You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

howard

Unregistered

1

Saturday, July 26th 2008, 3:37pm

Coming soon to an ocean near you.

Project 8400, generic CDS laid down 1924 (Engine 1936)

Displacement:
8,350 t light; 8,929 t standard; 10,000 t normal; 10,857 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
413.88 ft / 393.70 ft x 70.87 ft (Bulges 79.07 ft) x 21.65 ft (normal load)
126.15 m / 120.00 m x 21.60 m (Bulges 24.10 m) x 6.60 m

Armament:
6 - 11.02" / 280 mm guns (2x3 guns), 669.80lbs / 303.81kg shells, 1924 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (2x2 guns), 30.51lbs / 13.84kg shells, 1924 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (4x2 guns), 30.51lbs / 13.84kg shells, 1924 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1924 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 0.91" / 23.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.37lbs / 0.17kg shells, 1924 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 4,425 lbs / 2,007 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 0.0" / 0 mm above water torpedoes, 21 - 0.0" / 0 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7.09" / 180 mm 255.91 ft / 78.00 m 10.10 ft / 3.08 m
Ends: 1.18" / 30 mm 137.78 ft / 42.00 m 10.10 ft / 3.08 m
Upper: 118.0" / 2,997 mm 255.91 ft / 78.00 m 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8.27" / 210 mm 3.94" / 100 mm 6.50" / 165 mm
2nd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.10" / 3 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.10" / 3 mm -

- Armour deck: 3.35" / 85 mm, Conning tower: 7.09" / 180 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion generators,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 13,664 shp / 10,193 Kw = 19.00 kts
Range 8,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,927 tons

Complement:
499 - 650

Cost:
£2.505 million / $10.022 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 553 tons, 5.5 %
Armour: 2,630 tons, 26.3 %
- Belts: 869 tons, 8.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 517 tons, 5.2 %
- Armour Deck: 1,173 tons, 11.7 %
- Conning Tower: 71 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 383 tons, 3.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,384 tons, 43.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,650 tons, 16.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 4.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
16,015 lbs / 7,264 Kg = 23.9 x 11.0 " / 280 mm shells or 3.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.22
Metacentric height 4.3 ft / 1.3 m
Roll period: 16.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.35
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.40

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.519
Length to Beam Ratio: 4.98 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.84 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.83 ft / 6.65 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 13.89 ft / 4.23 m
- Mid (50 %): 13.89 ft / 4.23 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.89 ft / 4.23 m
- Stern: 13.89 ft / 4.23 m
- Average freeboard: 14.53 ft / 4.43 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 60.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 100.3 %
Waterplane Area: 18,923 Square feet or 1,758 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 122 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 161 lbs/sq ft or 786 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.09
- Longitudinal: 2.74
- Overall: 1.20
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

400 tons miscellaneous for future improvements.

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "howard" (Jul 26th 2008, 4:05pm)


2

Saturday, July 26th 2008, 3:44pm

The drawing and SIM arent very alike and the quadruppel 100mm DP guns might be a problem

howard

Unregistered

3

Saturday, July 26th 2008, 3:47pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
The drawing and SIM arent very alike and the quadruppel 100mm DP guns might be a problem


Thanks for pointing that secondary gaff out, will be edited.

H.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

4

Saturday, July 26th 2008, 6:35pm

Looks like your take on Narden. I guess I will find when I get to checking my PMs. Belt heights and shell weights are off as is mag capacity. Laydown year was 1933, engines were 1935 as you have.

One idle thought I had yesterday was that the partial reconstruction might allow changes in freeboard, allowing seakeeping to be kept at the higher speeds you wanted.
It is not actually specificed under Partial reconstruction, but changes to trim, superstructure are, and it is not listed under Total reconstruction.

Other folks opinion- adding Freeboard a Partial recon (remember this recon was also done prior to the ship ever being completed- only launched.

