Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/
Why would we want such a system? A ship can easily have a main battery, secondary battery, dual purpose guns, AA guns, and some lighter machine guns and spring sharp already limits what can go where so we have no issue.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Is there any way to force a ship to have 3-4 types of guns only?
Well, yes but I want to save weight and as it is, technically 3-4 gun types on a battleship is sufficient especially when the premier gun for AA happened to be the 3"/70 and 5"/37. And 5"/37s are dual purpose guns.Norade wrote:Why would we want such a system? A ship can easily have a main battery, secondary battery, dual purpose guns, AA guns, and some lighter machine guns and spring sharp already limits what can go where so we have no issue.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Is there any way to force a ship to have 3-4 types of guns only?
I must have mis-understood the issue then, if you want less types of guns on a ship, simply don't add others. Other than that, there isn't a reason to impose any limits.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Well, yes but I want to save weight and as it is, technically 3-4 gun types on a battleship is sufficient especially when the premier gun for AA happened to be the 3"/70 and 5"/37. And 5"/37s are dual purpose guns.Norade wrote:Why would we want such a system? A ship can easily have a main battery, secondary battery, dual purpose guns, AA guns, and some lighter machine guns and spring sharp already limits what can go where so we have no issue.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Is there any way to force a ship to have 3-4 types of guns only?
Except dual purpose guns were practically nonexistent on capital ships in the '20s; even new designs used split secondaries, and there was a reason: at the time it was very difficult to fit a gun heavy enough to overpower destroyers into a mount fast enough to engage aircraft, not to mention RoF was an issue with larger guns. The US 5"/38 didn't exist until the '30s anyway. At this point, USN capital ships used 5"/51s for anti-surface work, and 4"/50s or 5"/25s for anti-air work.Well, yes but I want to save weight and as it is, technically 3-4 gun types on a battleship is sufficient especially when the premier gun for AA happened to be the 3"/70 and 5"/37. And 5"/37s are dual purpose guns.
I'm drafting a 30s ship.Ma Deuce wrote:Except dual purpose guns were rare to nonexistent on capital ships in the '20s; even new designs used split secondaries, and there was a reason: at the time it was very difficult to fit a gun heavy enough to overpower destroyers into a mount fast enough to engage aircraft, not to mention RoF was an issue with larger guns. The US 5"/38 didn't exist until the '30s anyway. At this point, USN capital ships used 5"/51s for anti-surface work, and 4"/50s or 5"/25s for anti-air work.Well, yes but I want to save weight and as it is, technically 3-4 gun types on a battleship is sufficient especially when the premier gun for AA happened to be the 3"/70 and 5"/37. And 5"/37s are dual purpose guns.
Okay, but I'm still not seeing why there is any need at all to limit the number of gun types by mod fiat. The 3,000lb limit on 18" shells was bad enough.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I'm drafting a 30s ship.
Erm. My question was whether there's a way to force a ship on Spring Sharp to have 4 gun types. And not because of a mod fiat.Ma Deuce wrote:Okay, but I'm still not seeing why there is any need at all to limit the number of gun types by mod fiat. The 3,000lb limit on 18" shells was bad enough.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I'm drafting a 30s ship.
Er, sorry about that. In that case, you simply leave the diameter/bore of the gun slots you don't want at zero and Springsharp will count them as nonexistant: You'll note they don't appear in the report either.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Erm. My question was whether there's a way to force a ship on Spring Sharp to have 4 gun types. And not because of a mod fiat.
Given that two people misunderstood you, I would say that's quite possible.Just in case I am being vague.
