WesWorld

And something else which since its initial creation (with 8" guns) has turned into something completely different so this one will not be built but I thought I would post it here anyway... Combining a cruiser with a Landing Ship Dock so there is some fire support from the mother ship for the landing forces.

CAV-1, Japan Coast Assault Vessel laid down 1947

Displacement:
15,000 t light; 15,923 t standard; 19,656 t normal; 22,642 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
700.48 ft / 680.00 ft x 70.00 ft x 24.09 ft (normal load)
213.50 m / 207.26 m x 21.34 m x 7.34 m

Armament:
8 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (2x4 guns), 105.00lbs / 47.63kg shells, 1947 Model
Quick firing guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
4 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 12.00lbs / 5.44kg shells, 1947 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
32 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (16x2 guns), 12.00lbs / 5.44kg shells, 1947 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 0.57lbs / 0.26kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,334 lbs / 605 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 625

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 306.00 ft / 93.27 m 10.04 ft / 3.06 m
Ends: 2.00" / 51 mm 373.98 ft / 113.99 m 10.04 ft / 3.06 m
Upper: 2.00" / 51 mm 306.00 ft / 93.27 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 69% of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 3.00" / 76 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - 1.00" / 25 mm
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
5th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 66,740 shp / 49,788 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 16,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,720 tons

Complement:
829 - 1,079

Cost:
£6.595 million / $26.381 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 180 tons, 0.9%
Armour: 2,672 tons, 13.6%
- Belts: 1,045 tons, 5.3%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0%
- Armament: 237 tons, 1.2%
- Armour Deck: 1,342 tons, 6.8%
- Conning Tower: 47 tons, 0.2%
Machinery: 1,649 tons, 8.4%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,850 tons, 29.8%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,656 tons, 23.7%
Miscellaneous weights: 4,650 tons, 23.7%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
35,614 lbs / 16,154 Kg = 345.8 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 3.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 3.7 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 15.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.21
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.31

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.600
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.71 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.52 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 38
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (20%): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (50%): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (35%): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m (22.00 ft / 6.71 m before break)
- Stern: 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Average freeboard: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 63.2%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 183.4%
Waterplane Area: 36,284 Square feet or 3,371 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 163%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 109 lbs/sq ft or 534 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.01
- Longitudinal: 1.00
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Actual shells per gun (total magazine weight 529 tons)
150mm = 200 = 93 tons
75mm = 1500 = 360 tons
40mm = 2000 = 53 tons
25mm = 3000 = 23 tons

Actual range = 8000nm@18
Actual max bunker = 3,448 tons

3272 tons for water in well deck
Well deck = 65x14.5x3.44m

4650t
- 25 tons for crane and catapult
- 100 tons for 4 floatplanes.
- 100 tons for vehicle/small boat repair shop + crane.
- 150 tons for vehicle, tank, and landing craft spares.
- 1000 tons for 500 Troops.
- 800 tons for 4x Heavy Landing Craft (or 8 Ha-100 midget submarines + extra fuel and torpedoes).
- 100 tons for Shohatsu launch deck + cranes (on quarterdeck).
- 45 tons for 12x Shohatsu landing craft.
- 600 tons for 15 tanks @40 tons.
- 400 tons for 40 vehicles @10 tons.
- 66 tons for two sets of high-capacity pumps (to flood or drain well deck).
- 100 tons for radar, sonar and electronics.
- 150 tons for damage control and fire suppression systems.
- 38 tons for emergency diesel generators.
- 150 tons for air condition system.
- 141 tons for degaussing coils.
- 607 tons for combat-loaded supplies.
- 64 tons for 75mm loading, training and elevation systems.
- 8 tons for 40mm loading, training and elevation systems.
- 6 tons for 25mm loading, training and elevation systems.

What are the dimensions of the docking well? Curious people want to know.

Curious people who want to know obviously did not look close enough to the sim (it's located between the actual range/bunker figures and the miscellaneous weights breakdown).

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Curious people who want to know obviously did not look close enough to the sim :) (it's located between the actual range/bunker figures and the miscellaneous weights breakdown).

Ah. Thank you.

(Sets to work calculating)

Has the "Heavy Landing Craft " been posted to the Japanese encyclopedia? I cannot seem to find it there.

No, it would have been build as part of the CAV project so none have been built an no designs posted. I did make a sim for that 200t vessel back when I had simmed the amphibious aircraft carrier (on page 6) to get an idea of the dimensions of such a vessel and what dimensions the well deck needed to be on that design. I used the same design for this ship, though quickly looking at that sim, I think my idea was to slightly alter the design to make it narrower (it's 7.32 and 2x 7.32=14.64 which is more than the 14.5 meters of the well deck) though I could also make the well deck slightly wider and less deep.

Using the 1 ton per cubic meter way (which I found somewhere in one of the other threads), I get a depth 3.47 meters for the same length and width. The value of 3.44 meters is done by going from tons to kilograms and then divide that by the weight of seawater.

One thing I was wondering... assuming that the well deck is like a giant bathtub and it is filled with 3272 tons of water, if I then put those 4 landing craft in there the water level in the bathtub would then rise, so should the mass of the landing craft not be added to the mass of water in the well deck in order to determine the dimensions of the well deck (in my design I would assume that once the landing crafts leave the dock, seawater would replace the 'void' they leave behind)? I get the impression from looking at a few other well deck designs that that is not being done and I believe that the laws of physics tell me that that is wrong...

I believe you are over-thinking the situation here.

In order to launch its landing craft the ship must flood down aft by gradually flooding the well deck, at which time the craft contained therein become neutrally buoyant and can float out the open gate of the well.

When launching its craft, the ship will appear down by the stern, which is why the concentration of the mass forward in your design (all the guns and ammunition, etc.) concerns me. Also, understand that the ship will not be under way for this evolution; that would be asking for trouble.

Quoted

In order to launch its landing craft the ship must flood down aft by gradually flooding the well deck, at which time the craft contained therein become neutrally buoyant and can float out the open gate of the well.

Okay, that tells me that the weight of the landing craft must be added to the well deck...

Quoted

When launching its craft, the ship will appear down by the stern, which is why the concentration of the mass forward in your design (all the guns and ammunition, etc.) concerns me.

I guess that that is a valid point... if 377 tons of steel was actually heavier than 3272 tons of water. Sure it is going to be less than ideal compared to a vessel that does not have the weight of 150mm guns quads forward, but I think you might be overestimating the weight of those guns and the effect it has on the ship's balance. The 4 heavy landing craft alone are twice the weight of the 150mm turrets, barbettes and magazines. I think that the volume taken up by the barbettes and magazines and the deck space taken up by the turrets are going to be a much bigger factor on the design (especially volume) than the actual weight of the turrets/barbettes/magazines.

Quoted

Also, understand that the ship will not be under way for this evolution; that would be asking for trouble.

Not sure that I do...

I’ve put a drawing of the USS Ashland class LSD above to illustrate my comments.

The weight of water you have simmed as fuel would be carried in the ballast tanks and would be pumped into the well deck before the well deck gate would be opened. Once the gate was closed the water in the well deck would be pumped back into the ballast tanks to trim the vessel or over the side as excess. When the vessel is under way the well deck is dry – otherwise free surface effect sloshing would wreak havoc with the craft nested inside.

My concern with the mass forward is that the barbettes and magazines will eat up space at a prohibitive rate. You have two quad 15cm turrets and their barbettes, and the two 75mm mounts, with their hoists, forward of the superstructure. I am also concerned with the space taken up by the hoists for the 75mm mounts on the ship’s side; in the areas taken up by the docking well the hull has but little more than three meters on each beam to stuff the guns, the machinery, the shaft tunnels, crew space, troop space, and everything else.

I have concerns with the machinery layout. Four shafts may be usable on a cruiser but the docking well will interfere with the shaft tunnels. It will also eat up a lot of space for your boilers and turbines. Historically, LSDs of the period were either powered by diesels or by Skinner Uniflow engines which took up much less space.

Tactically, I have grave concerns with the entire premise of the vessel. It is too fast, in my humble opinion, at that is achieved at great cost. If its principal purpose is to transport and land troops, any fire support will be provided by escorting warships. As I mentioned, during the deployment of the ship’s craft, the ship will not be under way (free surface effect at speed would be very bad); that makes it a sitting target if the defenders have any significant weaponry at their disposal. If its principal is as a cruiser, carrying 800 troops is a useless luxury.

Missed this one...

Quoted

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

Chicago Piano? I know what a Chicago Typewriter is but never heard of a Chicago Piano... I did originally have an octuple mount for the 40mm guns, but on the more recent designs (1943 onwards) I switched to a sextuple mount. Same with the 25mm which originally was a triple mount but from 1943 on I have switched to a quad mount.

... maybe I should replace the 40mm guns with water canons.

Quoted

I’ve put a drawing of the USS Ashland class LSD above to illustrate my comments.

I'm not sure that USS Ashland is a proper comparison. The length of the well deck on the Ashland is over 85% of its length while on my design it is just over 31%. Even with the barbettes and magazines added, I think percentage-wise my design has much more space available than the USS Ashland.

Quoted

The weight of water you have simmed as fuel would be carried in the ballast tanks and would be pumped into the well deck before the well deck gate would be opened.

Okay, that is actually more advanced than I thought it would be. I thought it would be more crude at this point with water just being pumped from outside the ship or to the outside of the ship.

Quoted

My concern with the mass forward is that the barbettes and magazines will eat up space at a prohibitive rate.

...
...
...
... so what is the problem with the design? The weight of the barbettes/magazines that I do not consider to be a problem at all or the space that barbette/magazines take up that I do consider to be a problem?

Quoted

You have two quad 15cm turrets and their barbettes, and the two 75mm mounts, with their hoists, forward of the superstructure. I am also concerned with the space taken up by the hoists for the 75mm mounts on the ship’s side; in the areas taken up by the docking well the hull has but little more than three meters on each beam to stuff the guns, the machinery, the shaft tunnels, crew space, troop space, and everything else.

I wasn't sure how much space I should need between the sides of the ship and the sides of the well deck. I looked at a few WW designs for ideas (something I do often). Canada's Vimy Ridge with a 30m well deck on a 25.91m beam seemed like a poor example to use but France's Châteaurenault has a 15.5m well deck on a 21.50 m beam so I used that as guideline for the space on each side of the well deck (~3m on each side, though less at the rear). I am not sure if it is enough but I used something that has been simmed before as guideline.

However, reading that bit I think that you are looking way too much at the USS Ashland picture and how much space that well deck takes up of the ship's internal volume and apply that to my design. Sure it all takes up space but over a large part of the ship I have a lot more than 3 meters on each beam for all that stuff. It is only the aft part below the quarterdeck that has the well deck. How much space would be taken up by the well deck of the Ashland if it was only 31% of the length of the ship? How much extra space would be available on the Ashland for vehicles and tanks and cargo and other stuff if the length of the well deck was 31% instead of 85%? Also when applying ballast tanks, I would think you will need a lot more space for the ballast tanks with an 85% well deck than a 31% one.

I'm not saying that space is not a problem because I think it is a problem, but I think that the space problem would probably be 10 times worse if my design had a 578 feet long well deck which is what you'd get when applying the USS Ashland picture.

Quoted

I have concerns with the machinery layout. Four shafts may be usable on a cruiser but the docking well will interfere with the shaft tunnels.

That is something that I was thinking about as well. Two shafts would probably be better. The current amphibious design that I am playing with still has the 4 shafts but I have been thinking for quite a while that it should be 2 shafts. I'm also not sure about the rudder as for some reason the depth of the well deck makes me think it needs to be a twin rudder design which kinda made me think that it needed a screw on each side of the rudder (thus 4 shafts). Maybe completely wrong thinking though...

Quoted

It will also eat up a lot of space for your boilers and turbines. Historically, LSDs of the period were either powered by diesels or by Skinner Uniflow engines which took up much less space.

The reason I took boilers and turbines is because IIRC in the past there has been the discussion about diesels actually having more range but at the same time being heavier and taking up more space. If diesels actually take up less space, then it is obviously that I should be using them on the ship instead.

Quoted

Tactically, I have grave concerns with the entire premise of the vessel. It is too fast, in my humble opinion, at that is achieved at great cost.

Tactically it is probably an unwise design to begin with.

The 'natural' speed for the hull is 29.52 knots, so I think the cost of speed might be a less than you think it is. Dropping to 18 knots (a 10 knot decrease) will free up only 0.24 hull strength. If I go from 32 to 26 knots (only a 6 knot decrease) on this design, it will free up 0.27 hull strength which is more for a smaller drop in speed. Not sure how SS works and why it does this, but if I go from 18 to 15 knots (a measly 3 knot decrease) I gain 0.31 hull strength, which is more than the two other speed drops for an even smaller speed decrease. So to actually gain a significant amount of hull strength, I would need to drop the speed to somewhere in the 15-18 knot region. I think that in the 20-30 knot range the speed cost is not that big compared to the cost in the <20 knot and the >30 knot areas.

On the other hand, what should be done with that available hull strength? I can't really decrease the dimensions as that would make the space available smaller and thus make the problems with space even bigger (despite the smaller volume taken up by the engines). I can't really add miscellaneous weight stuff as that would also add to the space needed aboard the ship and add to the space problem. I think that the only thing that could be added to it for the least amount of space being taken up would probably be armor but I think that a 10" belt and 4" deck would probably be overkill on a design like this.

Quoted

If its principal purpose is to transport and land troops, any fire support will be provided by escorting warships.

To me a few extra guns never hurt (though they will hurt the enemy a bit extra) and gives the option for escorting warships to concentrate on those pesky enemy ships trying to disrupt operations while shells can still be fired at the enemy beach by the mother ship.

Quoted

As I mentioned, during the deployment of the ship’s craft, the ship will not be under way (free surface effect at speed would be very bad); that makes it a sitting target if the defenders have any significant weaponry at their disposal.

Something I thought would be the case and the reason I thought that it would not be a bad idea to have some armor on the ship in case shore guns were to fire at it while it is lying still to unload the landing craft.

... whether armor thickness is enough is another matter though

I think Walter must be using some kind of mind-reading technology because at the weekend I decided to replace the twin 57mm with the OTL sextuple 40mm mount (albeit with my WW 40mm L/70 2pdr gun) one new ships from 1947 onwards!

Interesting discussion regarding LSDs, I always assumed the water was pumped and out, but I guess some must be used for ballasting and trim. Let's not over think this though sim-wise. Water = construction cost freebies, beyond that it matters little to me.
The CA/LSD hybrid is crazy, but then I'm sure there are weirder concepts out there.

Quoted

I think Walter must be using some kind of mind-reading technology because at the weekend I decided to replace the twin 57mm with the OTL sextuple 40mm mount (albeit with my WW 40mm L/70 2pdr gun) one new ships from 1947 onwards!

If that were the case then I read your mind some 2 1/2 years before you ever thought about replacing your twin 57mm guns with sextuple 40mm guns...

... or you are just 'borrowing' my idea.

Quoted

Water = construction cost freebies, beyond that it matters little to me.

Don't get that one... Are you telling me that I am doing something that would make this ship a no-cost ship? Cause as far as I can see it would have to be paid for as a military ship (it is not going to be a conversion of a merchant ship) and it needs to be paid for 100%.

Quoted

The CA/LSD hybrid is crazy, but then I'm sure there are weirder concepts out there.

Yes, like a carrier casino.

I must point out that very few of the "Landing Ship Dock" designs in Wesworld are remotely comparable to historical dock landing ships. I'm pretty sure I was one of the first to built some of these ships, and I didn't find any data on the length of the well deck; and thus I SWAG'ed it, and it seems most of the designers in the sim followed my lead, apparently under the impression that I knew what I was doing. This is why the Chateaurenault and the Glen class ships have ~25-35% of their length as well decks. This would actually make them Landing Ship Assaults rather than Landing Ship Docks (according to the US definition of terms).

Bruce eventually found and shared with me that drawing that indicated Landing Ship Docks have most of their length as well deck, similar to the Ashland's 85% ratio.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

Water = construction cost freebies, beyond that it matters little to me.

Don't get that one... Are you telling me that I am doing something that would make this ship a no-cost ship? Cause as far as I can see it would have to be paid for as a military ship (it is not going to be a conversion of a merchant ship) and it needs to be paid for 100%.

