Dutch Ships 1900 on

[Tanthalas]

while this isn't intended as a "one up" (especially since I cant see any reason for me to fight the Italians).  Kirks ship did however get me thinking about what I am going to build as a follow on class to the Lion.  There might be a precursor ship between them but this is what I got for a 1906-1908 laydown ship.  Half a knot slower than Kirks ship with only 8 guns instead of 10 however much heavier armour and uses 12/50s instead of 10/50s.  All in all it came out fairly well I think, and it maintaind my 16.5K personal internal restriction on BB/BC.

HNMS Tijger (Tiger), Unified Netherlands Armoured Frigate laid down 1906 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   16,500 t light; 17,367 t standard; 19,238 t normal; 20,734 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (563.33 ft / 563.33 ft) x 82.25 ft x (28.00 / 29.67 ft)
   (171.70 m / 171.70 m) x 25.07 m  x (8.53 / 9.04 m)

Armament:
      8 - 12.00" / 305 mm 50.0 cal guns - 894.00lbs / 405.51kg shells, 90 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1906 Model
     3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
      1 raised mount - superfiring
     1 x Twin mount on centreline, aft deck forward
      23 - 5.00" / 127 mm 50.0 cal guns - 60.01lbs / 27.22kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1906 Model
     22 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      6 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
     1 x Single mount on centreline, aft deck aft
      1 hull mount in casemate- Limited use in heavy seas
      2 - 5.00" / 127 mm 50.0 cal guns - 60.01lbs / 27.22kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1906 Model
     2 x Single mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
      2 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 8,652 lbs / 3,925 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   11.0" / 279 mm   362.22 ft / 110.40 m   13.50 ft / 4.11 m
   Ends:   3.00" / 76 mm   201.09 ft / 61.29 m   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
   Upper:   3.00" / 76 mm   362.22 ft / 110.40 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
      1.30" / 33 mm   362.22 ft / 110.40 m   29.00 ft / 8.84 m
   Beam between torpedo bulkheads 82.25 ft / 25.07 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   13.0" / 330 mm   4.00" / 102 mm      10.0" / 254 mm
   2nd:   2.00" / 51 mm         -               -
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm
   Forecastle: 1.50" / 38 mm  Quarter deck: 1.50" / 38 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 43,313 shp / 32,311 Kw = 24.00 kts
   Range 7,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,367 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   816 - 1,061

Cost:
   £1.724 million / $6.897 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,764 tons, 9.2 %
      - Guns: 1,764 tons, 9.2 %
   Armour: 6,538 tons, 34.0 %
      - Belts: 2,925 tons, 15.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 505 tons, 2.6 %
      - Armament: 1,334 tons, 6.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,588 tons, 8.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 186 tons, 1.0 %
   Machinery: 2,144 tons, 11.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,703 tons, 29.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,738 tons, 14.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 1.8 %
      - On freeboard deck: 350 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     23,330 lbs / 10,582 Kg = 27.0 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 4.0 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 4.4 ft / 1.4 m
   Roll period: 16.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 77 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.69
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.30

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.519 / 0.528
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.85 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23.73 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: -7.00 ft / -2.13 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   19.60 %,  25.00 ft / 7.62 m,  21.00 ft / 6.40 m
      - Forward deck:   31.68 %,  21.00 ft / 6.40 m,  15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Aft deck:   32.62 %,  15.00 ft / 4.57 m,  15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Quarter deck:   16.10 %,  15.00 ft / 4.57 m,  16.50 ft / 5.03 m
      - Average freeboard:      17.56 ft / 5.35 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 76.0 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 120.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 31,415 Square feet or 2,919 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 153 lbs/sq ft or 746 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.94
      - Longitudinal: 1.63
      - Overall: 1.00
   Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Excellent accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

350 tons Misc. Weight
125 tons Torpedo Nets (not needed but effectively something I could remove as part of a building reserve)
40 tons Additional DC equipment (extra pumps, Fire Fighting equipment, etc)
25 tons Long Range Wireless
25 tons Improved Acclimatization (additional insulation, air blowers, etc)
10 tons Flag Facilities 
125 tons "Anti Roll Tanks" (no clue what they actually are but the Germans fitted and later removed them on some ships, this is like the torpedo nets effectively a building reserve)

*edit, 18AUG16*
Edited to put in what the "stuff" actually is, and change the name on the ship, additionally listed what I intend to do with the various misc weights (such as remove the roll tanks and torpedo nets to install a FC set).

