WesWorld

The Issue of switching guns in SS seems to be boiling under the surface so rather than let everyone get hot under the collar over this I want to settle it once and for all as to weither or not it will be an acceptable practice.
I already have an opinion on this as do others (no names) but I will refrain from posting mine untill others vioce their opinion. All in game alliances aside what is your honest opinion on this issue, and a warning, please be curtious in your responce.

Now there's a open can of worms.

I've tested this with a design of my own that mounts two main and six secondary turrets - all of which are on the main deck. In one case, I inputted the main guns first; in the other case I inputted the secondaries first, but again, none were superfiring.

Springstyle produced identical reports.

So as long as the largest guns are non-super-firing, I have no issue with the whole gun switching thing.

J

As I said in an earlier post, I just do it to get the desired VISUAL result in the design, but as Rocky just pointed out, on his test ship, the results are the same, so until the next version of SS is released (assuming that it allows for superfiring secondaries) once the ships are checked in both layouts, where's the problem?

I haven't tried this yet, but to my mind, if you have superfiring secondaries, you get barbattes to suit; if you have superfiring mains, you get barbettes to suit; with all the armour and equipment to suit; so once you don't have both mains and secondaries in superfiring positions, there SHOULD not be a problem....just a thought, mind you!

My opinion is well known but I will follow the majority on this.

I´ve just one request for those using this "technique":

Please edit posted designs manually that heavy guns and their armor is listed first. It just helps to avoid confusion. Mark every sheet you´ve posted to let the readers know what you´ve done.

Further more I´d like to couple a rule about torpedo bulkheads with this. Going for superfiring secondaries on one hand but skipping TDS on large units doesn´t fit together ("selective realism" as somebody put it). What about a rule like "all combatants of x kts and larger have to be designed with a torpedo bulkhead of at least y mm"?

A rule to avoid the TT bug (see design board) would be nice too. "Ships need a stability of at least 1,01." or "Ships need a stability in excess of 1,00."? something like this added to the ship building rules?

Are there any other things we need to settle down regarding technology and the use of spring*?

I truly hope the next generation of springsharp will settle all those problems but until then we have to live with it.

Thank you,

HoOmAn

I agree on the stability bug. editing the files so it shows the correct arty is not a bad idea, but why the TB issue? if somebody wants a design where he is very vulnerable to torpedoes? tactics will adapt to that and in a battle he might loose a very expensive ship way too fast. This one IMHO is self-regulating. If my destroyers launch a big fan of torps and score a few hits this is far and above the easiest statistic to use.

I disagree. The bulkhead heavily influences a design as a whole.

It´s not only the weight for the bulkheat alone. It also consumes hull volume resulting in the need for a (much) longer belt (depending on machinery output) what again saves tons and tons. It influences hull strength and stability.

Simply read what Rick Robinson wrote about his programm: It is meant to produce realistical output for (american) BBs from the Standards to the Iowas.

It was not designed to produces realistical output for smaller combatants - that´s why we have several rule of thumbs for DDs or submarines for example.

And it won´t produce realistical output for capital units without a torpedo bulkhead because its mathematical model was not put together that way.

To quote Rick here: "It sims historical ships fairly well on the whole, but I can´t vouch for its reliability when used to sim ships greatly different from any historical one."

BBs without a bulkhead are "greatly different from any historcial one".

So we either need a rule that says capital units need bulkheads or another rule that says TT resistance is halfed (tripled...whatever) on ships larger than cruisers without a bulkhead. Much the same way SS deals with merchantmen which also have no torpedo bulkhead. Rick requests to "divide damage survival values by 10" for merchantmen.

To sum it all up: The discussion about bulkheads on BBs is pointless. No BB/BC without a bulkhead has to be considered seriously and cannot be rated in WesWorld.

The question to be answered is at what size a combatant has to be as capital units (BB/BC/CV). The CT implies 13kts but that´s a political limit. Thus I propose to set the borderline at ~18kts (size of largest WW2-cruisers).

Now you have made a point that I can support. I'd put it to 20 kton - and even then I'd have to redesign the El Cids you like so much. I@d actually go with a different restriction: TBs don't make sense with a beam of less than about 30 m. Mind you this is just a point of discussion nothing firm.

Anybody remember whether the Alaskas had any?

