WesWorld

Hello. I decided to post some of my work on torpedo armed vessels here.

I have designed a torpedo frigate in the 1200 tn range. it mounts 4 quad mounts on a 300 ft beam. this is made possible by neglecting other armament. this ship is not intended to operate alone, but instead to augment the torpedo armament of a destroyer squadron. night attacks are excellent scenarios for this vessel. I am, however, apprehensive about the 30 tn miscellaneous. I won't need complex fire control, because I lack notable gunnery, however I am unsure as to whether torpedo mass is included in the simulation. I have given this vessel a larger range than what it might be expected to need at a glance. this is because this ship is not a coastal raider, but an oceanic raider. because the Brazilian navy is heavily outnumbered, I feel it is essential to push the field of engagement out into the Atlantic so that I can dilute the enemy numerical advantage, and perform hit and run attacks.

A-1, Empire of Brazil Torpedo Frigate laid down 1944

Displacement:
983 t light; 1,023 t standard; 1,200 t normal; 1,341 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
311.97 ft / 305.00 ft x 29.30 ft x 8.20 ft (normal load)
95.09 m / 92.96 m x 8.93 m x 2.50 m

Armament:
1 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1944 Model
Breech loading gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
6 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 79 lbs / 36 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300
16 - 0.0" / 0 mm above water torpedoes

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 27,745 shp / 20,698 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 6,200nm at 14.50 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 318 tons

Complement:
101 - 132

Cost:
£0.842 million / $3.367 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 10 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 589 tons, 49.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 349 tons, 29.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 217 tons, 18.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 35 tons, 2.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
425 lbs / 193 Kg = 8.1 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.40
Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 10.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.08
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, raised quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.573
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.41 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.72 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 72 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m (12.00 ft / 3.66 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 17.00 ft / 5.18 m (12.00 ft / 3.66 m before break)
- Stern: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 15.40 ft / 4.69 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 168.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 150.2 %
Waterplane Area: 6,639 Square feet or 617 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 78 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 25 lbs/sq ft or 124 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.78
- Overall: 0.59
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

The B class is a much lighter vessel than the A class despite filling the same role. it does this by being both 1/2 knt slower and 200 nmi shorter in range, while also having a reduced salvo of 12 torpedoes in 3 quad mounts. the vessel is about 2/3 the displacement, however, allowing for a much greater torpedo armament per ton displaced.

again I note that I assume torpedoes are included in ship mass. otherwise I need to due some research on torpedo weight.

B-1, Empire of Brazil Torpedo Frigate laid down 1944

Displacement:
709 t light; 732 t standard; 865 t normal; 971 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
285.89 ft / 280.00 ft x 26.50 ft x 7.60 ft (normal load)
87.14 m / 85.34 m x 8.08 m x 2.32 m

Armament:
1 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1944 Model
Breech loading gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (2x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1944 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
6 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 67 lbs / 30 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
12 - 0.0" / 0 mm above water torpedoes

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 20,099 shp / 14,994 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 6,200nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 239 tons

Complement:
79 - 103

Cost:
£0.605 million / $2.419 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 8 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 415 tons, 48.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 260 tons, 30.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 156 tons, 18.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 25 tons, 2.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
311 lbs / 141 Kg = 5.9 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.31
Metacentric height 1.1 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 10.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.11
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, raised quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.537
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.94 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 71 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m (11.00 ft / 3.35 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 19.00 ft / 5.79 m (11.00 ft / 3.35 m before break)
- Stern: 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Average freeboard: 13.76 ft / 4.19 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 165.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 141.2 %
Waterplane Area: 5,324 Square feet or 495 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 77 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 23 lbs/sq ft or 114 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.75
- Overall: 0.59
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

* Note on design.

Torpedoes can be deadly weapons but used by a skilled crew at night their effect is devastating. the primary issue with night fighting is determining the location of enemy vessels. I have begun to toy with the idea of implementing Infra red goggles on these ships. the nation with the most experience in infra red technology is, I believe, Germany. as such any procurement will have to meet with approval from the german government. I intend to train night watchmen in infra red detection of friendly vessels, using infra red sighting cards (similar to those used for daytime visual reference except in the infra red spectrum.) I believe this will drastically improve the effectiveness of these vessels in a night fighting role.

