WesWorld

Quoted

Between the two Fuso options offered, the Metacentric height lowered, gun survivability goes up marginally, torpedo survivability goes down, steadiness goes up marginally, seakpeeing marginally up.

If you are comparing the SS2 rebuild version with the SS2 rebuild version, there are some bigger differences. Actually, I am pretty sure that I had the deck weight on the SS1 version at the level of the SS2 version. I was trying to match the SS1 armor weight to that of SS2 but for some reason, altering one of the other armor things (may have been the main belt coverage to match the original SS1 sim) caused the deck armor weight to drop. Also SS1 does not take all the extra shells per gun into account.

Quoted

To be honest it seems like a lot of trouble for 30 year old designs. I've run into similar cases when I look at my older ships. Should I give them a major refit, just a minor refit to extend their life a bit or scrap them and build a new design using the old guns?

Well I agree. With that speed she's not battleline material anymore. but I feel that with a modernisation she can still be of some use in (as you put it) secondary/less important theatres.

Quoted

I just asked for Details on the rockets (we have no rules here but I found your approach valid and easy to understand)

Well, others may have other ideas or maybe we'll come up with a different way to sim rockets in the future, but based on what I read about the 12cm AA rockets this seem to be one way of doing it. If you (or anyone else) have ideas or additional ideas, feel free to mention them.

Quoted

I asked if an intentional modification of a designs mid break would require a 75% rebuild (it is not really stated in our rules).

The invalid SS2 sim has a break and it is a Quarterdeck break. Now if that one was the valid sim and I resim it and instead of the quarterdeck break I sim a midbreak at exactly the same place as the quarterdeck break, what changes are made to the hull? As far as I know nothing is being changed. It will be exactly the same hull as before. So if there is no modification at all, does it still require a refit or rebuild?

The big problem is (and what really annoys me) that you talk about it maybe requiring a 75% rebuild while I am fairly sure that you did not pay that for the alterations of your freeboard (as I indicated your new slightly raised bow is not enough to increase the freeboards of those designs by that much). To me that really comes over as a "We can pay 50% for it but we want to make you pay 75% for doing the exactly the same thing".

Quoted

Note here that I did not cirtizise design changes that come with the step from SS1 to SS2 and the use of new tool features but an intentional modification to a design in order to correct something that you do not like today but that is not a design flaw that renders the original design invalid. I think there is a difference here. You may disagree.

The thing is that the modification is to something that is not a feature in SS1 so there is no flaw to that design.

Quoted

Of course you are right that I my own designs have to be challanged against my own words. It's been years ago and I can't remember any details but I think I never deliberately/intentionally modified my designs to make them better other than increasing their capabilities by a rebuild.

The problem with your designs and you changing them from SS1 to SS2 is that you give them a pretty significant speed bump (IRRC upwards to 5-6 knots or so). That is going to have quite a negative effect on your seaboat rating. The thing is that with all designs the freeboard is being raised and the seaboat quality is right at 1.00 or just above it. So to me, you were aware what happened when you increased speed and all that tells me that you intentionally modified the design to get rid of the <1.00 seaboat rating. It may not have been deliberate (due to the lack of experimenting with SS2 and knowledge of what SS2 does) but it was intentional to increase the freeboard like that to get rid of SS2's "poor seaboat" remark.

When you look at the Fuso, its speed was 24 and after the rebuild will still be 24 knots. Its seaboat rating is 1.14 so I might have been able to squeeze a knot out of there but not much more. When you look at the Nagato rebuild, it has a speed of 28.91 (originally 28 knots) and its seaboat rating is 1.05. I might be able to squeeze ~0.3 knots out there before hitting 1.00 but not much more. I am well aware that there are limits to them when it comes to increasing speed and I choose not to get too close to those limits. Even with your designs (which had a much higher seaboat rating than my two ships) there is a limit and it is a limit that you crossed and you tried to compensate for the penalty of crossing that limit by bumping up the freeboard.

Quoted

Was I wrong? Dunno. I was never challanged on this for many years. Feel free to do it now. It's been 6 years of real life but if I made a mistake I/we need to decide if I have to redcon my designs.

Nah, just alter your drawings like this one for Reunion to match the freeboard increase.

