SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

[Steve]

Why not have Poland order a specialized variation from German yards that combines speed with the reduced range of smaller fuel bunkers, saving a bit of tonnage for more ammunition or a slightly thicker torpedo bulkhead, etc? (Or further AA armament)

[K. A. Pital]

Steve, I see no reason why 12"/50 would not work, if 12"/52 worked in 1907 and is the weapon most of my battleships sport actually.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussi ... _m1907.htm

[Slacker]

Why not have Poland order a specialized variation from German yards that combines speed with the reduced range of smaller fuel bunkers, saving a bit of tonnage for more ammunition or a slightly thicker torpedo bulkhead, etc? (Or further AA armament)

That would be ideal, but I don't want to ask Thanas to redesign his shit just for my benefit.

[Sea Skimmer]

Most nations found the 12/50 to be something of a failure as a design point; it was too much velocity for not enough weight of shell to give really satisfactory performance given shells of about 850lb. This is why in the RN, IJN and USN a hoard of designs had 12/45 guns, and then just one or two with 12/50 before a major escalation of caliber commenced.

Its no coincidence that Russia used a much heavier 1000lb+ shell for its own rather more successful design. Still it would have been short lived in design terms, its just Imperial Russia never built battleships fast so it was only coming into service in the start of WW1. So people would surely use 12/50s in the game as they did in real life, but they’d really only be a transitional period of gun design as everyone really thought through the consequences of the shift from short to long range battle tactics. You would not expect to see class after class use such a weapon.

[K. A. Pital]

Um, Skimmer's right, as a design point exactly 12"/50 was kinda off. I read about the development of the Russian 12"/50 and the designers also found that a failure, having to increase the gun's length for 2 more calibers to maintain the pressure while keeping ballistic characteristics of the weapon, hence why it became the 12"/52 despite originally developed as 12"/50.

Apparently the 12"/50 suffered from excessive pressure problems as well as steel structure problems, though no specifics are given.

[Ma Deuce]

This is why in the RN, IJN and USN a hoard of designs had 12/45 guns, and then just one or two with 12/50 before a major escalation of caliber commenced.

Then of course there was the Germans, who put 12"/50s on 16 ships in four separate classes.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yeah well they also persisted with some really dumb turret arrangements (Nassau I can understand, but Helgoland???) triple shafts and a few other dubious design features. Then people started worshipping them just because gasp, they weren’t also stupid enough to order the crews to intentionally disregard safety in favor of high rates of fire! It is kind funny how the British get so much heat for ‘bad design’ for ships blowing up basically from that problem alone, while the Germans are the only ones at Jutland to have a capital ship actually directly sunk by accumulated gunfire and torpedo damage.

[K. A. Pital]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30.5_cm_SK_L/50_gun
The gun itself seems to be a good gun - at least, not much worse than others, and in 1907 clearly that could be perceived as a very fine and superior weapon. Dumb turret arrangements have little to do with that. Heh, Cascadia could've worked with the Germans and/or the Russians to get rough ideas on such a gun in 1907 ot 1908, and later design one on it's own.

As a side note, would anyone object to me building, c. 1925-1930, the 1914 Russo-Baltic design for 4x4 16"/45 battleship?
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/irn16bb.htm
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/images/irnultimate.jpg
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/images/irnul ... ection.jpg
Displacement - 45,000 tons
Full length - 265.0 m
Full width - 34.4 m
Draft - 9.15 m
Armaments:
Sixteen 16"/45
Twenty four 150mm/52
Torpedo tubes:
Four 450mm
Armour: See drawings
Engines: 11 universal boilers, 16 oil boilers, 119,452 h.p.
Speed - up to 30 knots

It's a lightly and poorly armored fast "maximal" battleship with enormous armament (the Russian end-war superdreadnaught engineering tended to look to such projects first of all), done with the Izmail in mind, somewhat resembling the Bubnov projects. Duh.

No more than one such ship would likely be built, after which the construction of battleships shall cease until the late 1930s.

[Thanas]

Does it work in Springsharp?

[Thanas]

Why not have Poland order a specialized variation from German yards that combines speed with the reduced range of smaller fuel bunkers, saving a bit of tonnage for more ammunition or a slightly thicker torpedo bulkhead, etc? (Or further AA armament)

That would be ideal, but I don't want to ask Thanas to redesign his shit just for my benefit.

Nah, I can do that - as soon as I get my laptop working, that is. After all, more profit for me.

[K. A. Pital]

I hope someone Sprinsharps the above for me because I have no NET framework and it's too much bother setting up one (I tried, so now I need "windows installer" which in turn needs some bullshit "security update"). That's three unnecessary programs for me to install at once. Nop.

[Steve]

I was thinking that the battlecruiser makes the switch to 12/50 to give it a bit of extra range to go with its speed. Of course, I was also planning a 1911 update to the design after initial problems with the triple turrets and because of a shortage of oil-fired boilers due to the construction of the 1908 and 1909 design dreadnoughts with mixed oil/coal boilers. It would be logical I guess to just assume both types (currently named Yukon and Alberta) get modified with a 12"/52 caliber gun, maybe even a gun type ordered or at least licensed from Obukhov, based on early gun tests with a 12"/50 caliber gun showing the need for a heavier round.

OTOH, having a "failure" design isn't something I'm against, and I was even intending somewhat that the 1910-1911 series of battlecruisers to not be my navy's finest designs.


Bah, I can't wait until transom sterns can be justified....

Edit: Well, this is freakin' great. I had the ship perfectly balanced to have 1.00 Seakeeping, now the extra weight of the Obukhov gun's shells and the extra 2 caliber length caps the seakeeping at .97 and I'm stuck with a poor seaboat unless I raise the length and, I believe, some of the beam to maintain seaworthiness to get the cap back to 1.00.

[Ma Deuce]

I hope someone Sprinsharps the above for me because I have no NET framework and it's too much bother setting up one (I tried, so now I need "windows installer" which in turn needs some bullshit "security update"). That's three unnecessary programs for me to install at once. Nop.

It sort of works: I had to raise displacement to around 48,000 tons standard (done by slightly increasing draft and block cooeficient) Speed is now 27.6 knots on the same installed power (it was never much above 28 even on the original displacement). Shell weight is what was actually intended for the 16"/45 P-1914, and although I have no actual numbers on ammo stowage, I set it to 75 rounds per gun for a total of 1,200 rounds (Izmail would have had 80 rounds per gun).

I also had difficulty deciding how to represent that unusual armor scheme in Springsharp (I have a feeling the forecastle & quarterdeck armor as well as the decapping plate was intended to be integrated with the hull structure, something Springsharp can't account for), but I think I found a fair approximation. Since the design doesn't seem to include provision for aircraft, I didn't either. Of course, the deck armor is totally inadequate against 16" guns as on the original, but hey it does have a broadside a third heavier than the Yamato. .

P.S., What version of Windows are you using, and what version of Springsharp are you trying to install? While I had to install NET 2.0 on my old XP desktop (that I'm typing from now) to get the 3.0 Beta to work, I was able to run it on my sister's Vista laptop without having to install anything else (it seems to have come with NET 2.0 pre-installed). I don't recall what I had to do before running SS 2.1 (which uses NET 1.1) for the first time, since that was well over 2 years ago.

"Ultimate BB", USSR Battleship laid down 1925

Displacement:
45,119 t light; 48,054 t standard; 50,013 t normal; 51,581 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(873.59 ft / 869.42 ft) x 112.86 ft x (30.97 / 31.75 ft)
(266.27 m / 265.00 m) x 34.40 m x (9.44 / 9.68 m)

Armament:
16 - 16.00" / 406 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,461.00lbs / 1,116.29kg shells, 75 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
4 x 4-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
24 - 5.91" / 150 mm 52.0 cal guns - 110.23lbs / 50.00kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1925 Model
24 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
24 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
Weight of broadside 42,022 lbs / 19,061 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 17.7" / 450 mm, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m torpedoes - 0.831 t each, 3.322 t total
submerged side tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.8" / 300 mm 574.15 ft / 175.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: 1.97" / 50 mm 295.28 ft / 90.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Upper: 1.97" / 50 mm 574.15 ft / 175.00 m 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
Main Belt covers 102 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
0.98" / 25 mm 574.15 ft / 175.00 m 27.56 ft / 8.40 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 92.85 ft / 28.30 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.7" / 400 mm 7.87" / 200 mm 9.84" / 250 mm
2nd: 1.97" / 50 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 1.97" / 50 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 3.94" / 100 mm
Forecastle: 1.18" / 30 mm Quarter deck: 1.18" / 30 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 15.75" / 400 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 119,521 shp / 89,163 Kw = 27.63 kts
Range 5,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,527 tons