You know, watching you post your different designs, I think you might be a better fit for playing Thailand than Brazil. Your designs seem far better-suited for their particular operational environment and... unorthodox? ship design history.

part of the reason for my unorthodox design methodology is intent.

I am not designing ships with the primary intent of creating solutions to Brazils problems, that is a context that I use for my true intent, though I am conscious of requirements.

my primary intent is to build skills in ship design. this favors rapid development and refinement. the appropriate application of torpedo belts is more important than refined stabilities and trims on my vessels (most of which are left at 50.)

If I were given control of Brazil in a full capacity I would draft a serious of potential conflicts, then a doctrine for dealing with those situations, then the requirements for those conflicts, and then I would rapid prototype a vessel, and finally I would refine the idea to completion... and there would be pictures.

admittedly with only 5 years left in the sim, what I believe to be a broken industrialization mechanic (industry is good but max growth should be 10 not 1%), and nations that are either superpowers or need 5 years to recover I doubt that I will be able to affect much.

I have put a great deal of thought into how the sim could be restarted, deal with new problems that have arisen in this sim (aircraft, industrialization, land forces, super-tech) and yet provide a simple framework, hopefully one simpler than we have now. but its currently just an idea and I don't feel like posting it for fear that it pans out to nothing.

General comments first -

The posted Springsharps lack the data on the size of the torpedo tubes. This make a proper evaluation difficult.

Given the general development of radar, night torpedo attacks on a first-class navy are far more difficult than one would think. And the Brazilian Navy is, in my humble estimation, not quite a first-class navy - too few of its vessels are equipped with radar.

Specifically - Germany has not made significant progress in infra-red detection equipment; I am not certain that any Wesworld nation has done so successfully to any great degree. So, your premise as an additional hurdle.

Quoted from "Alias72"

part of the reason for my unorthodox design methodology is intent.

I am not designing ships with the primary intent of creating solutions to Brazils problems, that is a context that I use for my true intent, though I am conscious of requirements.

my primary intent is to build skills in ship design. this favors rapid development and refinement. the appropriate application of torpedo belts is more important than refined stabilities and trims on my vessels (most of which are left at 50.)

If I were given control of Brazil in a full capacity I would draft a serious of potential conflicts, then a doctrine for dealing with those situations, then the requirements for those conflicts, and then I would rapid prototype a vessel, and finally I would refine the idea to completion... and there would be pictures.

admittedly with only 5 years left in the sim, what I believe to be a broken industrialization mechanic (industry is good but max growth should be 10 not 1%), and nations that are either superpowers or need 5 years to recover I doubt that I will be able to affect much.

I have put a great deal of thought into how the sim could be restarted, deal with new problems that have arisen in this sim (aircraft, industrialization, land forces, super-tech) and yet provide a simple framework, hopefully one simpler than we have now. but its currently just an idea and I don't feel like posting it for fear that it pans out to nothing.

I comprehend that you are trying different designs ideas, but they seem to be predicated on a single scenario (Brazil versus the SAE) which is of doubtful utility. As for the industrialization mechanism - it has served us well, and changing it in mid-stream has not gone over well with the player-base.

You've made the assumption that the sim has only five years left - that has been a point of debate among us, and the verdict is still out. If and when a decision is made to continue or restart, I am certain that your ideas will be considered. But some of us have already considered options and it is not as simple as you might think. Are you in any way familiar with Navalism? They have a long history of restarting their sims.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Are you in any way familiar with Navalism? They have a long history of restarting their sims.

<sarcasam>And it works so bloody well</sarcasm>
As a former GM over there, I am allowed to make fun of myself.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

You've made the assumption that the sim has only five years left - that has been a point of debate among us, and the verdict is still out. If and when a decision is made to continue or restart, I am certain that your ideas will be considered. But some of us have already considered options and it is not as simple as you might think. Are you in any way familiar with Navalism? They have a long history of restarting their sims.

Indeed, with no appreciable up-time for the sim itself!


In any case, Navalism would likely not be receptive to your viewpoint. The current crowd is quite anti-realistic in rhetoric. I speak from experience.

Quoted from "Alias72"

I am not designing ships with the primary intent of creating solutions to Brazils problems...

That's why I don't think you'd make a good player for Brazil.

Once again, observing your designs so far, I think you may be a pretty decent fit for playing Thailand, which is further behind and could use some TLC. If you want to play Thailand as an audition for something larger, then I'll vote 'yes' for that.