Bernhard

Well, your point about beam is well taken but 30m is way too large - many WW1-type vessels, CDS or DEUTSCHLAND-clones wouldn´t need a TDS then but all those units had one.

I still think we should focus on tonnage instead of beam. No ship of 18kts (or 20kts for that matter) will have a hull too slim to install a bulkhead assuming reasonable l:b ratios and bcs.

IIRC the Alaskas had a TDS similar to the last CAs, somewhat stronger but not up to the USN BB standard. However, I have no sources at hand and am working from mamory. Otherwise I would provide more detailed information.

Regards,

HoOmAn

Black is your machinery and magazines; grey is your TDS; white is your empty or non-essential space.

These represent your ship as Springstyle models it, purpose-built with (above) and without (below) a TDS.
The ship with TDS has its guts stretched across a greater length, and requires a longer belt as a result. The ship with no TDS has its guts in a more blocky distribution, so requires a shorter belt, and thus has some extra hull strength you can play with - if the bean-counters let you buy a ship with that much empty space. In real life, they probably wouldn't.

Because the ship with TDS has a lot of that space filled with liquids (to slow spalled fragments and disrupt explosions), it has less buoyancy, and thus technically requires less flooding to sink. That appears to be what Springstyle limits itself to.

However, the TDS-equipped ship is still more resilient to torpedo damage:

1. The TDS allows controlled counterflooding to correct lists. Historically, it seems that torpedoed capital ships were more likely to capsize (Royal Oak, Barham, Kongo) than sink on a level angle (West Virginia). If the ship does sink, it's a lot easier to salvage a ship that is upright.

2. The guts are better protected and also less prone to catastrophic damage. A random torpedo, striking a ship with TDS, is more likely to hit an area with guts at the center - but a protective system of bulkheads, voids, and liquid-filled spaces will reduce the damage a fair bit.

A random torpedo striking a ship without TDS is less likely to hit the area with guts at the center. If it does, however, those guts are unprotected and just inches from the explosion. Lose all that machinery to one hit and there's no electricity to shoot, pump, or illuminate.

Even if the guts aren't hit, the remaining space, while compartmentalized, is going to suffer dreadfully from concussion and fragmentation (and those holes will negate the compartmentalization).
...
...
...
If our combat rules account for these considerations, there's no need to force anybody to incorporate bulkheads - the fighting will judge which design is the better.

Just my thoughts,

J

hmm, but for Hoo's assertion that SS once again goes non-linear if we ommit the torpedo bulkheads.

Also my assertion about 30 m comes from the "Kreuzer P" article in Breyer. One fact is for sure: 4m per side is the absolute minimum to effectively contain a torpedo explosion. Therefore WWI ships with TDS were basically carrying useless weight. a 30 m beam leaves you 22 useful metres to play with for machinery and stuff. not a lot. And I flatly refuse to redesign El Cid to incorporate TDS. I don't think it would make sense in her case. She is a CA.

She might be a CA but on a capital units displacement.

You know, I like your El Cids but we should find a solution without looking at a particular design. I have no idea of those rules I propose will have any influence on my designs or will force me to re-do some of them. In fact, I expect I have to skip several designs but that´s a low price to pay if we can get more realism.

So if you refuse to redesign the El Cids you can still take them as they are - you just have to accept them to be downrated. That´s entirely up to you of course in the case we should finally agree on how to read the SS rules...

Regards,

HoOmAn

1) You know, I can't quite remember how long the data of the El Cid's has been known to you, but it has got to be at least half a year ago (I'm sure of October) that I send to you the data of the Kamatari. You even asked me about the lack of a TBH and you had no problems with it then. But now all of a sudden it is completely unrealisic. Well, you should have mentioned that half a year ago. I think you are a bit late with that.
2) Unlike LordArpad, I have not too much of a problem to redesign the Kamatari in order to fit a torpedo bulkhead. But I'd like to know if a TDS would be really effective on that ship, which has a beam that is smaller than that of the Scharnhorst and has more stuff inside.

Walter

Quoted

If our combat rules account for these considerations, there's no need to force anybody to incorporate bulkheads - the fighting will judge which design is the better.

I disagree, because the output data from Spring* shows that a TDS harms capital ships with a relatively narrow beam.

