Do we need to thinl about a rule for building subs?

howard

Unregistered

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 7:11pm

Do we need to think about a rule for building subs?

I'd say for the moment, not: since the byuilders of the day still laid the sub down with a keel and rib system. Ballast tanks we could treat as torpedo blisters with valves.

You don't get barrel builds until Howarde Kielwerke introduced them in 1943.

HEBCO would know how to do this now in WW, but it has yet to build such a submarine to test the build tech, so it doesn't exist, yet.

A barrel-built sub is actually much faster to assemble, but we need to account additional time for it because the sections have to be factory-built and then assembled on site. The current rules should be able to handle that quite well and I don't see the need to add complications.

In effect we just treat nnormal subs as usual.

Suggestion

Barrel built subs are sausage-sectioned in that you can build the slices in up to 200 ton increments the quarter prior to assembly each section at the factory. Once the segments are ready [a 1600 ton sub requires 8 slices for example-then you assemble in one appropriate sized slip in one quarter]

Two factories could supply tonnage to eight Type 0 slips to build eight barrels for one quarter, then the barrels are assembled in one type 1 slip in the second quarter.

Barrel built sub is 100% complete ready for shakedown.

Its just a suggestion.

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 17th 2008, 9:33pm)

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

2

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 7:39pm

That'd be prohibitively expensive on slips, though, particularly for small powers.

Go to the top of the page

howard

Unregistered

3

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 8:50pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
That'd be prohibitively expensive on slips, though, particularly for small powers.

How do you get around the 200 ton hull limit no slip required per three factory rule?

Example.

You take a 210 foot 1600 ton sub.

Slice it into 8.

26.25 foot barrel segments.

Add 10 foot as a work spacer in an assembly shed and round up. [Type 0 slip especially for submarines]

230/38= 6 barrels or 1200 tons. But you have one factory allocated so you just build four barrels and slid her along the weigh.

Build 4 more barrels in that same assembly shed in quarter 2 and then put all eight together in quarter three. Voila-one barrel built sub.

If you have a Type 1 submarine assembly shed slip you get that barrel built sub out in 2 quarters but it takes two factories to do it.

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 17th 2008, 8:54pm)

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

4

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 9:05pm

This is a very interesting question, because I'd constructed the shipyards at Palinerus for this very reason, building subs.

Quoted

At Palinerus

Type 2 Drydock #1 - Idle
Type 0 Drydock #1 - Idle
Type 0 Drydock #2 - Idle
Type 0 Drydock #3 - Idle

I had planned the shipyard to be quite similar to the ones Germany set up in Bremen, the Valintine facility, and decided a type 2 drydock and 3 type 0 drydocks were adequate for a first step, roughly 1,247 feet in drydock length.

I wasn't sure when the barrel system was perfected but with our current build rules it made little difference anyway. Your 8 section suggestion seems to be based on the German type XXI boat.

Go to the top of the page

howard

Unregistered

5

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 9:25pm

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
This is a very interesting question, because I'd constructed the shipyards at Palinerus for this very reason, building subs.

Quoted

At Palinerus

Type 2 Drydock #1 - Idle
Type 0 Drydock #1 - Idle
Type 0 Drydock #2 - Idle
Type 0 Drydock #3 - Idle

I had planned the shipyard to be quite similar to the ones Germany set up in Bremen, the Valintine facility, and decided a type 2 drydock and 3 type 0 drydocks were adequate for a first step, roughly 1,247 feet in drydock length.

I wasn't sure when the barrel system was perfected but with our current build rules it made little difference anyway. Your 8 section suggestion seems to be based on the German type XXI boat.

It is. The prototype sausage maker is the Type O slip at HEBCO Galway. All that is lacking is a dedicated factory or allocated tonnage. The assembly shed is designed to build 4 to 6 submarine barrel sections a quarter or one complete 230 foot traditional ship or traditional sub within the tonnage rules.

H.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

6

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 9:33pm

This is kinda why I'd support building a "Type 00 slip" worth .1 IP, being rather short, say for building MTBs; now I could suggest these sausage sections being used for that. Could build five of them for the price of a 230-foot slip, and use them to assemble MTBs and sub sections. It'd certainly make sense for small powers to build, so they're not bottlenecked with MTBs on their longer slips...

Go to the top of the page

Vukovlad

Me too !!!

Posts: 4,137

7

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 9:36pm

Arent MTB´s built in factories?

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

8

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 9:36pm

IIRC yamato was build using prebuilt segments, wouldn't it be possible then to use the prefab concept with sub's earlier than 1943 as the Yamato was laid in 1937 in real life?

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

9

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 9:37pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Arent MTB´s built in factories?

They can be built using shipyards but yes primarily factory's build them.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

10

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 9:47pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Arent MTB´s built in factories?

They can be.

