Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by bklooste »

re springsharp


I use the 3 beta , and its a lot harder to get sea keeping , even a lot of historical CA designs get 0.6-0.8 though for BBs its easy. I normally use historical designs and then i change things try to keep the seakeeping and stability the same makes it more realistic IMHO.

Here is the Harima with re-used turrets worth comparing to Sharks design. The question on this ship is do you have enough to hold the 1944 US battle line ? An 18" gun BC is tempting.. These 2 together will cost about 80M in springsharp dollars ( not that usefull except for comparison to other spring sharp designs) .

Harima, Japan Battleship laid down 1937 (Engine 1940)

Displacement:
28,620 t light; 30,320 t standard; 31,996 t normal; 33,337 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(658.59 ft / 645.75 ft) x 90.60 ft (Bulges 104.00 ft) x (28.75 / 29.82 ft)
(200.74 m / 196.82 m) x 27.61 m (Bulges 31.70 m) x (8.76 / 9.09 m)

Armament:
8 - 14.00" / 356 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,383.71lbs / 627.64kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1937 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 28.66lbs / 13.00kg shells, 400 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1941 Model
10 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
10 raised mounts
32 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm 65.0 cal guns - 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 1,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1937 Model
16 x Twin mounts on side ends, evenly spread
16 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 11,661 lbs / 5,289 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 330.00 ft / 100.58 m 11.50 ft / 3.51 m
Ends: 5.00" / 127 mm 135.00 ft / 41.15 m 11.50 ft / 3.51 m
180.75 ft / 55.09 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 79% of normal length
Main Belt inclined 20.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
5.00" / 127 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 90.60 ft / 27.61 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 7.00" / 178 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 7.00" / 178 mm
Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 5.00" / 127 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 150,347 shp / 112,159 Kw = 31.74 kts
Range 7,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,017 tons

Complement:
1,196 - 1,555

Cost:
£14.694 million / $58.776 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,131 tons, 6.7%
- Guns: 2,131 tons, 6.7%
Armour: 12,006 tons, 37.5%
- Belts: 3,557 tons, 11.1%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,498 tons, 7.8%
- Armament: 2,068 tons, 6.5%
- Armour Deck: 3,775 tons, 11.8%
- Conning Tower: 109 tons, 0.3%
Machinery: 4,020 tons, 12.6%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,413 tons, 32.5%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,376 tons, 10.6%
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.2%
- Hull above water: 50 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
53,974 lbs / 24,482 Kg = 39.3 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 9.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.25
Metacentric height 6.5 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 17.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 57 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.63
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.26

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.580 / 0.583
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.21 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.91 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 63 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 30.00%, 42.00 ft / 12.80 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forward deck: 20.00%, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Aft deck: 20.00%, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Quarter deck: 30.00%, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m, 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Average freeboard: 33.20 ft / 10.12 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.5%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 223.0%
Waterplane Area: 43,750 Square feet or 4,065 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 190 lbs/sq ft or 928 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 3.02
- Overall: 1.02
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily


Cost is $18-20M cheaper as Turrets re-used ,487 days on slip 900 total based on Kongo class. I would have really liked a few more knots but here i can use a common power plant without pushing anything.

Underdog Fanboy
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by DuckofTindalos »

It doesn't matter what you design, you'll never have enough to hold the 1944 US Navy. If the war goes on for that long, it's lost.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Iridium
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Jersey

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by Iridium »

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Iridium

What happened to Akagi and Tosa in this scenario? Do we assume Tosa's hull was damaged during the earthquake or can both be used in their fast BB/BC configuration?

Dur, just noticed you mentioned they've been built as originally designed. Hmm...

I always did like the 18" BC designs, if one was of the configuration of something like 3 x 2 18" guns, 8 x 2 3.9" guns, ~40,000 tons, 34 Kts...etc

It would make for a decent CV escort and seems on par with Japanese thought on outmaneuvering an opponent to defeat them.

Quite a cruiser killer with those 18" , can you land enough rounds ? At least with an 18" 16K yards is fairly flat tradjectory.

I always figured the combo of 34 kt top speed and 18" guns would enable the ship to stay at range from large combatants and kill CAs with ease. Only need one 18" hit to mission kill a CA...6 barrels should be enough assuming the gunnery crews aren't drunk. Been playing with SpringSharp but I keep going between crazy huge and well armored and CA level armor while in the 30,000 ton range. Haven't gotten the knack for it yet.