I've thought about reconstructing the Imperitritsa Maria class in the early '30s, and here's what I get without and with a TDS:

Main belt, 34.0 cm; ends unarmored
Armor deck, average 12.0 cm
Conning tower, 10.0 cm

Battery armor:
Main, 39.0 cm / secondary, 2.5 cm shields
AA, 2.5 cm shields

Maximum speed for 30254 shaft kw = 22.50 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 11000 nm / 15 knots

Relative extent of belt armor, 73 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Relative margin of stability: 1.05

Shellfire needed to sink: 12593 kg
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.7
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 70 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.49

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.00

And with a TDS:

Main belt, 33.0 cm; ends unarmored
Torpedo bulkhead, 1.0 cm
Armor deck, average 12.0 cm
Conning tower, 10.0 cm

Battery armor:
Main, 35.0 cm / secondary, 2.5 cm shields
AA, 2.5 cm shields

Maximum speed for 27743 shaft kw = 22.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 11000 nm / 15 knots

Relative extent of belt armor, 90 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.07

Shellfire needed to sink: 10175 kg
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.6
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 70 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.46

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.00

Shellfire to sink drops by almost 20%, and torpedos to sink drops by 0.1, even though speed and belt/turret protection have been lowered to allow the TDS.

On this ship, a TDS seems worse than "useless weight". It's an actual menace. And I expect that on Imperator Nikolai I (wih 28m beam), the situation will be even worse.

Well just by using Deutschland as an example, shes 11,700 tons standard 15,000 full load, and she has a torpedo bulkhead, so a 13,000 ton (standard) ship should have no problem incorperating some sort of torpedo defence system. On the other hand the Alaska as far as I know dosn't have a torpedo bulkhead or underwater torpedo protection system, and shes a 30,000 ton ship. The fact that the Alaska and Guam where put into the reserve fleet after only a year of war service and no significant damage sustained leads me to beleive that the Americans had little faith they would stand up to the torpedo's of the day.

why downrate El Cid? You are making so sense whatsoever, please find a line of reasoning and stick to it.

Either you say: "SS gets nonlinear when no TBS is emplyed at a certain size and thus the simulation goes flip". This is what I thought you said.

Now you are talking about downrating El Cid. Why? She already has lower suvivability against torps as she would have with a TBS, she is designed as a cruiser, what would you downrate her to? A destroyer? I am once again not getting you. Are you saying now that no TBS is increasing the vulnerability of a ship to torpedoes? Hmm, and that is just what I expected to happen, but then you came and said "No, that is not right, SS gets unrealistic, we must ban this" I am totally lost as to what your reasoning is, please explain it, so that even I can understand it.

I am back to my original position:

- SS defines our physics
- if somebody chooses to take the risk of having no torpedo defence on a capital unit, that's his decision. My destroyer commanders sure are gonna love him.

Bernhard

Bernhard, I think you are missing some points. First I don't recall any post calling for banning any single SS design practice, the call was for not permiting the use of BOTH the switching guns technique AND the lack of a TBS in a CAPITAL SHIP.

Rick and Ian have stated before that this switching guns technique is a no-no given certain SS program settings and sorce codes. IMO the simplicity and inaccuracy of SS would lead be to beleave that switching guns is a no-no, and that sticking to the typical SS design practices would keep things simple however I am willing to contemplate allowing it. I would personally rather not and wait till the latest version of SS comes out but given the time it will take to develope it we may wait a while.

I personally don't like it when I prepose something and the responce I get is "I flatly refuse" so I don't expect others to respond any better to that phrase, hence why you will never hear me say "I flatly refuse".

Why all the fuss about El-Cid getting down rated?! Shes still a certain size and has a certain armament, she lacks a TB and has a multitude of torpedo's on board that can go "BOOM", so depending on your standards shes either a BC or CA. I would personally rate her as a CA due to the lack of TB. Alaska was technically a CA despite being 30,000 tons, thats why she was designated CB and not BC. Shes comparable to the Scharnhorst which is classed as a BC and Scharnhorst has a TB and thicker belt to distinguish herself from Alaska.

Hiya all :-)

Wes, when you started off this thread, you wrote:

Quoted

The Issue of switching guns in SS seems to be boiling under the surface so rather than let everyone get hot under the collar over this I want to settle it once and for all as to weither or not it will be an acceptable practice

so _you_ were talking about banning or allowing the gun switching thing.

