WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Btw, as you are differing between landing craft and landing ships - where is the difference (I guess I know but I like to hear)?

Personally, I'd call a landing craft a short-ranged vessel without facilities for long-term occupancy (no more than 3-4 hours). A landing ship would be intended to carry troops for multiple days at sea.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
And how does the whole discussion touch only one of these types while it should affect both - just in different size?

Two reasons: first, most landing craft, with the bare exception of large tank-landing craft, will be under 200 tons and most likely constructed with the >200t rules. Second, even if those vessels under 200 tons were simmed using Springsharp, the miscellaneous weights would be substantially different than the two tons per soldier we assign for troopships (as landing craft are not required to provide extended at-sea habitability.)

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The SAE also has three landing ships - but I have no picture of these. So I posted what I had to show the SAE is moving...

Where in the encyclopedia?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Btw, as you are differing between landing craft and landing ships - where is the difference (I guess I know but I like to hear)?

And how does the whole discussion touch only one of these types while it should affect both - just in different size?

As Brock said, duration of their mission, accomidations for troops and size.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
As I understand it, Wesworld is a naval sim, and it has specific sets of rules for a nation's infrastructure and available naval budget. Everything else is rather free-form. What the proposed rule would do is take ship tonnage 'out' of the naval budget (i.e. - you pay less for the ship) and use the 'free-form' economy to account for it. While any nation can benefit from this saving, I feel it works disproportionally to the benefit of larger nations.

IMO thats realistic, I as Atlantis can't build as many ships as Britain simply because they have more infrastructure so its already that way to an extent.
In real life, the larger nations were the only ones capable of creating large scale invasion fleets.

Quoted

- Purpose-built landing ships of 3,001t or greater light tonnage shall be built to light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo. [1] [2]
- Landing ships and landing craft of 3,000t or less shall be built to 75% light tonnage minus miscellaneous weight of cargo.
- Conversions of existing civilian ships to landing ships shall be priced according to pre-existing rules.

I don't see any reason for the smaller ships to be 75% of the cost. There isn't any common sense reason for them to be cheaper. Instead, they should be proportionately more expensive than the bigger ships due to fixed costs.

We're using light displacement to determine build "cost" (which makes little sense in itself but anyway...). For a battleship, this would be without fuel, water and ammunition. For a cargo ship, this would be without the cargo.

The argument seems to be that such ships are built to be somewhat disposable, and with 'off-the-shelf' fittings and equipment (Such as engine plants already in production), and not expected to survive direct combat with other warships.

The assumption is that these compromises would yield the benefit of reduced production cost in a way not currently shown by our rules, which is based soley on how much water a completed ship pushes aside while floating free.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
The argument seems to be that such ships are built to be somewhat disposable, and with 'off-the-shelf' fittings and equipment (Such as engine plants already in production), and not expected to survive direct combat with other warships.

I don't see why that would be the case for these ships. Lots of off the shelf stuff goes into current designs, none of which offers any cost saving under our rules.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
The argument seems to be that such ships are built to be somewhat disposable, and with 'off-the-shelf' fittings and equipment (Such as engine plants already in production), and not expected to survive direct combat with other warships.

I don't see why that would be the case for these ships. Lots of off the shelf stuff goes into current designs, none of which offers any cost saving under our rules.

Then do you wish to propose an alternate option?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Then do you wish to propose an alternate option?

Keep it the same as for ships over 3,000tons.

I suppose that could work for me, though I'd like to hear other folks' thoughts.

Works for me, it doesn't effect the cost of my LST conversions (which still appear to be 50% refits under the current rule preposal).

After some discussion with myself and others, Hoo suggested this proposal as a compromise position.

Quoted

- LSTs are build to special rules because of them being a mix of a freighter and a warship
- The miscellaneous weight of LST is halved into deductable and non-deductable (50/50)
- The deductable weight is taken of the ships light displacement and so building time and building costs
- Otherwise all normal building rules apply
- For scrapping LST only the reduced weight is used for calculation.
- Any landing craft carried aboard the LST shall be purchased separately under light craft rules.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
After some discussion with myself and others, Hoo suggested this proposal as a compromise position.

