StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2009-10-27 07:53am**

Steve, you have four barrels, but only two single mounts.

And your ship can still not fire broadsides.

Posted: **2009-10-27 09:14am**

Thanas wrote:Steve, you have four barrels, but only two single mounts.

And your ship can still not fire broadsides.

I'm more curious of opinions on the Defiant, not the crazy gunboat.

Hrmm, thought I fixed that one.... Whatever. It's silly. It's dumb. Defiant, OTOH, I'm genuinely interested in opinions of. I want it to be a design that in 1889 was the pinnacle of ship design..... though as Shep pointed out to me by IM, it'd be trumped in just a couple years.

Posted: **2009-10-27 10:27am**

A year after Defiant and Intrepid are laid, the Navy secures additional funding to lay an improved version, CRS Reprisal.

Unlike her older sisters, Reprisal would not make it into commissioning before the ceasefire ended.

Reprisal, Cascadian Armored Cruisern laid down 1886

Displacement:
9,915 t light; 10,440 t standard; 12,520 t normal; 14,184 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(428.00 ft / 420.00 ft) x 70.00 ft x (27.10 / 29.94 ft)
(130.45 m / 128.02 m) x 21.34 m x (8.26 / 9.13 m)

Armament:
4 - 10.00" / 254 mm 45.0 cal guns - 488.90lbs / 221.76kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1886 Model
2 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
10 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 105.60lbs / 47.90kg shells, 175 per gun
Quick firing guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1886 Model
10 x Single mounts on sides amidships
12 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 5.25lbs / 2.38kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1886 Model
6 x Single mounts on sides amidships
6 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,075 lbs / 1,395 kg
12 - 18.0" / 457 mm, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m torpedoes - 0.362 t each, 4.342 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted centre rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 327.00 ft / 99.67 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Ends: 2.00" / 51 mm 93.00 ft / 28.35 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Upper: 4.00" / 102 mm 327.00 ft / 99.67 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Main Belt covers 120 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm - 2.70" / 69 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - 0.50" / 13 mm

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

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

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 19,186 ihp / 14,313 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,744 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
591 - 769

Cost:
£1.149 million / $4.597 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 860 tons, 6.9 %
- Guns: 855 tons, 6.8 %
- Torpedoes: 4 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 1,967 tons, 15.7 %
- Belts: 1,294 tons, 10.3 %
- Armament: 174 tons, 1.4 %
- Armour Deck: 383 tons, 3.1 %
- Conning Tower: 116 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 3,690 tons, 29.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,399 tons, 27.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,605 tons, 20.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
9,004 lbs / 4,084 Kg = 19.2 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 1.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.53
Metacentric height 6.1 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 11.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 69 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.27
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.47

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a ram bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.550 / 0.564
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 14.98 ft / 4.57 m, 14.82 ft / 4.52 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 14.82 ft / 4.52 m, 14.82 ft / 4.52 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 14.82 ft / 4.52 m, 14.82 ft / 4.52 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 14.82 ft / 4.52 m, 14.82 ft / 4.52 m
- Average freeboard: 14.83 ft / 4.52 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 117.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 75.4 %
Waterplane Area: 20,518 Square feet or 1,906 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 128 lbs/sq ft or 625 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.05
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

CRS Reprisal was built essentially the same as the Defiant and the Intrepid, but advances permitted it to get the same speed for a slightly lighter engine, permitting more armor on the deck.

Posted: **2009-10-27 12:16pm**

This is possibly a nitpick, but people designing "historical" ships built in the 1880s should bear in mind that because they used black powder as propellant, guns from that era would have very short, stubby barrels (25-30 calibers). In the 1890s, the introduction of cocoa powder and later modern smokeless powder would mean longer barrels (35-40 calibers), but it won't be until around 1900 that you see anything longer than 40 calibers.

Posted: **2009-10-27 12:25pm**

Just tossing around an idea for a early dreadnaught:

Proto Battleship, Byzantine Empire Battleship laid down 1910

Displacement:
19,947 t light; 21,136 t standard; 22,809 t normal; 24,148 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(515.10 ft / 492.13 ft) x 78.74 ft x (31.17 / 32.73 ft)
(157.00 m / 150.00 m) x 24.00 m x (9.50 / 9.98 m)