Hoo writes:

Quoted

Further more I´d like to couple a rule about torpedo bulkheads with this. Going for superfiring secondaries on one hand but skipping TDS on large units doesn´t fit together ("selective realism" as somebody put it). What about a rule like "all combatants of x kts and larger have to be designed with a torpedo bulkhead of at least y mm"?

Hoo talks here about coupling this, but I am working on the understanding that he meant that in the general sense of "since we are working on banning unpalatable practices". Hoo, can you please confirm or deny that?

Quoted

Why all the fuss about El-Cid getting down rated?! Shes still a certain size and has a certain armament, she lacks a TB and has a multitude of torpedo's on board that can go "BOOM", so depending on your standards shes either a BC or CA. I would personally rate her as a CA due to the lack of TB. Alaska was technically a CA despite being 30,000 tons, thats why she was designated CB and not BC. Shes comparable to the Scharnhorst which is classed as a BC and Scharnhorst has a TB and thicker belt to distinguish herself from Alaska.

errrm, exactly - I was quoting Hoo here, who said:

Quoted

So if you refuse to redesign the El Cids you can still take them as they are - you just have to accept them to be downrated. That´s entirely up to you of course in the case we should finally agree on how to read the SS rules...

Also, I wasn't aware that you wanted to ban the combination of the two techniques. I wonder why you still have misgivings about the switching of the guns. Yes I know what Ian and Rick have said, but I'd like both of them to come out and refute the examples Walter and I have given. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it is 'harmful' in any way, other than to the guy who uses it and who loses about .01 to .03 in composite strength. In fact Walter and I have both provided considerable evidence to ths contrary and I am not overly happy that nobody is specifically replying to our arguments, but that people still are going "this is bad". Could somebody please _prove_ to me with an example that what Walter, Mac and I are doing does constitute a "cheat". As far as I am concerned, what we do is a more precise simulation.

Similarly for the TBS thingy. Do we have an assumption that SS goes non-linear or do we have proof?

I am getting a general feeling here of "this is weird, we ought to ban this" which is never something I have had any patience with. Either prove to me that the whole thing is unprecise, warped whatever - while please at least stating why all the evidence I present to the contrary is disregarded. Neither you nor Hoo have ever stated what is flawed about Walter 's and my reasoning. Please do us the courtesy of doing so. We have gone out of our way to provide you with examples as to why we think that switching the guns around works. Rick and Ian have said that they don't like the idea but have not quoted any reasons (remember that Ian has quoted formulae before). I don't think they have looked at the code and I am not going to work my way through miles of Rick's C++ code in order to try and find what he has written there. I repeat my request: please come up with an example that shows that the superimposing/gun-swapping thing does constitute an irregularity. So far I am only getting "Ian and Rick don't like it" from you and "it makes the files difficult to read" from Hoo (at least I assume that that is your reasoning Hoo, I have never seen an actual reason for your opinion, other than a general notion that it is weird and unusual and ought to be banned).

As to the TBS thing: has it ocurred to anybody that it might be a better idea to come to an agreement that cruisers don't need them while battleships and battlecruisers do? Deutschland has TBS, but given the 4m a side thing I can't see it being effective. I would agree that a BB or BC should have one. Alaska seems to support my theory, at the end of the day she is a cruiser. Deutschland was when she was conceived the closest Germany could hope to come to a capital unit and thus I can understand the inclusion of the TBS.

The reason why I state that I refuse to redesign El Cid is similar to Walter's: she was OK for about a year, why isn't she all of a sudden? The issue came up when a BB was designed without TBS. So why hinge it on displacement? If we want such a rule, I move that we hinge it on role, not displacement. I do admit that the thought of a BB without TBS gives me somewhat curly skin. Given the vagaries of SS that Admiral Kusnetsov has quoted I hesitate to even do that. I'd rather use the peer review thing: people post designs here and look at inconsistencies and point them out. That after all is what the design board is there for.

I see nothing wrong with spotting a discrepancy and going "errrrm, Mac, your BB doesn't have a torpedo bulkhead, you sure that's a good idea? It wasn't done in history, ya know?".

And last but not least, I see the role of the moderators as making sure that the game flows along, and the boards are being kept in order. Imposing rules is not one of your funtions, at least according to my understanding. That is what we all have to agree on together.

