Shipbucket

I have edited the shiplist, Ungeheuer class no longer has torpedoes

_________________
"Lead me, follow me or the get the hell out of my way!" -George S. Patton
"A ship is referred as a "she" because it takes so much powder and paint to maintain her"- Chester W. Nimitz

Hi Oberst,

I'd suggest looking again at placement of the aft 5" mount on your Gornikova-class, it looks like the fire arc is mostly blocked by your "X" main battery turret. I'd also suggested checking positions of your directors - you appear to have secondary battery directors higher up than main battery directors, I'd though you'd want it the other way around to get the most range out of main battery, but I could be wrong.

I'd suggest, again, going through your radar fit and checking what you want it to do - you're carrying, from what I can make out:
2 x unknown main battery director with Mk.8 fire-control radar;
2 x Mk.37 secondary battery director with Mk.4 fire-control radar;
1 x SG surface search radar;
1 x SK/SK-2 air search radar (depending on the year); This is a more-or-less complete radar set!
and then we also have:
1 x FuMO 27 fire control radar;
- or -
1 x FuMO 26 fire control radar;
2 x FuMB 3 passive detector;
1 x FuMB 7 passive detector;

Please note I've not detailed any USN passive stuff on there because I don't know enough to spot it. You've got an awful lot of fire-control radars there, can you detail what they're all for?

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

I don't want to keep doing detailed criticism of your ships but if you are on the allies in WW2 why would you not just join in with the USN/RN radar program ? (and probably help make them even better with a 3rd great power helping out) Why would you use anything else ?

JSB

Thank you, Sir, for not addressing the issues I brought up. Evidently it was a shout in empty air...

On the Ungeheuer-class, I would like you to explain how you reached your armament size without substantially changing the triple turrets (that's right! the Brooklyn/Cleveland triples!) to reach your over-the-top, unrealistic 20x6" and, where are the alleged 18x5"? All I see are 12 of them...

One question pops up in my mind, having read this thread, nd that is how much you really know about naval technology, weapons, ship design etc...

But, again thank you for not addressing any issues...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

so 40 turbines of all about 75% efficiency, on 4 shafts, so 0,75^40 = 0,003178% efficiency from your turbines, so your boilers should deliver 5034014MW.
uhm................ I hope that was a typo, and there should be 4 turbines, one on each shaft? even when you are saying 4 on each shaft it would mean only 10% of the boiler power remaining

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Hi Ace,

Could I impose on you for an explanation of the above?

I get that 75% is presumably a "book" value for steam plant efficiency, but I'm not sure where your power of 40 is coming from. Are you assuming that the plant is effectively going to be run as one giant 40-stage powerplant? I would have thought that damage control concerns at least would require splitting the plant up into one group per shaft, even if (as you've alluded) it's not a typo and it is actually 40 turbines rather than 16: 4*(0.75^10) still isn't great but it's a lot less bad than 0.75^40, 4*(0.75^4) is nicer still.

Also, can you explain the efficiency decrease? I'd been under the impression that, for instance, splitting these things into LP and HP turbines (or, in this instance, possibly LP, IP1, IP2 and HP turbines, which I'd imagine would be marginal in terms of cost-benefit even under the best conditions) increased efficiency, which is why it was done in practice - genuinely keen to correct any misunderstandings I've had and get the answer.

EDIT: @Bezobrazov - I'd give Oberst the benefit of the doubt, Bezo, he's had a ton of queries on these designs and it could be he's just missed it.

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

I am sorry for not addressing your question in the manner that I should have, the third funnel on the Tesla class cruiser was a last minute change when they realized that were some of the engines that didn't have a quick way to exhaust the smoke so as they were already constructing all ten at the same time, it was decided to just add another funnel in the space between the 90 mm canons, that it is the way it is.

Now for the Ungeheuer class, the 6 inch gun turrets have 4 guns each, so that is how I got the have forward 3 turrets, aft 2 turret configurations. Now for the secondary 5 inch guns, these turrets were built with three guns each, hence, 18x5 inch guns

_________________
"Lead me, follow me or the get the hell out of my way!" -George S. Patton
"A ship is referred as a "she" because it takes so much powder and paint to maintain her"- Chester W. Nimitz

Alright, I have looked at that 5 inch turret's location and it just dawned to me that there are six 5 inch turrets not five, I must have looked at my old stats sheets when I was typing for the background for the Gornikovna. I will see to the swapping of the range finders and remove any extra range finders. The German fire control radars are not being used as range finders but as short range air search radars.
The turbines that I am using are turbo-electric turbines which are better than the traditional turbines.

_________________
"Lead me, follow me or the get the hell out of my way!" -George S. Patton
"A ship is referred as a "she" because it takes so much powder and paint to maintain her"- Chester W. Nimitz

Hi Oberst,

Up high might still be a valid position for your secondary directors if that is where they need to be to get the best sky arcs (remember the secondary stuff is going to be looking up a lot more than the primary directors).

I'd submit that you'd still probably use the SK or SK-2 for short-range air search, or, alternately, the Mk.4 on top of the secondary battery director (if it's that close you may as well start shooting at it!)

With regards to the turbo-electric stuff - efficiency on these things is generally a function of size, so you'd want as few (big) turbines as possible, consistent with your damage control requirements. Plus that means you do not have to worry about a bearing failure in the 37th turbine...

Regards,
Ad

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

well, I assumed an 75% efficiency for each turbine, as steam turbines have an effeciency of between 65% and 90+% these days, so 75% might actually be high for a turbine during that era..
it is not to be done as a giant 40 stage powerplant, but as 40 turbine sets all separate coupled to the shafts with gearboxes. with turbine sets I mean both the LP and HP turbines (as those are in ships specifications are often mentioned as 'turbines' when these sets are meant)
my earlier calculation was a bit hasty (and possibly, plain wrong) so forget that however, smaller turbines are less efficient (at full speed) then large ones. this due to the gears, bearings, thermal efficiency etc. it also results in a much larger powerplant, as each turbine is bigger then the 'power portion' of the big turbine it represents, let alone the placement in the vessel.

splitting to more then one turbine has benefits too, mostly the better efficiency at lower speeds (just run half your turbines at optimal speed instead of all your turbines at sub-optimal) but with 40 of them, you are going to run into other problems which are unneccesary, you do not need 40 different speeds for your ship. maintenance, spare parts, crewing and piping are going to be a hell too. also, boilers of that time are complicated, and all these turbines are going to make them even more so. this will make crewing and maintenance of these a problem too.

my earlier calculation should have been:
* 4 turbines:
- output of each turbine: 160/4 = 40MW
- efficiency of each turbine = 75%
- gearbox efficiency (only reduction gears) = 98%
- required boiler power for one propeller = 40/(0,75*0,98) =54MW

* 40 turbines:
- output of each turbine: 160/40 = 4MW
- efficiency of each turbine = 70% (lower due to abovementioned reasons)
- gearbox efficiency (reduction gears + couplings + additional gearings) = 98%*98%*98%*98% = 92%
- required boiler power for one propeller = (4/(0,70*0,92))*10 =62 MW

if we would go turbo-electric, this would result in a slightly higher number then the geared one (how much is depending on the number of gearboxes actually required) due to the electrical engines at the shaft. note that the above calculations do not take into account the losses in piping and of course, the ship impact the bigger plant would have (a 20-30% smaller ship due to a 15% decrease in power seems not that weird) would lower resistance and thus the required power.

while not as bad (or faulty) as my original calculation, still not that good

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin