|
Post by dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 9:52:16 GMT -6
Actually that's not true, stevethecat . The loss of Prince of Wales and Repulse happened on December 10, 1941 a few days after Pearl Harbor. Admiral Phillips and Captain John Leach chose to gallantly go down with their ships. Speculation has it that part of their decision to go down with their ship was because they knew of the attack on Taranto Harbor better than most and so too did they know of the aerial attack on Pearl and had argued before setting sail to intercept Japan's Malaya invasion group that all these sinkings of naval battleships were to be dismissed outright because they were all a surprise and the ships at port unable to maneuver at sea and thus this wouldn't be the case against them. Prince of Wales and Repulse made history becoming the first capital ships to be sunk solely by air power in open sea and this distinction was the moment battleships began to fade into obscurity. I agree with stevethecat . Royal Navy knew earlier the dangerous of air power from the Mediterranean. They know it so well that Royal Navy planned that Prince of Wales and Repulse should be accompanied by brand new carrier HMS Indomitable. However two things happen, carrier was damaged on the way and Japanese attacked earlier. You can agree with stevethecat all you want, but that won't make what you are saying right. Look, the thing that's going on here is Phillips. When the Indomitable ran aground, he gave the order to intercept the Japan Malaya fleet anyway even though that meant he would have no air cover. Why? When you answer that question, dorn, you'll realize why you're wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 18, 2019 10:00:30 GMT -6
Here is a design for the Vettor Pisani. If you examine the specifications, the power needed is over 315,000 SHP and that is far too much for four shafts, so I had to increase the number of shafts to 6 to get it too work. I also had to reduce the speed and the armor on the main belt and the conning towers. Here is the specifications.
Vettor Pisani, Italy Battle Cruiser laid down 1916
Displacement: 102,117 t light; 110,880 t standard; 118,560 t normal; 124,704 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (1,034.96 ft / 1,000.00 ft) x 120.00 ft x (35.00 / 36.79 ft) (315.46 m / 304.80 m) x 36.58 m x (10.67 / 11.21 m)
Armament: 24 - 18.00" / 457 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3,086.99lbs / 1,400.24kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1916 Model 6 x Quad mounts on centreline, evenly spread 24 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.92lbs / 49.41kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1916 Model 12 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread Weight of broadside 76,702 lbs / 34,791 kg Main Torpedoes 18 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m torpedoes - 1.169 t each, 21.035 t total In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 650.00 ft / 198.12 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m Ends: 5.00" / 127 mm 349.98 ft / 106.67 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 20.0" / 508 mm - 20.0" / 508 mm 2nd: 8.00" / 203 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks: For and Aft decks: 9.00" / 229 mm Forecastle: 9.00" / 229 mm Quarter deck: 9.00" / 229 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 10.00" / 254 mm
Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 6 shafts, 138,287 shp / 103,162 Kw = 25.00 kts Range 9,000nm at 15.00 kts Bunker at max displacement = 13,824 tons
Complement: 3,194 - 4,153
Cost: £19.983 million / $79.934 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 13,353 tons, 11.3 % - Guns: 13,327 tons, 11.2 % - Weapons: 26 tons, 0.0 % Armour: 40,958 tons, 34.5 % - Belts: 4,598 tons, 3.9 % - Armament: 15,183 tons, 12.8 % - Armour Deck: 20,137 tons, 17.0 % - Conning Towers: 1,040 tons, 0.9 % Machinery: 5,152 tons, 4.3 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 42,654 tons, 36.0 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 16,443 tons, 13.9 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 133,775 lbs / 60,679 Kg = 45.9 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 5.1 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 0.94 Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m Roll period: 20.9 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 3.73 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.96
Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and large transom stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.988 / 0.989 Length to Beam Ratio: 8.33 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 35.25 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees Stern overhang: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Average freeboard: 41.10 ft / 12.53 m
Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 75.9 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 292.7 % Waterplane Area: 120,000 Square feet or 11,148 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 94 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 273 lbs/sq ft or 1,331 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.96 - Longitudinal: 1.49 - Overall: 1.00 Caution: Poor stability - excessive risk of capsizing Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space Excellent 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 dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 10:07:56 GMT -6
Here is a design for the Vettor Pisani. If you examine the specifications, the power needed is over 315,000 SHP and that is far too much for four shafts, so I had to increase the number of shafts to 6 to get it too work. I also had to reduce the speed and the armor on the main belt and the conning towers. Here is the specifications. Vettor Pisani, Italy Battle Cruiser laid down 1916 Displacement: 102,117 t light; 110,880 t standard; 118,560 t normal; 124,704 t full load Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (1,034.96 ft / 1,000.00 ft) x 120.00 ft x (35.00 / 36.79 ft) (315.46 m / 304.80 m) x 36.58 m x (10.67 / 11.21 m) Armament: 24 - 18.00" / 457 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3,086.99lbs / 1,400.24kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1916 Model 6 x Quad mounts on centreline, evenly spread 24 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.92lbs / 49.41kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1916 Model 12 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread Weight of broadside 76,702 lbs / 34,791 kg Main Torpedoes 18 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m torpedoes - 1.169 t each, 21.035 t total In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 650.00 ft / 198.12 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m Ends: 5.00" / 127 mm 349.98 ft / 106.67 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length - Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 20.0" / 508 mm - 20.0" / 508 mm 2nd: 8.00" / 203 mm - - - Armoured deck - multiple decks: For and Aft decks: 9.00" / 229 mm Forecastle: 9.00" / 229 mm Quarter deck: 9.00" / 229 mm - Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 10.00" / 254 mm Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 6 shafts, 138,287 shp / 103,162 Kw = 25.00 kts Range 9,000nm at 15.00 kts Bunker at max displacement = 13,824 tons Complement: 3,194 - 4,153 Cost: £19.983 million / $79.934 million Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 13,353 tons, 11.3 % - Guns: 13,327 tons, 11.2 % - Weapons: 26 tons, 0.0 % Armour: 40,958 tons, 34.5 % - Belts: 4,598 tons, 3.9 % - Armament: 15,183 tons, 12.8 % - Armour Deck: 20,137 tons, 17.0 % - Conning Towers: 1,040 tons, 0.9 % Machinery: 5,152 tons, 4.3 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 42,654 tons, 36.0 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 16,443 tons, 13.9 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 % Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 133,775 lbs / 60,679 Kg = 45.9 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 5.1 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 0.94 Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m Roll period: 20.9 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 3.73 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.96 Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and large transom stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.988 / 0.989 Length to Beam Ratio: 8.33 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 35.25 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees Stern overhang: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Average freeboard: 41.10 ft / 12.53 m Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 75.9 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 292.7 % Waterplane Area: 120,000 Square feet or 11,148 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 94 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 273 lbs/sq ft or 1,331 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.96 - Longitudinal: 1.49 - Overall: 1.00 Caution: Poor stability - excessive risk of capsizing Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space Excellent 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 Hey! That's pretty cool! I see that you got her going to 35 knots. That's faster than I would have expected. The main belt armor is only 10"? Did I read that right? I was thinking 20". And I was sure the percentage of weight for armor would be higher. How did you get the 20 second roll rate? That's fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 18, 2019 10:12:57 GMT -6
Now, one of the issues for building these large battleships is what shipyard is capable. Neither the British, Japanese had shipyards that could handle this size ship. The comment by the DNC of the British Navy was that "there is room for the necessary extension of the present building slips but the vessel after launching could not be take into any of the basins for completion and there are no docks of sufficient size." This was also true of Japan, Germany and possibly the US, but I have not verified the last two.
Now, as to the game, I do see that you have to increase the tonnage to the yards to build the ship, but there is nothing in the game that says that the gamer has to increase the size of the docks to handle her. This would include cranes to handle the turrets and slips to repair any damage to the hulls. The contemplated ships are too large for the docks and the engine requirements are far beyond anything really available.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 18, 2019 10:13:54 GMT -6
Here is a design for the Vettor Pisani. If you examine the specifications, the power needed is over 315,000 SHP and that is far too much for four shafts, so I had to increase the number of shafts to 6 to get it too work. I also had to reduce the speed and the armor on the main belt and the conning towers. Here is the specifications. Vettor Pisani, Italy Battle Cruiser laid down 1916 Displacement: 102,117 t light; 110,880 t standard; 118,560 t normal; 124,704 t full load Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (1,034.96 ft / 1,000.00 ft) x 120.00 ft x (35.00 / 36.79 ft) (315.46 m / 304.80 m) x 36.58 m x (10.67 / 11.21 m) Armament: 24 - 18.00" / 457 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3,086.99lbs / 1,400.24kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1916 Model 6 x Quad mounts on centreline, evenly spread 24 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.92lbs / 49.41kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1916 Model 12 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread Weight of broadside 76,702 lbs / 34,791 kg Main Torpedoes 18 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m torpedoes - 1.169 t each, 21.035 t total In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 650.00 ft / 198.12 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m Ends: 5.00" / 127 mm 349.98 ft / 106.67 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length - Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 20.0" / 508 mm - 20.0" / 508 mm 2nd: 8.00" / 203 mm - - - Armoured deck - multiple decks: For and Aft decks: 9.00" / 229 mm Forecastle: 9.00" / 229 mm Quarter deck: 9.00" / 229 mm - Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 10.00" / 254 mm Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 6 shafts, 138,287 shp / 103,162 Kw = 25.00 kts Range 9,000nm at 15.00 kts Bunker at max displacement = 13,824 tons Complement: 3,194 - 4,153 Cost: £19.983 million / $79.934 millionDistribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 13,353 tons, 11.3 % - Guns: 13,327 tons, 11.2 % - Weapons: 26 tons, 0.0 % Armour: 40,958 tons, 34.5 % - Belts: 4,598 tons, 3.9 % - Armament: 15,183 tons, 12.8 % - Armour Deck: 20,137 tons, 17.0 % - Conning Towers: 1,040 tons, 0.9 % Machinery: 5,152 tons, 4.3 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 42,654 tons, 36.0 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 16,443 tons, 13.9 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 % Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 133,775 lbs / 60,679 Kg = 45.9 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 5.1 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 0.94 Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m Roll period: 20.9 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 3.73 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.96 Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and large transom stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.988 / 0.989 Length to Beam Ratio: 8.33 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 35.25 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees Stern overhang: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Average freeboard: 41.10 ft / 12.53 m Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 75.9 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 292.7 % Waterplane Area: 120,000 Square feet or 11,148 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 94 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 273 lbs/sq ft or 1,331 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.96 - Longitudinal: 1.49 - Overall: 1.00 Caution: Poor stability - excessive risk of capsizing Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space Excellent 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 Hey! That's pretty cool! I see that you got her going to 35 knots. That's faster than I would have expected. The main belt armor is only 10"? Did I read that right? I was thinking 20". And I was sure the percentage of weight for armor would be higher. How did you get the 20 second roll rate? That's fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 18, 2019 11:01:31 GMT -6
Here is a design for the Vettor Pisani. If you examine the specifications, the power needed is over 315,000 SHP and that is far too much for four shafts, so I had to increase the number of shafts to 6 to get it too work. I also had to reduce the speed and the armor on the main belt and the conning towers. Here is the specifications. Vettor Pisani, Italy Battle Cruiser laid down 1916 Displacement: 102,117 t light; 110,880 t standard; 118,560 t normal; 124,704 t full load Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (1,034.96 ft / 1,000.00 ft) x 120.00 ft x (35.00 / 36.79 ft) (315.46 m / 304.80 m) x 36.58 m x (10.67 / 11.21 m) Armament: 24 - 18.00" / 457 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3,086.99lbs / 1,400.24kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1916 Model 6 x Quad mounts on centreline, evenly spread 24 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.92lbs / 49.41kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1916 Model 12 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread Weight of broadside 76,702 lbs / 34,791 kg Main Torpedoes 18 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m torpedoes - 1.169 t each, 21.035 t total In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 650.00 ft / 198.12 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m Ends: 5.00" / 127 mm 349.98 ft / 106.67 m 13.15 ft / 4.01 m Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length - Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 20.0" / 508 mm - 20.0" / 508 mm 2nd: 8.00" / 203 mm - - - Armoured deck - multiple decks: For and Aft decks: 9.00" / 229 mm Forecastle: 9.00" / 229 mm Quarter deck: 9.00" / 229 mm - Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 10.00" / 254 mm Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 6 shafts, 138,287 shp / 103,162 Kw = 25.00 kts Range 9,000nm at 15.00 kts Bunker at max displacement = 13,824 tons Complement: 3,194 - 4,153 Cost: £19.983 million / $79.934 million Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 13,353 tons, 11.3 % - Guns: 13,327 tons, 11.2 % - Weapons: 26 tons, 0.0 % Armour: 40,958 tons, 34.5 % - Belts: 4,598 tons, 3.9 % - Armament: 15,183 tons, 12.8 % - Armour Deck: 20,137 tons, 17.0 % - Conning Towers: 1,040 tons, 0.9 % Machinery: 5,152 tons, 4.3 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 42,654 tons, 36.0 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 16,443 tons, 13.9 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 % Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 133,775 lbs / 60,679 Kg = 45.9 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 5.1 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 0.94 Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m Roll period: 20.9 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 3.73 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.96 Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and large transom stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.988 / 0.989 Length to Beam Ratio: 8.33 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 35.25 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees Stern overhang: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m, 41.10 ft / 12.53 m - Average freeboard: 41.10 ft / 12.53 m Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 75.9 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 292.7 % Waterplane Area: 120,000 Square feet or 11,148 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 94 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 273 lbs/sq ft or 1,331 Kg/sq metre Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.96 - Longitudinal: 1.49 - Overall: 1.00 Caution: Poor stability - excessive risk of capsizing Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space Excellent 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 Hey! That's pretty cool! I see that you got her going to 35 knots. That's faster than I would have expected. The main belt armor is only 10"? Did I read that right? I was thinking 20". And I was sure the percentage of weight for armor would be higher. How did you get the 20 second roll rate? That's fascinating. The picture in this thread shows 33 knots and that needs 6 shafts for 310,000 SHP. I had to reduce the speed to 25 KTS. and now, although the specs don't show it, the engine power has been reduced so I could put only four shafts. The idea is that some of these designs are not going to work. I also had to reduce the armor and some other specifications to get this ship to work properly.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 11:16:02 GMT -6
Japan's A-150 had an 18" belt and that was something the Japanese couldnt manufacture. They were going to use two welded plates instead of one despite the compromises to the protection. I'm not too worried by the size of the docks. It's not so hard to adapt one. The Japanese did it in Kure.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 18, 2019 12:10:31 GMT -6
Japan's A-150 had an 18" belt and that was something the Japanese couldnt manufacture. They were going to use two welded plates instead of one despite the compromises to the protection. I'm not too worried by the size of the docks. It's not so hard to adapt one. The Japanese did it in Kure. The problem for the Japanese and probably other nations is that in a war, you have damaged ships that have to be drydocked to be repaired. But if you are also building ships, then some damaged ships have to sit in the harbor waiting to be repaired. Or vice-versa. But the game does not represent that problem and that means that it isn't realistic. It isn't just the total tonnage of that the shipyards that they can produce, its the number of shipyards and drydocks, along with the number of slips for final assembly and fitting out plus repair yardage. Many times, small ships like transports, corvettes, destroyers can be repair in smaller shipyard if they don't have extensive hull damage. Upgrading becomes a problem also. There are other decisions. Is the river my shipyard is on, deep enough for the new ships? Do I upgrade current shipyards or build new ones to add to the capacity. Can the defense budget pay for such upgrades and/ or new yards. How about whether there are cranes available to lift the turrets and such, are they available and big enough to complete the job. Lot's of complication, but the game probably can't represent all this, but these are the facts. This is a naval wargame, and this issue is vital to naval warfare.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Oct 19, 2019 3:02:57 GMT -6
