/29/03 6:23:54 pm)
Reply Thank YOU!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats all I was looking for was a little help.....if Any one could AIM me so I could get a bit more help..
AIM is Spikey551 Thanks
Ryan
TheCSANavy
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 7
(4/29/03 7:48:32 pm)
Reply Another Design
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1930
Displacement:
9,564 t light; 10,111 t standard; 12,340 t normal; 14,073 t full load
Loading submergence 682 tons/feet
Dimensions:
600.00 ft x 62.00 ft x 22.50 ft (normal load)
182.88 m x 18.90 m x 6.86 m
Armament:
12 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (5 Main turrets)
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (4 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
16 - 1.57" / 40 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 3,603 lbs / 1,634 kg
Armour:
Belt 4.02" / 102 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 110 % of normal area
Armour deck 2.99" / 76 mm, Conning tower 3.15" / 80 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 85,046 shp / 63,445 Kw = 30.99 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Complement:
585 - 761
Cost:
£4.491 million / $17.963 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 450 tons, 3.7 %
Armour: 2,027 tons, 16.4 %
Belts: 669 tons, 5.4 %, Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Armour Deck: 1,322 tons, 10.7 %
Conning Tower: 36 tons, 0.3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,577 tons, 20.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,409 tons, 35.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,776 tons, 22.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.8 %
Metacentric height 2.4
Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 11,977 lbs / 5,433 Kg = 46.8 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.6
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 86 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.88
Relative quality as seaboat: 0.95
Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.516
Sharpness coefficient: 0.34
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.94
'Natural speed' for length: 24.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim: 91
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)
Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 97.1 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 124.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 113 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.03
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 116 lbs / square foot or 566 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.17
(for 16.00 ft / 4.88 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 0.21 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.04
17inc
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 38
(4/29/03 9:06:22 pm)
Reply Re: Another Design
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not bad kid bring the numbers main turrets to 4 that way you get 3X4 turrets and bring you armour up on the main belt 5 to 6" and you still have 2889 tons standard to play with and wheres your turret armour CSA navy my god man one hit in one of those five turrets and you lose the ship . you should atleast have 8" on them hears one of my CAs so you can see? just rember i go for more amour on my ships so they can take there place on the line .
Kent Ballarat class, uk Aust Cruiser laid down 1930
Displacement:
12,342 t light; 12,912 t standard; 14,008 t normal; 14,829 t full load
Loading submergence 968 tons/feet
Dimensions:
630.00 ft x 68.50 ft x 16.30 ft (normal load)
192.02 m x 20.88 m x 4.97 m
Armament:
12 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 4 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (4 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
20 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
25 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 3,481 lbs / 1,579 kg
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
Belt 9.00" / 229 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 80 % of normal area
Main belt does not fully protect magazines and engineering spaces
Main turrets 9.00" / 229 mm
Armour deck 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower 9.00" / 229 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 88,343 shp / 65,904 Kw = 30.02 kts
Range 6,500nm at 15.00 kts
Complement:
643 - 836
Cost:
£4.902 million / $19.608 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 435 tons, 3.1 %
Armour: 3,083 tons, 22.0 %
Belts: 1,210 tons, 8.6 %, Armament: 1,133 tons, 8.1 %, Armour Deck: 627 tons, 4.5 %
Conning Tower: 113 tons, 0.8 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,677 tons, 19.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,146 tons, 43.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,667 tons, 11.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Metacentric height 2.8
Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 20,332 lbs / 9,222 Kg = 79.4 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.7
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 69 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.73
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.00
Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.697
Sharpness coefficient: 0.40
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.99
'Natural speed' for length: 25.10 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim: 69
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)
Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 86.5 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 195.2 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 118 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.98
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 126 lbs / square foot or 614 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.14
(for 22.30 ft / 6.80 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 6.10 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00
Edited by: 17inc at: 4/29/03 9:25:20 pm
TheCSANavy
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 8
(4/29/03 11:25:24 pm)
Reply First off its not kid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have shown all of you the same respect and I would like it back, and I even defened you 17inch so please dont ever refer to me as kid unless you want to take it to a war game and lets test tatics ok? Thanks and thats not a challenge but I can hold my ground for a 18 year old and I have been very open to all suggestions and any help. Thank you,
Ryan
My next design Will be posted on this board but it will be a Battle Cruiser if you have noticed my designs are not that great but I believe in speed rather than Armor.
thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 68
(4/30/03 12:13:10 am)
Reply geeese
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calm down guys....keep it civil.
