|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 12, 2016 8:54:23 GMT -6
I think what I'm referring to is the Froude number. Length-to-beam is important, which is why destroyers and battlecruisers tend to be slimmer than battleships and merchant types. But there is also a maximum natural speed for a hull that is entirely dependent on length, not beam. Sounds crazy, but if you have two ships that are exactly identical in beam and propulsion power but different in length, the one with the longer hull will use less power for a given speed, and be able to make a higher speed when it is at maximum power. Anything that extends the hull improves the top speed it can make for the same power. Both factors - length to beam, and pure length, are in play, along with many other factors. The Froude number is just a dimensionless number used to represent the effects of gravity on fluid flow around a body. Reynolds number is dimensionless and is the ratio of inertial forces to the viscous forces on a body, be it a hull or fuselage. It is really a measure of the quality of the flow be it laminar or transitional, in other words when the flow becomes turbulent. In fact, it is used in pipes to predict this state during the flow of liquids. Length is the primary controlling parameter as you say. The discovery of the bulbous bow reduced turbulent flow and increased speed in the Iowa's. |
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Nov 12, 2016 11:31:21 GMT -6
One of the unfortunate problems that the USN encountered with it's destroyers was a loss of maneuverability when speed was emphasized. I recall reading that the turning radius for some USN destroyers was greater than the turning radius of their newest battleships.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 12, 2016 13:56:18 GMT -6
One of the unfortunate problems that the USN encountered with it's destroyers was a loss of maneuverability when speed was emphasized. I recall reading that the turning radius for some USN destroyers was greater than the turning radius of their newest battleships. The turning radius problem was with the Fletcher class since they only had one rudder. The Sumners and Gearings had dual rudders and could outturn the fletchers. The old flush decker's had the same issue; the Clemson for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 12, 2016 17:35:16 GMT -6
The Clemson's were pretty awesome DDs for their time. They compare very well to contemporary British and German designs.
|
|
|
|
Post by galagagalaxian on Nov 12, 2016 18:12:07 GMT -6
It helps they were quite handsome ships too. Definitely one of the ships I'd use for a new AI template if/when I ever get around to making some.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 12, 2016 19:31:00 GMT -6
The Clemson's were pretty awesome DDs for their time. They compare very well to contemporary British and German designs. Hmm. The Clemson's, upgraded Wickes class, had V shaped hulls and were apparently difficult to handle. They had large turning radiuses, and their two rudders but it did not help much. They were wet forward, which is ok in port but not in the Atlantic or the Pacific oceans. They also had limited range. Other than that stuff, they were just great. Anyway no problem, we pawned them off onto the British, who did not like them either.  |
|
|
|
Post by rockmedic109 on Nov 12, 2016 19:35:04 GMT -6
The Clemson's were pretty awesome DDs for their time. They compare very well to contemporary British and German designs. Hmm. The Clemson's, upgraded Wickes class, had V shaped hulls and were apparently difficult to handle. They had large turning radiuses, and their two rudders but it did not help much. They were wet forward, which is ok in port but not in the Atlantic or the Pacific oceans. They also had limited range. Other than that stuff, they were just great. Anyway no problem, we pawned them off onto the British, who did not like them either. And the Brits thought the best thing to do with them was to pack them with explosives and have them ram a dry dock. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 12, 2016 19:58:16 GMT -6
Hmm. The Clemson's, upgraded Wickes class, had V shaped hulls and were apparently difficult to handle. They had large turning radiuses, and their two rudders but it did not help much. They were wet forward, which is ok in port but not in the Atlantic or the Pacific oceans. They also had limited range. Other than that stuff, they were just great. Anyway no problem, we pawned them off onto the British, who did not like them either. And the Brits thought the best thing to do with them was to pack them with explosives and have them ram a dry dock. Yea, good choice. |
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 13, 2016 0:48:05 GMT -6
Compared to British and German designs I think they look good - big, fast, heavily armed with guns and torpedoes.
They were not great ships for subhunting in the Atlantic, but the British were glad to get them and they gave good service until the DEs came on.
|
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Nov 13, 2016 15:00:57 GMT -6
On the Clemsons and Wickes, many (I think most that were still floating around in the late 1930s that weren't trade to the Brits/Canadians) continued to serve in the USN until the end of the war as well (which I think was more than served with the RN/RCN). In terms of the design, they didn't have superimposed guns forward and had two 4 inch wing turrets instead, and the torpedo tubes weren't centreline either (although it was still a heavy-ish torpedo outfit for the time regardless), so handling aside, I'd (ie, the opinion of a fairly nooby naval enthusiast, take with appropriate amounts of salt  ) still rate them a bit below the contemporary generation of British destroyers of the time just on handling (the S class, for instance, had one less 4 inch gun but still the same gun broadside (but fewer torpedoes)), and the W class (and modified W with it's 4.7 inch guns moreso) had a stronger gun broadside, superimposed forward and aft guns and the same torpedo broadside. The Brits destroyer AA gun at the time (the 3in 20cwt) was also a stronger gun for its role than the 3in/23 that was on the four-pipers. At the very least, with superimposed fore and aft guns, the W and modified-W class are better destroyers for this thread . Doesn't mean the four-pipers weren't decent ships though - I'm sure the USN wouldn't have kept using them into 1945 despite having built quite a few (!) newer models if they weren't . Of course, I"m pretty wet behind the ears with all this naval stuff, so there's more than a small chance I've misinterpreted things. I'm afraid I can't comment on the late-WW1 German destroyers, as at the moment I'm reading more about the ships that were still around for the second go-round. |
|
) still rate them a bit below the contemporary generation of British destroyers of the time just on handling (the S class, for instance, had one less 4 inch gun but still the same gun broadside (but fewer torpedoes)), and the W class (and modified W with it's 4.7 inch guns moreso) had a stronger gun broadside, superimposed forward and aft guns and the same torpedo broadside. The Brits destroyer AA gun at the time (the 3in 20cwt) was also a stronger gun for its role than the 3in/23 that was on the four-pipers.