Way back when we set the rules for LSDs, we determined on two ways to sim well decks.

One way is to sim the weight of water as miscellaneous weight (at 1t per 1.0 m^3). If that is the case, the miscellaneous weight for the water in the well deck may be subtracted from the light displacement.

The second way to sim it, which is what most of us now use, is to sim the weight of water in the well deck as extra range / fuel. That method subtracts it from the light displacement automatically (and it doesn't bork up things like metacentric and stability / steadiness so badly) and so no changes are necessary.

It looks like you simmed it as fuel, so you don't have any changes that need to be made. If you'd simmed the water in the well deck using miscellaneous weight, then you'd need to take a further step.

...

The design is amusing. Vaguely reminiscent of the theory behind the Russian Askold-class refurbs. But in that case, the Askolds are command ships rather than actual landing ships.

Quoted

Interesting discussion regarding LSDs, I always assumed the water was pumped and out, but I guess some must be used for ballasting and trim.

Something that just popped into my mind while watching that picture of the USS Ashland again. Seeing how high the stern gate is compared to the waterline, when opening the gate there would be no way to keep the well deck flooded if there actually was water in the ballast tanks. So that tells me that the water has to be pumped into the ship from the outside prior to being able to flood the well deck.

Quoted

I must point out that very few of the "Landing Ship Dock" designs in Wesworld are remotely comparable to historical dock landing ships. I'm pretty sure I was one of the first to built some of these ships, and I didn't find any data on the length of the well deck; and thus I SWAG'ed it, and it seems most of the designers in the sim followed my lead, apparently under the impression that I knew what I was doing. This is why the Chateaurenault and the Glen class ships have ~25-35% of their length as well decks. This would actually make them Landing Ship Assaults rather than Landing Ship Docks (according to the US definition of terms).

I think the keywords here are "according to the US definition of terms". Who says that Wesworld France uses or must use the same definitions?

Quoted

Way back when we set the rules for LSDs, we determined on two ways to sim well decks.

One way is to sim the weight of water as miscellaneous weight (at 1t per 1.0 m^3). If that is the case, the miscellaneous weight for the water in the well deck may be subtracted from the light displacement.

The second way to sim it, which is what most of us now use, is to sim the weight of water in the well deck as extra range / fuel. That method subtracts it from the light displacement automatically (and it doesn't bork up things like metacentric and stability / steadiness so badly) and so no changes are necessary.

It looks like you simmed it as fuel, so you don't have any changes that need to be made. If you'd simmed the water in the well deck using miscellaneous weight, then you'd need to take a further step.

Well, I have been looking at past stuff and it mentions "LST Rule" where you said "Subtract half the miscellaneous weight from the light displacement when calculating cost", not subtracting "miscellaneous weight for the water in the well deck".

I also see the mentioning of "Any landing craft carried aboard the LST shall be purchased separately under light craft rules." which is ridiculous if only the miscellaneous weight for the water in the well deck is being subtracted. Also I think that there was something Hooman mentioned about a rule that predated the LST rule that states that all crafts were to be considered to be part of the construction of the vessel.

... and I also encountered some other nonsense but that is not amphibious ship related and quite a while back so won't bother with that.

Quoted

The design is amusing.

I had hoped it would be. Something to praise, something to joke about or something to shoot holes in.


Another thing I have been thinking about with the Shonan Maru sim was whether I should put water canons on it or if that would just be silly cause it already has the 75mm guns and 40mm guns...

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

This would actually make them Landing Ship Assaults rather than Landing Ship Docks (according to the US definition of terms).

I think the keywords here are "according to the US definition of terms". Who says that Wesworld France uses or must use the same definitions? :)

France actually uses the term transport de chalands de débarquement for ships of approximately analogous capabilities - ie ships with well decks capable of transporting large landing craft. ;)

But what I'm trying to point out is that many of the Wesworld ships labeled in the encyclopedia as "Landing Ship Docks" are not actually LSDs, but LPDs (Landing Platform Docks).

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

It looks like you simmed it as fuel, so you don't have any changes that need to be made. If you'd simmed the water in the well deck using miscellaneous weight, then you'd need to take a further step.