AdmKuznetsov
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 32
(4/30/03 12:21:07 am)
Reply Re: Another Design
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitely getting there. 12x 8" hits pretty hard. Now, the details. First, seakeeping. Try to get it up to 1.00. The most direct way is to raise the freeboard. This will increase longitudinal hull strength while reducing cross-sectional hull strength. These two hull strength factors combine to produce composite hull strength, which you want to keep at 1.00 or a little bit higher. So, raise the freeboard until seakeeping is over 1.00, while keeping composite hull strength above 1.00.
Next, you've got too much trim/gun steadiness. You sacrifice ability to take damage when you increase the trim factor, so stop when you get a steadiness of 70%. That gets you the "stable gun platform" remark, which I think is desirable, but too much of a good thing isn't. Apart from these details, that's a pretty good ship you've got there.
Visit my Russian/French fantasy fleet page:
admkuznetsov.tripod.com/
TheCSANavy
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 9
(4/30/03 1:13:59 am)
Reply Re: Another Design
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Lee, ConFederate States of America Cruiser laid down 1935
Displacement:
14,993 t light; 15,646 t standard; 17,017 t normal; 18,045 t full load
Loading submergence 941 tons/feet
Dimensions:
600.00 ft x 85.50 ft x 22.50 ft (normal load)
182.88 m x 26.06 m x 6.86 m
Armament:
12 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 3 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
6 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
20 - 1.57" / 40 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 3,759 lbs / 1,705 kg
Armour:
Belt 9.00" / 229 mm, end belts 1.00" / 25 mm
Belts cover 108 % of normal area
Main turrets 6.00" / 152 mm
Armour deck 4.50" / 114 mm, Conning tower 7.00" / 178 mm
Torpedo bulkhead 1.50" / 38 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 99,222 shp / 74,019 Kw = 30.27 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Complement:
744 - 968
Cost:
£6.690 million / $26.759 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 470 tons, 2.8 %
Armour: 6,181 tons, 36.3 %
Belts: 1,888 tons, 11.1 %, Armament: 964 tons, 5.7 %, Armour Deck: 2,741 tons, 16.1 %
Conning Tower: 100 tons, 0.6 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 487 tons, 2.9 %
Machinery: 2,819 tons, 16.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,523 tons, 32.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,024 tons, 11.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Metacentric height 4.3
Remarks:
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.05
Shellfire needed to sink: 15,837 lbs / 7,183 Kg = 61.9 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.8
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 75 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.37
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.00
Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.516
Sharpness coefficient: 0.38
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.13
'Natural speed' for length: 24.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim: 75
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)
Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 98.9 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 181.3 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 109 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.79
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 114 lbs / square foot or 559 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.20
(for 21.50 ft / 6.55 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 4.66 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 0.82
King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 95
(4/30/03 3:34:55 am)
Reply Still a bad design...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: This ones on your second cruiser post, not the Rober Lee. The latter also is not a good design but I don´t have the time nor the will to spend much more effort in this.
1) 12 heavy guns is too much on 10kts in 1930.
2) 12 guns in 5 turrets and none superfiring? What kind of layout is this? The only one I can think of is that of HMS Dreadnough with two triples and three twins.
3) Your hull armor is okay (deck maybe too thick for 1930 on a 10kts cruiser) but your design totally lacks protection for its guns -> KABOOM if a shells hits your gunhouses. Not a good idea. (But forget 17incs comment - you don´t need 8" and it also would be unrealistic. Try to get 4" under the given weight restrictions. That´s good to start with.)
4) 15k nm @ 15kn is a lot for 1930. I say it is too much. It offers good stability but all in all it puts too much stress on the hull.
5) Stability is too low even though you get no warning.
6) Seaboats qualities are low (has to be above 1.0). The reason is a freeboard too low. Note: Seakeeping is calculated at high speed. Your design might behave as a good seaboat if underway with only 2/3 of its high speed for example.
Rest is okay, though.
One final comment: This is not the Design Board, guys. We were forced to moce over here not to annoy those guys over there with our SIM stuff. So we should stick to SIM stuff here and everything else should be moved to the Design Board on www.warships1.com . There are many more guys with much experience and much time to introduce Newbies into the bizz.
Again: This should be for SIM related stuff only. Please don´t post anything else and don´t start flame wars about who´s design is better. It doesn´t make sense (especially between two guys who both have no idea what they are doing - sorry, couldn´t resist).
