|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Mar 28, 2018 9:56:26 GMT -6
Well, just a more extreme version of the Esmeralda and other Elswick cruisers. Still, the only thing I've seen that came near to that for crazy was the British M-class submarine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_M-class_submarine). As my dad would have said, that is "bat-poop" crazy.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Mar 28, 2018 10:03:44 GMT -6
Haha, I had never even heard of those ships (Matsushimas not the wave-motion gun. I was hooked on both Star Blazers and then later Robotech when they were first released in the States.) Looks like director was right about those ships. From the wikipedia entry - "The guns proved only marginally successful during the First Sino-Japanese War, due to a slow rate of fire, and numerous mechanical problems. The guns could not be aimed abeam, as their weight would cause the ship to roll over when fired. In combat, gunners were able to fire only around one shot per hour[4] due to the time it took to reload." Those things were crazy. Which for the time period meant they were very, very French. This is the genesis of the Japanese love of the One Big Gun concept, and I have a private belief that it only went into hiatus due to the "ladder" requirement of long range gunnery. Those two ships in the 1890s were paraded around the country's ports like rock-stars. There is a Japanese saying something close to "a single touch of the armored gauntlet", and I think it reflected in the Bushido ideal of disabling an opponent with a single blow. ...and, 90 years later, we get the Space Battleship Yamato and its Wave Motion Gun. I think the fandom of the later sprung from seeds sowed over 100 years ago (though I do not have a degree in oriental history or sociology).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2018 10:33:32 GMT -6
Haha, I had never even heard of those ships (Matsushimas not the wave-motion gun. I was hooked on both Star Blazers and then later Robotech when they were first released in the States.) Looks like director was right about those ships. From the wikipedia entry - "The guns proved only marginally successful during the First Sino-Japanese War, due to a slow rate of fire, and numerous mechanical problems. The guns could not be aimed abeam, as their weight would cause the ship to roll over when fired. In combat, gunners were able to fire only around one shot per hour[4] due to the time it took to reload." Those things were crazy. Which for the time period meant they were very, very French. This is the genesis of the Japanese love of the One Big Gun concept, and I have a private belief that it only went into hiatus due to the "ladder" requirement of long range gunnery. Those two ships in the 1890s were paraded around the country's ports like rock-stars. There is a Japanese saying something close to "a single touch of the armored gauntlet", and I think it reflected in the Bushido ideal of disabling an opponent with a single blow. ...and, 90 years later, we get the Space Battleship Yamato and its Wave Motion Gun. I think the fandom of the later sprung from seeds sowed over 100 years ago (though I do not have a degree in oriental history or sociology). The problem for the Matsushima with its 12.6 inch gun on the stern was that the gun and mounting were too big for the size of the cruisers. According to Navweaps, when the gun was aimed abeam, the ship would heel over and that made bearing and elevation very difficult. The ships were not steady gun platforms in the first place due to the low GM. I might try to duplicate the design in Springsharp this afternoon. www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSpain_126-35_m1884.php
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Mar 28, 2018 10:56:44 GMT -6
I think Springsharp would pop up a never seen box; "wait, are you Sure about this?" lol
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2018 11:40:51 GMT -6
I think Springsharp would pop up a never seen box; "wait, are you Sure about this?" lol Possibly, I have to find more detailed design spec's or I'll just have to use a SWAG. BTW, the Matsushima, French built, blew up after a magazine explosion and only 175 men were saved. I have a link to the NY Times article of the period.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2018 12:15:56 GMT -6
Well, read it and weep. Here is my design using Springsharp for the Matsushima.