Armament:
8 - 12.00" / 305 mm 50.0 cal guns - 914.66lbs / 414.88kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1910 Model
4 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
Main guns limited to end-on fire
8 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.92lbs / 49.41kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts, 1910 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in heavy seas
12 - 5.00" / 127 mm 37.0 cal guns - 59.07lbs / 26.79kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1910 Model
6 x Twin mounts on side ends, majority aft
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.25lbs / 0.11kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1910 Model
2 x 4-gun mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
16 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.25lbs / 0.11kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1910 Model
4 x 4-gun mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
Weight of broadside 8,903 lbs / 4,039 kg
4 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m torpedoes - 1.263 t each, 5.052 t total
In 1 sets of submerged side tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 5.00" / 127 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 125 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
6.00" / 152 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 27.00 ft / 8.23 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
2nd: 6.00" / 152 mm - -
3rd: 2.00" / 51 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 5.00" / 127 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 5.00" / 127 mm Quarter deck: 5.00" / 127 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 11.00" / 279 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 4 shafts, 38,017 shp / 28,360 Kw = 22.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,012 tons

Complement:
927 - 1,206

Cost:
£1.747 million / $6.988 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,988 tons, 8.7 %
- Guns: 1,983 tons, 8.7 %
- Torpedoes: 5 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 10,234 tons, 44.9 %
- Belts: 3,036 tons, 13.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 2,458 tons, 10.8 %
- Armament: 1,754 tons, 7.7 %
- Armour Deck: 2,796 tons, 12.3 %
- Conning Tower: 191 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 1,571 tons, 6.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,155 tons, 27.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,862 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
37,023 lbs / 16,793 Kg = 42.9 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 7.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.03
Metacentric height 3.7 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 17.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 85 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 1.24
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.55

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.661 / 0.666
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.18 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 35.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 24.00 %, 32.81 ft / 10.00 m, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Forward deck: 45.00 %, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Aft deck: 17.00 %, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Quarter deck: 14.00 %, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m, 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Average freeboard: 23.60 ft / 7.19 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 76.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 136.0 %
Waterplane Area: 29,985 Square feet or 2,786 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 153 lbs/sq ft or 746 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 2.70
- 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 weather

Posted: **2009-10-27 12:26pm**

I've counted post-1913 destroyers.

I've got 45 spanking new and rather cool Novik class destroyers and I'm willing to scrap my entire stock (89 destroyers) of obsolete pre-1913 shit once I start hitting late 1920s and starting a new mass destroyers series.

Posted: **2009-10-27 12:37pm**

Ma Deuce wrote:This is possibly a nitpick, but people designing "historical" ships built in the 1880s should bear in mind that because they used black powder as propellant, guns from that era would have very short, stubby barrels (25-30 calibers). In the 1890s, the introduction of cocoa powder and later modern smokeless powder would mean longer barrels (35-40 calibers), but it won't be until around 1900 that you see anything longer than 40 calibers.

1880s ships would use Brown Powder except at the very start of the decade; the first smokeless propellants for heavy artillery went into service in 1891 and many existing guns were rapidly converted. Anything using black powder wouldn’t go past about 20-22 caliber if that. Brown powder allowed about 30 calibers but most guns were shorter owing to the colossal powder charges required. I agree that guns over 40cal shouldn’t really appear before 1900. This was primarily a limitation on methods of gun construction, once you had smokeless powder then theoretically nothing is holding you back in that end. Indeed several promenade navies failed to alter propellant composition at all between about 1891 and the end of WW1. They tended to have lots of ships blow up.

Ammunition storage for heavy guns on 1880s ships tended to be pathetically low as well, like 60-80 rounds per gun. This reflected the fact that most of them could hardly get off a shot every three minutes on a good day.

Posted: **2009-10-27 12:40pm**

Skimmer, question, regarding those armor diagrams, how does one discern the armor height? Thanks.

Posted: **2009-10-27 01:13pm**

Well one method is to find the length of the ship (be sure to note if the length is length waterline, or length overall) and then scale from that. Alternatively you can make an assumption as to the deck height of the ship, I suggest 9ft as a rule of thumb, and scale using that which is probably easier to do. Its less accurate though because often not all decks are the same height nor in line with the 9ft rule.

For those interested in designing older ships I just found the entire 1900 edition of Janes Fighting Ships is free for download on Google. It isn’t quite as detailed as latter Janes, but it has pictures, armor plans and basic specs none the less.

http://books.google.com/books?id=C2RCxi ... q=&f=false

Posted: **2009-10-27 01:17pm**

By the way, what advantages does smokeless powder have over black powder in naval combat? I can see the advantage for infantry on the battlefield, but I'm not seeing it for ships.

