Mizuho and Nisshin as CVL?

[Dili]

We are not talking about Nisshin. Nisshin had 4 diesels. Two mains. Each <20,000 SHP. Very large, very heavy. Very different configuration. Apples and grapefruit.

So?? unless the beam or economy is an issue the necessary power to put Mizuho to 28kt is there, same for .

Also you can't have Chitose with 23% more internal volume and then start saying that Mizuho needs same power of Chitose to go to 28kt.

You might want to try Gilmer & Johnson's Naval Architecture, USNI Press, or Ship Construction by Eyres.

Must be some magic book, will i learn how Chitose had 23% more internal volume than Mizuho having almost same displacement...?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dili
Must be some magic book, will i learn how Chitose had 23% more internal volume than Mizuho having almost same displacement...?

Absolutely. Gilmer is a standard textbook for the first semester of Naval Architecture 101. Anyone who passes the course can do this easily. Anyone who passes can also easily show how a ship with ½ the displacement can have more internal volume than the heavier; although I would probably recommend Eyres, or perhaps Doughty for the volumetric space planning. You will still need Gilmer, or an equivalent, to define your hull coefficients, but once that's done, Eyres has a pretty good pick-and-drop system.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

We are not talking about Nisshin. Nisshin had 4 diesels. Two mains. Each <20,000 SHP. Very large, very heavy. Very different configuration. Apples and grapefruit.

So?? unless the beam or economy is an issue the necessary power to put Mizuho to 28kt is there, same for .

Also you can't have Chitose with 23% more internal volume and then start saying that Mizuho needs same power of Chitose to go to 28kt.

You might want to try Gilmer & Johnson's Naval Architecture, USNI Press, or Ship Construction by Eyres.

Must be some magic book, will i learn how Chitose had 23% more internal volume than Mizuho having almost same displacement...?

Someone somewhere is confused. These ships are almost identical - have very similar dimensions and internal volume - and were variations on a design concept which was almost modular. It was an attempt to achieve better range - fuel efficiency being a problem for Japanese steam engines of the period (relative say to US steam engines). Large marine diesels were made by three diffenet (European) firms - and Japan did licence production for all of them - but had problems on the large end of the scale. This was not entirely worked out for Mizuho - and it might have been better not to have attempted the experiment.

[Dili]

Yeah i bring a cruise ship and can get more internal volume...well this are similar ships:

Chitose 192,5x 18,8 x 7,2 m to 192,5x20,8(23,0)x7,5m (Btw i would be suspicious of Chitose speed in its CVL form when in full load, i think 1 or 2 kt less would be expected if engines were not changed)

Mizuho 192,5 x 18,8 x 7,0m

Nishin 195,0 x 19,4 x 7,0m

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Keep it simple. The ship is later in time - so order it as a repeat Chitose.

It takes years to build a Chitose. As I don't want unlimited changes before the war, I can't do this. Otherwhise, I would also change the Yamatos in 35.000 or 45.000 BBs and some CVs instead...

[Anonymous]

This is very interesting. I am ready to sit my examination. It is because hull coeficients are different yes? And so have different engines that take different space yes?

MO

Ps, I am not naval engineer, but electrical engineer and worked for Sparkman and Stephens in New York.

MO

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Osterhaut
This is very interesting. I am ready to sit my examination. It is because hull coeficients are different yes? And so have different engines that take different space yes?

MO

Ps, I am not naval engineer, but electrical engineer and worked for Sparkman and Stephens in New York.

MO

Holy Toledo, S&S? Are you Dutch, are you familiar with the Ghent school? You are in CA now - where? Do you sail? ok, send me a pm with your contact info - I think I can offer you some real fun.

You pass the examination. Hull coefficients are way different for the group, and yes, indeed, internal volume is significantly predicated on allocation of machinery space. You might appreciate this, a graph of Froude power against root L as a function of the hull coefficient aggregate C.

Can you guess the parameters of the middle and right hand curves - big hint, nothing beyond 1945.

Ciao. John

[Anonymous]

Sent you pm. Sent answer too, I hope to get full marks. [:)][:)]

MO

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Osterhaut

Sent you pm. Sent answer too, I hope to get full marks. [:)][:)]

MO

Got it. Full marks !! Welcome to the team.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Keep it simple. The ship is later in time - so order it as a repeat Chitose.

It takes years to build a Chitose. As I don't want unlimited changes before the war, I can't do this. Otherwhise, I would also change the Yamatos in 35.000 or 45.000 BBs and some CVs instead...

The only way to get the part in bold would be if the Washington and London Naval treaties never happened. In that case, Japan would have had all the BBs they wanted from building programs between 1922-1930, and would have had the slip space for additional carriers. Of course, the US, British, and Dutch would also have had larger BB fleets in the Pacific as well.

TBH, the Washington Naval Treaty really shaped the course of the war in a way, forcing the use of the fast carriers due to a lack of BBs.

A no treaties mod would be a fun 'what if' scenario though.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Keep it simple. The ship is later in time - so order it as a repeat Chitose.

It takes years to build a Chitose. As I don't want unlimited changes before the war, I can't do this. Otherwhise, I would also change the Yamatos in 35.000 or 45.000 BBs and some CVs instead...

The only way to get the part in bold would be if the Washington and London Naval treaties never happened. In that case, Japan would have had all the BBs they wanted from building programs between 1922-1930, and would have had the slip space for additional carriers. Of course, the US, British, and Dutch would also have had larger BB fleets in the Pacific as well.

TBH, the Washington Naval Treaty really shaped the course of the war in a way, forcing the use of the fast carriers due to a lack of BBs.

A no treaties mod would be a fun 'what if' scenario though.

Unfortunately, there are no more free slots. If you leave the slots for MSW respawn free, you can only use an additional 3 to 4 slots in CHS as Jap.

There is actually a way to free the necessary slots:
Abolish the mines!
If I delete all Minesweepers and Minelayers and also give mindes effects of "0", there'll be many additional slots. The question is: will this be worth it?
One could also combine the smaller ships to bigger ones. This should free up to 100 or more slots.


If yes: Make suggestions [:)]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Keep it simple. The ship is later in time - so order it as a repeat Chitose.

It takes years to build a Chitose. As I don't want unlimited changes before the war, I can't do this. Otherwhise, I would also change the Yamatos in 35.000 or 45.000 BBs and some CVs instead...

The only way to get the part in bold would be if the Washington and London Naval treaties never happened. In that case, Japan would have had all the BBs they wanted from building programs between 1922-1930, and would have had the slip space for additional carriers. Of course, the US, British, and Dutch would also have had larger BB fleets in the Pacific as well.

TBH, the Washington Naval Treaty really shaped the course of the war in a way, forcing the use of the fast carriers due to a lack of BBs.

A no treaties mod would be a fun 'what if' scenario though.

Take a look at EBO - that is RHSEBO. It assumes no London Naval Treaty took effect. There are impacts on several navies. Fewer CLs in RH for one thing - and instead some planned but not build CA (e.g. Northumberland).