WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
But since both are in FAR, doesn't it make sense that they would have a commanized gun, to make supply and repair on distant stations easier?

Not necessarily. Each navy would likely develop their own requirements and adamantly resist having to give up their pet designs in favor of another gun design.

Historically, not at this time period, unless one gun is actually a licensed copy of the other. How many totally incompatible 6" or 8" guns were there? Every nation that built it's own guns as opposed to buying them commercially did their own. It was only after WWII when the Warsaw Pact and NATO started doing the commonality thing amongst alliance members.

...interchangeability...

Two rounds with the same 9mm x 18 (Police and Makarow) designation are different enough to be unsafe, if put in a different gun.

I be weary of putting a Spanish NATO 120mm mortar round in a Czech NATO 120mm Mortar.

Probably 110mm guns Poland use have little in common with 110mm guns from Nordmark.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I use them because they seem to combine the best attributes of ROF, ballistics, and DP capability.

What a coincidence, thats why I picked em too!

Due to a deal with Azerbaijan, one coastal submarine was traded for 4 of the Khoyski class torpedo boats. I have noticed several problem's with them, that violate the gentleman's rules. For example, the Cross-Sectional is .44, and the BC is .3. Brockpaine tells me that all ship's built before 1920 are exempt from the Gentlemen's rules. The question is, if I rebuild them, will I have to figure out a way to bring up the BC (impossible without a major rebuild adding a new midsection that has a higher BC) and the cross-sectional, droping the speed to 28 knots?

If you did have to bring up the BC and cross-sectional (I feel because of their date they don't) it wouldn't be worth it to rebuild them, just give them a simple refit to upgrade their AA capability's and perhaps replace the 18" torpedo's with a twin 21" mount.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
(I feel because of their date they don't)

Will second this, but with the caveat that hull strength should remain as high as possible and preferably not drop.

Yes, thats a good point Brock. That might even nessessatate droping a few 2.95" guns.

But I want to add oil, and it has no misc. weight...

The ship comes with no misc. weight. When I try to add some, just a minimal amount of 10 tons, the ship fails. I don't want to have to do a major refit, just 15%. What should I do?

What the weight for?

The torpedoes, and a few depth charges...and that's with 4/6 guns removed. I'm planning on using these for fast ASW escorts for coastal convey's from Riga-Liepajas to St.Petersburg-Tallien-Helenski...not that I need them. Alternatively, they could be fast AA escort's for coastal convey's, but I still need the misc. weight.

Changes to oil bunkerage would be 25% for DD's and I don't think its worth it for such old vessels.

That's why I don't want to do it...but they are 30 years old, they need a "refurbishment of internal fittings". I need the misc weight for torpedoes, the intial design misses it? Should I just scrap the class?

If you're trying to make them into ASW escorts for coastal convoys, the speed can be dropped fairly significantly. A fast merchant convoy won't run above 13-14 knots, and 21-24 knots is entirely satisfactory for a fast ASW escort.

Truth be told, we don't really have any good ways to sim fast ships in the 200-500t range. There aren't very many of this period, true - but by the 1950s and 1960s there are quite a number of 400 ton missile boats and torpedo boats.

But that means I have to remove engines...and some were planned to become AA escorts, where you need speed. I don't want to have to do a 25% job.

How's this? A coastal escort, minded with mainly AAW in mind, although this ship has a sizable ASW capacity.

AAW/ASW, Latvia AAW/ASW ship laid down 1909 (Engine 193

Displacement:
410 t light; 431 t standard; 457 t normal; 479 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
230.00 ft / 230.00 ft x 23.20 ft x 10.00 ft (normal load)
70.10 m / 70.10 m x 7.07 m x 3.05 m

Armament:
4 - 2.56" / 65.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 8.39lbs / 3.81kg shells, 1939 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 2.56" / 65.0 mm guns in single mounts, 8.39lbs / 3.81kg shells, 1939 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
4 - 0.91" / 23.1 mm guns in single mounts, 0.38lbs / 0.17kg shells, 1939 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 69 lbs / 31 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
3 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 12,874 shp / 9,604 Kw = 29.78 kts
Range 1,500nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 48 tons

Complement:
49 - 64

Cost:
£0.052 million / $0.207 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 9 tons, 1.9 %
Machinery: 216 tons, 47.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 161 tons, 35.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 47 tons, 10.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 25 tons, 5.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
155 lbs / 70 Kg = 18.4 x 2.6 " / 65 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.27
Metacentric height 0.9 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 10.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 53 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.17
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.06

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.300
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.91 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.17 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 16.68 ft / 5.08 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Mid (50 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m (9.50 ft / 2.90 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Stern: 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
- Average freeboard: 10.12 ft / 3.09 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 174.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 78.4 %
Waterplane Area: 3,429 Square feet or 319 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 57 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 24 lbs/sq ft or 117 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 3.05
- Overall: 0.60
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped

6 tons-3 torpedoes
15 tons-50 depth charges

Looks like no objections...I'm going to go ahead and edit the report...

Looks a bit cramped to me with all those 65mm guns.

I'd just have the two twin 65mm and the four 23mm. Your not going to squeeze much else on since you've got torpedo tubes on this and the quartdeck is loaded up with DCs.

Really you should sketch out a rough design on paint to see if this would work when dealing with small ships. I just can't see all the armament you've listed fitting without hardly any superstructure at all.

I was going by Brock...he said it could probebly fit. 2.5'' guns don't take up much room, and the DC's are mounted in stern racks.