WesWorld

Well, if you make a couple assumptions, the historical LST2 design can be made to work out OK in SS:

Landing Ship, Tank, United States LST laid down 1938

Displacement:
1,789 t light; 1,834 t standard; 2,023 t normal; 2,175 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
330.01 ft / 328.00 ft x 50.00 ft x 5.50 ft (normal load)
100.59 m / 99.97 m x 15.24 m x 1.68 m

Armament:
1 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1938 Model
Breech loading gun in deck mount
on centreline aft
8 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns in single mounts, 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread
8 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1938 Model
Machine guns in deck mount
on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 19 lbs / 9 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Conning tower: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 1,667 shp / 1,244 Kw = 12.93 kts
Range 8,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 341 tons

Complement:
150 - 196

Cost:
£0.400 million / $1.602 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 7 tons, 0.4 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 4 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 3 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 46 tons, 2.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 954 tons, 47.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 234 tons, 11.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 780 tons, 38.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
8,957 lbs / 4,063 Kg = 663.5 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells or 2.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 13.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 76 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.53

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.785
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.56 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 27 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Stern: 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Average freeboard: 16.56 ft / 5.05 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 51.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 287.5 %
Waterplane Area: 14,153 Square feet or 1,315 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 225 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 52 lbs/sq ft or 255 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.81
- Overall: 1.00
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

Note: draft is average at light ship, with the ballast tanks pumped out. WIth those tanks full, average draft increases to 11 feet, while speed decreases to 12 knots and sea-keeping drops to 1.35.

If you would answer a question for someone unfamiliar with Springsharp, does the complement include troops that might be carried or merely the organic crew? I've noticed that on sims of merchantmen the crew numbers are extremely high.

Thanks,

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
If you would answer a question for someone unfamiliar with Springsharp, does the complement include troops that might be carried or merely the organic crew? I've noticed that on sims of merchantmen the crew numbers are extremely high.

Thanks,

Springsharp's calculations are based off military ships rather than merchant ships.

So, in terms of the ongoing campaign sims, are such calculations 'ignored' when dealing with merchantmen? Or is the crew complement not a high order criteria in terms of individual ship simulations?

According to the springstyle notes regarding merchant ships (which should also be valid for Springsharp), the crew and damage figures need to be divided by 10.

Something I did for fun and posted over at navalism where the Aleutians are part of the Japanese Empire. The ship was simmed for that time period, eventhough the YO-210 was in reality a late WW2 vessel. The original crew figure was 89 - 116, but dividing it by 10 gives me the figure below which is a lot closer to the 6 man crew Keith Colburn has aboard the Wizard. The YO-210 crew is given as 1 Officer 22 Enlisted.

F/V Wizard, Japan Fishing Boat laid down 1916

Displacement:
882 t light; 902 t standard; 1,009 t normal; 1,095 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(155.94 ft / 150.70 ft) x 30.00 ft x (13.10 / 14.03 ft)
(47.53 m / 45.93 m) x 9.14 m x (3.99 / 4.28 m)

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 1 shaft, 1,125 shp / 839 Kw = 13.14 kts
Range 6,050nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 193 tons

Complement:
9 - 12

Cost:
£0.060 million / $0.240 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 0 tons, 0.0%
Machinery: 42 tons, 4.2%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 180 tons, 17.8%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 127 tons, 12.6%
Miscellaneous weights: 660 tons, 65.4%
- Hull below water: 430 tons
- Hull above water: 120 tons
- On freeboard deck: 83 tons
- Above deck: 27 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,125 lbs / 510 Kg = 10.4 x 6 " / 152 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 11.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, raised quarterdeck ,
a normal bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.597 / 0.604
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.02 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 12.28 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 24.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -2.00 ft / -0.61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 17.40%, 11.78 ft / 3.59 m, 9.87 ft / 3.01 m
- Forward deck: 25.00%, 7.00 ft / 2.13 m, 5.25 ft / 1.60 m
- Aft deck: 29.81%, 5.25 ft / 1.60 m, 4.46 ft / 1.36 m
- Quarter deck: 27.79%, 7.96 ft / 2.43 m, 7.96 ft / 2.43 m
- Average freeboard: 7.04 ft / 2.15 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 73.3%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 37.5%
Waterplane Area: 3,222 Square feet or 299 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 136%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 35 lbs/sq ft or 173 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.89
- Longitudinal: 2.71
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Extremely poor accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

72 tons = 230 6.5’x6.5’ pots (at 700lbs per pot).
11 tons = deck gear
27 tons = handling cranes
550 tons = storage hold.

