|
Post by dorn on Mar 27, 2019 18:10:28 GMT -6
Struggle of Royal Navy in interwar period
4/1909 – HMS Incomparable is laid down 5/1909 – Italy has commissioned battleship Roma (20700 tons, 18 knots, 12x11“ guns – 8x11“ broadside, 10“ main belt) 6/1909 – Russia has laid down battlecruiser Ochakov class (24700 tons) 6/1909 – Italy has laid down cruiser Messina class (5000 tons) 8/1909 – Germany has laid down another battleship of Elsass class 8/1909 – Japan has laid down cruiser Chiyoda class (4900 tons, 25 knots, 10x5“ guns, 1“ belt armour)8/1909 – There has been an internal upheaval in Haiti, USA is apparantly sending a force. Prime Minister push for an international force to thwart USA expansion, however USA ignores the international force and occupy Haiti 9/1909 – Germany has laid down battlecruiser of Von der Tann class (25100 tons) 9/1909 – France has laid down cruiser of Linois class (4500 tons)9/1909 – with high tension with Italy Admiralty reactivated 6 destroyers and send them with battlecruiser HMS Indomitable, cruisers HMS Amphion, HMS Centaur, HMS Chimera to the Mediterranean 10/1909 – Japan has laid down battlecruiser of Kurama class (24200 tons) 10/1909 – HMS Geryon is commissioned 11/1909 – USA has laid down battlecruiser of Lexingtion class (24600 tons) 12/1909 – France has laid down battlecruiser of Duquesne class (23600 tons) 1/1910 – private shipbuilding expands docks to 29000 tons 1/1910 – HMS Gorgo is commissioned2/1910 – Improved AP penetrator alloys invented 2/1910 – naval guns 15“ with average quality are tested 2/1910 – increased industrialization improves national resources 3/1910 – mine rails for cruisers and destroyers invented3/1910 – Russia has commissioned battleship Gangut (21200 tons, 21 knots, 10x12“ guns – 8x12“ broadside, 10“ belt armour)3/1910 – Our cruiser HMS Ares has run aground on the shore of minor nation while performing an ilicit intelligence operation in the Mediterranean. Prime Minister demends releasing the ship sending squadron lead by HMS Indomitable. 4/1910 – somebody has good idea to mount guns on merchant cruiser and use it against submarines 5/1910 – we bought rights to Increased oblique penetration ability from Japan 5/1910 – we has invented Target designator5/1910 – Admiralty decided to do generally refit to minesweepers and Derwent class destroyers 6/1910 – Torpedo aiming system invented6/1910 – Germany has commissioned battleship of Elsass class (21200 tons, 21 knots, 8x12“ guns - 6x12“ broadside, 10.5“ belt armour)6/1910 – The ambassador from Russia has approached the Minister of the Navy with a suggestion that we curb our naval programme in the interest of peace and stability. The Minister told that we will not reduce our navy, they can call conference. However conference conclude with no no concrete result. 9/1910 – Hydraulic riveting invented10/1910 – We bought rights to Stereoscopic rangerfinder from France11/1910 – New secretary of the navy believe torpedo boats are most imporatant part of the navy and requested 6 additional destroyers12/1910 – double torpedo mounts invented
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 27, 2019 18:26:39 GMT -6
COMPETITION 1910/10/DD - 6 destroyers- at least 4 torpedo tubes - all forward guns arrangement is prohibited for role-playing purposes till 1920 GENERAL CONDITIONS:- any shipyard can provide 2 designs - any shipyard will provide design picture and design file (*.40d) - any shipyard are recommended to provide explanation of design futures Evaluation will be done based on firepower of main guns, speed and costs. Deadline for proposals - the 1st of April however I close the competition as soon as I get your designs. If you need more time, just mentioned it. note for calculation of broadside (b) and turret firepower (f) f1, f2, f3, f4 ... turrets firepower b = f1+f2+f3+f4 fi = k * n * c ^ 3 for each turret n ... number of guns in turret c ... guns caliber k = 1 for double turret, k = 0.85 for triple turret
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 27, 2019 21:53:08 GMT -6
I am curious about your feelings on tuning engines for speed. Do you find this to be a disadvantage or something that we should be utilizing in our designs?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 27, 2019 21:53:14 GMT -6
Balsa Construction is pleased to present for the Admiralty's consideration the following pair of torpedo boat destroyer proposals: 1910/10/DD.1: Blackwater Blackwater's five 4" guns allow it to bring two guns to bear forward or astern and four on the broadside, easily allowing it to outgun the most powerful torpedo boats and torpedo boat destroyers in service with other navies, and packs six torpedo tubes for a potent battleship-killing punch. While not quite as fast as the French Harpon or the American Reid class, Blackwater's 29-knot speed is easily sufficient to keep pace with our 26-knot battlecruisers and 27-knot light cruisers or maneuver almost freely relative to the battle line and matches or exceeds the speeds of the majority of the ships in foreign navies which it would be meant to face. Finally, Blackwater is fitted with with racks and chutes for ten naval mines, making it a truly versatile light warship.
