WesWorld

I think she looks a good bit more realistic, and a nasty opponent!

She looks great!

IZ against Basilan: c. 4,750-23,600 yards

and Basilan's IZ against ZP...is negative.

I think I need a bigger boat...

Did a little digging: what SpringStyle unfortunatly lables "Radius" is, in fact, range. So if -Style says "4100nm", that's how far you can go before you run out of fuel, not 8200nm.

Quoted

Originally posted by RAM
one more question. Hooman the listed ranges you gave for british ships are RANGES or RADIUS?...

That could be the reason why SS allows for such big ranges...that they ARE ranges while the known numbers refer to radius.


Just a thought

I´m only talking range.

I wonder if that radius given in springsharp has anything to do with fuel. Could be turning radius because it changes if one alters a ships dimension (ceterus paribus)... It does not change when entering range.

For example the HERTOG-class BCs have a range of 9100nm but a radius of 7.800...whatever it means.

8x31cm is a much more respectable punch than 8x28cm. If you couple that with a heavy shell (say, 500kg) you'll have good range and something approaching adequate armor penetration.

Quoted

I wonder if that radius given in springsharp has anything to do with fuel. Could be turning radius because it changes if one alters a ships dimension (ceterus paribus)... It does not change when entering range.

Well, I don't think it has anything to do with turning. I think Spring* probably has some calculation that will give you an estimated radius/range (whatever) for a certain sized ship. Now if you only change the range of the ship, you are still left with a ship with that certain radius/range of 'X' nm because it will still calculate the radius/range for the same dimensions, wether you use a range of 50 nautical miles at 5 knots or a range of 1,000,000 nautical miles at 30 knots.
But if you increase/decrease the ship's size, Spring* will recalculate the radius/range in order to fit a ship of that size.
But this is how I see it. You might look at it differently though.

I'll give you a thumbs up for the design with 8x310mm guns. The armour is still rather heavy for a Battlecruiser or Battleship. Italy prefers overwhelming firepower and speed instead of armour.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
But if you increase/decrease the ship's size, Spring* will recalculate the radius/range in order to fit a ship of that size.

I fooled around with it and used two different designs, both of which had identically standard displacement and equipment. Even bc was equal. All that differed was beam and length. In one case I got radius 7.800 and in one case 7.000...

However, I also think it has nothing to do with turning.

Quoted

I fooled around with it and used two different designs, both of which had identically standard displacement and equipment. Even bc was equal. All that differed was beam and length. In one case I got radius 7.800 and in one case 7.000...

I'm no Spring* expert, but I do know that when you make your ship longer, your square root of the hull length will change (= natural hull speed). A longer ship also means that you will need less hp/kW to get to a certain speed meaning your ship will spend less fuel.
Spring* will probably say "for a ship this size, it will normally have a bunker with 'X' tons of fuel". So the ship which will need less hp/kW to maintain a certain cruising speed will have a somewhat greater range than the ship that wil need more hp/kW to maintain the same cruising speed.
This is looking at it with my knowledge of Physics and the many times I messed around with Spring* (but without trying to test it right now) and it is quite possible that what I just said is completely wrong.

Sounds good - but the longer ship had the smaller radius! :o/ Doesn´t fit the turning radius theory either...

Another good theory down the drain...

Using Spring Sharp to do some testing, I took the Kameko-chan and threw the miscellaneous load off. I made one version (designated 'A') which was 500x62x18.448 feet and a bc of 0.54 to get a normal displacement of 8823 tons. I left the other version (designated 'B') in its original form which is 580x58x17 feet and a bc of 0.54 to get a normal displacement of 8823 tons.

Looking at the speed section, I have for both version a speed of 30 knots. Version 'A' needs 68,333 hp (=50977 kW) to get to that speed. Version 'B' only needs 62185 hp (=46390 kW).
However, when I look at the range section (both 6130nm at 15kts), the Estimated radius for version 'A' is 6600nm and for version 'B' it is 6500nm... which is odd at first sight when you look at the difference of hp needed for the two designs at 30 knots.
... but the cruising speed is not 30 knots but 15 knots and when I look at the data right of the "estimated radius" bit, there is also a difference between "power@cruising speed" of the two designs. Version 'A' needs 5052 hp (=3768 kW) for 15 knots while version 'B' needs 5085 hp (=3793 kW) for 15 knots!
Now at this point what I have said before about less hp = less consumption = greater range comes into play.