WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I'm assuming the icebreaker would be in civilian use.

I still prefer tallying up what was inadvertently gained and just paying it off a few thousand tons at a time. There'd really be no difference between that and building an icebreaker for the civilian market. Further, there will be no misunderstandings from other folks about the use and ownership of this alleged icebreaker.

Partial coal firing desired because of high coal availability in the Far North.

Russian Icebreaker laid down 1940

Displacement:
28,832 t light; 29,618 t standard; 39,337 t normal; 47,111 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
733.61 ft / 721.78 ft x 117.45 ft x 29.53 ft (normal load)
223.60 m / 220.00 m x 35.80 m x 9.00 m

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 557.74 ft / 170.00 m 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
Ends: 3.94" / 100 mm 164.04 ft / 50.00 m 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
Main Belt covers 119 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.36" / 60 mm 557.74 ft / 170.00 m 29.53 ft / 9.00 m

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 107,239 shp / 80,000 Kw = 27.38 kts
Range 16,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 17,493 tons (50% coal)

Complement:
1,396 - 1,815

Cost:
£8.578 million / $34.312 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 3,737 tons, 9.5 %
- Belts: 2,298 tons, 5.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,439 tons, 3.7 %
- Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,004 tons, 7.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,091 tons, 38.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 10,505 tons, 26.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 7,000 tons, 17.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
96,546 lbs / 43,792 Kg = 893.9 x 6 " / 152 mm shells or 22.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.44
Metacentric height 11.9 ft / 3.6 m
Roll period: 14.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 56 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.15 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.87 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.48 ft / 9.90 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.28 ft / 7.40 m
- Mid (50 %): 24.28 ft / 7.40 m (16.40 ft / 5.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Stern: 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Average freeboard: 21.12 ft / 6.44 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 54.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 161.8 %
Waterplane Area: 59,165 Square feet or 5,497 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 235 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 196 lbs/sq ft or 957 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.50
- Longitudinal: 1.52
- Overall: 1.50
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

7,000 tons allocated for rescue equipment, scout aircraft, and emergency supplies.

Speed is modified to produce the desired engine power and hull stress. Actual top speed is 20 kts. Actual seakeeping/stability at 20 kts is 1.48/1.40

Sure the icebreaker sim looks good, but in my eyes it isn't the best solution.

Even if the icebreaker will be built for the civilian market, it left the back door that Russia can requisition civilian vessels in wartime at any time. And suddenly the ice-breaker is still in service.

In my view there are really only two possibilities:

a) the awful way to rewrite all reports (I do not necessarily require)

or

b) the repayment on the same period (without building a ship !!!!!!!!). In my opinion, the repayment can be done by a partial closure of the factories. (e.g., they could be on strike or there is an accident in a factory; accident or sabotage ? All base for a storyline)

When it comes to voting i would vote for solution b).

suitable for use on far north rivers, with a shorter range to reduce their strategic impact.

And as for "back door" use, I have 7 ocean-going icebreakers already. I have had some of them for about 15 sim years. They aren't set up for attacking anyone. The ones I've proposed here don't have deck armor.


Lena class, Russian Icebreaker laid down 1940

Displacement:
13,497 t light; 13,889 t standard; 19,623 t normal; 24,210 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
567.30 ft / 557.74 ft x 104.99 ft x 18.04 ft (normal load)
172.91 m / 170.00 m x 32.00 m x 5.50 m

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 393.70 ft / 120.00 m 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
Ends: 3.94" / 100 mm 164.04 ft / 50.00 m 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
Main Belt covers 109 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.18" / 30 mm 393.70 ft / 120.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 53,619 shp / 40,000 Kw = 24.38 kts
Range 6,200nm at 24.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 10,320 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
828 - 1,077

Cost:
£4.159 million / $16.636 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 1,423 tons, 7.3 %
- Belts: 1,140 tons, 5.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 282 tons, 1.4 %
- Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 1,577 tons, 8.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,497 tons, 43.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,126 tons, 31.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 2,000 tons, 10.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
71,554 lbs / 32,456 Kg = 662.5 x 6 " / 152 mm shells or 16.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.68
Metacentric height 12.7 ft / 3.9 m
Roll period: 12.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.650
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.31 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 17.39 ft / 5.30 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17.39 ft / 5.30 m
- Stern: 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Average freeboard: 18.77 ft / 5.72 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 47.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 184.9 %
Waterplane Area: 44,857 Square feet or 4,167 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 298 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 157 lbs/sq ft or 768 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.50
- Longitudinal: 1.50
- Overall: 1.50
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

2,000 tons allocated for rescue equipment and emergency supplies.

Speed is modified to produce the desired engine power and hull stress. Actual top speed is 20 kts. Actual seakeeping/stability at 20 kts is 1.32/1.65

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I'm assuming the icebreaker would be in civilian use.

I still prefer tallying up what was inadvertently gained and just paying it off a few thousand tons at a time. There'd really be no difference between that and building an icebreaker for the civilian market. Further, there will be no misunderstandings from other folks about the use and ownership of this alleged icebreaker.

If it was up to a vote I go with this option.

Noted, though as I said the Mod's will deal with the issue.

It's the lowest-impact manner of taking care of the tonnage. Using the tonnage to build an icebreaker or two for strict civilian service results in much the same result, but I suspect others will share Parador's opinion on that.

If Wes+Shin+Hoo agree the icebreaker idea's okay, then I'll go along with that. I don't see that Option 1 (the BC sinking) is a viable in-game option to deal with the tonnage shortfall.

Stuart, is this acceptable to you?

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Noted, though as I said the Mod's will deal with the issue.

Yup.

Well to be honest, what else are Icebreakers going to do but break ice? If they're strictly civilian use it shouldn't be an issue, simply the opposite of what we all do to convert merchant ships into military service.

As Stuart said he already has the 7 Icebreakers he needs to keep his northern routes open so I don't see any additional benifit other than storyline wise the two new Icebreakers ensure those lanes are open in the case of one of the 7 (budgeted for) is sunk or in the yards for repairs.