Would this ship be acceptable? I dont plan to build it but i am curious about the answer(once you all give opinions ill let ya in on the kicker about it)
USS Question, QandA Experiment laid down 1912
Displacement:
25,614 t light; 27,015 t standard; 31,401 t normal; 34,910 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
806.82 ft / 791.00 ft x 91.00 ft x 31.00 ft (normal load)
245.92 m / 241.10 m x 27.74 m x 9.45 m
Armament:
9 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (3x3 guns), 864.00lbs / 391.90kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
20 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (10x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 9,026 lbs / 4,094 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 443.00 ft / 135.03 m 11.45 ft / 3.49 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 86 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.8" / 325 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 13.0" / 330 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -
- Armour deck: 5.20" / 132 mm, Conning tower: 10.60" / 269 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 72,355 shp / 53,977 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,896 tons
Complement:
1,179 - 1,533
Cost:
£2.248 million / $8.992 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,128 tons, 3.6 %
Armour: 9,343 tons, 29.8 %
- Belts: 1,976 tons, 6.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 2,376 tons, 7.6 %
- Armour Deck: 4,765 tons, 15.2 %
- Conning Tower: 227 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 2,885 tons, 9.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,007 tons, 38.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,787 tons, 18.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 250 tons, 0.8 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
54,861 lbs / 24,885 Kg = 63.5 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 4.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 5.4 ft / 1.6 m
Roll period: 16.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.59
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.50
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.493
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.69 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.30 ft / 1.01 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31.00 ft / 9.45 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Mid (40 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m (19.00 ft / 5.79 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Stern: 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Average freeboard: 22.55 ft / 6.87 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 59.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 172.6 %
Waterplane Area: 49,529 Square feet or 4,601 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 129 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 166 lbs/sq ft or 809 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.29
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest
again, I'm not super experineced by I'll try...
Maybe its just me, but IMO a ship of 25k tons should have around 20k broadside weight. I doubt you need so much deck armour, as
Quoteplunging fire doesn't have alot in this time period
I would probably give it 12 12" guns (4 turrets) as other battleships have 14"-13.5" guns. When will you need 12000nm at 15 kts, it would help if I knew what the range ast max speed was. But all in all its a ok design (to me)
Why lug the belt then? Why not a fully armored armored hull?
With that deck you're protected against any plunging fire.
And with that speed you can dictate range to any ship with guns large enough to hurt.
AoN requires the relevant technology available to research from 1912.
The belt is shallow and most probably will not protect either the waterline or just expose the vitals.
Any hits on the totally unprotected ends would take over any speed advantage. I'd hit this ship with large-caliber nose-fused HE to destroy buoyancy reserve.
You will not need thicker than 4" armor until mid-1930s. The lack of TDS might not be a good idea long-term - 27kts might be enough not to be threatened by destroyers, but if you use the hindsight for WWII-level deck armor you should not discount torpedo bombers either.
I was waiting for you to chime in P3D, Everyone missed the "problem" (or atleast by my interpitation of the rules its a problem) its USS Alaska I went through all the stock ships in SS (woot for a new install where i havnt boogerd em all up). The WW2 Vintage BBs & BCs all use mount and hoist on their secondaries. I didnt even trim Alaska up much (like fixing the horible armor layout / the over heavy deck for our period). the point was I was wondering if mount and hoist secondaries were ok (I even simed Iowa and it wouldnt work with turreted secondaries but was perfect with mount and hoist).
edit
I should have pointed this out before what I am realy wondering is this. Is this just a bug in SS or were what I always thought were turreted secondaries realy just mount and hoist?
I am just going to say: She got a transome.
..and leave it at that.
Quote from: Korpen on August 30, 2008, 12:00:57 AM
I am just going to say: She got a transome.
..and leave it at that.
LOL i didnt even notice that. as I stated above my question was about the secondary guns, (aka were the alaskas and the iowas realy equiped with mount and hoist for their twin 5" mounts or is this a bug in SS)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
It looks as if the twin 5" L38 turrets were what we call mount and hoist.
A ring welded/rivetted to the deck(with re-enforcements), a box of good steel over the gun mounts, a hole in the deck and a hoist dipping down trough a steel tube to get the munition up from the magazines.
(http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12_twin-diag.jpg)
Thanks M now off to come up with a real BC ^.^ (what my DD is finished and if I might have to fight people that build BCs I better have my own)
Quote from: Tanthalas on August 30, 2008, 12:31:42 AM
Thanks M now off to come up with a real BC ^.^ (what my DD is finished and if I might have to fight people that build BCs I better have my own)
Just remember that twin mouts have to developed before one can start mounting twins.
As for the ships itself, either increase belt height or lower the amount of fuel, she carries so much fuel that it will be about 1m difference between full and normal load. This leave only around 1m of protection above water when fully loaded, with wave motion it could mean that damage above the belt can cause flooding, further submerging the belt...
I think DF may already have developed a twin 4" or 6" got to look again, that was just a half assed example of what I was thinking about (I would also likley mount more and larger guns on it to say 13.5s or something like that)
NS should have finished the relevant cruiser tech by 1909 or so, I guess they have twin 6" hoists too.
The US 5" was mount and hoist, the UK 5.25" was full turret.
For the same caliver the Nverse difference should be regarding that what armor you put on it.
But if you want full 6" turret then by the newest rules don't need to have new techs just develop the turret. They are kosher.
im still operating under the old rules i think, mount and hoist can only have 1" armor right? also is it just me or is 6" a tad heavy for a QF gun.
