WesWorld

I suppose these should be called 'foilers'. They are fleet tankers for refueling at sea and can be used as ocean patrol vessels. I don't think they infringe the treaty in any way..

Wave Class, Italian Fleet Oilers laid down 1922

Displacement:
4,802 t light; 5,110 t standard; 13,577 t normal; 20,296 t full load
Loading submergence 827 tons/feet

Dimensions:
600.00 ft x 72.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
182.88 m x 21.95 m x 6.10 m

Armament:
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 1 guns)
6 - 1.59" / 41 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 444 lbs / 201 kg

Armour:
Main turrets 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 2 shafts, 15,009 shp / 11,196 Kw = 19.12 kts
Range 50,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
628 - 817

Cost:
£0.780 million / $3.120 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 56 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 83 tons, 0.6 %
Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Armament: 83 tons, 0.6 %, Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 509 tons, 3.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,104 tons, 30.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 8,776 tons, 64.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.4 %

Metacentric height 9.3

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable and able to fight her guns in the heaviest weather

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 2.03
Shellfire needed to sink: 112,081 lbs / 50,839 Kg = 1,037.8 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 16.1
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 85 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.03
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.70

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.550
Sharpness coefficient: 0.37
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.69
'Natural speed' for length: 24.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 32 %
Trim: 50
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 17.6 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 149.2 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 851 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.08
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 98 lbs / square foot or 480 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 0.97
(for 17.00 ft / 5.18 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 0.90 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Try to increase the ships freeboard and you´ll get better hull-strength.

And shouldn´t their payload of oil be rated as misc weight? Using the ships range is not the right way to do it. It has too much influence on the designs tonnage.

Just my thoughts...

This is an oiler I simmed. I found that stability was an issue with this tub - it was necessary to give her a "steadiness optimization" of .4 to get this result...


Oiler, laid down 1917

Length, 460 ft x Beam, 65.0 ft x Depth, 18.0 ft
8457 tons normal displacement (7877 tons standard)

Main battery: 2 x 4.1-inch
Secondary battery: 2 x 1.4-inch

Weight of broadside: 72 lbs

Hull unarmored

Battery armor:
Main, 1.0" shields / secondary, 1.0" shields


Maximum speed for 9521 shp = 18.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 10000 nm / 10 kts

Typical complement: 441-573


Estimated cost, $2.371 million (£593,000)

Remarks:

Oil firing.

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Magazines and engineering spaces are roomy, with superior
watertight subdivision.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 9 tons = 0 pct
Armor, total ..................... 3 tons = 0 pct

Armament 3 tons = 0 pct

Machinery ........................ 349 tons = 4 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 3341 tons = 40 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 755 tons = 9 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 4000 tons = 47 pct
-----
8457 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 2.8 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 7702 tons
Standard displacement: 7877 tons
Normal service: 8457 tons
Full load: 8888 tons

Loading submergence 572 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.04

Shellfire needed to sink: 12669 lbs = 367.6 x 4.1-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.4
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 58 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.01

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.45

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.55
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 6.90
'Natural speed' for length = 21.4 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 38 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 66 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 121 percent


Displacement factor: 177 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.52
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 118 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.62
(for 14.0 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment -0.6 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.53

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

460.00 x 65.00 x 18.00; 14.00 -- Dimensions
0.55 -- Block coefficient
1917 -- Year laid down
18.00 / 10000 / 10.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
4000 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
2 x 4.10; 0 -- Main battery; turrets
Central positioning of guns
Gun-shields
:
2 x 1.40; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
0 -- No tertiary (QF/AA) battery
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
0.00 -- No belt armor
0.00 / 0.00 -- Deck / CT
1.00 / 1.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does anybody have some data on how many tons of fuel ships need to sail a given distance?

Using springsharp a 38kts BB that can sail 9000nm at 15kn needs 3000+ tons while a 1,5kts DD needs 145ts for 5000nm at 12kn. Is this realistic?

Warships1 provides some data:

The QE class battleships could carry up to 3400 t of oil, and had a range of 8600 nm at 12.5 kts. That's about 2.5 nm per ton of oil.

The Danae class cruisers could carry up to 1060 t of oil, and had a range of 5000 nm at 15 kts. That's a little under 5 nm per ton of oil.

I presume one could actually check your own ship's fuel usage rate by comparing your "fuel, ammunition, stores" weight for ranges of 0 and 1000 nm, at least in Springstyle; I haven't played with Springsharp to see what it does.