To summarise:

- I fail to be convinced that changing the guns around is a "bad thing (TM)". I await your SS examples to prove me wrong. Walter and I have provided enough examples to prove our point, please _prove_ your point.
- If we want to instigate a TBS rule, let's please do it based on ship role, not on displacement. This seems to be better supported by historic precedent anyway.
- I fully concur on the "stability 1.0" rule, but I would just move the design slightly to the side, make a note of the torpedo resistance, move it back to where I want it and edit the torpedo resistance. I admittedly also would not dream of doing a design with a stability of 1.0.
- I oppose the idea that the moderators can inflict rules on the rest of the team, that is not your role IMHO.

My god! This is my longest post that actually got typed and not just pasted from SS ;-)

cheers

Bernhard

Holy shit.... This is getting more difficult day by day...

First of all I´d like to apologize if I confused people. That was not my intention. The problem is that I have to do all this at work where I don´t have the time to argue in length. Some quickly written comments is all I can provide in most cases. Even then I try to do my best (see quotes of Rick) but I cannot avoid to cut things short now and then.

I can´t speak for Wes but here are some points I like to make.

1.) As LA already stated it is somewhat difficult and costs a lot of time to browse through Ricks source code. Further more I´m not a coder and have never been one. Put this together and you´ll understand why I tend to stick to the programs designers instead of believing somebody who comes up with a single example.

Fact: Rick and Ian said it is a no-no to switch guns.
Fact: Both didn´t provide much info why this is the case.
Fact: LA and Walter both provided data showing the effects of what happens when switching guns and both explained it works only on designs with two main turrets, both of which have to be on the weather deck, none superfiring and not grouped together.
Fact: Neither can I proof Ian/Rick right or wrong nor can say if Walter/LA did something wrong.

Result: I´m willing to accept that switching guns is allowed. If so I ask everybody doing so to manually manipulate the SS-sheet allowing easier comparision.

2.) When starting to discuss bulkheads etc. under this thread I was thinking about some kind of general technology rules for WesWorld which could be included into our building rules.

So TDS and switching guns can be discussed independantly.

What concerns me is people are mixing technical aspects with non-technical aspects.

3.) Springstyle/sharp are designed to simulate technical parameters. There´s no way to incorporate a designs intended role. Ian said he´s working on that allowing "designers" to choose the role for a vessel (DD, CV, BB etc.) and then fill the sheet. The program will then do the calculating necessary for and take care of the intended role (number of airplanes. no hs warning for DDs etc.). Maybe springsharps next version will also take care of the TDS problem when designing cruisers or smaller combatants in generell. Until then we have to live with what we have at hands now.

Fact: Spring* deals with technical parameters.
Fact: This SIM is about siming ships with spring*.
Fact: A ships role influences technical parameters but it is no such parameter.

Result: Whatever rules we use how to use spring* we have to focus on techincal parameters.

Result: I thus flatly refuse (sorry, couldn´t resist! ;o)) to accept any rule for the use of spring* that is not based on technical parameters.

Result: Any rule about TDS has to be based either on beam or on displacement but not if the ship designed is a cruiser or capital ship.

Opinion: I don´t like to see people building 40000ts "cruisers" because their designs get better damage resistance due to the lack of a TDS.

Fact: Spring* is meant to simulate ships similar in design to historical ones.
Fact: Historical ships above a given size always featured some kind of TDS (torpedo defense system) based on an armored bulkhead.

Result: Designing ships of the size in question and above without a TDS thus leads to unrealistic results when using spring*.

Opinion: The size in question is variing but above 10kts it gets interesting and on 18kts it is a given, IIRC. Feel free to proove me wrong.

4.) I am not willing to accept "selective realism" allowing one rule because it fits one persons needs while other rules do not and thus are not accepted.

Fact: It is our intention to get realistic results. This was stated by different people several times.
Fact: To get more realism we accepted several rules of thumb - either provided by spring* designers 8like those for CVs) or agreed on this boards (like no DD-hs below 0.5).
Fact: We also accepted the rules for the use of diesels LA came up with once we discussed this issue in length and he got some very interesting information. (Btw, I still wait for a post to explain those rules generally allowing them to be copied into our building rules.)
Fact: There is a good chance the rules about switching guns - the issue also being raised by LA - will also be allowed.
Fact: These rules of thumb all focus on technical parameters.

Result: These facts prove our wish to make things more realistic.