Posted: **2009-10-27 01:24pm**

Smoke obscures your view of the enemy, making it harder to hit them.

Posted: **2009-10-27 01:37pm**

Ryan Thunder wrote:By the way, what advantages does smokeless powder have over black powder in naval combat? I can see the advantage for infantry on the battlefield, but I'm not seeing it for ships.

You don't think lots of smoke obscuring your view would make a difference for shell spotting? Besides, the differences between black and smokeless powder go far beyond how much smoke they make, which is also a measure of how efficient the powder is (more smoke = more wasted energy) Black powder combusted very rapidly for one thing (which is bad for gun propellant), giving the projectile a sharp initial kick rather than accelerating it along the length of the barrel. This is why black powder guns seldom reached 25 calibers in length: anything longer would actually impede gun performance, because the powder would burn out before reaching the end of the barrel, thus the shell would simply be wasting energy scraping down the barrel on it's own momentum without anything pushing it, placing a hard upper limit on the performance of black powder guns. Safety is also a big issue with black powder.

The 1880s saw the introduction of brown/cocoa powder, which burned more slowly and allowed longer barrels. But brown powder was very inefficient, expending most of it's energy producing smoke, requiring very large propellant charges, which is why as Skimmer mentioned guns designed to use it weren't significantly longer. Then came smokeless powder, which not only burned slowly, but was also very efficient, converting most of it's mass into gas rather than smoke. This allowed a significant performance gain for a gun of a given size, which is why 12 inch guns became almost ubiquitous around the turn of the century, despite the fact that earlier ships in many navies had guns with much bigger bores.

Posted: **2009-10-27 01:39pm**

Sea Skimmer wrote:For those interested in designing older ships I just found the entire 1900 edition of Janes Fighting Ships is free for download on Google. It isn’t quite as detailed as latter Janes, but it has pictures, armor plans and basic specs none the less.

http://books.google.com/books?id=C2RCxi ... q=&f=false

Er.. How do I download the thing?

Posted: **2009-10-27 05:36pm**

Thanks for the info, lowering calibers now.

I've found that Britain had a 32 caliber 10"er in service by 1884, so I figured a 30 caliber would work. Though I'm thinking of making it an 11"er to reflect it has the heaviest guns in the period.

Of course, I've also been informed that building such a thing would break historical ship progression.....

Posted: **2009-10-27 07:33pm**

After some friendly advice, taking into account the different caliber range of the era, and a few stab wounds courtesy of an irate naval enthusiast's slide rule, I've changed Defiant up. She's more of a true armored cruiser now, sacrifices some max speed but her armor is more in line with how materials science worked with protection in this time frame.

Defiant-class, Cascadian Armored Cruisern laid down 1885
Units: 3 (Defiant, Intrepid, and Reliant)

Displacement:
10,137 t light; 10,558 t standard; 12,701 t normal; 14,415 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(428.00 ft / 420.00 ft) x 70.00 ft x (27.00 / 29.90 ft)
(130.45 m / 128.02 m) x 21.34 m x (8.23 / 9.11 m)

Armament:
4 - 11.00" / 279 mm 30.0 cal guns - 445.00lbs / 201.85kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1885 Model
2 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
10 - 6.00" / 152 mm 30.0 cal guns - 96.00lbs / 43.54kg shells, 100 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1885 Model
10 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
20 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 6.00lbs / 2.72kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1885 Model
20 x Single mounts on sides amidships
Weight of broadside 2,860 lbs / 1,297 kg
12 - 18.0" / 457 mm, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m torpedoes - 0.350 t each, 4.198 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 300.00 ft / 91.44 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: 3.00" / 76 mm 120.00 ft / 36.58 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Main Belt covers 110 % of normal length

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

- Armoured deck - single deck: 6.00" / 152 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 6.00" / 152 mm Quarter deck: 6.00" / 152 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3.00" / 76 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 13,067 ihp / 9,748 Kw = 18.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,858 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
597 - 777

Cost:
£0.892 million / $3.570 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 484 tons, 3.8 %
- Guns: 480 tons, 3.8 %
- Torpedoes: 4 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 3,400 tons, 26.8 %
- Belts: 832 tons, 6.5 %
- Armament: 216 tons, 1.7 %
- Armour Deck: 2,318 tons, 18.2 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 2,540 tons, 20.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,713 tons, 29.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,564 tons, 20.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
16,625 lbs / 7,541 Kg = 27.0 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 2.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.59
Metacentric height 6.4 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 11.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 80 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.26
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a ram bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.560 / 0.574
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 40
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 24.50 ft / 7.47 m, 24.50 ft / 7.47 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
- Average freeboard: 18.10 ft / 5.52 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 78.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 107.5 %
Waterplane Area: 20,711 Square feet or 1,924 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 124 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 124 lbs/sq ft or 607 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.39
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Posted: **2009-10-27 08:04pm**

And thus I also remade Reprisal.

