New Cruiser of mine. I got payed by Korpen to use the BP on sale for myself, so, here goes.
Racheta , Romania Expiermental Cruiser laid down 1917 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
2,418 t light; 2,593 t standard; 3,273 t normal; 3,816 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
350.00 ft / 350.00 ft x 35.00 ft x 17.00 ft (normal load)
106.68 m / 106.68 m x 10.67 m x 5.18 m
Armament:
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1917 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
Main guns limited to end-on fire
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1917 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
6 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns in single mounts, 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1917 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
2 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns in single mounts, 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1917 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
10 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1917 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1,177 lbs / 534 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
14 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 23,340 shp / 17,412 Kw = 26.00 kts
Range 10,012nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,223 tons
Complement:
216 - 281
Cost:
£0.645 million / $2.581 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 147 tons, 4.5 %
Armour: 14 tons, 0.4 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 14 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1,048 tons, 32.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,131 tons, 34.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 855 tons, 26.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 77 tons, 2.4 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,702 lbs / 772 Kg = 15.8 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 1.3 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 13.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 53 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.06
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.71 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
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 (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.58 ft / 6.27 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Mid (50 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Stern: 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Average freeboard: 13.70 ft / 4.18 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 141.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 21.0 %
Waterplane Area: 8,549 Square feet or 794 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 69 lbs/sq ft or 338 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 2.40
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
4 tubes are Torpedo Tubes
Twin Mounts
1 reload per tube(8 tons)
Long Range Macroni(25 tons)
The ohter tubes are black-powder rocket tubes
6 of them are normal muilti-stage "Fire-Dragon issuing from Water" rockets(China)
Maximum range of 5,000 yards
4 of them are a new single-stage anti-torpedo rocket, with a maximum range of 300 meters. The rocket is meant to either destroy the rocket or alter its course with the shockwave resulting from its explosion.It has a pressure vessel that allows the rocket down to 10 meters.
Assuming rockets are three to a ton, 13 rocket per tube.(44 tons)
2 rockets extra.
I personally see no reason for the 4.7" guns on a ship with 8 6" guns. I'd think about going with more 6"ers, or maybe use the difference on at least light splinter protection around the hoists or machinery.
The range is also quite large for black sea service.
All that said, the concept of an unarmored cruiser is different. When it's been floated around here before, the emphasis was on torpedoes, based on the theory that if a ship like this were to find itself in a "fair" fight, it might need the instant knock-out capability of torpedoes.
I expect that the displacement is dictated by your available BP. Is all that BP available in one half? It would take two halves to build this ship.
I wonder if the Dutch are in a giving mood, if they might be persuaded to provide the machinery for you, which would mean she could be considerably faster on the same displacement.
Armament:
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1917 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
Main guns limited to end-on fire
How do I fix that?
Change the hull, or reduce main guns in size or amount.
Other option is to place a few of those 6" in hull casemates.
Lower freeboard, reduce the armament, or increase the hull size.
Can you point me to historical analogues for the rocket systems you're proposing?