[Walter]

For Torpedo bulkhead, "Strengthened structural bulkheads" should not be used as it does not work properly at all. I can take my BB design and add 800mm of "Strengthened structural bulkheads" and SS will still tell me that I have 1.01 hull strength enventhough the "Hull, fittings & equipment" is at -3,976 tons. If I swith from "Strengthened structural bulkheads" to "Additional damage containing bulkheads", the hull strength goes from 1.01 to -1.83.

[Tanthalas]

HA didn't know that.  Thanks Walter, Edit to fix the error Walter pointed out. Lost a bit of armour, but still a very nice ship all things considered (and still in keeping with my design ideals).  I could shorten the belt a bit to make up the difference but IDK if everything would fit on a much shorter belt (haven't even tried to draw it yet so additional editing might take place if I decide to build it). 

HNMS Tijger (Tiger), Unified Netherlands Armoured Frigate laid down 1906 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   16,500 t light; 17,367 t standard; 19,238 t normal; 20,734 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (563.33 ft / 563.33 ft) x 82.25 ft x (28.00 / 29.67 ft)
   (171.70 m / 171.70 m) x 25.07 m  x (8.53 / 9.04 m)

Armament:
      8 - 12.00" / 305 mm 50.0 cal guns - 894.00lbs / 405.51kg shells, 90 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1906 Model
     3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
      1 raised mount - superfiring
     1 x Twin mount on centreline, aft deck forward
      23 - 5.00" / 127 mm 50.0 cal guns - 60.01lbs / 27.22kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1906 Model
     22 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      4 raised mounts
      6 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
     1 x Single mount on centreline, aft deck aft
      1 hull mount in casemate- Limited use in heavy seas
      2 - 5.00" / 127 mm 50.0 cal guns - 60.01lbs / 27.22kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1906 Model
     2 x Single mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
      2 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 8,652 lbs / 3,925 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   362.22 ft / 110.40 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Ends:   3.00" / 76 mm   201.09 ft / 61.29 m   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
   Upper:   3.00" / 76 mm   362.22 ft / 110.40 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
      1.30" / 33 mm   362.22 ft / 110.40 m   29.00 ft / 8.84 m
   Beam between torpedo bulkheads 75.25 ft / 22.94 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   11.0" / 279 mm   4.00" / 102 mm      10.0" / 254 mm
   2nd:   2.00" / 51 mm         -               -
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm
   Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm  Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 43,313 shp / 32,311 Kw = 24.00 kts
   Range 7,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,367 tons (90% coal)

Complement:
   816 - 1,061

Cost:
   £1.724 million / $6.897 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 1,764 tons, 9.2 %
      - Guns: 1,764 tons, 9.2 %
   Armour: 6,002 tons, 31.2 %
      - Belts: 2,489 tons, 12.9 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 505 tons, 2.6 %
      - Armament: 1,322 tons, 6.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,532 tons, 8.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 155 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 2,144 tons, 11.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,239 tons, 32.4 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,738 tons, 14.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 1.8 %
      - On freeboard deck: 350 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     23,561 lbs / 10,687 Kg = 27.3 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 4.0 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
   Metacentric height 4.5 ft / 1.4 m
   Roll period: 16.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.67
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.29

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.519 / 0.528
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.85 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23.73 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: -7.00 ft / -2.13 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   19.60 %,  25.00 ft / 7.62 m,  21.00 ft / 6.40 m
      - Forward deck:   31.68 %,  21.00 ft / 6.40 m,  15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Aft deck:   32.62 %,  15.00 ft / 4.57 m,  15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Quarter deck:   16.10 %,  15.00 ft / 4.57 m,  16.50 ft / 5.03 m
      - Average freeboard:      17.56 ft / 5.35 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 83.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 120.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 31,415 Square feet or 2,919 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 103 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 154 lbs/sq ft or 750 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.95
      - Longitudinal: 1.62
      - Overall: 1.00
   Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Excellent accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

