I would very much like to see one. They seem to me to be much more suited to the Maori conception of a torpedo craft's role, being smaller, more expendable, and possibly faster than destroyers. I had originally intended to use motor boats and their motherships rather than actual destroyers, but gave up on it because I couldn't get Springsharp to give me anything remotely reasonable.
A separate tech, with fixed performance and abilities, would suit me very well. Unfortunately, I don't know very much at all about the history of such craft; it's only because I feel obligated to offer something to start discussion with that I suggest...
Torpedo Boat Technologies
1900 - 1 ton payload, 10 knots
1905 - 2 tons payload, 20 knots
1910 - 2 tons payload, 25 knots
1915 - 3 tons payload, 30 knots
1920 - 4 tons payload, 32 knots
1925 - 4 tons payload, 35 knots
1930 - 6 tons payload, 38 knots
With something like that NS would have 1925 tech, Siam and New Zion would have 1915. You could be really really really nice to NS and get Turbinas from them. Or be nice to the other two countries and get the Turbinias smaller sisters.
OTL Italian MAS boats would beabout 1910-1920 so that chart is about right.
Desertfox,
you way off with your assessment of NS MTB capability. May I mention lack of suitable engines?
Valles, you could try to look around this site for MTB/TB models.
http://www.warshipsww2.eu/staty.php?language=E&period=1
QuoteWith something like that NS would have 1925 tech, Siam and New Zion would have 1915.
...if the Moderators agreed with you.
I agree that a tech may be required, and would certainly appreciate the contributions of Valles and others in its development.
Wikipedia is our friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAS_(ships)#World_War_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Motor_Boats
There are other problems involved, but engines is not one of them. Strange isn't it, but the first seaborne turbine engine just happens to be the right size and weight for MTB sized ships.
Bump.
Players, please consider whether:
A) MTBs need a separate tech
B) Valles' suggestion at the top of this thread is a reasonable progression for MTB development.
C) What might need to be added to Valles' suggestion. I'm thinking a line about generic gun armament.
A) Definately.
B) Looks good, but again, based on that NS would be 1925.
C) Size, min and max, how much are we going to be paying for them? No need for gun limits, the Italian 15 tonners had a 47mm cannon!
For C:
If we are defining payload by a matrix (as in Valles example), could we not SS the gun armament to get it's weight (with ammunition), and add that to the weight of any Torpedo armament?
As an experiment using the 1915 boat tech, I SS'd just a single CSA style twin 1" MG mount with 1000 rounds. Armament weight came out at 0 tons, ammunition weight came out at 1 ton. So, that boat could carry that gun, plus 2 torpedoes.
For a similar hypothetical boat, but with a 57mm QF and 500 rounds, armament weight came out at 1 ton, ammunition at 3 tons, so that boat (obviously) would be over.
So this seems reasonable, at least from these examples.
Also, I think whatever chart we adopt, it needs to also include some sort of range as well.
QuoteLooks good, but again, based on that NS would be 1925.
We can deal with specific exceptions - if any - later. I'm interested in whether it works for the world as a whole.
There's a need for gun limits - if I have to tell somebody they can't put a 4" gun on their MTB, I will be displeased at the waste of my time. Guinness' approach is an option, as is a basic generic limit.
Agreed on operational range requirement.
I do not see any suggestion about what sort of size of the MTBs we are talking about?
Well, using the British MTB example, somewhere between 25 and 55 feet, I guess? The 55 footer of 1917 carried 2 18 inch torpedoes and was good for 40 knots.
I think ~ 45 to 55 feet seems like the reasonable place to start today in the Nverse, at least for nations with current tech, scaling up to near the 80 foot size of the Elco PT Boats in the late 30s, maybe?
Size... speed x2 in tons perhaps? As to range the WW2's had some fairly impressive range so we would have to think about it. Anyone have a copy of Conways 1906-1921?
Michael
Hello,
I don't know about early boats but the basics sound good to me. generic loadouts may be a simpiler option.
We may also want to have larger patrol boats included, maybe a slower large one(Fairmile type) verses small and quick(PT type). Where would s-boats go? Maybe multi-choice chart like the sub chart would be nice(ie. 4x 1910 models).