Fact: Siming ships above a certain size/tonnage without a bulkhead leads to unrealistic results.

Fact: Accepting/allowing ships above a given size/tonnage contradicts our with to make things more realistic.

Result: The very same people that asked for the other rules to make things more realistic should have an interest to deal with TDS the same way.

Result: If we don´t define a rule at all or agree on a rule that does not focus on technical parameters we would allow selective realism. This is to be avoided.

Note: I mentioned LA as an example above. I was generally speaking and _not_ focusing on LA especially. Those example were not meant to be insulting.

5.) Preople have to accept that there is one guy having the last word. The one that wields the will and power to settle down a rule or to ban people.

Fact: I am a moderator. It is my job to take care trolls do not hijack our boards (as happened in the past).
Fact: I don´t have the power to settle down rules. I can just ask all participants to accept a rule I proposed.
Fact: Every participants can propose a rule that he things would make things easier or more realistic for us.

Result: Regarding rules there is no difference between moderators or "normal" participants.

Fact: Wes is _not_ a moderator.
Fact: Whatever you call it (admin, gamemaster etc.) he is the one having the last word.

Result: He can inflict rules to the rest of us if he feels it is necessary.

Result: Moderators have to follow Wes input/command.

Opinion: Because he´s such a nice guy he won´t do so and discuss things with us but that should not blind people. This is his game, mind you. So if he asks me to ban/block somebody´s account for example I will do so.

6.) Regarding El Cid and other designs I have to point out some things.

Fact: I was not the one to bring up El Cid.
Fact: I can´t remember Kamataris stats.
Fact: I was arguing generally.

Result: It is not my intention to cut down individual designs.

Fact: I can´t remember if I noticed the lack of a TDS on the ships in question when first looking at them.
Fact: If we define a rule all ships - old or new - have to fit that rule or accept the penality written down in that rule.

Result: Peopel have to re-design their ships if new rules are introduced (switched guns or TDS, it doesn´t make a difference). Otherwise those rules are rendered useless.

Opinion: I don´t like to get phrases thrown at me like "I flatly refuse to re-design my ship". Doesn´t help.


I´ll stop here even though there still are some points to be made but I´ve alerady spend much m ore time on this than I originally wanted.

LA, you came up with those 4m for an effective TDS. What´s your source for it? Against what kind of warhead (size, explosive) would such a TDS proof effective?

We can maybe use these information to find a good rule. I have to admit, though, that I remember several vessels, especially cruisers, that featured a TDS with the bulkhead being much closer to the hull. There is always a difference between the maximum protection, the ultimate and optimal solution and what is possible on a real design.

Regards,

HoOmAn

*g* ok.

I'll try a quicker answer and hope it is still clear.

source for the 4m: Breyer, look up the article on "Kreuzer P" There were vessels with smaller torpedo belts but they were carrying useless weight as later experience showed.

Fact: Alaska did not have a TB according to Wes.
Fact: Alaska was a cruiser.
Fact: Alaska displaces way more than 18,000 tons

if you want a technical criterion, I'll give you one:

more than 250 or 300 mm belt armour. Makes for a nice distinction between C* and B*. I'd tend to go for 250 or maybe 280 mm max.

I'll modify the switching rule to that I assume that it will work as long as all main guns are on the weather deck, regardless of grouping or number of turrets. This of course remains to be tested.

I brought El Cid up because she is way larger than your 18.000 t. Given her role I'll have a look at including a TB. I'll probably have to modify her armour layout to 'all or nothing' though. I don't want to change her displacement in a major way since she is currently building.

Quoted

Fact: Siming ships above a certain size/tonnage without a bulkhead leads to unrealistic results.

I disagree. It is contrary to historical pratice, unless we are talking cruisers, but ships without TDS do show a lower resilience to torpedoes.

cheers

Bernhard

Quoted

Originally posted by LordArpad
source for the 4m: Breyer, look up the article on "Kreuzer P" There were vessels with smaller torpedo belts but they were carrying useless weight as later experience showed.

"Useless weight" - Is this just your opinion or can you back that up with more data, test results etc.?

When I´m back home I´ll see to my sources but whatever beam a TDS needs - the fact remains that even most cruisers featured one and all capital units did (short Alaska _maybe_ - see below).

Quoted

Originally posted by LordArpad
Fact: Alaska did not have a TB according to Wes.