Well, I have been looking at past stuff and it mentions "LST Rule" where you said "Subtract half the miscellaneous weight from the light displacement when calculating cost", not subtracting "miscellaneous weight for the water in the well deck".

I think you've confused the LST rule, where you can subtract half the miscellaneous weight, with the LSD rule, where you can subtract the weight of the water in the well deck.

Quoted

But what I'm trying to point out is that many of the Wesworld ships labeled in the encyclopedia as "Landing Ship Docks" are not actually LSDs, but LPDs (Landing Platform Docks).

But that is only valid if you use the US definition of terms. I'm Dutch so I will consider "Landing Ship Docks" to be correct.

Quoted

I think you've confused the LST rule, where you can subtract half the miscellaneous weight, with the LSD rule, where you can subtract the weight of the water in the well deck.

Well, when I was looking for amphibious ships, the LST rule is the only one I could find. I could not find any rules when it comes to LSDs.

Quoted

Something that just popped into my mind while watching that picture of the USS Ashland again. Seeing how high the stern gate is compared to the waterline, when opening the gate there would be no way to keep the well deck flooded if there actually was water in the ballast tanks. So that tells me that the water has to be pumped into the ship from the outside prior to being able to flood the well deck.

This should answer your question.

The gate of the docking well is first lowered, then water is pumped through the ballast tanks to the docking well itself so that the ship can flood down in a controlled manner.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

But what I'm trying to point out is that many of the Wesworld ships labeled in the encyclopedia as "Landing Ship Docks" are not actually LSDs, but LPDs (Landing Platform Docks).

But that is only valid if you use the US definition of terms. I'm Dutch so I will consider "Landing Ship Docks" to be correct. :P

I say tomato, you say tomaat... ;)

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

I think you've confused the LST rule, where you can subtract half the miscellaneous weight, with the LSD rule, where you can subtract the weight of the water in the well deck.

Well, when I was looking for amphibious ships, the LST rule is the only one I could find. I could not find any rules when it comes to LSDs.

Yeah. I suppose I just need to make a rules folder post talking about all these exceptions for specialized amphibious stuff, since nobody ever filed them appropriately when the discussions were finished. Grrr...

Quoted

The gate of the docking well is first lowered, then water is pumped through the ballast tanks to the docking well itself so that the ship can flood down in a controlled manner.

I actually got the impression that the ballast tanks on the LSD are used in a similar manner as the ballast tanks on a submarine. All the water in the ballast tanks will 'sink' the ship and allow water to flood through the gate and onto the well deck.

... and that tells me that for an LSD you not only need to take the weight of the water of the well deck into account but also the weight of the water water in the ballast tanks. And of course when your well deck is dry and your ballast tanks are empty the ship is much higher in the water so any speed and range data should be taken from a sim that takes that into account... *goes off to mess with SS*

Quoted

I say tomato, you say tomaat...

You say tomato, I say Heinz.

Quoted

Yeah. I suppose I just need to make a rules folder post talking about all these exceptions for specialized amphibious stuff, since nobody ever filed them appropriately when the discussions were finished. Grrr...

Well I would think that the "Design Rules for Gentlemen" would be an option to put those rules. Looking at them though I guess they could use an update...

I must have missed the switch from simming water as misc weight to fuel.
My Dutch LSD is more or less a Glen copy and so still uses the water method. I might do a resim with water as fuel calculations to compare.
I hope we're not in danger of overcomplicating simming these ships though with considerations about ballast and wet and dry sims etc. It seems we get too bogged down in the minutiae of details when SS is a pretty crude simming device for non-battleship/cruiser ships.

I've always assumed the boats on the boat were paid for as misc weight allowances for such craft in the report. I think there was an agreement to that effect somewhere at some time. Obviously if you want spares then you'd have to buy them separately.

As to dock ratio, in WW this is an LSD. As early experiences go we've not used these in anger yet and are still nice toys. Perhaps when someone builds a ship with a much larger dock, we'll all marvel at it and copy that.
Right now I think it would be a mistake to copy US nomenclature and classes given the lack of amphibious campaigns to move along practice. Anyhow the US system is way to complicated!