1910/10/DD.2: Eden Eden is a variation on Blackwater, sacrificing a torpedo tube so as to carry four 5" guns in place of Blackwater's five 4" guns, effectively doubling its throw weight forward or astern while simultaneously increasing its broadside throw weight by almost 50%. With such a potent gun armament as this, Eden and its sisterships may even be capable of challenging some of the smaller cruisers of foreign navies in gunnery duels, though its small size and lack of armor would of course put it at a significant disadvantage.
Attachments:Destroyers.zip (62.06 KB)
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 27, 2019 23:18:43 GMT -6
Buchanan Iron Works is honoured to present the following designs for their Lordship's consideration. We began our design process by looking at the most relevant foreign contemporaries: Please note that Germany has fallen behind in destroyer design with nothing better than our current Rother-class design in terms of firepower or speed. Destroyer 9B - Designed with defence of the fleet in mind, this design has a heavy gun armament of four 4.7-inch QF guns, while still giving a 10% speed increase over current Royal Navy destroyers. A heavy torpedo battery allows these ships to quickly strike enemy warships. Destroyer 9C - Compared with Design 9B, this ship sacrifices a heavy gun armament for enhanced speed and torpedo battery. Compared with current Royal Navy destroyers, these ships would be 15% faster, have three times the torpedo battery, and still have more firepower for defence of the fleet. No destroyer in the world can match the offensive punch of the six torpedo firing pattern of this design. DESTROYER9BC.ZIP (68.51 KB)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 28, 2019 0:06:19 GMT -6
I am curious about your feelings on tuning engines for speed. Do you find this to be a disadvantage or something that we should be utilizing in our designs? No, for destroyers I expect that they need to operate in max. speed only for short time periods. So engines tuned for speed is no disadvantage at all.
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 28, 2019 0:59:16 GMT -6
I was thinking more for capital ships (BB or BC). Cruisers might be more of a gray area as well.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 28, 2019 1:37:39 GMT -6
I was thinking more for capital ships (BB or BC). Cruisers might be more of a gray area as well. I have not found any problem with engines tune for speed and oil powered in battle even steaming full speed for longer period of time.
I found that using engines tuned for speed with oil fired propulsion can be used anytime if you operating in areas where you have bases. I did not experience any drawbacks. So it is suited well for capital ships and cruisers except raiders.
However coal propulsion gets you some protection which is quite handy in case of protected cruisers as their armour scheme is lacking some protection. I would probably not go with oil propulsion and protected armour scheme on cruisers as it seems to me that it give not best mix. May be raiders could be interesting with this mix as they are not supposed to fight and need speed to withdraw from combat.
Generally speed tuning could be problem for coal ships if maximum speed is needed for longer periods.
Capital ships - coal firing and speed priority on engines usually only for battlecruisers, I do not feel it has sence for battleships as they are slow and savings are not great and sustained battleline speed is needed - oil firing is best mixed with AoN scheme and could be tuned for speed as I cannot see any drawback Cruisers - radiers - I found out that reliable engines are just too much weight for a little increae of realiability against normal engines. However I did not used engines tuned for speed at all for these type of ship - general purpose cruisers/fleet cruisers - I cannot see any disadvantage using engines tuned for speed as it is something they need to have. But if I expect them different roles in future, I would use normal engines, especially with coal propulsion - scout cruiser (sometimes I build them erly as propulsion technology improves a lot) - speed is essence - colonial cruiser - there is need a little of reliability so usual engines tuned to normal is better Destroyers - speed is essence so I think if higher speed could be obtained with using engines tuned for speed it is always better
note: overall everything depends on geography, nations with a lot of bases (UK, France) could use much more engines tuned for speed, with other nations I am more cautions to use it
Take it only as my opinion based on experience
Questions: Are engines tuned for higher reliability (reliability>normal>speed) less affected by breakdowns in strategic turns? I do not have any evidence it is so. Have oil fired engines tuned for speed some disadvantage when using only in areas with bases? I cannot see any.