As it seems Wes was working from memory as I did before. He said yes, I said no. Wes is no naval expert (sorry Wes) and nor am I.

I´ll look that up when I´m back home at friday.

Quoted

Fact: Alaska was a cruiser.

That´s not a fact, that´s your opinion. Put that issue up on the BB board of warships one and you´ll get quite a controversal discussion.

Some of her design features resample those used on USN cruisers before but she was never rated as a cruiser even by the Americans.

I also propose not to focus on Alaska alone. She´s an exception that proves the rule. But a rule is what we´re looking for.

Can you name any other large combatant of 13+kts that didn´t have an armored bulkhead?

While the opposite is quite obvious I can´t think of one right now.

Quoted

Fact: Alaska displaces way more than 18,000 tons

Who am I to question that? ;o) But your point is?

I´ll use this chance to say a few words why I came up with the 18kts limit.

The german PRINZ EUGEN was the heaviest cruiser of WW2 (slightly larger than WICHITA). She weighted up to 18kts at full load. Everything above clearly was a capital unit.

Please note: Even when taking PRINZ EUGEN as a reference to set the border above which a ship _has to have_ an armored bulkhead there is no reason why a ship _below_ that displacement should have one too. In fact the HIPPERs as well as the DEs both had a TDS and the same is true for the french ALGERIE, the ZARAs, the MOGAMIs etc. There´s no doubt these TDS were not as effective as those on much larger units but nevertheless the fact remains that most WT-cruisers and their follow-ons featured some kind of underwater protection sheme which was build around an armored bulkhead in most cases.

Quoted

if you want a technical criterion, I'll give you one:

more than 250 or 300 mm belt armour. Makes for a nice distinction between C* and B*. I'd tend to go for 250 or maybe 280 mm max.

?!?!?!

The thickness of a ships armored belt has _nothing_ to do with its interial subdivision or if it features a TDS or not.

If I´m wrong please explain how the thickness of the external (that´s how SS sims it, AFAIK) belt affects a ships underwater protection sheme in a way that it can be used to find a rule for TDS in WesWorld.

Please note that I´m aware of the fact that a belt that extends below the waterline offers some protection against diving shells or shallow running torpedos but that´s not what we´re talking about. It can´t compensate a true armored bulkhead.

(Let me quess, the El Cids have a belt thinner than what you propose?)

Quoted

I'll modify the switching rule to that I assume that it will work as long as all main guns are on the weather deck, regardless of grouping or number of turrets. This of course remains to be tested.

Please do that. I´m pretty sure Walter is willing to help you.

Quoted

I brought El Cid up because she is way larger than your 18.000 t. Given her role I'll have a look at including a TB. I'll probably have to modify her armour layout to 'all or nothing' though. I don't want to change her displacement in a major way since she is currently building.

In this special case I doubt anybody would have problems if it is necessary to re-sim her and thus alter her displacement.

Quoted

Originally posted by LordArpad

Quoted

Fact: Siming ships above a certain size/tonnage without a bulkhead leads to unrealistic results.

I disagree. It is contrary to historical pratice, unless we are talking cruisers, but ships without TDS do show a lower resilience to torpedoes.

It´s not only contrary to historical practice. Further more it depends on the design in question if a TDS raises or lowers a designs resistance against TT hits.

Again: SS is meant to realistically sim ships similar to historical designs. In its "hand book" it is clearly stated that the damage resistance of ships not representing common warship design has to be divided by a given factor. For merchantmen (historical precedence showing that those vessels didn´t feature a TDS) this factor is 10.

I´m open to debate what value should be taken for ships that represent warship design in all aspects except the TDS. My gut feeling tells me that 2 or 3 would be okay because a warship even without a TDS is still more stoudly build and subdivided than a merchantmen with its large cargo holds.

The rule I propose would read more or less like

"Any warship that has a standard displacement of 18,000ts and above has to be designed with an armored bulkhead of at least 5mm. Every warship of 18,000ts and above that is not designed up to this standard has its damage resistance parameters divided by 2."

My points still stand and you´ve done little to prove me wrong.

Fire away....

HoOmAn

PS: Please note that this is not a competion between you and me. If you can prove me wrong I´ll be happy to accept whatever rule you propose. I´ve already done so regarding switching main and secondary guns. But until then I´ll not accept any design above cruiser size w/o a TDS.