Revised Design. Rocky, I'm looking
Racheta , Romania Expiermental Cruiser laid down 1917 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
2,437 t light; 2,594 t standard; 3,273 t normal; 3,815 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
350.00 ft / 350.00 ft x 35.00 ft x 17.00 ft (normal load)
106.68 m / 106.68 m x 10.67 m x 5.18 m
Armament:
2 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1917 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
Main guns limited to end-on fire
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1917 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
6 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns in single mounts, 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1917 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
2 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns in single mounts, 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1917 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
10 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1917 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 961 lbs / 436 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
14 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm - -
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm - -
- Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 23,340 shp / 17,412 Kw = 26.00 kts
Range 10,002nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,222 tons
Complement:
216 - 281
Cost:
£0.609 million / $2.434 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 120 tons, 3.7 %
Armour: 56 tons, 1.7 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 42 tons, 1.3 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 14 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1,061 tons, 32.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,106 tons, 33.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 836 tons, 25.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 93 tons, 2.8 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,801 lbs / 817 Kg = 16.7 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 13.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 53 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.03
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.71 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
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 (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.58 ft / 6.27 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Mid (50 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Stern: 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Average freeboard: 13.70 ft / 4.18 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 136.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 21.0 %
Waterplane Area: 8,549 Square feet or 794 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 68 lbs/sq ft or 330 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.33
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
4 tubes are Torpedo Tubes
Twin Mounts
1 reload per tube(8 tons)
Long Range Macroni(25 tons)
The ohter tubes are black-powder rocket tubes
6 of them are normal muilti-stage "Fire-Dragon issuing from Water" rockets(China)
Maximum range of 5,000 yards
4 of them are a new single-stage anti-torpedo rocket, with a maximum range of 300 meters. The rocket is meant to either destroy the rocket or alter its course with the shockwave resulting from its explosion.It has a pressure vessel that allows the rocket down to 10 meters. Also can be a Fire-Dragon issuing from water that drops its warhead at a at a predetermined depth, like a Civil War Case Shot, with a String burning to cause a small explosion to seperate the two.
Assuming rockets are three to a ton, 17 rocket per tube.(46 tons)
2 rockets extra.
4 tons crew comfort/ Weight Reserve
He's using my rockets.
"Fire-Dragon issuing from Water" was a rocket launcher used on ships to fight other ships during the 13th century. Seriously out dated, but what it does is it skims along the water, making it hard to shoot down and exploded against the enemy ship. From what I can tell, he took my rockets which used to produce flames (13th century were wooden ships) and replaced the explosives with gunpowder for an explosive attack.
Now, I know my stuff, ie. stuff from China, but I'm not sure about the anti-torpedo rocket system he's proposing.
In principle I don't see any problems with it. China did develop multi-stage and single-stage rockets a few centuries before this time. My only concern is, would it really work and what pressure vessel are you talking about?
The only thing I ever read about active torpedo protection WW I was the French trying to shoot torpedo's with the small anti torpedo boat Hotchkiss guns of 37, 47 or 57 mm.
Logi, your black power rockets are know, documented and used. Also, these rockets have a western counterpart in the Congreve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congreve_rocket) rockets.
TexanCowboy, I rather would like that you reduce the amount of torpedo tubes, and put "XX tons in experimental torpedo defence weapons"
In effect, you're working on the level of AS warfare, but with rockets propelling a small depth charge that explodes shallow.(the pressure vessel is a tiny depth charge)
1916: hydrophones, depth charge throwers
But I'm afraid you'll have to develop the 1910 level first.
1910: ASW tactics, depth charges
COuld it be Rohan Rockets he is using or basing them on, I know Ithekro had "Rocket" Guns
The Rohirrim Rockets were anti aircraft. A Nverse II relic, because the "Eastern Empire Airship pipedreams".
What sort of operations is she intended for?
At the moment my impression is that she is a bit of a comprimis, she got exellent firepower (the recoil problems aside), but her lack of armour makes her vulnerable to even the smallest stray round if she is hunting smaller ships. On the other hand she lack mine carrying capacity, so her offensive capability on her own is very limited, and her for offensive seeps low speed make her less certain to escape retribution.
So I think that the concept need to be refined a bit; what do you want her to be capable to do?
Maddox, I would, but the rockets are designed to be shot out of a modified torpedo tube.
Logi, the anti torpedo rocket is one of two things. The short range rockets fire at a slanted angle, and explode when contacted is made with the torpedo, when it exceeds 10 meters, or when a pre-determined time is set for it to blow. The long range rocket is the same as a normal rocket, but at a predetermined distance, a string on fire sets off a small explosion, dropping the warhead into the water to explode on contact or at a predetermined depth.