See drazki TB in wiki, also coastal motor boat in wiki.
I think the inclusion of small torpedo boats in the pacific war was a mistake that should be swept under the rug. Identifying a need then immediately exploiting it was abused. The Pacific is not a good place for Small Vessels. PTs were successful later on due to doctrine, limited use(exploiting their good qualities minimizing the bad) and large jumps in technology. Small, powerful and reliable engines were not common at this time. The 1914 engine tech would have been more appropriate. NS had 1905 IC engines in 1908.
The MAS boats were a 'Perfect storm' of timing, ability, need, suitability, motivation, daring, and tech. As usual NS cherrypicked the worlds inventory and claimed it for itself.
I agree a chart like the one for Subs would be best but I don't have the data to create it... :(
Looking at these things they were smaller than I expected 5 to 30 ton in our current time frame. The Germans S Boats were a different animal all together nearly 100 tons in size and good open sea range and speed.
Michael
Quote from: blooded on August 25, 2008, 08:47:50 AM
I think the inclusion of small torpedo boats in the pacific war was a mistake that should be swept under the rug. Identifying a need then immediately exploiting it was abused. The Pacific is not a good place for Small Vessels. PTs were successful later on due to doctrine, limited use(exploiting their good qualities minimizing the bad) and large jumps in technology. Small, powerful and reliable engines were not common at this time. The 1914 engine tech would have been more appropriate. NS had 1905 IC engines in 1908.
While i pretty much agree with the geist of you comments, two things:
The NS boats did not use IC engines, but small turbines.
Were the PT boats really a sucess, most comments i have seen about them point to guns being considred better armament then torpedos?
QuoteWe may also want to have larger patrol boats included, maybe a slower large one(Fairmile type) verses small and quick(PT type). Where would s-boats go?
This I think will be the trickiest part, drawing the line between "SS"-ships and MTBs.
A S-boot was around 100 ton in size and had a displacing hull so should be possible to create in springsharp. Some of the 100-ton designs we have seen is reasonably close to the s-boots.
Hello,
Another thought, we may wish to define a limit of how many one can produce, to prevent exploitation. Perhaps no more than the amount of DDs a country has? IDK. No more than the nations income? I feel we will need something, or New zion will have 4 Minelayers, 2 cruisers, 8 subs and 4000 MTBs. Not appropriate IMHO.
Oh yes the German 'r' boats-cheap slow workhorses compared to the 's' class thoroughbreds.
Re: S-boats
I tried SSing S-100, but the results have not been satisfactory. Even with a transom stern, the rated HP of the real life ship produces only about 27.55 knots, instead of 36 knots, and it seems the machinery and hull weights are way to heavy. So yes, it seems that anything smaller than (picking an arbitrary number) 100t maybe even 200t light might need to be covered by this tech.
Here's the ugly SS anyway, in case I'm missing something obvious. The freeboard is just a swag from pictures:
S-100, Deutschland S-Boat laid down 1943
DESIGN FAILURE: Overall load weight too much for hull
Displacement:
45 t light; 47 t standard; 79 t normal; 105 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
113.16 ft / 107.48 ft x 16.60 ft x 4.82 ft (normal load)
34.49 m / 32.76 m x 5.06 m x 1.47 m
Armament:
1 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1943 Model
Machine gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
8 - 0.31" / 7.9 mm guns in single mounts, 0.02lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1943 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 0 lbs / 0 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 2,000
2 - 21.0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes
Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 3,958 shp / 2,953 Kw = 27.55 kts
Range 800nm at 27.55 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 58 tons
Complement:
13 - 17
Cost:
£0.050 million / $0.201 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 0 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 44 tons, 55.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: -3 tons, -3.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 35 tons, 43.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 4 tons, 5.1 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
0 lbs / 0 Kg = 0.0 x 0.8 " / 20 mm shells or 0.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 2.34
Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 6.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 29 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.33
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.322
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.47 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 12.71 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 83 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Forecastle (10 %): 9.02 ft / 2.75 m
- Mid (50 %): 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 7.38 ft / 2.25 m
- Stern: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
- Average freeboard: 8.19 ft / 2.50 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 184.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 31.4 %
Waterplane Area: 1,142 Square feet or 106 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 38 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: -1 lbs/sq ft or -6 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: -0.04
- Longitudinal: -0.80
- Overall: -0.37
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability
Regarding PTs, I think they were a relative success in the solomons and philipines. But not the blowout one would expect from watching PT109. ;)
Springsharp is limited in what it can do. Especialy block coefficient is a stumbling block.
For small vessels, like the MAS boats and the later MTB/PT's a generic solution is an option.
Valles proposal is workable in itself, and the rest is just frills around the edges.
Just putting the class of ships in the charts, just like destroyers and submarines, is what we need to do.
QuoteI think the inclusion of small torpedo boats in the pacific war was a mistake that should be swept under the rug. Identifying a need then immediately exploiting it was abused. The Pacific is not a good place for Small Vessels. PTs were successful later on due to doctrine, limited use(exploiting their good qualities minimizing the bad) and large jumps in technology. Small, powerful and reliable engines were not common at this time. The 1914 engine tech would have been more appropriate. NS had 1905 IC engines in 1908.
The MAS boats were a 'Perfect storm' of timing, ability, need, suitability, motivation, daring, and tech. As usual NS cherrypicked the worlds inventory and claimed it for itself.
Not at all. You forget the fact that NS was in love with torpedo boats, had been building small (<50ton) boats for quite a while and had the Turbinias in service for quite some years.
Also the TBs where used only for coastal defense, and with the exception of a single engagement of Taiwan, did not proved to be as useful as hoped for.
QuoteAnother thought, we may wish to define a limit of how many one can produce, to prevent exploitation. Perhaps no more than the amount of DDs a country has? IDK. No more than the nations income? I feel we will need something, or New zion will have 4 Minelayers, 2 cruisers, 8 subs and 4000 MTBs. Not appropriate IMHO.
I totally disagree with this. Why should rules be targeted at specific countries? A lot of OTL countries had MTB heavy navies. If that's what you need, that is what you should be allowed to build.
If New Zion wants 100 MTB's thats fine... I don't care... They can't project power in any way and would get slaughtered in large numbers if they run into a ocean going TB's. They are dangerous to coastal merchant traffic and large ships operating in restricted waters but thats it.
Michael
Maybe lets not bother with MTBs?
SS allows us to build way over-gunned and over-torpedoed destoyers, so let's stick to that ...
Borys
Well I had just entered the game at the end of the war so I am not completely familiar with NS MTB History, but I could find nothing smaller listed than 150 Ton before 1908 - Ah just noticed the export turbinas that slipped under the radar in 2H-1907. In your 1H-1908 report the turbinas got blasted, you just ignored it because most people were being nice about. Same goes for the 2H-1908 report.
I don't think you posted any reports after 2H-1908, so what makes you think of this long history?
-----
If you can name a small navy that has had more than 20 or so MTBs around WW1(or even later), I would be very surprised. It needs to be targeted, because a small country cannot sustain the huge amount of officers, infrastructure, specialized build capability, etc. needed.
Torpedos do not grow on trees, they are very sophisticated, fragile and expensive devices. To give you an idea, I have seen info stating Japan entered WW2 with approximately 3,000 Torpedoes. This was a country that LOVED torpedos, had the best in the world and was somewhat industrialized.
Just because I WOULD like to build 20 aircraft carriers does not mean I SHOULD be able to.
We'll ensure folks can build MTBs that are reasonable in capability. Their capability to produce those MTBs will also be reasonable.
QuoteIf New Zion wants 100 MTB's thats fine... I don't care... They can't project power in any way and would get slaughtered in large numbers if they run into a ocean going TB's. They are dangerous to coastal merchant traffic and large ships operating in restricted waters but thats it.
Exacly why there shouldn't be a limit to them. They are not a wonder weapon, just useful and expendable coastal defense ships, not useful for anything else. If you plan on invading New Zion, just be sure to bring plenty of Torpedo Boat Destroyers along, if you are not planning on invading, don't worry. There is absolutely no way I'll be able to attack anybody with massed very small TBs.
QuoteMaybe lets not bother with MTBs?
