Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

Considerations about naval designs

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by doug941   » Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:31 pm

doug941
Commander

Posts: 228
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 6:21 pm

Draken wrote:What about AP and HEAT ammunition? It shouldn't have problems with destroying ships? Is it possible to put napalm inside shell?
We don't need big caliber to destroy ships, but it's better against buildings and to support troops.
If they can built ships around 30-50k tons range it will be possible to create nice ships. If not there will be huge problem with putting everything needed for fast battleship.


AP as such is nothing more than a very fast chunk of alloy, once it runs out of speed it becomes a doorstop. HEAT does have an incendiary effect on wood but has basically no effect outside the first compartment it hits. HEAT uses a jet of molten metal to drive a very small hole thru armor and when that jet of metal is broken up the show is over. For an idea of HEAT rounds, google "Munroe Effect."
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by Draken   » Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:44 am

Draken
Commander

Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:58 pm

So best choice of ammunition would be HE?
What about smaller guns to protect against suicide attacks and boarding? 4x20mm should do the trick? Or few Gatlings when they will be possible. Another option would be few 75mm guns with grapeshot shells it shouldn't have a lot of problems with flesh and boats.
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by PeterZ   » Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:18 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

One consideration for ship design is complexity. The goal is to eventually prepare Safehold to return to the stars and fight the Gbaba. That means starships with many interconnected systems. Designing ships that will expose as many people as possible to that sort of environment should be a primary consideration. After all the ICN rules the oceans and any would be competitor has mountains of obstacles to overcome before they get within shouting distance.

Building a majority ships that can cruise at least as far as the KHVIIs will serve the above goal as well as emphasize the threat the ICN poses to enemy port cities. As steam becomes more prevalent, ICMM ships will be able to out run pirate sailing ships. Any port city building steam ships to attack charisian merchant shipping will risk receiving a visit from a squadron or two of the KHVIIs. The need for convoy escort cruisers or destroyers will only expand when there is another navy contesting the ICN supremacy.

ICN naval design then would emphasize a ship's ability to stand toe to toe with the powerful shore batteries of a fortified port city. That suggests to me that the size of the ship and thickness of the armor will be defined by the size of the largest gun protecting enemy ports. In combination with acclimating as many sailors with complex systems as possible, I believe the ICN will face strong incentives to build bigger, more powerful and unavoidably more complex ships.
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by Darman   » Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:53 pm

Darman
Commander

Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Destroyers sound wonderful, in theory. But what is the range limit on a 1,000t destroyer?

I made a sample DD, running at a top speed of 25 knots, cruising speed of 10 knots. Range is 3500nm.

25-knotter, Charis Destroyer laid down 1900

Displacement:
844 t light; 876 t standard; 1,000 t normal; 1,099 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(305.25 ft / 305.25 ft) x 30.30 ft x (9.25 / 9.86 ft)
(93.04 m / 93.04 m) x 9.24 m x (2.82 / 3.00 m)

Armament:
4 - 4.00" / 102 mm 50.0 cal guns - 33.88lbs / 15.37kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1900 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 136 lbs / 61 kg

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 9,399 ihp / 7,012 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 3,500nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 224 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
88 - 115

Cost:
£0.122 million / $0.488 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 24 tons, 2.4 %
Machinery: 609 tons, 60.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 212 tons, 21.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 156 tons, 15.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
234 lbs / 106 Kg = 7.3 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.88
Metacentric height 2.3 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 8.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 73 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.10
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.46

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.409 / 0.422
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.07 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.47 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
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 (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 203.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 123.9 %
Waterplane Area: 5,725 Square feet or 532 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 33 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 24 lbs/sq ft or 115 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 0.93
- Overall: 0.54
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is extremely poor
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
_______________________________________________________
My battleship sim of choice: Navalism

Image
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by doug941   » Mon Dec 22, 2014 4:32 pm

doug941
Commander

Posts: 228
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 6:21 pm

Draken wrote:So best choice of ammunition would be HE?
What about smaller guns to protect against suicide attacks and boarding? 4x20mm should do the trick? Or few Gatlings when they will be possible. Another option would be few 75mm guns with grapeshot shells it shouldn't have a lot of problems with flesh and boats.