So...the oiler I posted above could tank up a battleship and a cruiser once. Obviously, a sizeable tanker fleet would be needed to support a task-force of several capital ships working at high speed - and a sizeable escort force would be necessary to protect it.

Those of you with a need to deploy your fleet across the ocean might want to remember that as you plan your building programs...

"So...the oiler I posted above could tank up a battleship and a cruiser once. Obviously, a sizeable tanker fleet would be needed to support a task-force of several capital ships working at high speed - and a sizeable escort force would be necessary to protect it.

Those of you with a need to deploy your fleet across the ocean might want to remember that as you plan your building programs..."

Well said.... This clearly shows while it is so important to have navy bases everywhere. I really enjoy having islands along my freighter routes and within the area I will use my fleet most likely.

Btw, the big purpose build WW2-supply ships the Germans used because they had no oversea bases all had 10000ts and more. Maybe one should keep this in mind when playing around with several oiler/supply ship designs. Hindsight again, I know, but an oiler/supply ship should be able to refuel more than one or two ships and store quite some ammo, food and spare parts. The latter is another point why I think one should use misc weight to define how much an oiler can carry instead of the oilers range....

I have yet to sim merchant ships in springsharp so I have a few questions. First would it seem outlandish to give a tanker 8000 tons of fuel as cargo? Second whats the block co-eff range for a cargo ship?

It would not be outlandish to have a 8,000 tons of miscellaneous weight as a tanker's load - the ship would presumeably be over 10,000 t, though.

I used a .55 coefficient, figuring that it's a relatively full hull shape, like a battleship. Besides which, narrower hulls will probably have stability issues with large amounts of miscellaneous weight.

So a .65 co-eff would be about the limit I guess? I'm guessing it would be a slow ship though.

I'm planning a big one, to be laid down just after my first class of big icebreakers come off the slips. The block coefficient is 0.7, which gives it characteristics similar to a hollow brick. I'll probably build 4 of them from 1924-1928.

I intend them to support the fleet on long voyages through the Northern Sea Route:

Russian Fleet Oiler, laid down 1924

Length, 160.0 m x Beam, 25.0 m x Depth, 8.0 m
22584 tonnes normal displacement (16622 tonnes standard)

Main battery: 4 x 13.0-cm (2 x 2)
AA battery: 8 x 3.7-cm

Weight of broadside: 128 kg

Cargo - 10,700 tons. 12,700 GRT

Hull unarmored

Battery armor:
Main, 2.5 cm
AA, 2.5 cm shields

Maximum speed for 19400 shaft kw = 20.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 25900 nm / 15 knots

Typical complement: 197-239


Estimated cost, $8.834 million (£2.208 million)

Remarks:

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Magazines and engineering spaces are roomy, with superior
watertight subdivision.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 35 tonnes = 0 pct
Armor, total ..................... 29 tonnes = 0 pct

Armament 29 tonnes = 0 pct

Machinery ........................ 856 tonnes = 4 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 4527 tonnes = 20 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 6437 tonnes = 29 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 10700 tonnes = 47 pct
-----
22584 tonnes = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 1.3 m

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 16147 tonnes
Standard displacement: 16622 tonnes
Normal service: 22584 tonnes
Full load: 27263 tonnes

Loading submergence 3176 tonnes/metre

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.08

Shellfire needed to sink: 12994 kg = 426.4 x 13.0-cm shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.4
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

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

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.01

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.34

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.70
Sharpness coefficient: 0.45
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 5.68
'Natural speed' for length = 22.9 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 46 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 66 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 99 percent


Displacement factor: 177 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight per square
metre of hull surface: 486 kg)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.00
(for 4.31 m average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment -1.12 m)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

524.80 x 82.00 x 26.24; 14.14 -- Dimensions
0.70 -- Block coefficient
1924 -- Year laid down
20.00 / 25900 / 15.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
10700 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
4 x 5.12; 2; 0 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
0 -- No secondary battery
8 x 1.46 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
0.00 -- No belt armor
0.00 / 0.00 -- Deck / CT
0.98 / 0.00 / 0.98 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


(Note: For portability, values are stored in Anglo-American units)


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Russian Federation Northern Fleet presently has four of the following:

Betelgeuse Class Oiler, laid down 1919

Length, 130.0 m x Beam, 20.0 m x Depth, 8.0 m
11534 tonnes normal displacement (9897 tonnes standard)

Main battery: 2 x 1.3-cm

Weight of broadside: 0 kg

Main belt, 0.3 cm; ends unarmored
Torpedo bulkhead, 10.0 cm

Cargo capacity - 5,500 tons. 6,500 GRT

Maximum speed for 12924 shaft kw = 20.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 10000 nm / 15 knots

Typical complement: 112-144


Estimated cost, $3.704 million (£926,000)

Remarks:

Oil firing.

