SDN World 3 Country Claiming

[Ryan Thunder]

Excellent.

Wilkens, consider my bitterness quashed.

[Ma Deuce]

On another issue, if players with Navy Focus 2 (like myself) are going to be limited to 30,000 tons as Thanas suggests, here is an example of a late-model capital ship my country could build under that limit, representing a game-start era design for my nation. The design philosophy represents a slow, but well armed and very heavily armored warship, with all-or-nothing armor, similar and concept to the US "standard type" battleships, in that I generally intend both preceding and succeeding classes to have generally similar tactical characteristics. The short length should make it easy to allow a very tight tactical radius, reducing the chance of a line of such ships having their T capped by a faster enemy line. The ship however still has a 1/3rd of it's bunkerage devoted to coal for logistical reasons (Madagascar has coal and oil reserves, but not much, especially the latter). Cruising range is modest, as these ships are not intended to operate much beyond the country's island possessions (trade protection is cruiser work anyway), so seakeeping is only just adequate as well. Overall, the battlefleet would serve mainly as a deterrent "fleet-in-being".

HMS Sahisahy, Magagascar Battleship laid down 1925

Displacement:
28,325 t light; 30,000 t standard; 31,063 t normal; 31,914 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(583.98 ft / 574.97 ft) x 100.00 ft x (29.00 / 29.68 ft)
(178.00 m / 175.25 m) x 30.48 m x (8.84 / 9.05 m)

Armament:
8 - 15.75" / 400 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,237.69lbs / 1,015.00kg shells, 90 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1925 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
1 x 2-gun mount on centreline forward
1 raised mount
12 - 5.51" / 140 mm 50.0 cal guns - 83.78lbs / 38.00kg shells, 200 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1925 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 - 4.33" / 110 mm 45.0 cal guns - 39.68lbs / 18.00kg shells, 350 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1925 Model
6 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 19,145 lbs / 8,684 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.2" / 360 mm 344.49 ft / 105.00 m 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 10.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.97" / 50 mm 344.49 ft / 105.00 m 27.50 ft / 8.38 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 74.97 ft / 22.85 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 17.7" / 450 mm 9.84" / 250 mm 16.1" / 410 mm
2nd: 1.97" / 50 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
3rd: 1.97" / 50 mm - 1.97" / 50 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 6.50" / 165 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 16.14" / 410 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 57,501 shp / 42,896 Kw = 23.50 kts
Range 5,400nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,914 tons (33% coal)

Complement:
1,169 - 1,520

Cost:
£9.377 million / $37.506 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,460 tons, 11.1 %
- Guns: 3,460 tons, 11.1 %
Armour: 11,840 tons, 38.1 %
- Belts: 3,293 tons, 10.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 690 tons, 2.2 %
- Armament: 3,386 tons, 10.9 %
- Armour Deck: 4,128 tons, 13.3 %
- Conning Tower: 344 tons, 1.1 %
Machinery: 1,925 tons, 6.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,050 tons, 35.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,738 tons, 8.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.2 %
- On freeboard deck: 50 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
43,035 lbs / 19,520 Kg = 22.0 x 15.7 " / 400 mm shells or 7.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 6.0 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 17.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 59 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.81
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.652 / 0.655
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.75 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 14.68 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.00 ft / 0.91 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 21.00 %, 22.97 ft / 7.00 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Forward deck: 50.00 %, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Aft deck: 10.00 %, 11.02 ft / 3.36 m, 11.02 ft / 3.36 m
- Quarter deck: 19.00 %, 11.02 ft / 3.36 m, 11.02 ft / 3.36 m
- Average freeboard: 18.27 ft / 5.57 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 139.0 %
Waterplane Area: 44,126 Square feet or 4,099 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 216 lbs/sq ft or 1,052 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.68
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

Note: 50 tons misc. for aircraft installation

note that 50 tons for spotting planes, intended to represent two aircraft and the crap needed to support them (I assume 25 tons per aircraft). I suggest that anyone who wants to put spotting planes on their ships should be required to account for them in using misc. weight.

Any other suggestions for miscellaneous weights players should account for in Springsharp designs?

P.S. One final note concerning Ryan's designs: I could be mistaken, but I just noticed that he seems to have forgotten to add barbette armor to the main battery; if so, that's a rather serious oversight.

[Ryan Thunder]

Well, if I did then, I've set it at 100 mm since. I think it warns you if there isn't any, anyway.

EDIT: The design remains the same otherwise.