Here's my thought, though. Suppose, say, Azerbaijan wants to build a lot of 50t MTBs. With one factory, they can build... one 50t MTB. Or they can set two down on a Type 0 slip, and since they have three type 0s, they can now launch seven, for a total of 350 tons used.

With my proposed type 00 slip, I can switch out one type 0 slip for five type 00 slips, and build one from the factory, four on the remaining Type 0s, and five on the Type 00s. Now I've got ten boats launched, for 500 tons used. For a tiny navy, it's going to be a more efficient and realistic representation of their existing infrastructure resources

For bigger powers, the Type 00 would become effective for submarine construction as discussed above. These sausage/barrel sections could be assembled in a Type 00, then shifted to a Type 0 (so long as it's in the same port) for assembly.

In essense, a Type 00 is buying extra factory workshops for light craft production. Extra doors out of the factory, so to speak.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
IIRC yamato was build using prebuilt segments, wouldn't it be possible then to use the prefab concept with sub's earlier than 1943 as the Yamato was laid in 1937 in real life?

This might get us into some awkwardness with larger ships, you know. As I recall several countries are building ships in sections, launching them in sections, and then joining the sections together *in the water*. I think the new Italian carrier is being built like that.

If we aren't careful, we could have the case where a country builds four or five pieces to the Yamato, using the tonnage rules and build times for those pieces, and then slaps them together. Now, if folks want to go that way I'm fine with it, but it *IS* a logical extension that might eventually pop up.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Brockpaine" (Aug 17th 2008, 9:51pm)

Go to the top of the page

howard

Unregistered

11

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 9:47pm

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
IIRC yamato was build using prebuilt segments, wouldn't it be possible then to use the prefab concept with sub's earlier than 1943 as the Yamato was laid in 1937 in real life?

Only two nations knew how to build subs by the welded barrel method before 1950 RTL, Germany who invented it in 1942-43, and the US who co-invented it for the Manitowac built Gatos/Balaos. I presume that Atlantis can invent it at any time. I was just thinking that since HEBCO was working on it for twenty years, that it would be the first to build one.

H.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

12

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 9:56pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Here's my thought, though. Suppose, say, Azerbaijan wants to build a lot of 50t MTBs. With one factory, they can build... one 50t MTB. Or they can set two down on a Type 0 slip, and since they have three type 0s, they can now launch seven, for a total of 350 tons used.

With my proposed type 00 slip, I can switch out one type 0 slip for five type 00 slips, and build one from the factory, four on the remaining Type 0s, and five on the Type 00s. Now I've got ten boats launched, for 500 tons used. For a tiny navy, it's going to be a more efficient and realistic representation of their existing infrastructure resources

For bigger powers, the Type 00 would become effective for submarine construction as discussed above. These sausage/barrel sections could be assembled in a Type 00, then shifted to a Type 0 (so long as it's in the same port) for assembly.

In essense, a Type 00 is buying extra factory workshops for light craft production. Extra doors out of the factory, so to speak.

I'm not so sure that really reflects the industrial potential of a nation though, 10 MTB's a quarter for Azerbaijan seems a tad bit high but maybe thats just me. I'm sure Persia would agree though.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
This might get us into some awkwardness with larger ships, you know. As I recall several countries are building ships in sections, launching them in sections, and then joining the sections together *in the water*. I think the new Italian carrier is being built like that.

If we aren't careful, we could have the case where a country builds four or five pieces to the Yamato, using the tonnage rules and build times for those pieces, and then slaps them together. Now, if folks want to go that way I'm fine with it, but it *IS* a logical extension that might eventually pop up.

I'm not so sure you'd be able to speed up large ships building times by much anyways. Larger ships means larger sections and you can't ship them overland very easy. You would be limited by individual shipyard capacity I would think...

Go to the top of the page

howard

Unregistered

13

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 9:57pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Arent MTB´s built in factories?

They can be.

Here's my thought, though. Suppose, say, Azerbaijan wants to build a lot of 50t MTBs. With one factory, they can build... one 50t MTB. Or they can set two down on a Type 0 slip, and since they have three type 0s, they can now launch seven, for a total of 350 tons used.

With my proposed type 00 slip, I can switch out one type 0 slip for five type 00 slips, and build one from the factory, four on the remaining Type 0s, and five on the Type 00s. Now I've got ten boats launched, for 500 tons used. For a tiny navy, it's going to be a more efficient and realistic representation of their existing infrastructure resources

For bigger powers, the Type 00 would become effective for submarine construction as discussed above. These sausage/barrel sections could be assembled in a Type 00, then shifted to a Type 0 (so long as it's in the same port) for assembly.

In essense, a Type 00 is buying extra factory workshops for light craft production. Extra doors out of the factory, so to speak.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
IIRC yamato was build using prebuilt segments, wouldn't it be possible then to use the prefab concept with sub's earlier than 1943 as the Yamato was laid in 1937 in real life?