Matsushima, Japan Protected Cruiser laid down 1888
Displacement:
3,415 t light; 3,607 t standard; 4,161 t normal; 4,605 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(301.18 ft / 301.18 ft) x 50.52 ft x (19.82 / 21.37 ft)
(91.80 m / 91.80 m) x 15.40 m x (6.04 / 6.51 m)
Armament:
1 - 12.60" / 320 mm 38.0 cal gun - 934.72lbs / 423.98kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading gun in turret on barbette mount, 1888 Model
1 x Single mount on centreline, aft deck centre
6 - 4.72" / 120 mm 40.0 cal guns - 49.78lbs / 22.58kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1888 Model
6 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
11 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 5.60lbs / 2.54kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1888 Model
11 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1,295 lbs / 587 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 14.0" / 356 mm, 15.16 ft / 4.62 m torpedoes - 0.218 t each, 0.874 t total
submerged side tubes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.94" / 100 mm - 11.8" / 300 mm
2nd: 39.4" / 1,000 mm - -
3rd: 1.97" / 50 mm - -
- Protected deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 1.50" / 38 mm
Forecastle: 1.50" / 38 mm Quarter deck: 1.50" / 38 mm
Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, simple reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 4,951 ihp / 3,693 Kw = 16.50 kts
Range 5,500nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 999 tons (100% coal)
Complement:
258 - 336
Cost:
£0.344 million / $1.375 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 224 tons, 5.4 %
- Guns: 222 tons, 5.3 %
- Weapons: 2 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 807 tons, 19.4 %
- Armament: 529 tons, 12.7 %
- Armour Deck: 278 tons, 6.7 %
Machinery: 961 tons, 23.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,425 tons, 34.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 746 tons, 17.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
4,807 lbs / 2,180 Kg = 5.0 x 12.6 " / 320 mm shells or 6.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.49
Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 11.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.35
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
an extended bulbous bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.483 / 0.496
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.96 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.35 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 40.00 %, 18.83 ft / 5.74 m, 15.62 ft / 4.76 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 15.62 ft / 4.76 m, 15.62 ft / 4.76 m
- Aft deck: 15.00 %, 7.81 ft / 2.38 m, 7.81 ft / 2.38 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 7.81 ft / 2.38 m, 7.81 ft / 2.38 m
- Average freeboard: 13.79 ft / 4.20 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 97.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 95.9 %
Waterplane Area: 9,985 Square feet or 928 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 96 lbs/sq ft or 471 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.89
- Longitudinal: 2.97
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Adequate accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 28, 2018 13:31:27 GMT -6
Haha, I had never even heard of those ships (Matsushimas not the wave-motion gun. I was hooked on both Star Blazers and then later Robotech when they were first released in the States.) Looks like director was right about those ships. From the wikipedia entry - "The guns proved only marginally successful during the First Sino-Japanese War, due to a slow rate of fire, and numerous mechanical problems. The guns could not be aimed abeam, as their weight would cause the ship to roll over when fired. In combat, gunners were able to fire only around one shot per hour[4] due to the time it took to reload." Those things were crazy. Which for the time period meant they were very, very French. This is the genesis of the Japanese love of the One Big Gun concept, and I have a private belief that it only went into hiatus due to the "ladder" requirement of long range gunnery. Those two ships in the 1890s were paraded around the country's ports like rock-stars. There is a Japanese saying something close to "a single touch of the armored gauntlet", and I think it reflected in the Bushido ideal of disabling an opponent with a single blow. ...and, 90 years later, we get the Space Battleship Yamato and its Wave Motion Gun. I think the fandom of the later sprung from seeds sowed over 100 years ago (though I do not have a degree in oriental history or sociology). One thing I will note is that tanks, which generally fight at ranges where there is a relatively high probability of any given shot hitting, generally have a single turret with a single main gun. The Matsushimas were built in an era where engagement ranges were generally short, so I don't think that the idea (apart from reload times and balance issues) was entirely crazy. And my experience in RTW has been that designs with smaller main gun counts (6 is typical for me ) and larger guns tend to be quite successful.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2018 15:46:40 GMT -6
