WesWorld

Thanks to all for your comments and suggestions. Following the lead of Hrolf and Brock I've tried a larger vessel to avoid some of the issues with smaller hulls and I think I'm on to something. My original concept was something akin to the French La Galissonniere class light cruisers. Please feel free to point out my errors and omissions.

Project 10, TBD Light Cruiser laid down 1935

Displacement:
7,459 t light; 8,249 t standard; 8,706 t normal; 9,071 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
583.51 ft / 564.25 ft x 57.25 ft x 17.50 ft (normal load)
177.85 m / 171.98 m x 17.45 m x 5.33 m

Armament:
9 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3x3 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1935 Model
Quick firing guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 22.24lbs / 10.09kg shells, 1935 Model
Quick firing guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side ends, evenly spread
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,168 lbs / 530 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 900
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 370.00 ft / 112.78 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 101 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.25" / 6 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.50" / 38 mm, Conning tower: 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 70,206 shp / 52,374 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 4,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 822 tons

Complement:
449 - 585

Cost:
£3.375 million / $13.501 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 146 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 1,445 tons, 16.6 %
- Belts: 494 tons, 5.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 270 tons, 3.1 %
- Armour Deck: 644 tons, 7.4 %
- Conning Tower: 36 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1,994 tons, 22.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,674 tons, 42.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,247 tons, 14.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 2.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
12,921 lbs / 5,861 Kg = 119.6 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 1.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 2.8 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 14.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 65 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.44
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.30

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.539
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.86 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.02 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forecastle (49 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (0 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (49 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 198.3 %
Waterplane Area: 23,224 Square feet or 2,158 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 128 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 96 lbs/sq ft or 467 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.93
- Longitudinal: 1.87
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

200 tons miscellaneous weight reserved for torpedo tube reloads, aircraft and handling gear, and/or RDF.

Whoa, now you've got a lot more ammo than you'd probably need. Have a look at the Navweaps pages for similar guns, and many of them list ammo stowage for various ship classes. I calculate ammo stowage on a couple different calculations:
- What is the rate of fire? A 14" gun firing 2 rounds per minute will require less ammo stowage for a battle than a .50cal MG.
- What are the operational parameters for the ship? (This partly influences what guns I choose to install.) If a ship is meant to operate in constricted waters, facing prolonged attacks from MTBs and aircraft, then I'd choose a rapid-fire gun with a lot of ammo. For simple patrol work, I'd accept less restrictions.

As an example, I'll show my personal standards for certain types of guns:
- BB-caliber (11" and up): 100-135 rounds per gun
- CA-caliber (8"-10"): 150-180 rounds per gun
- CL-caliber (6"): 150-200 rounds per gun
- CLAA/DD-caliber (4"-5" dual purpose): 250-400 rounds per gun
- Subs (3"-4"): ~100-150 rounds per gun
- Auxiliaries (4"-6"): 250 rounds per gun

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Whoa, now you've got a lot more ammo than you'd probably need.

Thank you for the guidance and the basic rule of thumb. Reducing the armament outfit had a significant result on the overall design, which seems to come out much stronger now.

Project 10 Rev A, TBD Light Cruiser laid down 1935

Displacement:
7,952 t light; 8,249 t standard; 8,706 t normal; 9,071 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
583.51 ft / 564.25 ft x 57.25 ft x 17.50 ft (normal load)
177.85 m / 171.98 m x 17.45 m x 5.33 m

Armament:
9 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3x3 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1935 Model
Quick firing guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 22.24lbs / 10.09kg shells, 1935 Model
Quick firing guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side ends, evenly spread
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,168 lbs / 530 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 180
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 370.00 ft / 112.78 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 101 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.25" / 6 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.50" / 38 mm, Conning tower: 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 70,206 shp / 52,374 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 4,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 822 tons

Complement:
449 - 585

Cost:
£3.463 million / $13.852 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 146 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 1,445 tons, 16.6 %
- Belts: 494 tons, 5.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 270 tons, 3.1 %
- Armour Deck: 644 tons, 7.4 %
- Conning Tower: 36 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1,994 tons, 22.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,167 tons, 47.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 754 tons, 8.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 2.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
13,502 lbs / 6,124 Kg = 125.0 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 1.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 2.6 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 64 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.27

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.539
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.86 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.02 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forecastle (49 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (0 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (49 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 90.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 198.3 %
Waterplane Area: 23,224 Square feet or 2,158 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 128 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 108 lbs/sq ft or 530 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.06
- Longitudinal: 2.13
- Overall: 1.13
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

200 tons miscellaneous weight reserved for torpedo tube reloads, aircraft and handling gear, and/or RDF.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
8 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 22.24lbs / 10.09kg shells, 1935 Model
Quick firing guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side ends, evenly spread

Hm. I'm going to suggest making these "AA" guns with mount-and-hoist mounts, or dual-purpose guns with mount-and-hoists. Barbettes are usually substantially heavier overall - I can't recall an occasion where I've used them for guns smaller than 6"/150mm (and I can't think of any real-life examples offhand, either).

With that change, and the lowering of ammo, you've got some spare hull strength to handle a bit more armour. I'd see about increasing the deck armour to maybe 50mm, and then add some more to the turret faces.

I generally try to armour my main turrets with the turret face and barbettes being equal, or roughly so; I generally set the side armour to about 60-70% of the face. After all, I reason: the guns should be pointed towards the enemy, and the side armour mainly needs to protect from splinters and ricochets. Barbettes are more critical to protect, as a penetrating hit there can not only knock out a turret, but likely also send some of your ammo up in not-so-grand fashion.

I must add that this is some pretty respectable work for someone who's just learning to use Springsharp. Keep it up.

I agree with Brock on the 90mms, make them AA guns in mount & hoist mountings. The 6" guns should probably be breech loaders, since the French 6" gun was separate loading (not that this makes any difference to SS, mind).

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
I agree with Brock on the 90mms, make them AA guns in mount & hoist mountings. The 6" guns should probably be breech loaders, since the French 6" gun was separate loading (not that this makes any difference to SS, mind).

I've followed Brock's suggestion and made the secondary battery DP in mounts with hoists; I guess it will take some more time to learn all the foibles of SS. I also followed his suggestions on the armor distribution - it seems to make quite a difference.

Are there general rules of thumb on weights for aircraft, handling gear, RDF etc?

Thanks for the kind words and comments!

Project 10 Rev B, TBD Light Cruiser laid down 1935 (Secondary and Armor Adjustment)

Displacement:
7,952 t light; 8,249 t standard; 8,706 t normal; 9,071 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
583.51 ft / 564.25 ft x 57.25 ft x 17.50 ft (normal load)
177.85 m / 171.98 m x 17.45 m x 5.33 m

Armament:
9 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3x3 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1935 Model
Quick firing guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 3.54" / 90.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 22.24lbs / 10.09kg shells, 1935 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,168 lbs / 530 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 180
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 370.00 ft / 112.78 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 101 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 2.50" / 64 mm 4.00" / 102 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
3rd: 0.25" / 6 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.50" / 38 mm, Conning tower: 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 70,206 shp / 52,374 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 4,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 822 tons

Complement:
449 - 585

Cost:
£3.463 million / $13.852 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 146 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 1,478 tons, 17.0 %
- Belts: 494 tons, 5.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 303 tons, 3.5 %
- Armour Deck: 644 tons, 7.4 %
- Conning Tower: 36 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1,994 tons, 22.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,134 tons, 47.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 754 tons, 8.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 2.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
13,468 lbs / 6,109 Kg = 124.7 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 1.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 2.6 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 15.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 63 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.46
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.27

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.539
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.86 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.02 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forecastle (49 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (0 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (49 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 90.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 198.3 %
Waterplane Area: 23,224 Square feet or 2,158 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 127 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 108 lbs/sq ft or 525 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.04
- Longitudinal: 2.10
- Overall: 1.12
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

200 tons miscellaneous weight reserved for torpedo tube reloads, aircraft and handling gear, and/or RDF.

I'd say that's looking pretty good, all things considered. You still have a bit of hull strength you can use - if it were me, I'd add either more range, or more deck armor. At the moment, range could stand to be increased more.

One thing I note: the freeboard is set at 22 feet across the entire length of the hull. Most ships have a somewhat higher bow and a lower midships, with the height of the stern varying according to national design preferences. It might be a bit more regular to add the sheer to the hull (perhaps by raising the freeboard 2' or so at the stem, and lowering it 2-4' at the midships areas). Springsharp 3 is really helpful for providing a graphic of how the hull looks with a specific freeboard. I don't spend a great deal of effort on it, but I do try to sim an eye-pleasing curve to the ship's lines. But that's just me.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'd say that's looking pretty good, all things considered. You still have a bit of hull strength you can use - if it were me, I'd add either more range, or more deck armor. At the moment, range could stand to be increased more.

One thing I note: the freeboard is set at 22 feet across the entire length of the hull. Most ships have a somewhat higher bow and a lower midships, with the height of the stern varying according to national design preferences. It might be a bit more regular to add the sheer to the hull (perhaps by raising the freeboard 2' or so at the stem, and lowering it 2-4' at the midships areas). Springsharp 3 is really helpful for providing a graphic of how the hull looks with a specific freeboard. I don't spend a great deal of effort on it, but I do try to sim an eye-pleasing curve to the ship's lines. But that's just me.