2.2.2.4 Level 4: Partial Reconstruction (cost = 50%, except ships of 2,999 t light or less --> 25%)

-Changes to bunkerage (type or quantity): P
-Replacement of superstructure: P
-Changes to internal belt armor: P (upper), D (ends, main)
-Changes to deck armor: P
-Alterations to guns of 66mm-195mm involving barbette alterations: P
-Replacement of secondary barbettes with powerplant machinery: D
-Alterations to guns 196mm and larger not involving barbette alterations: P
-Change to powerplant (type and output): D
-Change to bow form: D
-Change to trim of ship: D
-Change to torpedo bulkheads: D

howard

Unregistered

5

Saturday, July 26th 2008, 6:47pm

This is Project 8400-to be discussed with Holland well after Siam gets the Narden into service.

The Narden should be as you originally discussed, and as you originally optimized.

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Jul 26th 2008, 6:48pm)


Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

6

Saturday, July 26th 2008, 7:13pm

Ahh, looked quite similar, thus the confusion.

I'm going to reiterate this so it doesn't go missing, as it's important considering what could have been done for the partial reconstrution :

Other folks opinion- is adding Freeboard a Partial recon ?
(remember this recon was also done prior to the ship ever being completed- only launched.

7

Saturday, July 26th 2008, 7:25pm

Depends on the kind of freeboard... Are you just adding hull siding (open Gunwales), or another deck to go with it? How far does it extend?

If you can include it as 'new bow form', implying it's only being adjusted far forward, I'd say yes. If it's anything aft of the breakwater/first turret, you're going into major structural work, including adjusting the gun mountings so they'll (presumably) still fire over the hull, etc.

For a ship not yet completed, I'd say it's a sizable and costly change. Most of the ship components above deck will need to be resited vertially to allow for the new freeboard level, which means extending the already-built structures higher than planned. In general, that would seem to be adding topweight which would make the ship less stable and less seaworthy, depending on what exactly would need to be 'raised' to compensate.

For a ship already completed, aside from 'new bow form', I'd say it's impossible.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "ShinRa_Inc" (Jul 26th 2008, 7:28pm)


8

Saturday, July 26th 2008, 7:36pm

You can also raise it aft

by reshaping the stern. That's a 75% reconstruction tho. Better to scrap & start over than do that.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

9

Sunday, July 27th 2008, 3:07am

Well let me describe what we have.
The original design ran at 3.7m from the stern to 80% of length, then ramped up to the 6.66m bow, with a 5.18m midpoint.

That hull reached 40% and was floated clear

about 18 months later, she was floated back into dock. The hull was bulged and a 50% partial reconstruction done on the tonnage built.

Unfortunately the final design Carthaginian had, not I. So I am trying to work up a new final design to Howards specs, and higher seakeeping is one.

Now the desire is to start at midpoint, ramp up through 5.18m at (9) to 6.66m at (11) to the bow, essentially adding a deck forward, which the bulging may be able to counter.

50% covers bow, superstructure, and trim... those seem to be the bases we are hitting here.

Onions?

10

Sunday, July 27th 2008, 4:12am

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Onions?


Nope...got some Carrots, tho. :D

Beyond that...one would think it's easier (and cheaper) to modify a ship while it's still being built rather than waiting to be completed, but our rules don't cover that case...unless you pay a 50% cost of only what's already installed. That could be a valid interpretation of the rules.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "ShinRa_Inc" (Jul 27th 2008, 4:14am)


11

Sunday, July 27th 2008, 4:20am

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Beyond that...one would think it's easier (and cheaper) to modify a ship while it's still being built rather than waiting to be completed, but our rules don't cover that case...unless you pay a 50% cost of only what's already installed. That could be a valid interpretation of the rules.

I would tend to agree that this would be a valid interpretation...

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

12

Sunday, July 27th 2008, 6:27am

Well that part (paying to rebuild only what was already built) was already asked and answered back in mid 1935, so that part is safe.

I'm just trying to get a consensus on the freeboard question. I agree that once the ship is all complete it would be a nightmare, this is a rather odd case where it might work.

The additional freeboard would upset floatation calcs, but between the bulges, trim adjustments, and rearranging the interior, I'm thinking it might not be unreasonable.