350 tons Misc. Weight
125 tons Torpedo Nets (not needed but effectively something I could remove as part of a building reserve)
40 tons Additional DC equipment (extra pumps, Fire Fighting equipment, etc)
25 tons Long Range Wireless
25 tons Improved Acclimatization (additional insulation, air blowers, etc)
10 tons Flag Facilities 
125 tons misc "Anti Roll Tanks" (no clue what they actually are but the Germans fitted and later removed them on some ships this is like the torpedo nets effectively a building reserve)

[Walter]

What is the maximum length of a ship that fits on a Type 2 slip or inside a Type 2 dock? 170 meters.

What is the maximum length of your design? 171.7 meters.

... so my opinion is that you should either make it 1.7 meters shorter or significantly longer so it is actually worth it to use a type 3 slip or dock for this ship.

... on the other hand, looking at the Dutch infrastructure, you do not have any type 3 slips or docks and you do not have any type 3 ports that can hold type 3 slips or docks so considering that there is a limit to the amount of cash you can spend on slips, docks and ports and thus will require a minimum of 18 months to expand a port and another 6 months to expand a slip or dock, if you really want to build a +170m ship, you better start expanding now if you want to start building that ship in 1907 (1906 is no longer possible).

[Tanthalas]

=P I wont have all the techs in 1906 anyway, well unless I get insanely lucky and roll them all on turn 4 (Yeah Right like that will happen), and I have to develop the 12/50 & the 5/50.  Add all that up and there will likely be one generation between the current ships and these.  I might even develop a 11/50 before the 12/50 not a decision I have made yet.  All told a more realistic laydown date would proly be 1908 (possibly late 1907) but 1906 is the "I could at the absolute earliest build it year (even though the tech development makes that highly unlikely)

[Walter]

1906 is the "I could at the absolute earliest build it year (even though the tech development makes that highly unlikely)

Not the way it is now. Right now it requires Type 3 facilities and the Dutch would be busy expanding the port in 1905 and H1/1906 and expand a slip or dock in H2/1906 so the "I could at the absolute earliest build it year" is actually 1907. Even if you are super lucky with the tech rolls and you got everything you need tech-wise in 1906, it is impossible to start it in 1906 without a proper sized slip/dock inside a proper sized port.

[Tanthalas]

I think your missing my point Walter... that or intentionally trying to start a fight for some unknown reason (which I doubt since I always viewd you as one of the reasonable ones around here).  I view the "laydown year" as something fluid to be adjusted as necessary to fit the realities of slip availability/tech.  The absolute earliest I could have the tech is 1906 (I wont but I hypothetically could).  Once I develop the pertinent gun tech I have to develop an actual gun that will take 2 Years per the rules... (which is btw why I am thinking 12/50 instead of the 11/50 I would like to go with).  Do I have the ports/slips/docks for it now, nope absolutely not.  However by the time I can finish developing the guns and actually be ready to lay one down I can have them relatively easy.  This is also why I anticipate an in between class (cause I am not going to sit around building nothing for 2 years while I develop the 12/50).  Honestly I would like to develop an 11/50 in triple mounting, because outside German BCs I have a real thing for the Pships (which were honestly just over gunned heavy cruisers but I digress).

I think our disagreement here is more over how each of us view the laydown year (you are viewing it as concrete, I see it as fluid to fit conditions).  Anyway I am done discussing this topic, you can feel free to be as critical of my proposal on its merits as you want (I actually appreciate criticism when it involves the actual ship not simple semantics).  However lets not argue over minor issues like laydown dates that just happen to be the year I am working on and have no bearing on reality (aka since I cant build it till 1908 cause of the guns why argue over the laydown date).