I may play with range to see if I can squeeze a but more out of this particular sim. I can understand the point on the sheer of the hull but I think I will fall back on your earlier suggestion and study some of the 'best' SS sims in the Encyclopedia to get a better feel on where the hull should break. I adopted a straight flush deck to try and keep the calculations simple.

Thanks again!

Eh? Second design only? That's a lot better then mine....I could say it could stand some more deck armour, perhaps up to 2''. You certainly have the hull strength. Also, a personal quirk, but I tend to install hoist armour on mount and hoist mounts. I just don't think leaving that critical of a system unarmoured against shrapnel and such is a good idea.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
but I think I will fall back on your earlier suggestion and study some of the 'best' SS sims in the Encyclopedia to get a better feel on where the hull should break.

Now, that is interesting. Please let me know hwn you have found a way to define "best" in general. To me it was a matter of available resources, planning, doctrine and fleet´s needs all the time.... ;o)

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
but I think I will fall back on your earlier suggestion and study some of the 'best' SS sims in the Encyclopedia to get a better feel on where the hull should break.

Now, that is interesting. Please let me know hwn you have found a way to define "best" in general. To me it was a matter of available resources, planning, doctrine and fleet´s needs all the time.... ;o)

I was speaking in reference to the mechanics of Springsharp itself - all part of the learning curve. When considering fresh designs, your criteria would prevail.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
but I think I will fall back on your earlier suggestion and study some of the 'best' SS sims in the Encyclopedia to get a better feel on where the hull should break.

Now, that is interesting. Please let me know how you have found a way to define "best" in general. To me it was a matter of available resources, planning, doctrine and fleet´s needs all the time.... ;o)

This is all true, but the fact remains that some designs just "feel" tighter and more smartly done than others.

Here're a few of my favorites:
- Desertfox's Pancho Villa (Mexico): it's small, yet has plenty of armour and good guns.
- Perdedor's Almirante Villar (Peru): I've spent probably two years trying to sim a cheap ship which can decisively trump her. I've yet to get a comfortable overmatch until I get a 40,000-ton battlecruiser, almost twice the size of the original.
- Perdedor's Almirante Grau (Peru): A well-done ACR, similar to the Villa but different. Alvama's art took a statistically impressive ship and made her sexay to boot!
- Hrolf's export CLs in Argentina and Peru, now for Germany: 15x6" on a well-designed hull. I'm not terribly fond of 5x3 ships but this is one of the new standards.
- AltNaval's Megas Alexandros (Greece): Okay, not the biggest or baddest out there, but it looks cool and feels balanced. I'm a big-time fan of balanced ships.
- Wes's Vengeance-class BCs (Atlantis): The Atlantean Hood-class variations.
- AdmK's Senyavin class CLs (Russia) and their French step-cousins. They're well armed, well-protected, and blazing fast. I slightly prefer these to the German export CLs, but it's something of a biased view.
- Shin's Canada-class battleships and the new ACRs.
- Hoo's Radiance-class ACRs (SAE): probably one of the penultimate ACRs.
- Most of the ships done by AdmK, Perdedor, and Hood, as much because they seem to put the most thought into finding a ship to fit an empty role, rather than finding a role to fit a nifty ship.
- Walter's carriers are pretty well-done, and Walter's one of the kings of thinking through what extra gear needs to be added on.

(This list is just off the top of my head, so if I didn't name a ship of yours, don't feel bad.)

What does "penultimate" mean, actually? I tried to translate it but it didn´t sound right....

(Yeah, non-native speaker....)

Actually, I slightly misused the word. Most English-speakers of my acquaintance use "penultimate" as a sort of "ultimate of ultimates" - the final word in a particular topic. *Technically*, penultimate means "second to last", as in the second to last scene of a play, which is actually inverted from how many English speakers use the word. Including myself, actually.

Regardless of whether it's being used correctly or not, 'penultimate' is a way of saying "this is near the climax of what is possible".

In context, I think the Radiance is in the "top tier" of the ACRs. She can be beat, but it'd take one spectacular piece of work to manage that.

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining it. "Second to last" is what I got leo.org which irritated me as it did not sound very good.

Glad you like my design.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
One thing I note: the freeboard is set at 22 feet across the entire length of the hull. Most ships have a somewhat higher bow and a lower midships, with the height of the stern varying according to national design preferences. It might be a bit more regular to add the sheer to the hull (perhaps by raising the freeboard 2' or so at the stem, and lowering it 2-4' at the midships areas). Springsharp 3 is really helpful for providing a graphic of how the hull looks with a specific freeboard. I don't spend a great deal of effort on it, but I do try to sim an eye-pleasing curve to the ship's lines. But that's just me.

These days, you get drummed out of the design office for introducing sheer unnecessarily: it complicates the build process by requiring curved deck plating. It is a lot easier on the eye, though.