For close in actions, either a old style Hotchkiss or Maxim would work and as a added bonus both weapons were able to be sized up from rifle caliber to 1 1/2" cannons. For 3-4" cannon, a mix or grapeshot and shrapnell shells. Grapeshot spreads as soon as it leaves the barrel, Shrapnell flies like a normal shell until its fuse burns down then bursts.
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by Draken   » Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:54 pm

Draken
Commander

Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:58 pm

Darman wrote:Destroyers sound wonderful, in theory. But what is the range limit on a 1,000t destroyer?

I made a sample DD, running at a top speed of 25 knots, cruising speed of 10 knots. Range is 3500nm.

25-knotter, Charis Destroyer laid down 1900

Displacement:
844 t light; 876 t standard; 1,000 t normal; 1,099 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(305.25 ft / 305.25 ft) x 30.30 ft x (9.25 / 9.86 ft)
(93.04 m / 93.04 m) x 9.24 m x (2.82 / 3.00 m)

Armament:
4 - 4.00" / 102 mm 50.0 cal guns - 33.88lbs / 15.37kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1900 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 136 lbs / 61 kg

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 9,399 ihp / 7,012 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 3,500nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 224 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
88 - 115

Cost:
£0.122 million / $0.488 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 24 tons, 2.4 %
Machinery: 609 tons, 60.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 212 tons, 21.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 156 tons, 15.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
234 lbs / 106 Kg = 7.3 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.88
Metacentric height 2.3 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 8.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 73 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.10
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.46

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.409 / 0.422
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.07 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.47 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
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 (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m, 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 203.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 123.9 %
Waterplane Area: 5,725 Square feet or 532 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 33 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 24 lbs/sq ft or 115 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 0.93
- Overall: 0.54
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is extremely poor
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Could you be so kind to do same simulation with 2,5k ship and with oil as fuel?
I think that light cruise would be better and use the same design only enlarged for heavy and battle cruisers.
I will run few simulation tomorrow for ships within 1-20k tons to check what would be best mix of armor and guns for something similar to Iowa.
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by doug941   » Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:52 pm

doug941
Commander

Posts: 228
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 6:21 pm

Could you be so kind to do same simulation with 2,5k ship and with oil as fuel?
I think that light cruise would be better and use the same design only enlarged for heavy and battle cruisers.
I will run few simulation tomorrow for ships within 1-20k tons to check what would be best mix of armor and guns for something similar to Iowa.[/quote]

With one major difference, the Imperial German light cruiser Gazelle fits your request. The difference is that size cruiser would have been coal fired. Oil didn't really become common until size reached the 4.5-5 k ton region
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by Draken   » Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:23 pm

Draken
Commander

Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:58 pm

What about Baltimore or New Orleans as capital ship for ICN? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore-class_cruiser
It has smaller guns than King Haarald, but there's no need for bigger guns. Another plus of it is that it could be build in big runs, with KH it would be problematic, but with this one 40 ship series are possible. Later it easily could changed into escort ship.
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by doug941   » Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:06 pm

doug941
Commander

Posts: 228
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 6:21 pm

Draken wrote:What about Baltimore or New Orleans as capital ship for ICN? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore-class_cruiser
It has smaller guns than King Haarald, but there's no need for bigger guns. Another plus of it is that it could be build in big runs, with KH it would be problematic, but with this one 40 ship series are possible. Later it easily could changed into escort ship.


Either one would work but I think a light weight "Armored Cruiser" would work better. Both New Orleans and Baltimore were of the type known as a "Protected Cruiser" which had deck armor but little to no side armor. If a Church ship could somehow get in close, even a muzzle loaded shell could hurt them.
Top
Re: Considerations about naval designs
Post by n7axw   » Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:35 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

I think that the argument for the destroyer/cruiser sized ships is that even the current ironclads are proof against anything the COGA can throw at them for the forseeable future. There is no need at this time for a large class ship design to replace the King Haarahlds whose primary function will be to batter their way past fortresses and into harbors.

But there is a need for what I will call---at the risk of mixing up our universes---the wet navy version of the honorverse Sag-Cs, an all steel ship that can be constructed in sufficient numbers to allow the EOC force projection in multiple locations. Oil fired steam engines would do fine.

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top

Return to Safehold