Example, the build I just made is HUGE...sure it goes fast but I can only imagine that it's turning radius is horrible.
IJN Hoshi, Japan Battlecruiser laid down 1938

Displacement:
45,943 t light; 47,989 t standard; 51,171 t normal; 53,716 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(1,185.62 ft / 1,148.29 ft) x 82.02 ft (Bulges 98.43 ft) x (32.81 / 34.25 ft)
(361.38 m / 350.00 m) x 25.00 m (Bulges 30.00 m) x (10.00 / 10.44 m)

Armament:
6 - 18.11" / 460 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,995.22lbs / 1,358.61kg shells, 90 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, forward deck aft
1 raised mount - superfiring
1 x 2-gun mount on centreline, aft deck aft
16 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 33.42lbs / 15.16kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
8 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
48 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 0.52lbs / 0.24kg shells, 2,500 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
24 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 18,531 lbs / 8,406 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 787.40 ft / 240.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 105 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.95" / 75 mm 787.40 ft / 240.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 9.84" / 250 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.59" / 15 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.20" / 5 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck: 4.92" / 125 mm For and Aft decks

- Conning towers: Forward 11.81" / 300 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 231,614 shp / 172,784 Kw = 34.05 kts
Range 8,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,727 tons

Complement:
1,700 - 2,211

Cost:
£23.912 million / $95.649 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,597 tons, 7.0 %
Armour: 11,717 tons, 22.9 %
- Belts: 4,832 tons, 9.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 847 tons, 1.7 %
- Armament: 2,056 tons, 4.0 %
- Armour Deck: 3,632 tons, 7.1 %
- Conning Tower: 351 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 6,342 tons, 12.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 23,787 tons, 46.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,227 tons, 10.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 1.0 %
- Hull below water: 250 tons
- Hull above water: 250 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
64,729 lbs / 29,361 Kg = 21.8 x 18.1 " / 460 mm shells or 8.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.02
Metacentric height 3.8 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 21.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 63 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.96
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.483 / 0.486
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.89 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 40 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 33.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 35.00 %, 37.27 ft / 11.36 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Forward deck: 25.00 %, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Aft deck: 20.00 %, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Quarter deck: 20.00 %, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Average freeboard: 25.62 ft / 7.81 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 164.2 %
Waterplane Area: 61,800 Square feet or 5,741 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 123 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 237 lbs/sq ft or 1,157 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.20
- Longitudinal: 0.95
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily


Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.
Image
"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture
User avatar
Skyros
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Columbia SC

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by Skyros »

Yes thats true, but they get to watch some cool looking ships sink.
ORIGINAL: Terminus

It doesn't matter what you design, you'll never have enough to hold the 1944 US Navy. If the war goes on for that long, it's lost.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by Shark7 »

And here is my entry for the Japan Battlecruiser category:

Niitaka, Japan Battlecruiser laid down 1938

Displacement:
35,968 t light; 38,176 t standard; 40,521 t normal; 42,398 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(857.81 ft / 839.57 ft) x 83.01 ft (Bulges 97.60 ft) x (27.56 / 28.81 ft)
(261.46 m / 255.90 m) x 25.30 m (Bulges 29.75 m) x (8.40 / 8.78 m)

Armament:
8 - 16.14" / 410 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,248.72lbs / 1,020.00kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm 40.0 cal guns - 59.90lbs / 27.17kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
8 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
48 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 0.53lbs / 0.24kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
16 x Triple mounts on sides, evenly spread
16 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 0.53lbs / 0.24kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck aft
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
Weight of broadside 18,982 lbs / 8,610 kg
Main Torpedoes
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m torpedoes - 2.476 t each, 19.808 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes
2nd Torpedoes
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 29.53 ft / 9.00 m torpedoes - 2.476 t each, 19.808 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted reloads

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 280 mm 545.73 ft / 166.34 m 10.93 ft / 3.33 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.13" / 54 mm 545.73 ft / 166.34 m 26.08 ft / 7.95 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 75.46 ft / 23.00 m

- Hull Bulges:
1.46" / 37 mm 437.17 ft / 133.25 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14.8" / 375 mm 11.8" / 300 mm 13.8" / 350 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 4.33" / 110 mm
Forecastle: 5.51" / 140 mm Quarter deck: 4.33" / 110 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.60" / 320 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 137,650 shp / 102,687 Kw = 29.50 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,222 tons

Complement:
1,427 - 1,856

Cost:
£19.235 million / $76.941 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,975 tons, 7.3 %
- Guns: 2,910 tons, 7.2 %
- Weapons: 64 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 12,667 tons, 31.3 %
- Belts: 2,713 tons, 6.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,120 tons, 2.8 %
- Bulges: 232 tons, 0.6 %
- Armament: 3,973 tons, 9.8 %
- Armour Deck: 4,309 tons, 10.6 %
- Conning Tower: 320 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 3,769 tons, 9.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,158 tons, 39.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,553 tons, 11.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 1.0 %
- On freeboard deck: 250 tons
- Above deck: 150 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
56,227 lbs / 25,504 Kg = 26.7 x 16.1 " / 410 mm shells or 4.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 4.6 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 19.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 49 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.86
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.11