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 28, 2019 2:17:46 GMT -6
Thank you for your views. They will be useful in making designs for you.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 28, 2019 2:31:34 GMT -6
Thank you for your views. They will be useful in making designs for you. MateDow Have you some other experience? Or some negative impact from oil fired engines tuned for speed?
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 28, 2019 2:51:47 GMT -6
Thank you for your views. They will be useful in making designs for you. MateDow Have you some other experience? Or some negative impact from oil fired engines tuned for speed?
I feel like I have seen fewer ships with normal tuned engines have condenser problems or other issues during wartime. I don't have any data to support that though. As to any effect during tactical battles, I can't say once there is oil firing, but definitely with coal fired. Part of it might be conservatism on my part.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 28, 2019 3:02:22 GMT -6
MateDow Have you some other experience? Or some negative impact from oil fired engines tuned for speed?
I feel like I have seen fewer ships with normal tuned engines have condenser problems or other issues during wartime. I don't have any data to support that though. As to any effect during tactical battles, I can't say once there is oil firing, but definitely with coal fired. Part of it might be conservatism on my part.
Good point. I try to focus on this issue in wartime to see if there is any effect that could be recognized. I agree with coal fired engines that tuned them for speed is more advantegous only for ships that do not need to be at top speed constantly. But sometimes tuned engines for speed give you almost 1 knot more which is something to consider.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 28, 2019 9:58:38 GMT -6
N3 has taken the design requirements of the Admiralty to heart. Having put their best effort forward, N3 submits the following designs under the designation "Tigerfish".
Proposal D1 The D1 design incorporates many of the features presented elsewhere. While at 30kts she may not be the fastest boat in the sea, she makes up for that in firepower. The D1 incorporates five 4" guns as other designs do so. But where the D1 design stands apart is that by clever and innovative deck layout all five guns may be fired broadside. A quartet of torpedoes and ten mines rounds the design off.
Proposal D2 The D2 is a modification of the D1 design, in an attempt to push Torpedo Boat Destroyer firepower to a reasonable limit given current technology. Upgunning the D1 to five 5" guns, all capable of delivering their firepower to a broadside target gives the D2 immense standup fighting power. In fact, the D2 design delivers a equivalent broadside to our 2,400t Comus-class cruiser, while still making 7kts more speed and carrying additional ammunition. A pack of D2's would pose a serious threat to enemy protected cruisers, while also being able to handily eliminate any enemy destroyers. The torpedo armament would also allow them to threaten enemy capital ships if given the chance.
I'm going to assume that I'm the only one here who realized that DDs can use cross-deck fire. Also, when doing up the side-view it becomes rather obvious why that didn't catch on, because there's essentially no space to place superstructure.
Attachments:tigerfish.zip (54.87 KB)
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 28, 2019 10:04:29 GMT -6
Thanks for the designs. I am not happy to read it but I wish you luck to in real life to sort things out.
Thanks, I expected that for a month now, so I had time to prepare, should be resolved in one or two weeks.
Beardmore Shipbuilding has evaluated the damage from the recent storm and is confident that it can be repaired. Though for the time being we will not be able to participate in any design competitions. Our older, smaller docks have sustained far less damage and could be made operational for the current destroyer competition.
We gathered information about the state of the art destroyers in foreign navies and found that there are quite a few 900 ton classes with speeds of 31-32 knots (french Harpon class, US Decatur class, italian Ascaro class). To counter enemy DDs in future wars and have a comfortable speed advantage over new cruisers and battlecruisers, we therefore need comparable top speeds of 31-32 knots.
DD-Hephaistos Hephaistos is a straight forward 32 knot destroyer with a 3*4 inch broadside, enough ammunition and 4 torpedo tubes in two centerline double launchers. We went with coal firing engines to keep the costs in check.
DD-Hera Hera mainly trades in a knot of speed and splits one centerline double torpedo launcher for another centerline 4 inch gun and 10 mines. If the mines are not necessary, we recommend stocking up on the ammunition loadout.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 28, 2019 10:20:48 GMT -6
Wow, cross-deck fire on a DD, that is a powerful concept with all that "crowded centerline" annoyance. Never thought about that.
Designing destroyers works as it should, no horizontal background image shining through. Seems to only be an issue between an added deck and a superstructure added on top of that. So I should be able to work around that by changing the order in which I add stuff, and also place the superstructure a bit lower. Reminds me of powerpoint messing around and is a bit frustrating since I can only undo the last placement...
Oh and what is up with that "V - aft centreline superimposed turret" position. I got that when checking the auto designs for the local yard and Germany but not for France. I could also not get it when designing from scratch with local yard or Germany selected.
|
|