Relative extent of belt armor, 110 percent of 'typical' coverage.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armor, total ..................... 1075 tonnes = 9 pct

Belt 15 tonnes = 0 pct
Torpedo bulkhead 1059 tonnes = 9 pct

Machinery ........................ 615 tonnes = 5 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 2477 tonnes = 21 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 1867 tonnes = 16 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 5500 tonnes = 48 pct
-----
11534 tonnes = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 0.8 m

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 9667 tonnes
Standard displacement: 9897 tonnes
Normal service: 11534 tonnes
Full load: 12797 tonnes

Loading submergence 1756 tonnes/metre

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.01

Shellfire needed to sink: 4195 kg = 137638.6 x 1.3-cm shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.9
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 39 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.00

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.04

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.55
Sharpness coefficient: 0.40
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 5.77
'Natural speed' for length = 20.6 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 48 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 101 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 84 percent


Displacement factor: 148 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight per square
metre of hull surface: 423 kg)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.56
(for 4.00 m average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment -0.75 m)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.05

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

426.40 x 65.60 x 26.24; 13.12 -- Dimensions
0.55 -- Block coefficient
1919 -- Year laid down
20.00 / 10000 / 15.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
5500 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
2 x 0.51; 0 -- Main battery; turrets
Central positioning of guns
:
0 -- No secondary battery
0 -- No tertiary (QF/AA) battery
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
0.12 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 3.94; 110 -- Belt armor; relative extent
0.00 / 0.00 -- Deck / CT
0.00 -- No battery armor


(Note: For portability, values are stored in Anglo-American units)


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Once all the new oilers enter service, the Northern Fleet will be able to carry almost 65,000 tons of oil on 8 tankers. This ought to provide significant strategic flexibility for the Northern Fleet.

Visit my Russian/French fantasy fleet page:
http://admkuznetsov.tripod.com

Well you seem to be sticking to the typical russian doctrine, bigger is better!

Quoted

Well you seem to be sticking to the typical russian doctrine, bigger is better!

It's part of what ya have to do to provide any strategic flexibility to a force with such remote bases (Murmansk...). The alliance with Atlantea, and France even more so, helps a lot of this, of course. The have a global network of bases that Russia lacks, and very kindly provided the port at Cam Ranh Bay for Russia to develop into a winter base for the Pacific Fleet, but the French fleet is heavily coal-fired. So unless they want to repeat Rodzhestvenskii's experience, the oil-fired Russian fleet needs a significant capability for hauling lots of oil a long ways.

Visit my Russian/French fantasy fleet page:
http://admkuznetsov.tripod.com

Pluto, Atlantis tanker laid down 1921

Displacement:
19,848 t light; 20,285 t standard; 21,467 t normal; 22,327 t full load
Loading submergence 862 tons/feet

Dimensions:
580.00 ft x 66.00 ft x 28.00 ft (normal load)
176.78 m x 20.12 m x 8.53 m

Armament:
2 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns
2 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 91 lbs / 41 kg

Armour:
Main gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 7,668 ihp / 5,721 Kw = 14.53 kts
Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts

Complement:
886 - 1,152

Cost:
£2.163 million / $8.654 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 11 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 6 tons, 0.0 %
Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Armament: 6 tons, 0.0 %, Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 1,040 tons, 4.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,790 tons, 59.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,619 tons, 7.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 6,000 tons, 27.9 %

Metacentric height 2.7

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Excellent seaboat, comfortable and able to fight her guns in the heaviest weather

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 40,460 lbs / 18,352 Kg = 1,264.4 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.8
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 50 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.01
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.55

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.701
Sharpness coefficient: 0.41
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.38
'Natural speed' for length: 24.08 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 25 %
Trim: 32
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 47.7 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 129.7 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 263 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 2.81
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 266 lbs / square foot or 1,297 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 3.47
(for 20.00 ft / 6.10 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 2.36 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 2.87

Quoted

I'm guessing it would be a slow ship though.

More or less. The limit to these ships is 20 knots which is the maximum speed of Adm. K's design.

Indeed. A true 'bigger is better' design by the Admiral. It would be a useful design to support the Japanese 'Boilers' during their missions. :-)

I'm not sure about the block coefficient of such ships. I myself kept to 0.55 to 0.60 when I originally simmed them with Springstyle, but I'm not sure if that is the correct BC to use.

