froggyfrenchman
Vice Admiral
Posts:3011
 | | 21 Jun 2009 11:33 AM |
| All
Again, this is not a rule change proposal. Just an interesting discussion.
Currently, units are alloted, based on standard displacement. But some navies figured their standard displacement differently, and some violated the limits imposed by the various treaties, which in some cases means that they get more units than a ship that was built within the limits, by utilizing better weight-savings techniques.
We have, in the past, discussed the idea of alloting units based on full-load tonnage. And although it might end up being more accurate, and perhaps more fair, it might also still not cover all of the issues.
There have been the debates for years about how many units this ship should get, or why one ship has more units that another.
Mikey | | | |
|
crzyhawk
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2249
| | 23 Jul 2009 12:43 PM |
| I don't like the idea of using full load displacement. In fact, I absolutely hate it.
The idea of assigning ships units, is to help determine their relative fighting power when compared to another warship. The present system we use does this. The ships are where they "feel" right in relative combat power. The "cut off" points for the various units are set up with STANDARD displacement in mind. If we began to use FULL load displacement to determine units, we'll have to re-calculate all the unit cutoff points to get ships back to where they should be. If we don't, then all we have done is inflate the shiplist in an unequal manner, where some ships will benefit more then others. | | | HMS Invincible
USS Salem (CA-139)
USS Belleau Wood (CVL-24)
| |
|
JKN
Ensign
Posts:211
| | 04 Feb 2011 07:57 PM |
| Not to dig up an old thread but why not have it by nummer and size of guns plus size of hull if need be? | | | |
|
froggyfrenchman
Vice Admiral
Posts:3011
| | 11 Feb 2011 08:59 PM |
| A couple of the locals here in Dayton were discussing something similar to that this year. But we never got past the discussions phase.
There still seems to be interest in coming up with a better solution. But actually finding it seems harder than it might be expected.
Mikey | | | |
|
JKN
Ensign
Posts:211
| | 11 Feb 2011 09:54 PM |
| LIke say go with the Big gun fromat of gun calibers except make them equal from smallest to largest of the 4 size ball bearing chart range from 1/4 to1 unit for the guns and maby have the size of the hull or hull size and class for the pumps? | | | |
|
Darren Scott
Veteran
Captain
Posts:827
| | 12 Feb 2011 01:00 AM |
| I'll have a go here, even if I have no idea what I'm doing...
Allocate gun units and pump units like this:
Use figures only from Conways.
Base gun units on (Number x size x caliber / 20) of main guns on the actual ship.
ie: Bismarck had 8x 15" (rounded metric bores into inches) x 47cal = 8 x 15 x 47 /20 = 282 units. Result is then rounded down to nearest 25. Gives 275 units.
This would give you four barrels @50 rounds each, and one @ 75 rounds, or any combination you feel would suit you.
BTW, no half-unit guns for ships with four or more working barrels. Max rounds per gun to be 75.
Base pump rates on (full load in tons / 200). Change last two digits of result to zeros. Gives outlet size in 1000ths of inches.
ie: Bismarck was 50900 t (50900 / 200) = 254.4. change last two digits to zeros gives 250.0 thou = 1/4"
I'll let you all crunch the numbers for the other ships, and see if i'm in the ballpark, or the carpark.
| | | Have Battleship, will travel...... | |
|
RichelieuBB
Veteran
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1418
| | 12 Feb 2011 10:49 AM |
| I can do a lot with a 1/4" outlet. Heh. | | Mike Mangus
Beware the French Revolution!
Operational:
HMS Erin DN
FN Richelieu BB
FN Verite PDN
Launched
Le Requin Xebec (AoS)
Under Construction:
FN Mogador DE
FN Gascogne BB (Treaty)
FN Bretagne (1/96) (delayed)
Mothballed:
FN Bearn CV
| |
|
Chris Easterbrook
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1391
| | 12 Feb 2011 02:34 PM |
| If you read the acual washington treaty it will tell you the difference between standard and full displacements and full load does not reflect any additional combat ability. It is what a ship displaces with a full load of full ammo and a full crew plus the weight of ship, nothing more. | | | That which does not kill me, makes me stronger. | |
|
JKN
Ensign
Posts:211
| | 12 Feb 2011 03:05 PM |
| Darren has a really good Idea,
Go Aussey | | | |
|
JKN
Ensign
Posts:211
| | 12 Feb 2011 03:40 PM |
| But I dont really agree with the pump part though I like the current by class gpm,
How about haveing the (# of guns X diameter X caliber/ 1000)
So then using bismark as example,
(8x15x47/100=5.64 rounded is 5.5 units):
or have it be (# of guns 3in over x there diameter/40 then rounded to nearest half unit)
so then Uss Indiana (BB-1) as example,
before 1908: (4x13)+(8x8)+(4x6)=140/40=3.5 units
between 1908 and 1910: (4x13)+(8x8)=116/40=2.9=3 units
after 1910: (4x13)+(8x8)+(12x3)=152/40=3.8=4 units
and the units are overall and not just for the guns. | | | |
|
Darren Scott
Veteran
Captain
Posts:827
| | 12 Feb 2011 05:01 PM |
| Just did the figures for my ship, if she was fastgun, which she's not.