SS allows us to build way over-gunned and over-torpedoed destoyers, so let's stick to that ...
Expensive too. Not everyone has thousands of tons of steel just lying around...
QuoteWell I had just entered the game at the end of the war so I am not completely familiar with NS MTB History, but I could find nothing smaller listed than 150 Ton before 1908 - Ah just noticed the export turbinas that slipped under the radar in 2H-1907. In your 1H-1908 report the turbinas got blasted, you just ignored it because most people were being nice about. Same goes for the 2H-1908 report.
I never got around to posting the specs of the Turbinias (50 tons, 35knots, 4 TT). Most of this history is burined in the archives, as I scrapped over 200 TBs way before N-Verse 3.0 was even on the radar screens. The Turbinias mentioned in the Q Reports you mentioned where 2nd Generation
turbined powered TBs. The 200 I mentioned above where VTE and were built in the 1880s.
QuoteIf you can name a small navy that has had more than 20 or so MTBs around WW1(or even later), I would be very surprised. It needs to be targeted, because a small country cannot sustain the huge amount of officers, infrastructure, specialized build capability, etc. needed.
Torpedos do not grow on trees, they are very sophisticated, fragile and expensive devices. To give you an idea, I have seen info stating Japan entered WW2 with approximately 3,000 Torpedoes. This was a country that LOVED torpedos, had the best in the world and was somewhat industrialized.
Which is why I haven't started building masses of TBs. And I'll only need enough torpedoes for one attack. If it fails, well the war will be pretty much over.
QuoteJust because I WOULD like to build 20 aircraft carriers does not mean I SHOULD be able to.
Hey, if you have the resources to build them, who am I to complain? Thought 20 Aircraft Carriers now, would not be the smartest thing to build.
QuoteWe'll ensure folks can build MTBs that are reasonable in capability. Their capability to produce those MTBs will also be reasonable.
We are alredy restricted by slips and tonnage. I think those would be sufficient restrictions.
WWI MAS has like 25kts top speed and limited range - and I don't know any WWI era RN MTB, but I don't have any good sources either. I'll check whatever the library has.
Looking at the limited amount of data available in Jane's, I suggest to tie MTBs to the IC engines tech. Small problem is that aero-engine development was very fast, and an intermediate 1916-1917 tech is missing.
OTL facts:
British Motor Launch, 34-37t, 80', 500HP, 19kts, 1000@10
MAS Type A: 12t, 500HP, 25kts (<20kts at sea)
MAS Type B: 18t, 500HP, 19kts
MAS Velocissimi: 1917, 18t, 1600HP, 35kts max
MAS Veloci: 1917, 30t, 1900HP, 33kts max
WWII
British MTB, ~50t, 75', 4000HP, 36-39kts max, 31-33kts sea speed
Suggestion:
1905 IC engines
40t slow type 2TT 1 gun 2MG, 18kts max, 16kts sea, 500HP, 1000@10, 300@16, compl. 10
1910 IC engines
20t slow type: 24kts max, 20kts sea, 500HP, 500@10, 100@20: 2x18"TT, 2MG, compl. 6
1913 IC Engines
20t 1000HP 30/26, 500@10, 100@20, 40@26 ...2x18"TT, 2MG, compl. 6
40t 1000HP 28/25 1000@10, 200@20, 100@25 ...2x18"TT, 2MG, 1 gun, compl. 11
1916 IC Engines
20t 1500HP 35/30, 500@10, 100@20, 20@30 ...2x18"TT, 2MG, compl. 6
40t 1500HP 32/28 1000@10, 200@20, 70@28 ...2x18"TT, 2MG, 1 gun, compl. 12
1920 IC engines
40t 2400HP 35/31kts 1000@10 200@20 50@30, compl. 15
80t 2400HP 32/29kts 2000@10 400@20 100@30 ...2x21"TT, 2MG, 1 gun + DC, compl. 20
1928/193X IC engines
40t 4000HP 38/33kts 1000@10 200@20 50@30, compl. 16
80t 4000HP 36/31kts 2000@10 400@20 100@30 ...2x21"TT, 2MG, 1 gun + DC, compl. 24
120t 5000HP 34/30kts 3000@10 600@20 150@30 ...4x21"TT, 2MG, 1 gun, 1 AA gun + DC, compl. 30
With IC engines modified as follows:
1895: Gas, petrol(gasoline) and alcohol-fueled engines up to 20HP
1900: Land and airship engines up to 200HP, 50HP aeroplane engines
1905:Diesel engines, Land, airship and naval engines up to 750HP, 75 HP aeroplane engines
1910 : IC engines up to 2000HP, 120HP Aeroplane engines (1910)
1913: Engines up to 3000HP, 180HP Aeroplane engines (was 200HP)
1916*: Engines up to 5000HP, 250HP Aeroplane engines
1920: Engines with no effective limit on max output (1920), Aeroplane engines 360HP (was 300HP)
*: could be changed to 1915
Unless we have the equivalent of WW1, is there any reason we should see a huge leap in IC engines in that timeframe?
I guess it could be spread out, say one tech every 4 years - 1914, 1918, 1922...
I'd prefer that, myself.
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 27, 2008, 06:24:39 AM
I'd prefer that, myself.
We would also want to consider redoing aircraft types to line up better with the engine tech.
Michael
Put forward a proposal, then...
Revisiting MTBs. A slightly stretched timeline, one tech every 4 years. Accepting Borys' argument that - assuming no WWI development would've been slower.
Suggestion:
1905 IC engines
40t slow type 2TT 1 gun 2MG, 18kts max, 16kts sea, 500HP, 1000@10, 300@16, compl. 10
1910 IC engines
20t slow type: 24kts max, 20kts sea, 500HP, 500@10, 100@20: 2x18"TT, 2MG, compl. 6
1914 IC Engines
20t 1000HP 30/26, 500@10, 100@20, 40@26 ...2x18"TT, 2MG, compl. 6
40t 1000HP 28/25 1000@10, 200@20, 100@25 ...2x18"TT, 2MG, 1 gun, compl. 11
1918 IC Engines
20t 1500HP 35/30, 500@10, 100@20, 20@30 ...2x18"TT, 2MG, compl. 6
40t 1500HP 32/28 1000@10, 200@20, 70@28 ...2x18"TT, 2MG, 1 gun, compl. 12
1922 IC engines
40t 2400HP 35/31kts 1000@10 200@20 50@30, compl. 15
80t 2400HP 32/29kts 2000@10 400@20 100@30 ...2x21"TT, 2MG, 1 gun + DC, compl. 20
1928/193X IC engines
40t 4000HP 38/33kts 1000@10 200@20 50@30, compl. 16
80t 4000HP 36/31kts 2000@10 400@20 100@30 ...2x21"TT, 2MG, 1 gun + DC, compl. 24
120t 5000HP 34/30kts 3000@10 600@20 150@30 ...4x21"TT, 2MG, 1 gun, 1 AA gun + DC, compl. 30
With IC engines modified as follows:
1895: Gas, petrol(gasoline) and alcohol-fueled engines up to 20HP
1900: Land and airship engines up to 200HP, 50HP aeroplane engines
1905:Diesel engines, Land, airship and naval engines up to 750HP, 75 HP aeroplane engines
1910 : IC engines up to 2000HP, 120HP Aeroplane engines (1910)
1914: Engines up to 3000HP, 180HP Aeroplane engines
1918: Engines up to 5000HP, 270HP Aeroplane engines
1922: Engines with no effective limit on max output, Aeroplane engines 360HP (400HP?)
The problem is that while there has been no WWI, there have been quite a few wars were MTBs have been used. They were used in the 1st Pacific War, they saw A LOT of use in the 2nd War, and I think they also saw use in the Ottoman War.
Quote from: Desertfox on November 03, 2008, 02:40:32 PM
The problem is that while there has been no WWI, there have been quite a few wars were MTBs have been used. They were used in the 1st Pacific War, they saw A LOT of use in the 2nd War, and I think they also saw use in the Ottoman War.
So there should be some rules as guidelines, aren't?
And it is preferable (at least, for me) that their performance is similar to OTL stuff, not something conjured out of thin air (and significantly higher than the former).
Ah, and MBTs should cost double the BP price.