Reprisal, Cascadian Armored Cruiser, laid down 1887
Units: 1 (Reprisal)

Displacement:
10,253 t light; 10,684 t standard; 12,701 t normal; 14,314 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(428.00 ft / 420.00 ft) x 70.00 ft x (27.00 / 29.73 ft)
(130.45 m / 128.02 m) x 21.34 m x (8.23 / 9.06 m)

Armament:
4 - 11.00" / 279 mm 30.0 cal guns - 445.00lbs / 201.85kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1887 Model
2 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
12 - 6.00" / 152 mm 30.0 cal guns - 96.00lbs / 43.54kg shells, 100 per gun
Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1885 Model
12 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
20 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 6.00lbs / 2.72kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1885 Model
20 x Single mounts on sides amidships
Weight of broadside 3,052 lbs / 1,384 kg
12 - 18.0" / 457 mm, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m torpedoes - 0.374 t each, 4.491 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 300.00 ft / 91.44 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: 3.00" / 76 mm 120.00 ft / 36.58 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Main Belt covers 110 % of normal length

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

- Armoured deck - single deck: 6.00" / 152 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 6.00" / 152 mm Quarter deck: 6.00" / 152 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3.00" / 76 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 14,228 ihp / 10,614 Kw = 18.50 kts
Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,630 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
597 - 777

Cost:
£0.928 million / $3.714 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 512 tons, 4.0 %
- Guns: 508 tons, 4.0 %
- Torpedoes: 4 tons, 0.0 %
Armour: 3,410 tons, 26.8 %
- Belts: 832 tons, 6.5 %
- Armament: 225 tons, 1.8 %
- Armour Deck: 2,318 tons, 18.2 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 2,708 tons, 21.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,623 tons, 28.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,448 tons, 19.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
16,190 lbs / 7,343 Kg = 25.5 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.60
Metacentric height 6.4 ft / 2.0 m
Roll period: 11.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 80 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.27
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a ram bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.560 / 0.573
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 40
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 24.50 ft / 7.47 m, 24.50 ft / 7.47 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m, 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
- Average freeboard: 18.10 ft / 5.52 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 83.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 107.5 %
Waterplane Area: 20,711 Square feet or 1,924 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 122 lbs/sq ft or 596 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.40
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Authorized for construction in 1886 by the Cascadian Federal Congress, the Reprisal was a refinement of the Defiant design, using advancements in engine technology to increase speed by half a knot and add 2 more 6" guns to the secondary battery on the same basic displacement. She would cost slightly more, and this would be the last armored cruiser to be laid by Cascadia for a number of years.

Posted: **2009-10-27 08:09pm**

Ma Deuce wrote:You don't think lots of smoke obscuring your view would make a difference for shell spotting?

Well, I didn't realize that it was that bad.

<snip>

Thanks, very informative.

Posted: **2009-10-27 08:23pm**

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Er.. How do I download the thing?

By clicking the PDF button on the far right just above the scrollbar. It will then ask you how you want to save it.

Steve wrote:Thanks for the info, lowering calibers now.

I've found that Britain had a 32 caliber 10"er in service by 1884, so I figured a 30 caliber would work.

If you mean this gun http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_10-32_mk1-4.htm the date in service is deceptive because it didn’t actually arm any of the ships listed until the 1890s. For those ships it was a case of rearmament as well, replacing blackpowder 12in and 13.5in MLRs. Its also one of the last heavy guns to use built up construction in the RN, which combined with it replacing much higher caliber guns is directly related to it being so long as so early a date.

Though I'm thinking of making it an 11"er to reflect it has the heaviest guns in the period.

Of course, I've also been informed that building such a thing would break historical ship progression.....

Actually Japan had three protected cruisers laid down in 1888 each armed with one 12.6in gun and 11 x 4.7in guns all on just 4,200 tons. The choice of such a ridiculous armament was driven by japans need to quickly field a naval gun that could combat Chinese Battleships. They also had some other 1880s cruisers with 10in and 10.3in guns. Later Italy would inflict a number of classes with a single 10in forward and two 8in aft on the world cruiser export market long after people should have know better. But then Italy also gave us the Italia class, the worlds only 10,000 man capacity troop transports armed with 17.7in guns.