1906 is the "I could at the absolute earliest build it year (even though the tech development makes that highly unlikely)

Not the way it is now. Right now it requires Type 3 facilities and the Dutch would be busy expanding the port in 1905 and H1/1906 and expand a slip or dock in H2/1906 so the "I could at the absolute earliest build it year" is actually 1907. Even if you are super lucky with the tech rolls and you got everything you need tech-wise in 1906, it is impossible to start it in 1906 without a proper sized slip/dock inside a proper sized port.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Interesting vessel.   Due to the lay down dates it would be contempary with my 27knot version, so I may still build mine as it's meant for a  different role.

However, I see several potential issues.

You have a ship that is a bit longer, wider, deeper than HMS Invincible, , with more armor, more secondary, and more fuel, yet roughly the same era...yet it's lighter.  That's a sign to me that something is off.

To me, the first thing is, it appears you have the BC more suited to a (light?) cruiser on a ship with the dimensions and armanent of a battleship.
The low BC of course reduces the SHP needed for the speed, the fuel needed for consumption, improves the seakeeping and reduces the expanse of the armored deck.
But, once you have big guns, you need the hull structure to support them.

You have a ship that is a bit longer, wider, deeper than HMS Invincible, but also lighter, with more armor, yet roughly the same era. That's a sign to me that something is off.

Second, while you have a 25m beam- 1m more than say Invincible, it is far less than the German vessels of similar armanent.
Third, Breyer relates that Invincible was so weakly build that her frames distorted while drydocking, so perhaps her beam wasn't quite adequate for the hull girder.
Fourth, the low BC means the hull tapers quickly, combine that with the minimimal beam means  that abreast your turrets, the hull girder will be even narrower and less adequate.
Fifth, Invincible didn't have a full Torpedo bulkhead, they only fit partials bulkheads abreast the magazines only.
Even with your currently modeled TDS system at 1.065m wide, you'd need 2.13m more width than the Invincibles, you ...you don't have it.
So your ship doesn't have room for your TDS. The German vessels, with their greater beam, did.

Then there are flavor aspects.

While you call it Tiger, so I presume you want X turret to be able to shoot over Y without superfiring - but that works if you forecastle deck extends aft to where X turret is. You have the same  deckline throughout, so X will be buried.
Also, as the Dutch you should be paying attention to the question of if you really want deep drafts. Walter can chime in more, but what I've read is many of the Dutch ports were constrained by shallow drafts and sandbanks. Then there's Soerabaja, which has the dredged North entrance, but the broad bay to the east was limited to something like 7 or 7.5m.

[Walter]

I think your missing my point Walter

I actually think you are missing mine. With the "1906 is the "I could at the absolute earliest build it year"" you are actually claiming that it is possible, no matter how small that chance is, to start building the design in 1906 if you are extremely lucky with the tech rolls. I say that with the way the design is, no matter what you do or what you try or how lucky you are with the tech rolls, it is completely impossible to lay down that design in 1906. The only way to actually do that is to shorten the design so you can use a Type 2 slip or Dock and use existing guns so you are only dependent on the tech rolls for the engines and the BB/AC architecture. Only then does a possibility exist that the ship can be laid down in 1906.

... but since you are not changing anything about the design, neither 1906 nor 1907 should even be considered as "laydown year" no matter how fluid you make things.

I think our disagreement here is more over how each of us view the laydown year (you are viewing it as concrete, I see it as fluid to fit conditions).

The disagreement is more about me believing that the earliest possible lay down year should be when you can have the techs and guns available so you can start building the ship and you believing you can actually lay down that ship 2 years prior to that point which to me is indeed a concrete period in which it is impossible to build that ship.

Also, as the Dutch you should be paying attention to the question of if you really want deep drafts. Walter can chime in more, but what I've read is many of the Dutch ports were constrained by shallow drafts and sandbanks. Then there's Soerabaja, which has the dredged North entrance, but the broad bay to the east was limited to something like 7 or 7.5m.

Nothing a little bit of dredging can't solve. Also all the dirt you'd dig out of harbors and waterways to make them deeper can be used to make new bits of land. We the Dutch are very good at that. :)

... and this is the old way how the dutch dealt with deep ships in shallow waters...

... don't see how the Dutch can't do the same with the more modern ships. :)

[Walter]

Just trying out something quickly for Tanthalas to address certain areas with shallow depths. :)

Put one on each side of his HNMS Tijger design and two of these camels are good enough to raise the Tijger some 13.5 feet out of the water (at least if I did the test sim right; the draught of the Tijger would be about 14.5 feet once the camels are pumped empty).

The fuel is used to sim the ballast water inside the camel. The miscellaneous weights would be for pumps to get the water in and out of the camel.


Scheepskameel Half, Netherlands 0.5 Ship Camel laid down 1905

Displacement:
   3,000 t light; 3,248 t standard; 12,397 t normal; 19,716 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (557.00 ft / 557.00 ft) x 40.00 ft x (20.50 / 32.00 ft)
   (169.77 m / 169.77 m) x 12.19 m  x (6.25 / 9.75 m)

Machinery:
   Petrol Internal combustion motors,
   Direct drive, 1 shaft, 2 shp / 2 Kw = 1.00 kts
   Range 5,450,000nm at 1.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 16,468 tons

Complement:
   586 - 763

Cost:
   £0.105 million / $0.420 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,740 tons, 22.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 9,397 tons, 75.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 260 tons, 2.1 %
      - Hull above water: 150 tons
      - On freeboard deck: 110 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     439,646 lbs / 199,420 Kg = 4,070.8 x 6 " / 152 mm shells or 104.1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.44
   Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
   Roll period: 10.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and large transom stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.950 / 0.968
   Length to Beam Ratio: 13.93 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 25.59 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 0 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m,  20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Average freeboard:      20.00 ft / 6.10 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 3.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 144.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 22,280 Square feet or 2,070 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 1,000 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 64 lbs/sq ft or 311 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.95
      - Longitudinal: 1.54
      - Overall: 1.00
   Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Excellent accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, rides out heavy weather easily

[Jefgte]

   Direct drive, 1 shaft, 2 shp / 2 Kw = 1.00 kts
   Range 5,450,000nm at 1.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 16,468 tons

:o  :(  :D   ;D  ;D 

[Walter]

Like I said, the fuel is used to sim the ballast water inside. It is actually something that you tow to the ship that needs to be raised but in order to use fuel I need to use an engine (using a cruising speed that is greater than the maximum speed of a ship is a major no-no).

... but if you want to know, if it was all fuel it would take this thing about 622 years to cover that distance. :)

[Jefgte]

Like I said, the fuel is used to sim the ballast water inside. It is actually something that you tow to the ship that needs to be raised but in order to use fuel I need to use an engine (using a cruising speed that is greater than the maximum speed of a ship is a major no-no).

... but if you want to know, if it was all fuel it would take this thing about 622 years to cover that distance. :)

;)

[Tanthalas]

Actually I just called it tiger cause it was a follow on to Lion and I didn't want to use Princess Royal (didn't fit with my splendid cats names).  The camel things are kinda interesting actually, not something I had considered but something I might have to look closer at given the historic port issues.

as to the L-B/BC I based the class on HMS Austrailia, sorta just rearranged it for a "how it shoulda been"

[Walter]

The camel things are kinda interesting actually, not something I had considered but something I might have to look closer at given the historic port issues.

Initially I was thinking that perhaps the floating drydock rule could be applied, but the floating drydock actually lifts the entire ship out of the water while the Ship Camel cannot do that and the draught of the drydock lifting such a ship out of the water might actually be exactly the same as the ship it is lifting out of the water so it might not solve the problem at all and maybe make it even worse. Also applying the cost of a floating drydock ($9/9 BP for type 2 which is what I simmed) to it is way too much for something that does not and cannot function as a drydock.

Looking around a bit, the SS Rotterdam (IV) from 1908 had a draft of just over 10 meters so there might be a few places that your battlecruiser can actually get to. :)