This alteration of the bow gets you that 1.34m increase of you average freeboard based on my calculations with the Nagato.

The only ones I could argue about that must be resimmed are the Hertog Alexander and Koning Frederik II designs because the raised forecastle because now the barbettes of turrets A, B and P are much shorter than they should be and you are saving hull strength with that. On the other hand both classes are no longer in service so actually arguing about that is kinda silly I think.

Quoted

The closest thing I see in our rules appears to be the 25% "Changes to superstructure (i.e. lengthening or widening a deck...)" Granted, it's talking about superstructure rather than changes to the hull, but a 25% rebuild feels to me to be about the right price for the level of work being done.

Well, you could say that it is superstructure when you are standing on the lowered aft section...

Hey, I like that bow. Its good to hide behind. Silly enemies wont see me coming... ;)

Quoted

Silly enemies wont see me coming...

Unfortunately the crew of your ship won't know because they won't be able to see the enemy either...

They won't see you, you can't see them... sounds like a collision in the making.

BTW, added South Africa's secret weapon to the Reunion image...

LOL - though it took me a few moments to get the reference. :P

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

LOL - though it took me a few moments to get the reference. :P

Yes. I had nothing to do with it. Don't look at me. :P

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

LOL - though it took me a few moments to get the reference. :P

Yes. I had nothing to do with it. Don't look at me. :P

It's the name of the shark from Finding Nemo. :)

But that one is not the original one. He got his name from this one...

Ah, true. Forgot about that.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

BTW, added South Africa's secret weapon to the Reunion image...

....you forgot the gills!!!

I also feel I need to mention that any designs that I've refitted have been re simed in the latest version of Springstyle as built, prior to me making any alterations to the design. That means every stat is meticulously recreated as close as I possibly can to the original design, even if flawed. I would assume others would be doing the same.

*Goes off to check Argentine coastwatcher reports of giant sharks*


I see no reason for any fuss or any refit charge. Its' simply the same hull but with slightly different ways of simming the same thing. The effects are so small one could argue it doesn't matter if Walter makes the change or not, nobody should be losing any sleep over it.

Quoted

...you forgot the gills!!!

They would interfere with the portholes. Besides he don't need 'em.

Quoted

I also feel I need to mention that any designs that I've refitted have been re simed in the latest version of Springstyle as built, prior to me making any alterations to the design.

That means every stat is meticulously recreated as close as I possibly can to the original design, even if flawed.

The latest version of Springstyle? Hmmm... I don't know.... To me it really looks like you are using Springsharp and you are also using Springsharp 2 and not Springsharp 3...

Unlike what we agrees upon, you had all your pre-1925 designs simmed using Springsharp 2 and prior to any refits. I have never seen any SS1 files in the Atlantean encyclopedia. So considering that you already have the SS2 data, I do not see why there was a need to resim those designs.

Also considering that with your refits you are going from an SS2 file to an SS2 file, I do not see why it is necessary to recreate it as close as possible when in reality you should actually be spot on with those sims.

Quoted

I would assume others would be doing the same.

With what you are doing (SS2 to SS2) I do it differently. I just load the SS2 file and alter from there. No need to recreate anything, no need to guess and no need to try and recreate it as close as possible. Wit the save I have the exact same data as the original sim. I even do it with new designs prior to them being posted. In case of the Komaki for example, I have 3 CB versions and 6 CA versions (all various ideas) of her prior to the one I posted.

Some of those designs have been resimmed from Springstyle along time ago and again with Springsharp 2 once I needed to refit them. SS3 is not finished IIRC so therefore personally I don't view it as the standard even if accepted for use in the sim which we agreed was acceptable, I personally want to use a program that's not missing anything.....again we allow it so there is no issue there. I was merely stating that I try and keep the design as true to the original design as possible with all stats.

Quoted

Some of those designs have been resimmed from Springstyle along time ago and again with Springsharp 2 once I needed to refit them.

Some? I think all of them and all of them were changed before they were put into the Atlantean encyclopedia. Like I said, I have never seen any SS1 files in the Atlantean encyclopedia.