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a straight bulbous bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.628 / 0.628
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.60 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 17.50 degrees
Stern overhang: 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 17.50 %, 31.86 ft / 9.71 m, 26.08 ft / 7.95 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 26.08 ft / 7.95 m, 20.28 ft / 6.18 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 20.28 ft / 6.18 m, 20.28 ft / 6.18 m
- Quarter deck: 17.50 %, 20.28 ft / 6.18 m, 20.28 ft / 6.18 m
- Average freeboard: 22.57 ft / 6.88 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 146.2 %
Waterplane Area: 52,314 Square feet or 4,860 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 212 lbs/sq ft or 1,035 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.04
- Longitudinal: 0.99
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by Historiker »

Afaik, Kongos had 35,6cm - not 36cm. The gun was of British design, so it was in inch, not cm. The Nagato has 41cm, of course, as well as B-64 has 31cm.
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
stuman
Posts: 3945
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Elvis' Hometown

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by stuman »

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Afaik, Kongos had 35,6cm - not 36cm. The gun was of British design, so it was in inch, not cm. The Nagato has 41cm, of course, as well as B-64 has 31cm.

Hello Historiker, I haven't seen you around for a while. How have you been ?
" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

Image
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by DuckofTindalos »

The IJN changed their official calibre designations of all guns and cannons, completely irrespective of country of manufacture, to the metric system in 1917.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by Historiker »

ORIGINAL: stuman

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Afaik, Kongos had 35,6cm - not 36cm. The gun was of British design, so it was in inch, not cm. The Nagato has 41cm, of course, as well as B-64 has 31cm.

Hello Historiker, I haven't seen you around for a while. How have you been ?
Busy...
Many ideas, too few time to execute them. I decided to start a business to offer trips to Ghana with a friend living there. I'm also working on establishing a new political journal in Germany/Austria/Switzerland and am negotiating with authors...

I also wasn't much around here as it has turned out, I don't fit in here too well. The "discussions" in THE THREAD showed that quite well. I never intended anything bad, but was permanently misunderstood. Whether this was due to language or cultural differences, I don't know. But what I knew that it is obviously better to stay away...
This way, no one is insulted, no one gets angry, no one gets hurt and no one is misunderstood [;)]
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
chesmart
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:51 pm
Location: Malta

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by chesmart »

Historiker I don't know what your discussions in the thread were and personally i do not care what they were and with who they where but you have come up with some good ideas and data for this game. Regarding being misunderstood it does happen when players come from different countries/languages/cultures its normal you just have to go the extra mile to explain. Well to cut it shortly i loved your posts as they were very informative if not blunt but fun so it is a pleasure to see you posting again. Regarding work and political views most of us work have family's but we still work and post here in my case i normally check the forum by PDA to keep up to date as I normally work 14-15 hours daily, Mon-Sat So please if you can find the time continue posting here and just remember that diplomacy is the first rule on forums.
bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by bklooste »

Japan can still make a good scrap in 44 look at some of the WITP AARs and that was with uber cap.

Anyway i note for armour there is no point making intermediate belts ie for Japan you want to be immune to 8" at > 10kYards OR 16" at > 15k anything in between is pointless.

For the US its 8" /14"/16" .

Also kind of think for Japanese Cruiser killers need to be 34+ knots and BBs ( including refits) 30+ knots even if you use less durable engines.
Underdog Fanboy
User avatar
stuman
Posts: 3945
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Elvis' Hometown

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by stuman »

ORIGINAL: che200

Historiker I don't know what your discussions in the thread were and personally i do not care what they were and with who they where but you have come up with some good ideas and data for this game. Regarding being misunderstood it does happen when players come from different countries/languages/cultures its normal you just have to go the extra mile to explain. Well to cut it shortly i loved your posts as they were very informative if not blunt but fun so it is a pleasure to see you posting again. Regarding work and political views most of us work have family's but we still work and post here in my case i normally check the forum by PDA to keep up to date as I normally work 14-15 hours daily, Mon-Sat So please if you can find the time continue posting here and just remember that diplomacy is the first rule on forums.

Well said, and do not stop posting. And if you ever want an American writer let me know [:)]
" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

Image
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by ny59giants »

Busy...
Many ideas, too few time to execute them. I decided to start a business to offer trips to Ghana with a friend living there. I'm also working on establishing a new political journal in Germany/Austria/Switzerland and am negotiating with authors...