This is the genesis of the Japanese love of the One Big Gun concept, and I have a private belief that it only went into hiatus due to the "ladder" requirement of long range gunnery. Those two ships in the 1890s were paraded around the country's ports like rock-stars. There is a Japanese saying something close to "a single touch of the armored gauntlet", and I think it reflected in the Bushido ideal of disabling an opponent with a single blow. ...and, 90 years later, we get the Space Battleship Yamato and its Wave Motion Gun. I think the fandom of the later sprung from seeds sowed over 100 years ago (though I do not have a degree in oriental history or sociology). One thing I will note is that tanks, which generally fight at ranges where there is a relatively high probability of any given shot hitting, generally have a single turret with a single main gun. The Matsushimas were built in an era where engagement ranges were generally short, so I don't think that the idea (apart from reload times and balance issues) was entirely crazy. And my experience in RTW has been that designs with smaller main gun counts (6 is typical for me ) and larger guns tend to be quite successful. I can't really agree with your comparison, because its comparing apples and oranges, frankly. Tanks have some specific design problems like complexity, ground pressure, speed and just plain size. The Matsushima class was a response to German designs bought by the Chinese Navy. I would have to research which ones. They were not successful; too slow, bad boilers and frankly their GM caused them to be unstable gun platforms. The guns were slow loading and not really the best weapons. However, one can see why the Japanese fleet, in its infancy in 1888, would try to buy such a design. I suspect that in RTW we have all tried to build some different ships and found that they were not always successful.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Mar 28, 2018 15:49:06 GMT -6
I just looked them up in Wiki, and Japan kept one of those 3 ships on active military duty until 1920.
...even *I* wouldn't keep them around *that* long.
[probably]
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 28, 2018 16:19:30 GMT -6
I just looked them up in Wiki, and Japan kept one of those 3 ships on active military duty until 1920. ...even *I* wouldn't keep them around *that* long. [probably] Well, they might make good fortress ships in the mouth of a harbor, or submarine tenders and training ships. They were built in 1888 so that is only 32 years. Arkansas was that age when she was sunk at Bikini. Nevada was almost that old. In RTW, if it will allow it, you could rebuild a ship, reduce the number turrets and the size of the main armament, rebuild the engines and possibly reduce the armor to give her more speed. You can then use this ship in place of mine sweepers for coastal defense. Cost to rebuild and maintenance might be less. I've done it and it works.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Mar 31, 2018 12:05:26 GMT -6
Sometimes, you've got to take things to the extreme. That 13" gun isn't a weapon, it's a propulsion system for going rapidly astern LOL. You, guys, make me think in unusual direction... So next picture is YOUR fault! Why should we slow down ship by firing Big Main Gun forward, when we can speed her up, firing astern! It is especially important for chased raiders. And don't forget, she may even hit something sometimes! (Well, she is not as spectacular as Livorno, but I hope, not less useful )
|
|
|
Post by serger on Mar 31, 2018 12:08:45 GMT -6
Beautiful!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 31, 2018 12:33:54 GMT -6
Sometimes, you've got to take things to the extreme. That 13" gun isn't a weapon, it's a propulsion system for going rapidly astern LOL. You, guys, make me think in unusual direction... So next picture is YOUR fault! Why should we slow down ship by firing Big Main Gun forward, when we can speed her up, firing astern! It is especially important for chased raiders. And don't forget, she may even hit something sometimes! (Well, she is not as spectacular as Livorno, but I hope, not less useful ) AHH! We are all aware that a hydraulic recoil system would absorb all acceleration due the firing of the gun, right?
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Mar 31, 2018 13:18:09 GMT -6
AHH! We are all aware that a hydraulic recoil system would absorb all acceleration due the firing of the gun, right? You forgot one of the oldest Tropican commandments: "Do not pay for anything, that may be done by your labourers for free". This 10 in gun has crew of 38 man total (according to design calculator), so they may stop its recoil by their bare hands, no hydraulic needed (It was included in official project documentation, but... Tropico has "endemic corruption" national trait )
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 31, 2018 13:22:51 GMT -6
AHH! We are all aware that a hydraulic recoil system would absorb all acceleration due the firing of the gun, right? If it works properly, sure, it'll absorb most of the recoil, but Isla de Hierra and, to a lesser extent, Livorno look like they're from relatively early in the game ( Isla de Hierra could probably be built for the legacy fleet) and so their guns could conceivably not have a good recoil mechanism.
|
|