Quoted

I personally want to use a program that's not missing anything

Well, it misses the weights of the torpedo tubes, it misses the shells per gun for guns other than the main gun, it misses proper distribution of the miscellaneous weights, it misses the proper ability to sim small crafts, destroyers, and submarines, it misses the double raised mount option, it misses the ability to sim an additional layout for one gun caliber... I guess it misses a lot. SS3 is anything but perfect but it misses less than SS2.

Quoted

again we allow it so there is no issue there.

Allow SS3? Since when? I thought it was not allowed.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

again we allow it so there is no issue there.

Allow SS3? Since when? I thought it was not allowed.

SS3 is not allowed.

Yes, that is what I thought. I was going through the encyclopedias for a list of battleships similar to the one I made of the super cruisers and disqualified the Danish battleship Thor because it is an SS3 file (so that one is in last position). If it was allowed I would have to correct that, but it is not.

Well, I guess my memory is not what it used to be......I do recall something about SS3 not being complete, which is why I haven't even downloaded it.

Something I created a few days ago. Will be useful when those idiotic whale-loving hippies are being formed and start bothering the Japanese whaling fleet. Used the dimensions of the Shonan Maru 2 on wiki though slightly altered it (no very high bow or raised QD, slightly shorter OA).


Shonan Maru, Japan Fishery Security and Patrol Frigate laid down 1946

Displacement:
952 t light; 1,047 t standard; 1,442 t normal; 1,758 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
229.75 ft / 217.00 ft x 33.50 ft x 15.60 ft (normal load)
70.03 m / 66.14 m x 10.21 m x 4.75 m

Armament:
4 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 12.00lbs / 5.44kg shells, 1946 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1946 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 72 lbs / 33 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 1,380

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Conning tower: 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 7,232 shp / 5,395 Kw = 22.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 711 tons

Complement:
116 - 152

Cost:
£0.479 million / $1.916 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 11 tons, 0.7%
Armour: 12 tons, 0.9%
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0%
- Armament: 7 tons, 0.5%
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0%
- Conning Tower: 6 tons, 0.4%
Machinery: 181 tons, 12.5%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 448 tons, 31.1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 491 tons, 34.0%
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 20.8%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,240 lbs / 1,016 Kg = 174.0 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 0.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.06
Metacentric height 1.1 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 13.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.12
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.28

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.445
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.48 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.60 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 39
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 29.00 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%): 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Mid (50%): 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Stern: 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
- Average freeboard: 13.80 ft / 4.21 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.2%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 102.4%
Waterplane Area: 4,797 Square feet or 446 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 190%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 47 lbs/sq ft or 231 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.82
- Longitudinal: 5.89
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Actual rounds per gun (67t):
75mm guns: 1500 rounds per gun (40t)
40mm guns: 2000 rounds per gun (27t)

Ranges
4023 nm at 22 knots
5365 nm at 20 knots
7285 nm at 18 knots
12000 nm at 15 knots
21050 nm at 12 knots
32200 nm at 10 knots

Endurance
7 days, 14 hours, 51 minutes at 22 knots
11 days, 4 hours, 15 minutes at 20 knots
16 days, 20 hours, 43 minutes at 18 knots
33 days, 8 hours at 15 knots
73 days, 2 hours, 10 minutes at 12 knots
134 days, 4 hours at 10 knots

Fuel consumption (711 tons)
93.32 tons per day at 22 knots
63.61 tons per day at 20 knots
42.16 tons per day at 18 knots
21.33 tons per day at 15 knots
9.73 tons per day at 12 knots
5.30 tons per day at 10 knots

300 tons:
20 tons for Active Sonar
10 tons for Hydrophones
20 tons for Air Search Radar
10 tons for Surface Search Radar
8 tons for 75mm loading, training and elevation systems
4 tons for 40mm loading, training and elevation systems
4 tons for 2 Depth Charge Chutes
4 tons for 4 Depth Charge Throwers
20 tons for 60 Type 2 Depth Charges or 20 Type 1 Depth Charges
10 tons for damage control and fire suppression systems
5 tons for emergency diesel generators
10 tons for air condition system
46 tons for degauss coiling
100 tons for accommodation of 50 security officers
29 tons for various

Hmm.

Interesting design. Nothing I find fault with immediately. However, a sextuple 40mm AA? Is this more of a British-style Chicago Piano?