Complement:
1,671 - 2,173

Cost:
£17.498 million / $69.994 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 6,996 tons, 14.0 %
- Guns: 6,989 tons, 14.0 %
- Weapons: 7 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 13,310 tons, 26.6 %
- Belts: 3,815 tons, 7.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 576 tons, 1.2 %
- Armament: 3,979 tons, 8.0 %
- Armour Deck: 4,478 tons, 9.0 %
- Conning Tower: 461 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 3,881 tons, 7.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 20,933 tons, 41.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,894 tons, 9.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
65,060 lbs / 29,511 Kg = 31.8 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 12.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.25
Metacentric height 9.0 ft / 2.8 m
Roll period: 15.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.91
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): 0.576 / 0.579
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.70 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 39
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -6.56 ft / -2.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 16.00 %, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m
- Aft deck: 36.00 %, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m
- Quarter deck: 18.00 %, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m
- Average freeboard: 23.62 ft / 7.20 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 101.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 188.9 %
Waterplane Area: 70,171 Square feet or 6,519 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 97 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 253 lbs/sq ft or 1,233 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.22
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Master_Baerne]

Question: Is there anything preventing me from using real-life designs, or slightly modified versions of real-life designs? I really don't have the time to draw up a full fleet list, particularly when there's a sufficiency of perfectly good French warships already designed.

[Steve]

Use the French ships. If you want to alter something slightly, ask.

[Master_Baerne]

Aye aye, sir.

[Ryan Thunder]

Are we going to have a thread like this for armies?

[Steve]

Is there a tank equivalent to SpringSharp? Or an Artillery gun equivalent?

[Siege]

I've filled in my battleships, heavy and light cruisers with a nice mix of old and new ships... However, does anyone know of any useful Interbellum submarine, destroyer and monitor designs?

[Sea Skimmer]

Rick Robinson made a heavy gun modeling program alongside the original Springsharp called Big Gun. It does not design a gun so much as create ballistics and armor penetration tables based on performance inputs. Its results can be considered approximate at best and it formulas are only calibrated off US 16in guns, as that’s what he had the most data to work from. So the more divorced from that you get the less accurate it becomes, though it does have factors to account for differing gun and armor quality. Another gun design program is floating around on the internet I cant recall the name of which actually gives you things like gun weight, but once more it is for naval pattern weapons and wont give you the weights of towed weapons.

I don’t see any need for a program for land artillery in any case, it’s not like we are short of real life examples. WW1-WW2 saw a spamstastic number of designs produced.

Shep made Tanksharp which is reasonably accurate.

[Steve]

Really? Hrm....

And fiddling with stuff like block coefficient, freeboard height, and length finally netted me a ship with the speed I wanted but without the seakeeping problems. Will post later.

[Steve]

Okay, refitted Yukon with Alberta.

Yukon, Cascadian Battlecruiser, laid down 1910

Displacement:
21,717 t light; 22,796 t standard; 25,502 t normal; 27,667 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(681.06 ft / 672.00 ft) x 82.50 ft x (28.00 / 29.91 ft)
(207.59 m / 204.83 m) x 25.15 m x (8.53 / 9.12 m)

Armament:
9 - 12.00" / 305 mm 52.0 cal guns - 1,038.00lbs / 470.83kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1908 Model
3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm 50.0 cal guns - 66.16lbs / 30.01kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1910 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3.35lbs / 1.52kg shells, 250 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1910 Model
6 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
6 x Single mounts on side ends, majority forward
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 9,912 lbs / 4,496 kg
Main Torpedoes
2 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m torpedoes - 1.381 t each, 2.762 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
2nd Torpedoes
8 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m torpedoes - 1.381 t each, 11.049 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted reloads

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 447.00 ft / 136.25 m 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 225.00 ft / 68.58 m 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 447.00 ft / 136.25 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Main Belt covers 102 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.00" / 25 mm 393.00 ft / 119.79 m 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 67.00 ft / 20.42 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 9.00" / 229 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 5.00" / 127 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 5.00" / 127 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 1.50" / 38 mm
Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 95,001 shp / 70,871 Kw = 28.47 kts
Range 10,000nm at 13.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,871 tons

Complement:
1,008 - 1,311

Cost:
£2.236 million / $8.944 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,226 tons, 8.7 %
- Guns: 2,208 tons, 8.7 %
- Weapons: 17 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 7,020 tons, 27.5 %
- Belts: 3,576 tons, 14.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 349 tons, 1.4 %
- Armament: 1,782 tons, 7.0 %
- Armour Deck: 1,051 tons, 4.1 %
- Conning Towers: 261 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 3,926 tons, 15.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,546 tons, 33.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,785 tons, 14.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
30,287 lbs / 13,738 Kg = 35.1 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 4.5 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 16.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.75
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck ,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.575 / 0.584
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.15 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.92 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 15.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forward deck: 35.00 %, 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 %, 17.00 ft / 5.18 m, 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Average freeboard: 19.73 ft / 6.01 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 102.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 147.2 %
Waterplane Area: 39,609 Square feet or 3,680 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 166 lbs/sq ft or 812 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.23
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

Alberta, Cascadian Battlecruiser, laid down 1911

Displacement:
21,791 t light; 22,919 t standard; 25,502 t normal; 27,569 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(681.06 ft / 672.00 ft) x 82.50 ft x (28.00 / 29.83 ft)
(207.59 m / 204.83 m) x 25.15 m x (8.53 / 9.09 m)

Armament:
9 - 12.00" / 305 mm 52.0 cal guns - 1,038.00lbs / 470.83kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1911 Model
3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
10 - 6.00" / 152 mm 50.0 cal guns - 114.33lbs / 51.86kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1911 Model
10 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm 50.0 cal guns - 3.35lbs / 1.52kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1911 Model
6 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
6 x Single mounts on side ends, majority forward
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 10,526 lbs / 4,774 kg
Main Torpedoes
2 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m torpedoes - 1.385 t each, 2.770 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
2nd Torpedoes
8 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m torpedoes - 1.385 t each, 11.081 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted reloads

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 449.00 ft / 136.86 m 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 223.00 ft / 67.97 m 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
Upper: 6.00" / 152 mm 449.00 ft / 136.86 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Main Belt covers 103 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.00" / 25 mm 393.00 ft / 119.79 m 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 67.00 ft / 20.42 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 5.00" / 127 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 5.00" / 127 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 1.50" / 38 mm
Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 95,001 shp / 70,871 Kw = 28.47 kts
Range 10,000nm at 13.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,650 tons

Complement:
1,008 - 1,311

Cost:
£2.261 million / $9.043 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,340 tons, 9.2 %
- Guns: 2,323 tons, 9.1 %
- Weapons: 17 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 7,021 tons, 27.5 %
- Belts: 3,585 tons, 14.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 349 tons, 1.4 %
- Armament: 1,774 tons, 7.0 %
- Armour Deck: 1,051 tons, 4.1 %
- Conning Towers: 261 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 3,856 tons, 15.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,575 tons, 33.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,711 tons, 14.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
30,319 lbs / 13,752 Kg = 35.1 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 3.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 4.5 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 16.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.78
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck ,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.575 / 0.584
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.15 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.92 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 15.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forward deck: 35.00 %, 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 %, 17.00 ft / 5.18 m, 17.00 ft / 5.18 m
- Average freeboard: 19.73 ft / 6.01 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 102.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 147.2 %
Waterplane Area: 39,609 Square feet or 3,680 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 168 lbs/sq ft or 821 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.26
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

[Sea Skimmer]

Folks might want to think more about the surface fleet of submarines when setting cruising speeds. And also that zig zagging reduced the effective speed of advance vs. a submarine making straight end run. One of the main reasons why few dreadnoughts sank from submarine attack in either world war was they could normally match or exceed the surface speeds of most subs. I went with 12 knots for my coastal defence ship, but I also never intended for it to leave coastal waters in the first place making range near irrelevant. 18 knots is more reasonable for a post war ocean going battleships. Just something to think about anyway.

[Steve]

Indeed. Though, will our world actually have the naval war experience/events to encourage such a mentality?

[Sea Skimmer]

If submarines ever sank a major warship, then yeah. Anyway even before WW1 cruising speed would be higher then 13 knots. Also navies routinely played war games anyway which usually reinforced the need for high cursing speeds for strategic mobility. The value of high maximum speed in action was much harder to quantify and subject to debate, as the longer the battle range became the easier and easier it was for a slower fleet to just turn inside of a faster one.