She is a flotila leader. The rockets and torpedos can be replaced by mines if needs, specially designed to be shot out torpedo tubes.
TexanCowboy. A torpedo tube isn't much more than a tube, fixed or trainable, with a system that trows the torpedo out, compressed air for example. Why you would use a torpedo tube where a much smaller aimable rocket frame will do more for less.
Korpen
It seems the Romanians like the concept of max firepower.
In this case, type 1 dock to build her in, around 2-3 Ktons. And range to get her to the Romanian Island of Masirah.
And max amount of torpedo tubes.
Maddox, actually I really don't like that system, at least on captial ships. The German battlecruisers did a lot better at Jutland becsuse of it. I'm going to retry the ship. There so big becuase instead of a regular 10 kilogram warhead, I'm using a 100 kilogram warhead, the same as my torpedoes.
Quote from: maddox on August 29, 2009, 12:41:24 PM
In effect, you're working on the level of AS warfare, but with rockets propelling a small depth charge that explodes shallow.(the pressure vessel is a tiny depth charge)
1916: hydrophones, depth charge throwers
But I'm afraid you'll have to develop the 1910 level first.
1910: ASW tactics, depth charges
Ouch. Forgot about tech. In that case, I can only use the short range one. It has a range of 300 meters,and it is aimed underwater, very shallow. It explodes on impact or upon a timed fuse.
The issue of tech aside, the largest problem I see with any active torpedo defence is that to be able to deploy it one need to spot a torpedo at fairly long range, something that simply is not realistic under most circumstances. If one somehow DO spot it at long range, it is usually just as easy to change course to avoid it IMO.
100 kg of charge on a black powder rocket???? Wow, that will be a monster. Forget the torpedo tube. You'll need something lager.
Korpen, You're spot on. Shooting something is only doable if you know where it is. And then a fast moving target with something fickle like a black ppowder rocket?
Modified to have mines and armour.
Korpen, this is a short range(300 meter or less system) This is intended both as a prototype and a last resort system.
Maddox, how many kgs can I fit into a rocket. I was assuming 100 kg, as thats my torpedo load. The rocket also runs on gun cotten, as its more effecient)
Racheta , Romania Expiermental Cruiser laid down 1917 (Engine 1909)
Displacement:
2,535 t light; 2,660 t standard; 3,273 t normal; 3,763 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
350.00 ft / 350.00 ft x 35.00 ft x 17.00 ft (normal load)
106.68 m / 106.68 m x 10.67 m x 5.18 m
Armament:
4 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns in single mounts, 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1917 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns in single mounts, 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1917 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
2 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns in single mounts, 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1917 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
10 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1917 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 625 lbs / 283 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
14 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm - -
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm - -
- Armour deck: 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 23,340 shp / 17,412 Kw = 26.00 kts
Range 9,008nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,103 tons
Complement:
216 - 281
Cost:
£0.551 million / $2.202 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 78 tons, 2.4 %
Armour: 235 tons, 7.2 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 63 tons, 1.9 %
- Armour Deck: 158 tons, 4.8 %
- Conning Tower: 14 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1,061 tons, 32.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,037 tons, 31.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 738 tons, 22.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 123 tons, 3.8 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,017 lbs / 915 Kg = 38.9 x 4.7 " / 119 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
Metacentric height 1.1 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 13.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.79
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.71 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
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 (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.58 ft / 6.27 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Mid (50 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Stern: 13.10 ft / 3.99 m
- Average freeboard: 13.70 ft / 4.18 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 127.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 21.0 %
Waterplane Area: 8,549 Square feet or 794 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 105 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 63 lbs/sq ft or 309 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.17
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
4 tubes are Torpedo Tubes
Twin Mounts
1 reload per tube(8 tons)
Long Range Macroni(25 tons)
The ohter tubes are black-powder rocket tubes
6 of them are normal muilti-stage "Fire-Dragon issuing from Water" rockets(China)
Maximum range of 5,000 yards
4 of them are a new single-stage anti-torpedo rocket, with a maximum range of 300 meters. The rocket is meant to either destroy the rocket or alter its course with the shockwave resulting from its explosion.It has a pressure vessel that allows the rocket down to 10 meters.