HMS Rodney: 9 x 16" x 45cal
Gives 9 x 16 x 45 / 20 = 324
Rounds down to 300 units. (Makes sense as she was more heavily armed than Bismarck).
Full load was 41250 ton as built (I use "as built" figures, so that ships that did not have long careers are not disadvantaged!)
Gives (41250 / 200) = 206.25 rounded gives 200 thou for the pump outlet. (also makes sense she was less heavily armoured than Bismarck.)
The pump calc should read "(full load in tons / 200), convert last full digit to zero, disregard numbers below 1 "
JKN, and any others who wish to, could you do the numbers for your ships, please?
I think the divisor for the pump calc may need tweaking. | | | Have Battleship, will travel...... | |
|
JKN
Ensign
Posts:211
| | 12 Feb 2011 05:26 PM |
| Well for the Indiana BB-1 I am building for treaty would be,
arment wise, 4x13x35=1820/20=91=75 rounds or 1.5 current units! 
pump wise, (dont know full so Ill put standard) 10288/200=51.44x.001=.05 of an inch!
current way I can have 3.5 overall units!
3 for stern guns 2x75 and .5 for pump 1gpm 
| | | |
|
Darren Scott
Veteran
Captain
Posts:827
| | 12 Feb 2011 06:14 PM |
| That's what I was afraid of, the calc is too linear. Perhaps an absolute min of 3.0 units would compensate?
However, Indiana BB-1 would hardly be expected to win a fight with even a WW2 cruiser, so perhaps the figures reflect that?
A pump outlet minimum of 1/8" may suffice. | | | Have Battleship, will travel...... | |
|
JKN
Ensign
Posts:211
| | 12 Feb 2011 09:03 PM |
| I chose the Indiana so I could be small and maneuverable, In combat I would stay far from shore and let them come to me when they try to shoot my sides I turn giving them some serious stern gun love  | | | |
|
JKN
Ensign
Posts:211
| | 12 Feb 2011 09:09 PM |
| The founders of treaty said I could build it if I kept it just slow enough to get away from the slowest convoy Min warship speed, 22 knots Min convoy speed, 20 knots My speed, 21 knots. In a way it would be better in my opinion to have all guns 3in and over multiplied by its diameter divided by 40 Because with overall units you can choose amount of defense and offense. | | | |
|
Darren Scott
Veteran
Captain
Posts:827
| | 12 Feb 2011 09:41 PM |
| Until you apply that to a Yamato, 12 x 6.1" 60cal, plus 12 x 5" 40cal, or Iowa, 20 x 5" 38cal. Ouch. | | | Have Battleship, will travel...... | |
|
Darren Scott
Veteran
Captain
Posts:827
| | 12 Feb 2011 09:55 PM |
| Yamato. Better do the numbers for her.
Guns:
9 x 18" 45cal
Gives 9 x 18 x 45 / 20 = 364.5
Rounds down to 350 units
Pump:
69,990t full load.
69990 / 200 = 349.95.
After rounding, 340 thou pump outlet. | | | Have Battleship, will travel...... | |
|
JKN
Ensign
Posts:211
| | 12 Feb 2011 09:58 PM |
| ok yamto by mine would be, 9x18 plus 12x6.1/40=162+73.2/40=235.2/40=5.88=6unts,darnwhere did I screw up at? Lets try this again, New idea, main x diameter plus secandary x diameter/30 Indiana 13x4+8x8=116/30=3.86=4 units Yamato 9x18+12x6.1/30=162=73.2/30=235.2/30=7.84=8, yay it worked for those two | | | |
|
RCENGR
Veteran
Ensign
Posts:271
| | 12 Feb 2011 09:59 PM |
| Interesting way to calculate guns. It gives both my cruisers an extra 1/2 unit, and the destroyers are the same or less. The Gridley gets only 25 rounds, which makes it less attractive to build, but is probably fair. How would submarines and carriers be handled? Baltimore - 175 rounds Roanoke - 150 rounds Gridley - 25 rounds Gearing - 50 rounds Liberty ship - 9.5; so zero? I can't say I like any pump calculation that results in an orifice size. This gives an advantage to those that can create the highest pressure pump. And besides, testing so many orifices would require a large set of gages. | | | Mark
USS Roanoke,
HMS Queen | |
|
Darren Scott
Veteran
Captain
Posts:827
| | 12 Feb 2011 10:00 PM |
| Iowa.
I'll just put the final numbers up.
350 units for guns.
280 thou pump outlet. | | | Have Battleship, will travel...... | |
|