Edited by: King of Riva at: 4/30/03 3:37:59 am
TheCSANavy
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 10
(4/30/03 3:43:15 am)
Reply Re: Still a bad design...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm...first off this was not a competition.....second I am trying to learn.....and I am getting better at this ......
And I never forced you to help me, but thank you for the comments. Your right I dont know what I am doing and the only ways I am learning is by producing errors and learning from them.....
Plus you will not let me join your sim.....and I AM INTERESTED.
( And by the way if the CSA was around in 1935 which by no means would be there....umm...it would not part take in the Washington Navel Treaty due to the fact it most likely would have played no role in WW1 it would be trying to stay very much out of world Politics and still most likely rebuilding and getting its footting being only 70 years old?)
Edited by: TheCSANavy at: 4/30/03 4:04:32 am
King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 96
(4/30/03 4:44:41 am)
Reply Re: Still a bad design...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Umm...first off this was not a competition.....second I am trying to learn.....and I am getting better at this ......"
Trying to learn is the best way to learn something and yes, you´re getting better but it´s still far from being good.
And I never forced you to help me, but thank you for the comments. Your right I dont know what I am doing and the only ways I am learning is by producing errors and learning from them....."
Indeed.
"Plus you will not let me join your sim.....and I AM INTERESTED."
Beg your pardon, but the whole SIM is about fleet and ship design. You don´t have a slightest idea of both, so why should we let you join?
Please don´t take me for arrogant or aggressive. I´m just somewhat straight forward - not waisting too many words on this. Don´t take it too serious.
Maybe there are some points you should think about before posting more stuff.
What do you know about ships in general and especially about ship design? Be serious. If the answer is "little to nothing" try the following:
a) Rest aside springstyle and springsharp. Don´t touch it anymore, don´t even THINK of it!
b) Get out your reference books if you have any. Carefully read your Whitley, Breyer, Ravens&Roberts, Gröner or even Janes. Those books will allow you to learn something about the technical features of most ships and why and how they were developed. Further more you could take a look into Richard Worth book. It totally lacks usefull (for our purpose) technical details but he offers his very own point of view - which is interesting if not to say funny sometimes.
c) In addition to your books you should carefully browse through the warships1.com page. Avoid the forums. Just use the Warships and Weapons of the World pages. There, skip the pictures, they´re just eyecandy. Read through the technical data, use the links. Further more, there are some interesting articles available on warships1 that might give you some insight into the developement of propulsion systems and such.
Granted, there are some errors on those pages and sometimes the stuff over there is a little bit too pro-US so you should take it with a grain of salt, but all in all it offers the best available at a single place in the web.
d) If you have read some stuff, remember what you were told some time back: Take a historical design, rebuild it with springstyle/sharp and then play around with it. Change a detail here and there and see how the programm reacts.
e) Now, when you´ve understood how things work you can try to make your own designs. Best thing is (again) to take a real-world design you like and alter it until it fits your needs.
f) Always be aware of the shortcomings build into springstyle! It is not fully realistic. It only allows those who understand to read it an idea what a given design offers, where its shortcomings may be etc. NONE OF THE DESIGNS POSTED IS PERFECT OR 100% REALISTIC. Keep that in mind.
g) If you´ve mastered all this you can start to teach _us_!
Hope this helps,
HoOmAn
thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 69
(4/30/03 5:09:30 am)
Reply heres one
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This cruiser sacrifices four 8" guns and some range for additional speed and armor.
CA-16, Atlantis heavy cruiser laid down 1936
Displacement:
17,708 t light; 18,304 t standard; 19,602 t normal; 20,562 t full load
Loading submergence 1,137 tons/feet
Dimensions:
675.00 ft x 88.00 ft x 21.00 ft (normal load)
205.74 m x 26.82 m x 6.40 m
Armament:
8 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 2 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (4 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
12 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
24 - 1.00" / 25 mm guns
Weight of broadside 2,447 lbs / 1,110 kg
Armour:
Belt 9.00" / 229 mm, end belts 1.00" / 25 mm
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 8.00" / 203 mm, 2nd turrets 1.00" / 25 mm
Armour deck 3.00" / 76 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 133,904 shp / 99,892 Kw = 32.20 kts
Range 7,000nm at 15.00 kts
Complement:
828 - 1,076
Cost:
£7.396 million / $29.585 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 306 tons, 1.6 %
Armour: 5,416 tons, 27.6 %
Belts: 1,974 tons, 10.1 %, Armament: 1,234 tons, 6.3 %, Armour Deck: 2,209 tons, 11.3 %
Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,757 tons, 19.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,154 tons, 41.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,894 tons, 9.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.4 %
Metacentric height 5.1
Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.11
Shellfire needed to sink: 35,179 lbs / 15,957 Kg = 137.4 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.4
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 70 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.23
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.12
Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.550
Sharpness coefficient: 0.38
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.66
'Natural speed' for length: 25.98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim: 62
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)
Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 75.4 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 247.2 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 127 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.97
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 137 lbs / square foot or 670 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.53
(for 27.00 ft / 8.23 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 9.68 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.02
thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 70
(4/30/03 5:18:02 am)
Reply also
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep in mind this is a balanced design....and not one for treaty standards........and by the way...when did this become a public slag fest? You guys really need to grow up. All this negativity is not nessasary. Either post something civil or go take a time out.
King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 97
(4/30/03 5:40:38 am)
Reply ?!?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don´t understand what you mean with "slagfest"?
CSA asked for some help. I provided it the best way i could. There simply is _no_ short answer or way to learn all those things. Most of us have spend hundreds of hours reading naval related stuff to get some insight. So how could one hope to have the slightest idea of what is necessary if he has never read some reliable sources? I spend 2/3 of my lifetime (or at least much of my spare time during this period) reading source books and references, put several hundred if not thousands of dollars into books and stuff and still I´m a Newbie too - with no idea what´s really going on. Trying to follow those TechSpec arcticles (for example) gives me a headache in most cases. It takes years of research to get an idea what an armor sheme has to look like, how much steel is necessary to stop a shell etc. How could one hope to learn all this in 5 minutes?
Granted, this goes far beyond this SIM but it is what one should have in mind when designing adequate and realistic ships for a given period like the early 20s for example.
So why is this a "slagfest"?
TheCSANavy
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 11
(4/30/03 7:44:53 pm)
Reply Yeah well...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm...Maybe..
Well I am going to mess around with trying to get a design going and look over some of your guys and come back in about a week underthis same thread so...I dont take up any more space on your boards.
( I hate cleanning guns...I just just got done with cleanning my musket and man it took nearly a hour. Thank God I am not with the artillery.)
King of Riva
So you want to be a spammer
Posts: 102
(4/30/03 8:24:29 pm)
Reply Re: Yeah well...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no problem to be with the artillery...you just have to be part of the staff! *g*
(I know what I´m talking about, I served in an artillery unit.)
TheCSANavy
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 12
(5/2/03 10:31:39 pm)
Reply Alot better than my last but Overwieght
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1930
Displacement:
29,364 t light; 30,319 t standard; 31,151 t normal; 31,692 t full load
Loading submergence 2,007 tons/feet
Dimensions:
744.00 ft x 150.00 ft x 19.50 ft (normal load)
226.77 m x 45.72 m x 5.94 m
Armament:
12 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 3 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (4 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
20 - 1.57" / 40 mm AA guns
10 - 0.79" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 3,977 lbs / 1,804 kg
8 - 0.9" / 24 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
Belt 4.00" / 102 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 105 % of normal area
Main turrets 6.00" / 152 mm, 2nd turrets 6.00" / 152 mm
Armour deck 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower 4.00" / 102 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 142,391 shp / 106,224 Kw = 30.15 kts
Range 3,000nm at 15.00 kts
Complement:
1,172 - 1,524
Cost:
£8.571 million / $34.282 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 497 tons, 1.6 %
Armour: 8,544 tons, 27.4 %
Belts: 1,344 tons, 4.3 %, Armament: 1,917 tons, 6.2 %, Armour Deck: 5,197 tons, 16.7 %
Conning Tower: 86 tons, 0.3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 4,315 tons, 13.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,908 tons, 51.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,786 tons, 5.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.3 %
Metacentric height 16.1
Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.38
Shellfire needed to sink: 98,387 lbs / 44,627 Kg = 384.3 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 8.7
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 70 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.07
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.29
Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.501
Sharpness coefficient: 0.42
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.23
'Natural speed' for length: 27.28 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim: 54
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)
Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 58.7 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 382.4 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 147 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.94
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 178 lbs / square foot or 867 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.99
(for 33.50 ft / 10.21 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 14.49 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.01
Monday, April 29th 2024, 12:50am
Go to the top of the page