Assuming rockets are three to a ton, 17 rocket per tube.(46 tons)
2 rockets extra.
14 tons crew comfort/ Weight Reserve
30 tons mines(90)
Well as I see it you could use it, but it won't work until you have the proper ASW tech for it.
Funny that you're going for something like that. I had the urge this morning to create a picture of the Ki-9 with MAZIRs (Manchu Anti-Zeppelin Incendiary Rockets )... :)
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg240/WvRooijen/Navalism/IJA/Ki9b.gif)
(Albatros D.III with Le Prieur rockets)
Developing those.... :). Where's Tanthalas? I need his anti airship rockets. :)
It's a French system, used against observation ballon and German airships.
See here (http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/leprieur.htm)
Or here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Prieur_rocket)
I know. Rohan's the only nation to develop it.
Black powder launched Depth Charges, not a bad idea in itself.
But carpet bombing a piece of sea with small charges to hit a torpedo, I myself have doubts. Nontheles, the moderators will discus it.
Well, since torpedos of this era ran shallow, they shouldn't be hard to find. Also, does make a good storyline. Anti-mine, too.
QuoteIt's a French system, used against observation ballon and German airships.
Yes. A system invented by Lieutenant Yves Paul Gaston Le Prieur who also happened to be the man who was partially responsible for the first human flight in Japan back in 1909.
I deliberatly used the word "Zeppelin" in there instead of "Airship" or "Balloon" because MAZIR sounds a lot better than MAAIR or MABIR...
What does a rocket-based torpedo defense system get you compared to say anti-torpedo nets?
As Foxy would say, funner :). Besides, it can protect other ships, and torpedo nets can be puctured by knife blade torpedoes.
I think the whole thing has merit, but honestly in practice I think you'll find it lacking against torpedoes. May be successful against mines or subs though. Sorta Black powder/gun cotton Squid or Hedgehog. Little early tech wise, but definitely something that could prove useful later on.
QuoteWhat does a rocket-based torpedo defense system get you compared to say anti-torpedo nets?
It get you a better chance of being hit by a torpedo. :)
Personally I think that the anti torpedo nets look a lot cooler and give you better protection then such unreliable rockets. :)
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg240/WvRooijen/Airshows/MM4.png)
Not using againist subs. To early in history, and the gun cotten would burn out. I'm considering building a export class of minesweepers with this as a primary weapon. Quicker, less dangerous, and has a possibility of setting off muiltiple mines.
And walter, I can use more than one. :D
Quote from: TexanCowboy on August 29, 2009, 02:04:45 PM
Not using againist subs. To early in history, and the gun cotten would burn out. I'm considering building a export class of minesweepers with this as a primary weapon. Quicker, less dangerous, and has a possibility of setting off muiltiple mines.
As a weapon for minesweeping I would not put much faith in it, as to detonate a mine you would need to land the charge very, very close to a mine (exactly how close depends on the sort of mine), something that require one to have a very accurate picture of exactly were a mine is positioned. So perhaps having some utility in removing mines one self have laid, but limited in case of removing hostile fields, and useless in finding mines.
QuoteAnd walter, I can use more than one.
So? You might need to fire
thousands of rockets before you actually are lucky enough to take out a torpedo. You only need one net per side so right now, not only does that seem to be the safer option, it is likely to be the cheaper option as well. :)
Few more pictures I took during my visit to
Musée national de la Marine in Paris...
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg240/WvRooijen/Navalism/P6243577.jpg)
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg240/WvRooijen/Navalism/P6243585.jpg)
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg240/WvRooijen/Navalism/P6243586.jpg)
They limit your speed, and can wreck your screw, can't they.