Quoted

- LSTs are build to special rules because of them being a mix of a freighter and a warship
- The miscellaneous weight of LST is halved into deductable and non-deductable (50/50)
- The deductable weight is taken of the ships light displacement and so building time and building costs
- Otherwise all normal building rules apply
- For scrapping LST only the reduced weight is used for calculation.
- Any landing craft carried aboard the LST shall be purchased separately under light craft rules.

**Poke poke**

I can live with this. It seems a reasonable compromise.

Ditto.

Works for me, too.

My opinion is that it's too expensive for a type of ship that was being turned out in 2 months by factories that hadn't been shipyards of any sort (Chicago Bridge & Iron, Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron, International Steel) a year or two before. Keep in mind, over 1000 of the LST(2) type in the US alone were turned out between the end of 1942 and the end of 1945. The historical LST(2) design could carry from 1600 to 1900 tons of cargo on a light displacement of 1625 tons. The problem is that if you use SS to design an LST, you won't get anywhere close to that cargo tonnage (I ended up with 780 tons), which will, using this proposal, push the costs up twice (first by making the ship more expensive that it should be, second by making you buy more ships to carry the same load).

I think it is too difficult to even try covering OTL US wartime production with our rules. It was not standard situation historically and thus cannot be covered by out standard rules here, IMHO.

But of course it´s just a proposal for a compromise. You can always say nay and veto it. We will then need a new proposal....

Under the new rule a LST like the one below with a size of about 2000 tons and 1200ts misc weight can be build for 1385 tons of material - which I rate a cheap price for a purpose build landing ship and the offensive capability it adds to a fleet.

[This was a quick and dirty example, so I haven´t spend much time on the details....]

LST40, South African Landing Ship Tank laid down 1940

Displacement:
1.985 t light; 2.047 t standard; 2.341 t normal; 2.577 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
367,45 ft / 362,53 ft x 39,37 ft x 11,48 ft (normal load)
112,00 m / 110,50 m x 12,00 m x 3,50 m

Armament:
1 - 4,13" / 105 mm guns in single mounts, 35,32lbs / 16,02kg shells, 1940 Model
Breech loading gun in deck mount
on centreline forward, 1 raised gun
2 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns in single mounts, 20,79lbs / 9,43kg shells, 1940 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
4 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,89kg shells, 1940 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
6 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1940 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 86 lbs / 39 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,18" / 30 mm - -
2nd: 0,98" / 25 mm - -
3rd: 0,55" / 14 mm - -
4th: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 2.412 shp / 1.800 Kw = 15,16 kts
Range 10.000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 530 tons

Complement:
167 - 218

Cost:
£0,525 million / $2,102 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 11 tons, 0,5%
Armour: 5 tons, 0,2%
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 5 tons, 0,2%
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 65 tons, 2,8%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 705 tons, 30,1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 356 tons, 15,2%
Miscellaneous weights: 1.200 tons, 51,3%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2.021 lbs / 917 Kg = 57,2 x 4,1 " / 105 mm shells or 0,7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 0,88
Metacentric height 0,9 ft / 0,3 m
Roll period: 17,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 96 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,06
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,74

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, raised quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0,500
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,21 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19,04 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 30 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4,92 ft / 1,50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20,34 ft / 6,20 m
- Forecastle (20%): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m (8,53 ft / 2,60 m aft of break)
- Mid (50%): 8,53 ft / 2,60 m
- Quarterdeck (35%): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m (8,53 ft / 2,60 m before break)
- Stern: 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Average freeboard: 13,18 ft / 4,02 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 69,2%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 92,5%
Waterplane Area: 9.510 Square feet or 883 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 165%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 47 lbs/sq ft or 231 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,98
- Longitudinal: 1,19
- Overall: 1,00
Caution: Poor stability - excessive risk of capsizing
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I think it is too difficult to even try covering OTL US wartime production with our rules. It was not standard situation historically and thus cannot be covered by out standard rules here, IMHO.

But of course it´s just a proposal for a compromise. You can always say nay and veto it. We will then need a new proposal....

I don't get a veto. I don't WANT to have a veto. I'm expressing my opinion that the cost is too high given the historical realities, which I thought we were trying to reflect as much as possible.

The thought occurs to me that the USN's LSTs weren't really built for heavy weather, although they did make ocean crossings. Might it perhaps be more appropriate to sim them with <1.0 hull strength to reflect this?