Can't build a Fletcher on a 2000 ton hull?

[malthaussen]

What's up with this?  The 1500 ton DD can have 6 centerline mounts, the next step up should have 7, allowing 5 guns and two TT mounts. But that's "overcrowded," meaning that the historical Fletcher class (and Farragut, and Mahan, and Sims) can't be built in the game without suffering a penalty.  As a lover of destroyers, I protest!

Can I at least have 7 mounts on the 2500 ton hull?

  -- Mal

[aeson]

Nothing in the game can have seven centerline mounts without penalty.

[malthaussen]

Well, that sucks!

  -- Mal

[emcie]

A Fletcher class would probably be closer to 3000 ton given how rtw seems to include range in its displacement calculations. Not trying to be nitpicky, just that if you want to replicate historical designs you might have to up the displacement figure a bit to compensate. Unless I'm completely wrong and have been cheating myself this whole time 

[srndacful]

No wonder: You're probably taking standard displacement as the basis of your ships - but RtW ships' displacement is actually fully-loaded displacement (i.e. with crew, fuel, stores and weapons aboard) 
So, a Fletcher has a 2500 tons at full load - that one might fit better. 

[malthaussen]

Jun 7, 2023 6:42:19 GMT -6 srndacful said:

No wonder: You're probably taking standard displacement as the basis of your ships - but RtW ships' displacement is actually fully-loaded displacement (i.e. with crew, fuel, stores and weapons aboard) 
So, a Fletcher has a 2500 tons at full load - that one might fit better. 

Such being the case, it would be impossible to recreate a Sumner at all, as they were something like 3500 tons at full load. But their armament could be put on a DD of 2000 tons or greater, since they only have 6 centerline mounts.  What makes the Fletchers impossible is the need for 7 mounts.

I'm not sure RtW displacement is supposed to be full load, as when it comes to replicating real designs, it seems they can be done at standard displacement and full load is a bit of a waste.

  -- Mal

[aeson]

Jun 15, 2023 17:06:40 GMT -6 malthaussen said:

What makes the Fletchers impossible is the need for 7 mounts.

You might not be willing to accept the penalty that comes with it, but it certainly isn't impossible to make a Fletcher-style destroyer on a displacement of 2000 tons in RTW2.

[malthaussen]

Oh, I know it's possible with a penalty. I'm just griping about the penalty.

It's interesting that any destroyers with a displacement >2000 lose out in the speed/tonnage equation. I tried to build a few DD at 2100 tons to eke out another knot of speed, but they actually use more weight for engines than they gain in displacement!  I conclude that the designers hate destroyers, or at least American ones. The goldplaters with 16 torpedo tubes are impossible to replicate, because the game won't let you mount quadruple mounts on the sides. But since those ships had (for all practical purposes) an 8-tube broadside, I don't mind so much having to use centerline mounts.

Minor quibble, though: your Fletcher example only makes 35 knots, not 37.

Minor quibble #2: the W turret should be a V turret (aft superimposed) to be on top of the deckhouse.

  -- Mal

[dorn]

With the speed it is much more difficult. Fletchers were quite fast however if I remember well they cannot sustain that speed even in moderate seas and most destroyers have same issue. Usually British destroyers were quite opposite having lower top speed but excellent seaboats even in very heavy seas which was proven several times during WW2.

Now you need to abstract it a little so you choose some middle way and allow destroyers to have a little lower max. speed but that speed is sustainable.

RTW makes some abstraction as it does not simulates such details as springsharp but for the game it is reasonable