Ship's complement doesn't really figure into our calculations at Wesworld. For general purposes, we sim troopships using miscellaneous weight (approximately 2 tons per soldier). For merchant ships, I pretty much disregard the crew sizes Springsharp gives, and find similar merchant vessels and borrow their numbers.

Found the notes...

Quoted

Also, for civilian merchant ships, divide crew and
damage survival values by 10 - they have small crews, and
lack the extensive compartmentation of naval ships. For
naval transports, divide crew by 5 but leave survival
values unchanged. Adjust your ship report accordingly;
I compute and list Gross Registered Tonnage on the line
below displacement.

Thank you for clarifying the point. From a computer simulations I can see that one set of statements for calculating crews is much easier than one set of statements for warships and one set of statements for merchantmen. But is was throwing me off my thought patterns.

One question I have with these is this: they're, essentially, lightly armed merchant ships, with a great big open cargo deck that's only divided horizontally to allow for two decks of vehicles/cargo. A single 45cm torpedo or a few 5" shells should sink her (contrary to the SS report), she simply doesn't have the armor or compartmentalization to stand up to fire. So, how should I pay for her? I was thinking pay 25% of the normal cost, since she's a ship built FOR the military with no commercial purpose (ie, the US can't just buy her from a commercial yard and fit guns on her, the USN has to order her specifically and will use USN slips/docks to build her), but not a warship.

What's everyone's opinion?

My opinion is that it'd be nice to have merchant-ships built to different (meaning - CHEAPER!) rules, but I'd like to think some more over the repercussions of such a move.

Other countries have built similar ships (India, France, Russia, and Iberia come to mind immediately) and paid full price. If we change these rules now, then I think they should get a refund (or more probably, if we spend 25% tonnage, quadruple the number of ships they actually built). I'm a bit reluctant to endorse this action.

I've always presumed to budget full tonnage for my purpose-built landing ships simply because that's what's been done before.

An issue, agreed. There's also the option with those older ships that they were built to heavier, more substantial standards, so they can withstand more damage.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
There's also the option with those older ships that they were built to heavier, more substantial standards, so they can withstand more damage.

In the case of the French and Russian ships I'll accept that, as they're intended to be regularly oceangoing; the majority of WWII LSTs, as I recall, weren't designed to make repeated oceanic crossings. I haven't refreshed my memory on the Iberian and Indian ships recently enough to recall if that's a suitable explanation for them as well.

[SIZE=1](Though since we don't really use the damage ratings from Springsharp, it's kinda a cheap 'out' - I think it'll cause folks, myself included, to spend money on lots of really cheap, easily-damaged ships.)[/SIZE]

I for one don't mind getting more LST's .

With that out of the way I think too many LST's have being built paying full price to now change the construction rules for them. I won't mind personally but maybe other members that already have constructed the named ships could have some issue with it. Let's hear from the members of the board.

Heh, Perderdor, I don't know that your LSTs would qualify for a deduction, considering their 70mm belt armor.



If we're costing LSTs the same as DDs (which essentially we've been doing), then that will effectively prohibit large-scale amphibious operations, since no one will be able to afford to build the numbers needed. Operations on the scale of Guadalcanal will remain possible, but larger operations and especially operations where larger numbers of tanks would be landed will be impossible.

Light displacement minus the misc tonnage available for stores etc. would provide a more realistic estimate as to cost.

I can see that working.

In the case of the Indian LST there would be no change in cost, their misc weight is 0?

That's because he hasn't used up the tonnage that's available, look at the strength.

....not sure what the purpose of that is other than hide how much it can carry, but then there wouldn't be much point in posting in the encyclopedia if its not the actual design.

Probably just an error in the design.


Light ship minus misc. weight is a start, but it still results in expensive LSTs. Using this design as an example, an LST (2) will cost just over 1000 tons, about the same as a DE, and 2 of them will cost more than the current USN-standard destroyer. That said, though, it DOES work out fairly well for the bigger, more capable ships like LSDs, where the USS Ashland design costs only about 2600 tons. Still perhaps a bit expensive for an auxilliary, but certainly better than full price.

Other opinions, comments?