Walter

TSA: I'd suggest increasing your miscellaneous weight to get more oil on that boat - lower freeboard and steadiness to keep your stability okay.

Admiral K - could I suggest leaving hull strength at about 1.05 to ensure that the ship can handle a build up of ice?

You can get more out of her, but of course adding misc. load will cause stability to drop below 1. So, like the Rock Docter said, by lowering freeboard you can keep stability above 1 when increasing misc. load.

Here is the Springsharp data on the Shinryu Maru class oiler used by Japan. It's not really designed to support Japan's 'Boilers', but they can handle the job until some bigger designs are made.
Do the 'Boilers' need oilers to support them ? No and Yes. The 'Boilers' don't need the support themselves, but the other ships in the group most definitely do need the occasional fuel from the oilers.
Main gun caliber is no longer correct and I need to find out which way it must be corrected. It only misses the cost in Ryo and Yen.


Shinryu Maru, Japan Oiler laid down 1914

Displacement:
9,370 t light; 9,601 t standard; 11,143 t normal; 12,332 t full load
Loading submergence 659 tons/feet

Dimensions:
500.00 ft x 65.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
152.40 m x 19.81 m x 6.10 m

Armament:
2 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns
6 - 1.97" / 50 mm AA guns
18 - 0.98" / 25 mm guns
Weight of broadside 95 lbs / 43 kg

Armour:
Main gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 16,393 shp / 12,229 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 13,400nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
109 - 141

Cost:
£0.543 million / $2.171 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 12 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 5 tons, 0.0 %
Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Armament: 5 tons, 0.0 %, Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 631 tons, 5.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,722 tons, 24.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,773 tons, 15.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 6,000 tons, 53.8 %

Metacentric height 2.9

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.05
Shellfire needed to sink: 13,758 lbs / 6,240 Kg = 429.9 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.1
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 46 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.01
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.42

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.600
Sharpness coefficient: 0.40
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 6.85
'Natural speed' for length: 22.36 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 %
Trim: 30
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 78.3 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 121.7 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 151 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 82 lbs / square foot or 399 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.01
(for 15.00 ft / 4.57 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -0.47 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.01

As pointed out before, I used a BC of 0.6 because I did not know what the correct one was to be used.
'Steadiness as gun platform' is below 50% but I don't give a [ censored ] :-) about that because I don't think that is important for a ship like that.

Walter

Quoted

Admiral K - could I suggest leaving hull strength at about 1.05 to ensure that the ship can handle a build up of ice?

I don't plan on using them on the Northern Sea Route without icebreaker support, of which I plan a good deal. Right now I've planned a 13,000 ton icebreaker design for 1922 (a class of 6) and a 27,000 ton design for 1931 (a class of 3). As you can see, major auxiliaries like oilers and icebreakers will be occupying a good deal of Russian shipbuilding capacity in the 1920s and very early 1930s. I intend to establish reliable shipping lanes on the Northern Sea Route for as much as the year as possible, and have held discussions with other governments regarding jointly developed bases for icebreakers/commercial shipping on this route, as well as the participation of their icebreakers in keeping the route open.

Elsewhere, the main operational bases of the Russian fleet (Murmansk, Tallin, Sevastopol (and Cam Ranh Bay in the Pacific - Thank you France) don't have too bad a problem with ice.

France will be in a similar position. As the oil-firing proportion of the French fleet grows, France will be selling/converting colliers and building tankers, if not quite so early as Russia.

Baku is booming in this world...

Visit my Russian/French fantasy fleet page:
http://admkuznetsov.tripod.com

I've noticed some large crews on some of our non-combatant auxiliaries.

From Rick Robinson's "springstyle" notes:

Quoted

Also, for civilian merchant ships, divide crew and damage survival values by 10 - they have small crews, and lack the extensive compartmentation of naval ships. For naval transports, divide crew by 5 but leave survival values unchanged.

Most of our designs have been naval auxiliaries, so I think dividing the crew by 5 while keeping the designed damage survival values is the appropriate choice.

Commercial ships would get both divided by 10.

Visit my Russian/French fantasy fleet page:
http://admkuznetsov.tripod.com

I was thinking more of spray/sleet/snow/rain blowing onto the ship and freezing to the upperworks. It could add many tons to the ship's weight.

Good thing you mentioned that. I completely forgot about that bit in the SS notes.
Will adjust post accordingly and the designs as well.

Thank you.

Walter