This might get us into some awkwardness with larger ships, you know. As I recall several countries are building ships in sections, launching them in sections, and then joining the sections together *in the water*. I think the new Italian carrier is being built like that.

If we aren't careful, we could have the case where a country builds four or five pieces to the Yamato, using the tonnage rules and build times for those pieces, and then slaps them together. Now, if folks want to go that way I'm fine with it, but it *IS* a logical extension that might eventually pop up.

The Japanese had to build a one time use coffer-dammed drydock for each Yamato hull assembly- in essence a throwaway Type 5 drydock. It would be outside WW rules and reality to not at least build the weigh to put it all together. You cannot join those sections "wet" or afloat.

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 17th 2008, 9:58pm)

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

14

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 10:04pm

Why should HEBCO know this kind of technology? Why should they develop it? You only need it for mass production. That is probably 50+ subs a year, hardly a number of subs a private company would build on its own, neither has any WW power a need for such a large number of subs build in rapid sucession.

I also think there is more about it than just slicing a sub into slits and have them build on mini-slips or in factories.....

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

15

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 10:09pm

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Here's my thought, though. Suppose, say, Azerbaijan wants to build a lot of 50t MTBs. With one factory, they can build... one 50t MTB. Or they can set two down on a Type 0 slip, and since they have three type 0s, they can now launch seven, for a total of 350 tons used.

With my proposed type 00 slip, I can switch out one type 0 slip for five type 00 slips, and build one from the factory, four on the remaining Type 0s, and five on the Type 00s. Now I've got ten boats launched, for 500 tons used. For a tiny navy, it's going to be a more efficient and realistic representation of their existing infrastructure resources

For bigger powers, the Type 00 would become effective for submarine construction as discussed above. These sausage/barrel sections could be assembled in a Type 00, then shifted to a Type 0 (so long as it's in the same port) for assembly.

In essense, a Type 00 is buying extra factory workshops for light craft production. Extra doors out of the factory, so to speak.

I'm not so sure that really reflects the industrial potential of a nation though, 10 MTB's a quarter for Azerbaijan seems a tad bit high but maybe thats just me.

True, bad example.

Perhaps I should use Ireland as a better example: it currently has one Type 1 drydock and one Type 0 drydock. Nevertheless, they OUGHT to have a bunch of little slips for launching 80-foot fishing boats, yachts, etc - sorta like family boatbuilders, folks who have the skill to build small boats like that. Reading stories like The Shetland Bus amused me as to how a bunch of Norweigian fisherman and some British officers built their own slip in Shetland to maintain their boats.

That's the kind of infrastructure I'm talking about - the folks that during wartime could piece together a light minesweeper or an MTB; and then we'd make that rule cover submarine section construction, too.

---------------------------------

But back to the topic at hand.

It just seems awfully wasteful to use a whole Type 0 slip to build a 26-foot barrel segment for a submarine; and to have to use eight of them, on top of that? What's the point to building a barrel-segment submarine in that case? We don't save time building, and we DO tie up eight Type 0s for the duration of it.

Go to the top of the page

howard

Unregistered

16

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 10:12pm

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Why should HEBCO know this kind of technology? Why should they develop it? You only need it for mass production. That is probably 50+ subs a year, hardly a number of subs a private company would build on its own, neither has any WW power a need for such a large number of subs build in rapid sucession.

I also think there is more about it than just slicing a sub into slits and have them build on mini-slips or in factories.....

1. Simon Lake was no dummy. He actually did bolt [not weld] his small subs together that way outside on a weigh because his RTL workshop/garage was too short.
2. Charles Howard [CREF HEBCO bluebook article here}:
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?threadid=6167&sid=

wanted this exact kind of sausage approach for his original country's defense. He couldn't get it done there, so off to Ireland.

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 17th 2008, 10:14pm)

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

17

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 10:15pm

Its worth noting a type XXI took roughly 176 days to build, 1,621 tons of vessel....in 1943 though. It takes just under a year by our current rules.

Go to the top of the page

howard

Unregistered

18

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 10:20pm

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Its worth noting a type XXI took roughly 176 days to build, 1,621 tons of vessel....in 1943 though. It takes just under a year by our current rules.

365/2=182.5 days.

They were able to build two type 21s a year in the same slot?

Incredible!

I thought it was nine months.

H.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

19

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 10:28pm

Acctually its a "theoretical" build time, I haven't found any stats as to how many were acctually built and their acctual time spend building, but the fact that only 2 vessels made war cruises doesn't seem promising.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

20

Sunday, August 17th 2008, 10:30pm

Quoted

They were able to build two type 21s a year in the same slot?

Incredible!

I thought it was nine months.

Well, there was a lot of infrastructure, know-how and labor involved - the latter a sad chapter of its own.

Go to the top of the page

WesWorld

Do we need to think about a rule for building subs?

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted

Quoted