And Korpen, shockwaves.
That's the reason torpedo nets fell out of favor.
Took to long to set-up, limited speed hugely, and with damage, fouling a screw was assured.
But in static situations, they are still in use.
Then, in that case, the rockets are much more useful in a mobile action. Therebye, the rockets are on the ship. Maddox, have the mods reached a decision yet?
I'm the only mod online right now. And that's because I'm in a totaly different timezone.
It's 11 pm here, meaning that Guinnes and Rocky probably are having quality time with their families.
So, a tad of patience please.
Realize that. Sorry. I'm in their time zone as well.(Texas)
Take a big voice
Ah ah ! Americans, in their early time zone !
;D
Quote from: TexanCowboy on August 29, 2009, 02:47:16 PM
And Korpen, shockwaves.
To set off a sympathetic explosion you either need to trigger the detonator of the mine or otherwise raise the pressure to such an extent that the payload detonates. A third way it could knock out a mine is by deform the body causing the mine to sink.
But all these way require the explosion to be very close to the mine, a few meter in side at most (if detonating directly below the mine the difference can be larger).
Quote from: maddox on August 29, 2009, 02:49:47 PM
That's the reason torpedo nets fell out of favor.
Took to long to set-up, limited speed hugely, and with damage, fouling a screw was assured.
That is not the main reasons; the largest reason was that they proved to not be very efficient in preventing torpedo hits, which meant that the benefit did not outweigh the drawbacks.
However, the nets did not take long to deploy, the later versions could be deployed in 2-3 minutes, and if damages and left dragging then damage to screws was possible, but far from
assured.
Good article about them: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/nets.htm
Rockets more fun. :D. Still Korpen, It makes my ships unique, and is safer then a net pulling them up.
Korpen, thanks for the article. It seems the 2 articles I have are written by people who just oppose the torpedo nets themselfs.
Perhaps I can deploy both on this ship. Your thing says their only a ton per 2,000 square feet.
With 2*5950 ft² you're counting on 6 tons. Sounds not even remotely enough.
1 lb per sq. ft. is what it says. But won't the torpedo explode and take out the net?
A net is rather cheap. And better a hole in the net, than in the hull.
In that case..... do any of your ships have torpedo nets? And I have a 14 ton reserve, I can use that for a net.
QuoteWith 2*5950 ft² you're counting on 6 tons. Sounds not even remotely enough.
Not for the whole package. The netting might be 6 tons, but you still have all the stuff that is needed to keep those nets up and in position and looking at those models, I think that you are looking at at least double that weight for the whole system.
I have 14 tons of reserve. By the way, does anyone mount torpedo nets?
France just uses them in anchorages.
And a ship with deployed torpedo nets has a very limited speed. So, the speed challenged French ships won't have mobile deployed nets.
Exactly. I don't have fast ships. I'm like Maoria.So, my best chance is to run, and if its too close, fire rockets.
It will take us Mods a couple of days to discuss the new systems and conclude what is possible. In the meantime, feel free to assign what you think is a reasonable amount of miscellaneous weight, and we'll get back to you.
I don't think the system is a problem. The technology to do so is available. I do however do not think it will be very useful. Aiming will be near impossible and the fuses extremely unreliable. However it does have potential if you intend to board an enemy ship, but that's a completely different beast.
The Fire-Dragon rockets have a 6-7,000 meter range. I'm shoving a 100 kg warhead in there. Do tell me a 230 lb explosion of high explosive, or a armour peircing 230 lb explosive, isn't going to hurt. Besides, better against a small torpedo boat then a 8'' gun.
I think DF is talking about the anti-torpedo system, not the anti-ship rockets.
I think that the main problem with the anti torpedo system is that your ship is moving, the torpedo is moving, the rockets have no guidance and are thus very inaccurate so the chances of hitting the torpedo is smaller than the chance of hitting a tank with a Soviet RS-132 rocket in the late 1930s (134 launches and no hits) and a static tank on the groud is a bigger, much easier to hit target than a fast moving, submerged torpedo.