Such a huge cruiser as you've designed would just be seen as a slow firing white elephant that cost more then a battleship, and rightly so. It also barely has any speed advantage over contemporary battleships, and what little it does would quickly evaporate. Hull fouling alone could leave it too slow to escape.

Posted: **2009-10-27 08:46pm**

It's not meant to be completely perfect, especially since it's the first attempt at a larger vessel, and ultimately the main enemy is a force of cruisers that lose to them due to being put into a position of having to fight or abandoning a land army (they do, however, lose).

I thought about designing the next batch of ships, which are more appropriate as cruisers with firepower, with a proper battleship to come in the 1890s, but for this game at least they won't be necessary, and in SDNW3 these ships will only show up in a flashback of the opening game post for me and, possibly, a couple as museum vessels.

Ultimately I wanted an ambitious, early armored cruiser with 20 knot speed, 10,000 nautical mile range to reflect Pacific distance needs, and a heavy battery that could let it kill other cruisers of the time, along with some acceptable protection. I kept getting told that 20 knots would be too outlandish for a ship of the size and the ship would be unlikely to be capable of sustaining it for long, and I found I'd have to sacrifice some armor for the speed or accept the ship being bigger, so I opted for the 18 knot speed.

Hrm.....

Posted: **2009-10-27 09:16pm**

No ship of the vintage could sustain top speed for more the a few hours (this is the origin of the four hour standard for full power trials, which persists to this day). The stokers will drop dead, especially as no one had much in the way of powered ventilation or forced draught for the boilers, meaning the the boiler rooms could reach 170 degrees on a bad day when closed up for action.

But even more importantly forced lubrication systems didn’t exist yet so all the oil would be vibrated out of the engines and shaft bearings. You could use seawater hoses to keep them moving parts cool for a little extra time but then HAD to go to low power or else you’d seize the plant up. Even in the last generation of reciprocating stem engines with as much as 50psi of pressure in the forced lubrication system this problem never went away completely. This also limited acceptabul steam tempatures as otherwise the oil would overheat.

These limitations also meant that forcing the machinery beyond its limits could and did cause permanent damage. More then one triple expansion ship could never get within two knots of its trial speed again because of damage being inflicted in the ships first days of life. Indeed that could happen with turbines too but it was far less common.

Turbines could sustain full power for much longer periods by being much smoother in operation, having far fewer exposed moving parts and by separating the bearings from the steam paths. Still no one should be having turbine ships race across an entire ocean at flank speed.

Posted: **2009-10-27 09:30pm**

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: Er.. How do I download the thing?
By clicking the PDF button on the far right just above the scrollbar. It will then ask you how you want to save it.

I can't seem to find it. Might be international copyright issues.

Mind if you could drop it off via mail?

Posted: **2009-10-27 09:41pm**

Yes, I heard before that a ship rated for 20 knots likely would never sustain such.

Ultimately, though, my point is the feasibility of an early armored cruiser with a fast speed for the time, a heavy gun armament with at least 10" guns for the main battery, and a fair degree of protection by the standards of the day. The armament and tonnage may blur the line between battleship and cruiser but the point would be to make it very clearly a cruiser when one considers speed and protection. If it's a bit big and expensive, well, that's a drawback that leads to later ships being smaller and thus cheaper (Well, until the 1890s and the pre-dread battleship race begins).

Posted: **2009-10-27 11:08pm**

One thing I'm not getting, especially given what SeaSkimmer said; increasing the top speed has incredibly negative effects on seaworthiness of the boat, even if the cruising speed remains the same. What's causing this?

Posted: **2009-10-27 11:10pm**

Ryan Thunder wrote:One thing I'm not getting, especially given what SeaSkimmer said; increasing the top speed has incredibly negative effects on seaworthiness of the boat, even if the cruising speed remains the same. What's causing this?

Drag is often a function of velocity, and often a quadratic or higher order function.

Posted: **2009-10-27 11:16pm**

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:
Ryan Thunder wrote:One thing I'm not getting, especially given what SeaSkimmer said; increasing the top speed has incredibly negative effects on seaworthiness of the boat, even if the cruising speed remains the same. What's causing this?
Drag is often a function of velocity, and often a quadratic or higher order function.

Right. Which would affect seaworthiness *at top speed*. But if the ship isn't normally going that fast it will still be able to slog through heavy weather, right?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

Re: SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread