The Socialist Republic of Sieran

Yeah I remember Springsharps issues hence I don't trust everything it says when trying to model something other than a cruiser or battleship. I'm still fiddling with different armament and formats and I might yet change the actual dimensions of the hull itself. A flush hull performs better yet wouldn't really be suitable for a destroyer of this period.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

KHT wrote:

Something worth remembering is that Springsharp greatly overrates the power needed for the speed for these ships. Take the Swedish Halland class for example. It is about 700 tons larger than this, it had a speed of 35 knots, with an engine power of 58 000 SHP. So if you enter, say 33 knots in the springsharp report, the ship would IRL be able to reach(at least) roughly 36 knots.

That, and getting "good seakeeping" is difficult at best...

You're not wrong there. I'll tinker with it somewhat and see what happens.

On another note, I've been pondering what to do with my Anadyr class dreadnoughts which were one of the first ships I drew here. They were commissioned during WW1 and modernized during the late 20s before the shift in naval policy saw them put in reserve during the late 30s. During WW2 I'm not sure whether they could be brought back or not (if there's even crews available). Any thoughts?

Btw, this is them. They are in need of a re-do if I decide to keep them as the drawing looks rather poor now, despite the ships nice lines;

[ img ]

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Whilst on the subject in another thread, I forgot that I had done a 'field mod' version of Sierans Oca Class MTBs a while back and only just found the drawing whilst cleaning out my SSD.

Here it is with an experimental camo scheme to make the boats harder to spot when in shore from the air. The machine gun has been moved forward and a 37mm added in its place aft. The twin torpedo and small DC rack remain untouched.

[ img ]

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

denodon wrote:

I say go for it. Nothing like having some extra insurance against any attacks. I say modernise em`, try to improve the systems so you need fewer crew members. Install new enginses if possible and install new fire control systems and better secondary battery. Increase the elevation of the guns and add torpedo bulges. Trunk the two funnels together and add AA guns.

Basiclly do a Queen Elizabeth class rebuild or do a Kongo for the lols.

Here' the large destroyer updated taking into account some of springsharps flaws. Engine power is 2,000hp less than the 1936a type destroyers however the range, steadiness and stability have now massively improved. She still can't take many hits but destroyers are expendable to a degree. I found a curious note in that the more I increased range, the lower the cost per individual ship though survivability from shells dropped also.

Also whilst this isn't shipbucket, I used the drawing tool from wesworld to get an idea as to how these will look (ignore the main guns, the turrets are too bulky).

[ img ]

Code: Select all

Kop'e Class, Socialist Republic of Sieran Large Destroyer laid down 1936

Displacement:
	2,152 t light; 2,231 t standard; 2,499 t normal; 2,713 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
	(423.04 ft / 413.39 ft) x 36.91 ft x (13.78 / 14.57 ft)
	(128.94 m / 126.00 m) x 11.25 m  x (4.20 / 4.44 m)

Armament:
      6 - 5.12" / 130 mm 40.0 cal guns - 64.24lbs / 29.14kg shells, 110 per gun
	  Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1936 Model
	  3 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority aft
		1 raised mount aft - superfiring
      8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 2.14lbs / 0.97kg shells, 500 per gun
	  Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
	  2 x Quad mounts on centreline, evenly spread
		2 raised mounts
      4 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1,000 per gun
	  Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
	  2 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck centre
		2 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 404 lbs / 183 kg
      Main Torpedoes
      6 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m torpedoes - 1.367 t each, 8.201 t total
	In 2 sets of deck mounted centre rotating tubes

Armour:
   - Gun armour:	Face (max)	Other gunhouse (avg)	Barbette/hoist (max)
	Main:	0.39" / 10 mm	0.39" / 10 mm		      -
	2nd:	0.39" / 10 mm	      -			      -

Machinery:
	Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, 
	Geared drive, 2 shafts, 54,001 shp / 40,285 Kw = 34.51 kts
	Range 5,000nm at 15.00 kts
	Bunker at max displacement = 482 tons

Complement:
	176 - 229

Cost:
	£1.530 million / $6.122 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
	Armament: 120 tons, 4.8 %
	   - Guns: 103 tons, 4.1 %
	   - Weapons: 16 tons, 0.7 %
	Armour: 10 tons, 0.4 %
	   - Armament: 10 tons, 0.4 %
	Machinery: 1,291 tons, 51.7 %
	Hull, fittings & equipment: 656 tons, 26.3 %
	Fuel, ammunition & stores: 347 tons, 13.9 %
	Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 3.0 %
	   - On freeboard deck: 75 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
	Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
	  590 lbs / 267 Kg = 8.8 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
	Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
	Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
	Roll period: 13.1 seconds
	Steadiness	- As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
			- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.64
	Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.04

Hull form characteristics:
	Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
	  a normal bow and a round stern
	Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.416 / 0.427
	Length to Beam Ratio: 11.20 : 1
	'Natural speed' for length: 20.33 kts
	Power going to wave formation at top speed: 64 %
	Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 68
	Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 14.00 degrees
	Stern overhang: 4.00 ft / 1.22 m
	Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
				Fore end,	 Aft end
	   - Forecastle:	20.00 %,  22.67 ft / 6.91 m,  20.01 ft / 6.10 m
	   - Forward deck:	20.00 %,  20.01 ft / 6.10 m,  19.00 ft / 5.79 m
	   - Aft deck:	45.00 %,  12.27 ft / 3.74 m,  12.27 ft / 3.74 m
	   - Quarter deck:	15.00 %,  12.27 ft / 3.74 m,  12.27 ft / 3.74 m
	   - Average freeboard:		15.48 ft / 4.72 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
	Space	- Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 179.3 %
		- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 124.1 %
	Waterplane Area: 9,486 Square feet or 881 Square metres
	Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 73 %
	Structure weight / hull surface area: 39 lbs/sq ft or 189 Kg/sq metre
	Hull strength (Relative):
		- Cross-sectional: 0.50
		- Longitudinal: 1.45
		- Overall: 0.56
	Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
	Excellent accommodation and workspace room
	Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

denodon wrote:

If you draw your inspiration from German designs, I'd say take a look at Schlesien and Schleswig-Holstein, that were converted in the mid-twenties to early thrities. They had modern Rangefinders and a tube mast installed (amond other things). Of course, those were pre-dreadnoughts and older than your ship. If you want to spent the money, you might want to reconstruct the casematts into turret mountings. Otherwise, the idea with combined funnels sounds good, maybe aicraft installations as well.

_________________
My worklist
Any help and source material is always welcome.

I draw a lot of inspiration for my vessels upon German and Italian practice with a hint of USN for the capital ships and French/German/Russian for the smaller craft.

Modern rangefinders would be essential as well as some kind of aircraft capability. Anti-air guns need to be added and the funnels would indeed be trunked to save deckspace. The bridge would likely need remodelling to handle new equipment and the casemates, funding permitting would need replacing with DP turrets. The TE drives on these would be worn out and in need of replacement but to replace them would need essentially stripping the ship.

For all that effort, it probably would be cheaper just to scrap them I'm thinking, though it could make an interesting 'what if' drawing within an AU.

---

Also in the case of the destroyers, I updated the previous post to include some rough images courtesy of the Wesworld ship drawing thing.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Oh wow I completely forgot about this site due to university commitments.

My game goes live this Monday so that has been my focus. I'll get back to posting here as soon as I am able.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

Shipbucket

Who is online