Let me restate that, Germany abandoned the H-41 design of a 64,000 ton battleship so they could pursue the design of one that was TWICE the displacement. If ww2 had not have kicked off prematurely as it did for the Germans, there is every indication that the H-44 would have been built. Everything I have read indicates that the H-42/43/44 was nothing more than a design study that did not take place until late in the war. From what I've seen the late H-series occupy roughly the same slot in history as the P.1000 Ratte, a completely impractical design that reached mythical proportions. As far as in-game, I don't necessarily oppose the idea of allowing for larger designs altogether, but I feel it occupies a very low priority. From my understanding, some feel the game's equations as far as armor weight and engine power get a bit out of line with reality as tonnage increases, which makes some historical designs difficult to recreate. I would rather see those kinks ironed out rather than push the upper limit even further beyond what it already sits at. However, I would say personally such designs kind of kill the fun of RtW for me. If I can build a battleship that's faster than any non-DD, has bigger guns than anything else in the sea, is immune to any gun AND any aircraft...well then what's the point? It also moves RtW more from an alternative history to historical fantasy, but again that's more of a personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 19, 2019 3:17:58 GMT -6
noshurviverse Well, I actually agree with some of what you said and it's hard to argue with except the immunity part. Those mythical ships can still go down after 6 to 8 torp hits. They can also get hurt rather badly by 16" guns. Don't think armor will stop the onslaught of more firepower, I've tested it and it doesn't. I've had a super ship in testing with ridiculous amounts of armor and weighing in around 167k tons get sunk by massed firepower. There's kind of a balance point between uber ships and their cost and a regular fleet. Sure you can have this uber ship, but at the cost of 3 regular ships. And in testing, more firepower wins the day over fewer guns and slightly thicker armor. Despite all this, the game, as it stands, is wholly incapable of seeing something like this work because right when you need Battleships, circa 1945, the AI is scrapping everything due to the naval aircraft expenditure bug. So sure, the game needs to be fixed... and I'll agree with others that say fix bugs before adding displacement, but eventually, I'd like to be able to build something that is the successor to the Yamato and that's hard to do with the current game limitations.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 19, 2019 9:58:51 GMT -6
Here is my last design for the Italian battleship. I have had to increase the beam to 150 feet and lower the freeboard. The ship has less armor and the cruising speed is now 10 knots. The ship is now very stable. Maximum displacement is 119,938 tons. Speed had to be reduced to 25 knots and this works well.
Vettor Pisani, Italy Battle Cruiser laid down 1916
Displacement: 104,931 t light; 113,666 t standard; 117,150 t normal; 119,938 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (1,032.66 ft / 1,000.00 ft) x 150.00 ft x (35.00 / 35.72 ft) (314.76 m / 304.80 m) x 45.72 m x (10.67 / 10.89 m)
Armament: 24 - 18.00" / 457 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3,087.00lbs / 1,400.24kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1916 Model 6 x Quad mounts on centreline, evenly spread 24 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.93lbs / 49.41kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in Coles/Ericsson turret mounts, 1916 Model 12 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread Weight of broadside 76,702 lbs / 34,792 kg Main Torpedoes 18 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m torpedoes - 1.169 t each, 21.035 t total In 3 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 15.0" / 381 mm 650.00 ft / 198.12 m 14.70 ft / 4.48 m Ends: 8.00" / 203 mm 349.98 ft / 106.67 m 14.70 ft / 4.48 m Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 650.00 ft / 198.12 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 20.0" / 508 mm - 20.0" / 508 mm 2nd: 8.00" / 203 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks: For and Aft decks: 9.00" / 229 mm Forecastle: 9.00" / 229 mm Quarter deck: 9.00" / 229 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 10.00" / 254 mm
Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 132,338 shp / 98,724 Kw = 25.00 kts Range 9,000nm at 10.00 kts Bunker at max displacement = 6,272 tons
Complement: 3,165 - 4,115
Cost: £20.094 million / $80.375 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 13,353 tons, 11.4 % - Guns: 13,327 tons, 11.4 % - Weapons: 26 tons, 0.0 % Armour: 42,608 tons, 36.4 % - Belts: 9,327 tons, 8.0 % - Armament: 9,606 tons, 8.2 % - Armour Deck: 22,642 tons, 19.3 % - Conning Towers: 1,032 tons, 0.9 % Machinery: 4,931 tons, 4.2 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 44,039 tons, 37.6 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 12,219 tons, 10.4 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 152,267 lbs / 69,067 Kg = 52.2 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 8.3 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.25 Metacentric height 13.8 ft / 4.2 m Roll period: 17.0 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 65 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.61 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.15
Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and large transom stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.781 / 0.783 Length to Beam Ratio: 6.67 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 36.29 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 41 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees Stern overhang: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 34.79 ft / 10.60 m, 28.46 ft / 8.67 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 28.46 ft / 8.67 m, 22.14 ft / 6.75 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 22.14 ft / 6.75 m, 22.14 ft / 6.75 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 22.14 ft / 6.75 m, 22.14 ft / 6.75 m - Average freeboard: 24.86 ft / 7.58 m
Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 76.1 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 190.8 % Waterplane Area: 134,909 Square feet or 12,533 Square metres Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 92 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 297 lbs./sq. ft. or 1,451 Kg/sq. meter Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 1.08 - Longitudinal: 0.97 - Overall: 1.00 Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space Excellent accommodation and workspace room
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 19, 2019 11:28:43 GMT -6
Take a look at this graph: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty#/media/File:Battleship_building_scatter_graph_1905_onwards.pngYamato lies about on the trend line that was established for tonnage increases before the Washington treaty was signed. I don't think it likely that any ship built by any navy would have stayed too fat above that line, and it's fairly plain to see that that trend line wouldn't be much higher than 90kt by 1950. Then keep this in mind: nuclear weapons were probably going to be developed by some time in the 50s, at the latest. However obvious the superiority of carriers would have been at any given point, once nukes were on the table, it would be obvious that any battleship could be one-shotted. So that tend line is not likely to go very far past 1950. And no, the various super-battleships planned by the axis powers do *not* establish a need for tonnage greater than 90kton in game. They had no more chance of being constructed than the Tillman battleships, and it's unlikely that either nation would have had the dock capacity to build such ships at any time prior to the advent of nuclear weapons. I rather doubt either nation could have afforded them even if they had the dock capacity.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 19, 2019 11:40:37 GMT -6
Take a look at this graph: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty#/media/File:Battleship_building_scatter_graph_1905_onwards.pngYamato lies about on the trend line that was established for tonnage increases before the Washington treaty was signed. I don't think it likely that any ship built by any navy would have stayed too fat above that line, and it's fairly plain to see that that trend line wouldn't be much higher than 90kt by 1950. Then keep this in mind: nuclear weapons were probably going to be developed by some time in the 50s, at the latest. However obvious the superiority of carriers would have been at any given point, once nukes were on the table, it would be obvious that any battleship could be one-shotted. So that tend line is not likely to go very far past 1950. And no, the various super-battleships planned by the axis powers do *not* establish a need for tonnage greater than 90kton in game. They had no more chance of being constructed than the Tillman battleships, and it's unlikely that either nation would have had the dock capacity to build such ships at any time prior to the advent of nuclear weapons. I rather doubt either nation could have afforded them even if they had the dock capacity. Well, I think the whole, “my stick has to be bigger” mentality is lost on you. When one nation comes out with something better, the other nations escalate. You’d see dock sizes for 150k ton vessels in no time. Remember that the Japanese were going to build the A-150 in 1946. That would likely have happened 5 years sooner if not for the Washington naval treaty. And like I said, I was surprised to learn the Japanese had already planned for a battleship successor to the A-150 that would make the Yamato class look like a toy. So think what you want, history’s progress chart proves otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 19, 2019 12:29:31 GMT -6
My personal opinion is that historically, both of you are correct. The problem is we talking about a virtual history.... a game. So the question is "Does it make sense, in this game to build those very large warships". I don't know, I am not. I am not going to waste the finances, shipyard time at the expense of carriers, airbases, aircraft and lighter smaller more useful ships. If enemy want to build them, fine. I will pick them off with my aircraft and submarines.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Oct 19, 2019 13:26:36 GMT -6
I'll have to say no to a 180Kton limit, if for no other reason than scaling & a myriad of related issues - not just ship size scaling, but in guns and many other systems...what are realistic stats/performance figures for a 24"/L50 gun, as just one example? Also, that means new aircraft designs would need to be developed carrying super-heavy weapons to counter them, etc...etc...its a morass we frankly don't want to sink into.
|
|