Quote from: P3D on August 30, 2008, 01:07:17 AM
NS should have finished the relevant cruiser tech by 1909 or so, I guess they have twin 6" hoists too.
The US 5" was mount and hoist, the UK 5.25" was full turret.
For the same caliver the Nverse difference should be regarding that what armor you put on it.
But if you want full 6" turret then by the newest rules don't need to have new techs just develop the turret. They are kosher.
Actually, if one goes strictly by what the rules in the rules section say, the BB tech do neither allow or disallow turreted secondaries. At the same time the cruiser tech says:
QuoteBattleship Architecture is not valid for guns 6.5" and smaller. To have armored turrets with small guns, this technology is required.
So going by what is written, I have a hard time seeing turreted secondaries as being in accordance with the rules.
I'd like to know from the original mod group:
-Why did the 1910 CL tech allow twin-mounted batteries?
-Why did the 1912 BB tech allow it?
-How was the difference in dates accounted for?
Quote from: The Rock Doctor on August 30, 2008, 07:05:34 AM
-Why did the 1910 CL tech allow twin-mounted batteries?
-Why did the 1912 BB tech allow it?
Continuity.
#1 was the next cruiser tech in N2verse, and Desertfox was already researching it.
The 1911 BB tech was merged from three technologies - Main turret arrangement, secondary arrangement, number of guns per turret. And the cruiser tech already allowed hoisted secondaries - no reason not to allow them on BBs. As it contained significantly more stuff (add AoN), it was to be twice-long tech.
Quote from: Korpen on August 30, 2008, 02:02:08 AM
So going by what is written, I have a hard time seeing turreted secondaries as being in accordance with the rules.
As Rocky specifically mentioned that he sees no need to develop technology for turreted secondaries, there's no one. I argued that when the tech was separated into two the quad turret tech offered obviously less advantages than the BB protection tech or any of the previous BB techs (or any other techs, TBH), but no.
According to your reasoning rules neither allows putting twin hoists on battleships or destroyers either.
Quote from: P3D on August 30, 2008, 12:32:19 PM
According to your reasoning rules neither allows putting twin hoists on battleships or destroyers either.
No, according to my interpetation BB and DD tech do not say a word about that in either direction, but there is a "cruiser" tech that DO regulate the use of guns smaller then 6,5´. So if one want to use guns smaller then 6,5´ one will use the LC tech, no matter if one is using them on a cruiser, DD or BB.
this tech?
Light Cruiser Architecture
1910 Cutting Edge (+5): twin gun mounts
Already have it ^.^ (well the NS already have it and im operating on the assumption im going to get them) not to mention they already have a twin 6" mount (its actualy on some active comands already)
Quote from: Korpen on August 30, 2008, 12:59:16 PM
No, according to my interpetation BB and DD tech do not say a word about that in either direction, but there is a "cruiser" tech that DO regulate the use of guns smaller then 6,5´. So if one want to use guns smaller then 6,5´ one will use the LC tech, no matter if one is using them on a cruiser, DD or BB.
So the omission of mentioning smaller than 6.5" guns for BBs means that you cannot build full 'turret on barbette' secondaries (even if a mod expressed intention not to make a separate rule for it), but the similar omission of mentioning hoisted mounts in the DD/BB tech would let you use the cruiser tech too build such?
Quote from: P3D on August 30, 2008, 01:48:08 PM
So the omission of mentioning smaller than 6.5" guns for BBs means that you cannot build full 'turret on barbette' secondaries (even if a mod expressed intention not to make a separate rule for it), but the similar omission of mentioning hoisted mounts in the DD/BB tech would let you use the cruiser tech too build such?
Missunderstand Me correctly.
I simple meant that as I read things as they stand, on what kind of ships the guns are mounted is irrelevant. If one wants to develop guns smaller then 17cm in a turret with barbarette, one will need the 1920 LC tech, if one wants to develop twin gun mounts one will need the 1910 LC tech. This irrelevant of if you if you then choose to build a BB, LC or DD carrying the gunmount.
At least that is how I read things as they are writen in the rules.
well I didnt know and thats why I asked lol, but I think I understand that its ok for me to build twin gun mount and hoist secondaries (like the alaska used) and realy that was my Primary concern ^.^
Quote from: Tanthalas on August 30, 2008, 03:04:27 PM
well I didnt know and thats why I asked lol, but I think I understand that its ok for me to build twin gun mount and hoist secondaries (like the alaska used) and realy that was my Primary concern ^.^
As far as i can tell, it is perfetly fine (if you got the mounts developed for the guns in questrion) :)
well they have bene deployed on a CL so I certinly hope I had them ^.^
Quote from: Korpen on August 30, 2008, 02:27:23 PM
At least that is how I read things as they are writen in the rules.
The intention of those rules as I wrote it was to limit their validity to ships built under 'light cruiser' rule. Now it is up to the new mods to interpret it.
I sugest we go with Rule As Intended by P3D, as he had conceived it.
Borys
NS does have a twin 6" gun mount in service. It is a mount & hoist similar to the OTL Omahas, and is limited to 1" armor. If it is allowed, I would use it for any new battleships/cruisers, while sticking to single 4" guns. Don't bother developing twin 5" mounts. The need for those is still 30 years into the future.
ya DF im thinking about using mount and hoist secondaries on my new BC Idea its going to be heavier than originaly planed though...