QuoteThe Fire-Dragon rockets have a 6-7,000 meter range. I'm shoving a 100 kg warhead in there. Do tell me a 230 lb explosion of high explosive, or a armour peircing 230 lb explosive, isn't going to hurt.Besides, better against a small torpedo boat then a 8'' gun.
Considering that the chance of hitting a static tank at 500 meters with a late 1930s RS-82 rocket is about 1.1%, how big do you think your accuracy is going to be with a 1910s rocket against moving MTBs at twice that distance? So no it is not going to hurt since you're not going to hit anything with it. I think it is better to have a bunch of 8" guns whose shells travel a lot faster and thanks to the rifling in the barrel would be a lot more accurate.
Don't get me wrong. I like the idea but I really don't think that such rockets will work until the 1940s. The Le Prieur rocket had a range of 115m "due to great inaccuracy of the rocket", and perhaps that is the best RL example to look at regarding rocket accuracy at this point in Navalism time as their targets were static observer ballons (which the rockets brought down) and large moving Zeppelins (which the rockets did not bring down).
Just all my opinion though...
Totally different concpet, but as walter brougth up using 20cm guns..
Fits into a type 0 dock/slip.
Dracul, Rumänien kustförsvarsskepp laid down 1916
(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7783/romania.png)
Displacement:
3 000 t light; 3 218 t standard; 3 560 t normal; 3 834 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
229,66 ft / 229,66 ft x 57,41 ft x 18,04 ft (normal load)
70,00 m / 70,00 m x 17,50 m x 5,50 m
Armament:
2 - 7,99" / 203 mm guns in single mounts, 255,24lbs / 115,78kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
10 - 5,98" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 107,15lbs / 48,60kg shells, 1916 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 1 582 lbs / 718 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3,15" / 80 mm 147,64 ft / 45,00 m 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3,94" / 100 mm 2,95" / 75 mm 3,94" / 100 mm
2nd: 2,95" / 75 mm 0,79" / 20 mm 2,95" / 75 mm
- Armour deck: 1,20" / 31 mm, Conning tower: 5,91" / 150 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 11 747 shp / 8 763 Kw = 20,00 kts
Range 6 000nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 616 tons
Complement:
229 - 299
Cost:
£0,544 million / $2,176 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 198 tons, 5,6 %
Armour: 766 tons, 21,5 %
- Belts: 349 tons, 9,8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 187 tons, 5,3 %
- Armour Deck: 200 tons, 5,6 %
- Conning Tower: 30 tons, 0,8 %
Machinery: 438 tons, 12,3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1 334 tons, 37,5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 560 tons, 15,7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 264 tons, 7,4 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
4 622 lbs / 2 097 Kg = 18,1 x 8,0 " / 203 mm shells or 1,2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,07
Metacentric height 2,5 ft / 0,8 m
Roll period: 15,3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,58
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,02
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,524
Length to Beam Ratio: 4,00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15,15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 69 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 48
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Mid (50 %): 18,04 ft / 5,50 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16,40 ft / 5,00 m
- Stern: 18,04 ft / 5,50 m
- Average freeboard: 18,47 ft / 5,63 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 91,5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 134,3 %
Waterplane Area: 8 979 Square feet or 834 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 95 lbs/sq ft or 464 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,81
- Longitudinal: 6,72
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
EDIT: Added picture.
Wow, an MGB on steroïds.
Quote from: maddox on August 30, 2009, 05:56:39 AM
Wow, an MGB on steroïds.
My thought was more an old armored cruiser or new coastal battleship. She's not that far off from the Danish Herluf Trolle CBBs.
Threadjacker! :)
Good concept for coastal work or BB protection vs TBs.
But what she can do with only 2x8" ?
IMO, remove 2x8" & increase the speed
;)
Threadjacker. :). This is about a rocket cruiser.
I feel that this is not thread Jacking meerly a case of reality.
You want to pack the deck of you ship with well lots and lots of Volatile Rockets with Hight Explosive warheads. The max range of said rockets is around 7000 Meters. What is going to happen to said ship when it receives a single 5" or 6" High Exlosive deck hit from outside of that 7000 m ??????
The Term is Sypmethetic Detonation of all your rockets and warheads it will the 4th of July on the deck of your ship.
Have you considered what the Exhaust of a massive volley of such rockets would do to the deck of the ship behind them ????
Quote from: TexanCowboy on August 30, 2009, 07:19:04 PM
Threadjacker. :). This is about a rocket cruiser.
I do not think that suggesting an alternative suggestion to a problem thredjacking.
Quote from: ctwaterman on August 31, 2009, 10:03:02 PM
I feel that this is not thread Jacking meerly a case of reality.
You want to pack the deck of you ship with well lots and lots of Volatile Rockets with Hight Explosive warheads. The max range of said rockets is around 7000 Meters. What is going to happen to said ship when it receives a single 5" or 6" High Exlosive deck hit from outside of that 7000 m ??????
The Term is Sypmethetic Detonation of all your rockets and warheads it will the 4th of July on the deck of your ship.
Have you considered what the Exhaust of a massive volley of such rockets would do to the deck of the ship behind them ????
All very true!
Something else about rockets; they basically give you a light launcher weight for a very high over all projectile weight. The larger the number of projectiles, the less favourable rockets become, for the weight invested in rockets you could mount a 20cm gun and quite a bit of ammunition instead. A rocket with a 70hm max range will be an area weapon, and not really suited to attacking a moving point object such as a ship at any range above point blank. I grant that things depend a bit on the flight profile of the rocket, if it is winged like an aircraft it is most likely more accurate at medium-short ranges as it got a longer danger zone, but less so then a ballistic rocket at longer ranges as it is much more affected by wind (like all fin-stabilized projectiles), less predictable decent and much lower speed and acceleration.
If using rockets I think that going more massed is a waste, they would cost more then shells, be very much a once-use weapon and present a huge fire hazard, as Charles point out.
If using them better have one or two, as a short range-extra punch.
Another problem with the entire cruiser concept, cruisers are speed, and hence engine, critical. Romania only got obsolete engine tech and a modern 1916 engine weight about 20% less then the 1909 ones, so I think to build a "fast" ship is somewhat wasteful until you have caught up a bit in engine tech.
Yes I know I from pure routine used 1916 engines in my suggestion.
Couldn't the Rocket Tech be useful for Shore Bombardment where accuracy is a little less important?
Similar to the way the USN used it on their landing ships in WW2.
Yes but apparently Texan thinks otherwise.
I didn't say it couldn't. That was one of the goals of the regular rocket, a modified land attack without the sea skimming feature.
Yes once you get spin stabalized and all sort of other features you can get the pure massive volley like the US used durring the Normandy Invasion. Pack a dozen or more Rocket launchers into a small disposable ship and use them to saturate the shore. They mostly cleared minefields. But have you considered what happens when a single enemy HE shells hits that ship. I think it happened and it looked like one massive mushroom cloud of explosions.
Also the range of the rockets used by the US was significantly less then 7000km
http://books.google.com/books?id=TpJTNm6eKEMC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=Shore+Bombardment+Rockets&source=bl&ots=k4vM11Rsiu&sig=Pu6noH2tIE8t_zohF8rQg53VWw0&hl=en&ei=svOdSv2dI4uGNPqlgY4C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=Shore%20Bombardment%20Rockets&f=false
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/armament/rockets.htm
http://www.pt-boat.com/rocket/rocket.html
The problem is even in 1944/45 many of these systems didnt have the ranges people are looking for here in 1916 :)
Charles