Code: Select all
Rio de Janeiro, FSR of Brazil Battleship laid down 1909
Displacement:
19,150 t light; 20,111 t standard; 21,151 t normal; 21,982 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
565.21 ft / 550.00 ft x 82.00 ft x 29.00 ft (normal load)
172.27 m / 167.64 m x 24.99 m x 8.84 m
Armament:
10 - 12.00" / 305 mm guns (5x2 guns), 864.00lbs / 391.90kg shells, 1904 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward
8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1906 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
12 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1905 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
12 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1919 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 9,528 lbs / 4,322 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
2 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 315.00 ft / 96.01 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: 5.00" / 127 mm 235.00 ft / 71.63 m 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 315.00 ft / 96.01 m 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
Main Belt covers 88 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.00" / 51 mm 550.00 ft / 167.64 m 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 11.0" / 279 mm 10.0" / 254 mm 11.0" / 279 mm
2nd: 5.00" / 127 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm
3rd: - - 1.00" / 25 mm
- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 11.00" / 279 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 30,005 shp / 22,384 Kw = 21.35 kts
Range 7,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,872 tons
Complement:
876 - 1,140
Cost:
£1.862 million / $7.447 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,191 tons, 5.6 %
Armour: 8,885 tons, 42.0 %
- Belts: 4,054 tons, 19.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,018 tons, 4.8 %
- Armament: 2,450 tons, 11.6 %
- Armour Deck: 1,182 tons, 5.6 %
- Conning Tower: 181 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 1,364 tons, 6.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,510 tons, 35.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,001 tons, 9.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 0.9 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
28,802 lbs / 13,064 Kg = 33.3 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 5.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 3.7 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 17.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.83
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.43
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.566
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.71 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.45 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28.04 ft / 8.55 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m (20.00 ft / 6.10 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 17.85 ft / 5.44 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 17.85 ft / 5.44 m
- Stern: 17.85 ft / 5.44 m
- Average freeboard: 19.35 ft / 5.90 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 127.7 %
Waterplane Area: 31,951 Square feet or 2,968 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 159 lbs/sq ft or 776 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.62
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easilyNope the 12 gun variant of Project 23 Bis was explicitly rejected as too large. The ship would have had nine 16in guns. See page 396 of Russian and Soviet Battleships. Project 24 had the same arrangement as well, though once more twelve gun versions were studied and rejected. Soviet designers simply demanded way too much incremental armor to be able to produce twelve gun designs of acceptable displacement.Stas Bush wrote: Just for note: the 35,000 ton "South Dakota" is only similar to the "Sovietsky Soyuz" in it's Pr.23 variant, but that variant was in a state of rejection by 1939 already and the order for completing the hulls by an improved project 23-bis (12x406mm) has already been issued and preliminary design done, aiming for roughly the same displacement. This is more firepower than South Dakota and Iowa. By your logic, building Iowas is also stupid because they are 1,5 times more displacing for the same armament as the SoDak.
Steve wrote:Skimmer, I also banned guns above 18".
Wow so your just being a fucking jackass now. Ban the fucking ship even if it’s reduced in caliber? Even though its broadside is less then ships people could design on 45,000 tons? What the hell fucking sense does that make. Why the fuck is my ship banned when other peoples fucking Yamato clones in nations go unquestioned? Do you have any fucking idea what you are doing? Hell you fucking asked me to take Siam, when originally I didn’t even want a nation with any seacoast at fucking all and this is why. So when I come up with a different ships that's similar, does that get banned too? Limits for Sea Skimmer and then limits for everyone else?But I get the feeling you'll just lower the ship to 18" guns and add another or something and still have that ship come around, so how about we just cut the song and dance and stuff and I ban the ship from use?
Its not that some people are lazy and refuse to use Springsharp. I simply do not have the time to master an obscure computer program on top of everything else going on in my life such as a six day workweek. So fuck you on that count.Norade wrote:I second Sea Skimmer, fuck you and the horse you rode in on if you're going to limit people further than what we already had to start. There is no reason to punish people for using Spring Sharp and designing ships just so others who are too lazy can play too. Besides it isn't as if you don't make trade-offs every time you add a bigger gun or more armor. I mean we already have a 50kt starting tonnage per ship limit, a 60kt hard cap, a rule that isn't even in the rules page that half of your fleet needs to be built before a certain time, our nations industrial capacity, now you want to limit our guns and ship designs further because you don't like them. No, that isn't cool.
While I admit that due to recent unemployment I'm enjoying more free time than I like I hardly see why I should care if others playing don't have the same amount of time to devote the this as I do. As you have said there are other factors and I agree, I have even acknowledged them with regards to my rapid fleet build-up that I had planned. However it seems we largely agree on this so I see no reason to carry on.Raj Ahten wrote:Its not that some people are lazy and refuse to use Springsharp. I simply do not have the time to master an obscure computer program on top of everything else going on in my life such as a six day workweek. So fuck you on that count.Norade wrote:I second Sea Skimmer, fuck you and the horse you rode in on if you're going to limit people further than what we already had to start. There is no reason to punish people for using Spring Sharp and designing ships just so others who are too lazy can play too. Besides it isn't as if you don't make trade-offs every time you add a bigger gun or more armor. I mean we already have a 50kt starting tonnage per ship limit, a 60kt hard cap, a rule that isn't even in the rules page that half of your fleet needs to be built before a certain time, our nations industrial capacity, now you want to limit our guns and ship designs further because you don't like them. No, that isn't cool.
That said I have always stood by allowing any design that is practicable. Each design has ts own set of upsides and flaws and there is no such thing as a 100% perfect ship and frankly the exact details of individual ship's designs have little to do with who wins wars when compared to larger factors such as supplies, strategy, alliances and so forth. For example American cruisers were shit compared to Japanese ones early in WWII but that was hardly a decisive factor in that conflict.