I also wasn't much around here as it has turned out, I don't fit in here too well. The "discussions" in THE THREAD showed that quite well. I never intended anything bad, but was permanently misunderstood. Whether this was due to language or cultural differences, I don't know. But what I knew that it is obviously better to stay away...
This way, no one is insulted, no one gets angry, no one gets hurt and no one is misunderstood [;)]

Don't let the #%*&@$ get you down. Keep posting. I run across what you post for time to time even though I don't usually post a reply. Politics on this side of the "pond" are getting very heated, but I like to debate my views and look for holes in my logic.
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Busy...
Many ideas, too few time to execute them. I decided to start a business to offer trips to Ghana with a friend living there. I'm also working on establishing a new political journal in Germany/Austria/Switzerland and am negotiating with authors...

I also wasn't much around here as it has turned out, I don't fit in here too well. The "discussions" in THE THREAD showed that quite well. I never intended anything bad, but was permanently misunderstood. Whether this was due to language or cultural differences, I don't know. But what I knew that it is obviously better to stay away...
This way, no one is insulted, no one gets angry, no one gets hurt and no one is misunderstood [;)]

Don't let the #%*&@$ get you down. Keep posting. I run across what you post for time to time even though I don't usually post a reply. Politics on this side of the "pond" are getting very heated, but I like to debate my views and look for holes in my logic.

Basically if you run into someone on forums that just clashes with your personality, hit the green button. That will solve the problem.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11123
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Basically if you run into someone on forums that just clashes with your personality, hit the green button. That will solve the problem.


The green button, green ... green ... hold it, I'm color blind! What shade of grey is that? Where is the light grey butten located? Which one of those friggin' grey buttons am I looking for? [:D]
Pax
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Basically if you run into someone on forums that just clashes with your personality, hit the green button. That will solve the problem.


The green button, green ... green ... hold it, I'm color blind! What shade of grey is that? Where is the light grey butten located? Which one of those friggin' grey buttons am I looking for? [:D]

Be very very careful, you don't want to hit the red button by mistake. NEVER hit the red button. [;)]

I have some color problems as well, so I can sort of relate. For instance the little anti-bot code we have to enter to log in, I have a very hard time reading that and getting it right.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11123
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Be very very careful, you don't want to hit the red button by mistake. NEVER hit the red button. [;)]

I have some color problems as well, so I can sort of relate. For instance the little anti-bot code we have to enter to log in, I have a very hard time reading that and getting it right.

And there's a RED button! [:D]

Anyway, yeah the anti-bot tests, I fail those all the time. I must be a bot in disguise.[8D] I think it's the shades. [;)]
Pax
bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by bklooste »

IJN Hoshi, Japan Battlecruiser laid down 1938

Displacement:
45,943 t light; 47,989 t standard; 51,171 t normal; 53,716 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(1,185.62 ft / 1,148.29 ft) x 82.02 ft (Bulges 98.43 ft) x (32.81 / 34.25 ft)
(361.38 m / 350.00 m) x 25.00 m (Bulges 30.00 m) x (10.00 / 10.44 m)

Armament:
6 - 18.11" / 460 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,995.22lbs / 1,358.61kg shells, 90 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, forward deck aft
1 raised mount - superfiring
1 x 2-gun mount on centreline, aft deck aft
16 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 33.42lbs / 15.16kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
8 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
48 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 0.52lbs / 0.24kg shells, 2,500 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
24 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 18,531 lbs / 8,406 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 787.40 ft / 240.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 105 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.95" / 75 mm 787.40 ft / 240.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 9.84" / 250 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.59" / 15 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.20" / 5 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck: 4.92" / 125 mm For and Aft decks

- Conning towers: Forward 11.81" / 300 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 231,614 shp / 172,784 Kw = 34.05 kts
Range 8,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,727 tons

Complement:
1,700 - 2,211

Cost:
£23.912 million / $95.649 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,597 tons, 7.0 %
Armour: 11,717 tons, 22.9 %
- Belts: 4,832 tons, 9.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 847 tons, 1.7 %
- Armament: 2,056 tons, 4.0 %
- Armour Deck: 3,632 tons, 7.1 %
- Conning Tower: 351 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 6,342 tons, 12.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 23,787 tons, 46.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,227 tons, 10.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 1.0 %
- Hull below water: 250 tons
- Hull above water: 250 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
64,729 lbs / 29,361 Kg = 21.8 x 18.1 " / 460 mm shells or 8.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.02
Metacentric height 3.8 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 21.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 63 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.96
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.483 / 0.486
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.89 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 40 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 33.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 35.00 %, 37.27 ft / 11.36 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Forward deck: 25.00 %, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Aft deck: 20.00 %, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Quarter deck: 20.00 %, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m, 23.72 ft / 7.23 m
- Average freeboard: 25.62 ft / 7.81 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 164.2 %
Waterplane Area: 61,800 Square feet or 5,741 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 123 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 237 lbs/sq ft or 1,157 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.20
- Longitudinal: 0.95
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Why would you build these ( or most of these expensive ships) instead of the much older #13 ? With a modern plant she would do 33 knots also .

Displacement: 47,500t standard
Length: 900 ft (270 m)
Beam: 101 ft (31 m)
Draught: 32 ft (9.8 m)
Propulsion: 4 shaft turbines, 22 boilers, 150,000 hp
Speed: 30kt
Armament: 8x 18in 45cal rifles

16x 5.5in 50cal
8x 4.7in AA
8x24in torpedo tube
Armour: 13in belt, 5in deck



Underdog Fanboy
bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by bklooste »

For US i think accelerate all Iowa BBs by 1 year and replace the 2nd Iowa with a Montana. I havent heard anything better.

Japan.
Here is a number 13 updated for 1938 , needs a bit of work still ,note sea keeping can go higher with trim but you get into recoil problems so prob from Freeboard a bit and increase the trim ,anyway she was a genuine historical design so not far off.

Note its just here for comparison if you are going 6*18" and 34 Knots you prob should be about 30-35K for 8" armour ( more armour is not needed unless you can deal with the US 16" , though deck is usefull). i dont think Japan really needs battleships but it can use fast Battle cruisers / Cruiser killers , cost is an issue. Ask the question is the ship worth 2,3 or 4 Takaos.


Number 13 , Japan Battleship laid down 1938

Displacement:
43,864 t light; 46,421 t standard; 48,900 t normal; 50,883 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(888.36 ft / 869.42 ft) x 101.71 ft x (31.17 / 32.18 ft)
(270.77 m / 265.00 m) x 31.00 m x (9.50 / 9.81 m)

Armament:
8 - 18.11" / 460 mm 45.0 cal guns - 3,218.00lbs / 1,459.66kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 4.72" / 120 mm 50.0 cal guns - 55.82lbs / 25.32kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
10 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
5 raised mounts
20 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 33.83lbs / 15.35kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
10 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 27,537 lbs / 12,491 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 419.95 ft / 128.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Ends: 9.45" / 240 mm 328.08 ft / 100.00 m 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
121.39 ft / 37.00 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 74 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 20.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
1.97" / 50 mm 426.51 ft / 130.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 101.71 ft / 31.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.6" / 320 mm 7.87" / 200 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.47" / 12 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 4.92" / 125 mm
Forecastle: 0.98" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 0.98" / 25 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 7.87" / 200 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 151,454 shp / 112,984 Kw = 30.43 kts
Range 5,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,462 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
1,643 - 2,137

Cost:
£25.437 million / $101.747 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 4,018 tons, 8.2 %
- Guns: 4,018 tons, 8.2 %
Armour: 9,857 tons, 20.2 %
- Belts: 2,755 tons, 5.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 306 tons, 0.6 %
- Armament: 1,621 tons, 3.3 %
- Armour Deck: 4,948 tons, 10.1 %
- Conning Tower: 227 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 4,562 tons, 9.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 25,426 tons, 52.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,037 tons, 10.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
69,348 lbs / 31,456 Kg = 23.4 x 18.1 " / 460 mm shells or 7.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.19
Metacentric height 7.1 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 16.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 46 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a straight bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.621 / 0.626
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.55 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.63 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 40
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 22.00 %, 32.81 ft / 10.00 m, 27.89 ft / 8.50 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 27.89 ft / 8.50 m, 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Aft deck: 25.00 %, 21.33 ft / 6.50 m, 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Quarter deck: 23.00 %, 21.33 ft / 6.50 m, 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Average freeboard: 24.19 ft / 7.37 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 184.3 %
Waterplane Area: 68,765 Square feet or 6,388 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 285 lbs/sq ft or 1,392 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.28
- Longitudinal: 1.55
- Overall: 1.30
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room




Underdog Fanboy
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Weekly US and Japan ship design challenge

Post by JuanG »

I doubt that a modernized No.13 class would do 33 knots without serious reconstruction along the lines of the Kongos. As designed they had 150,000shp plants, getting them to 33 knots would probably need 190,000shp or so.

Plus they weigh in 10,000tons heavier.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”