[Lonestar]

Ok extreme delay here sorry everyone.
Ok I am reviewing my PM's and will make my selections for colonies know. However a question. What would something like Hong-Kong cost me? I want to play a Britain that's on a much sharper decline then historically accurate due to mismanagement. Instead of India being under firm control and all those island colonies I'm looking at a Britian forced to scale back it's Imperial ambitions. Perhaps to the point that only Hong-Kong like agreements and settlements remain remain except for one or two colonies(Has anyone claimed Cuba or the New Zeland?). If Shep and Lonestar are willing for example could we work something out like that were Britain maintains a toehold on some small city to serve as harbor and coaling station for the British fleet with no control over the country proper?

How many Hong Kong's could 1 point buy me? 2 points, 3 points?

I think we can work out a Treaty Port/Pondicherry-like agreement. Since The borders of Shepidtan/the Grand Dominion are such as they are, I no longer consider handing off Sri Lanka or Southern India.

[Master_Baerne]

Baernistan (I forget the name)

Also, for the sake of number-crunching, how much are you folks going to contribute?

That'd be France. Erm, what would a reasonable contribution be? Historical economics aren't my strong point.

Also, I'd like to add me name to the list of Nicaragua Canal funders - I can't guarantee that Colombian and French interests will always run side-by-side.

[Ryan Thunder]

I've attempted to design a long-range battlecruiser from scratch. How's this look?

Code: Select all

CSS Vengeance, Columbian battlecruiser laid down 1920

Displacement:
	25 511 t light; 28 066 t standard; 30 000 t normal; 31 547 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
	(656.17 ft / 623.36 ft) x 98.43 ft (Bulges 131.23 ft) x (32.81 / 34.25 ft)
	(200.00 m / 190.00 m) x 30.00 m (Bulges 40.00 m)  x (10.00 / 10.44 m)

Armament:
      4 - 15.75" / 400 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1 969.41lbs / 893.31kg shells, 200 per gun
	  Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
	  2 x 2 row twin mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
      8 - 9.84" / 250 mm 45.0 cal guns - 480.81lbs / 218.09kg shells, 500 per gun
	  Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
	  4 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
      8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 1.87lbs / 0.85kg shells, 1 000 per gun
	  Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model
	  4 x Twin mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
      8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 0.27lbs / 0.12kg shells, 2 000 per gun
	  Machine guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model
	  8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 11 741 lbs / 5 326 kg
      Main DC/AS Mortars
      6 - 330.69 lbs / 150.00 kg Depth Charges + 20 reloads - 3.838 t total
	in Stern depth charge racks

Armour:
   - Belts:		Width (max)	Length (avg)		Height (avg)
	Main:	9.84" / 250 mm	374.02 ft / 114.00 m	11.91 ft / 3.63 m
	Ends:	3.94" / 100 mm	249.31 ft / 75.99 m	11.91 ft / 3.63 m
	Upper:	3.94" / 100 mm	374.02 ft / 114.00 m	8.01 ft / 2.44 m
	  Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
		1.97" / 50 mm	374.02 ft / 114.00 m	22.83 ft / 6.96 m
	Beam between torpedo bulkheads 65.62 ft / 20.00 m

   - Hull Bulges:
		1.97" / 50 mm	164.04 ft / 50.00 m	6.56 ft / 2.00 m

   - Gun armour:	Face (max)	Other gunhouse (avg)	Barbette/hoist (max)
	Main:	3.94" / 100 mm	3.94" / 100 mm		3.94" / 100 mm
	2nd:	1.97" / 50 mm	1.97" / 50 mm		1.97" / 50 mm

   - Armoured deck - single deck:
	For and Aft decks: 3.94" / 100 mm
	Forecastle: 3.94" / 100 mm  Quarter deck: 3.94" / 100 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 1.97" / 50 mm, Aft 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
	Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, 
	Geared drive, 2 shafts, 27 523 shp / 20 532 Kw = 20.00 kts
	Range 7 000nm at 15.00 kts
	Bunker at max displacement = 3 482 tons

Complement:
	1 139 - 1 481

Cost:
	£5.017 million / $20.070 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
	Armament: 2 431 tons, 8.1 %
	   - Guns: 2 426 tons, 8.1 %
	   - Weapons: 5 tons, 0.0 %
	Armour: 7 097 tons, 23.7 %
	   - Belts: 2 870 tons, 9.6 %
	   - Torpedo bulkhead: 622 tons, 2.1 %
	   - Bulges: 78 tons, 0.3 %
	   - Armament: 689 tons, 2.3 %
	   - Armour Deck: 2 755 tons, 9.2 %
	   - Conning Towers: 82 tons, 0.3 %
	Machinery: 962 tons, 3.2 %
	Hull, fittings & equipment: 15 022 tons, 50.1 %
	Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4 489 tons, 15.0 %
	Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
	Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
	  66 248 lbs / 30 049 Kg = 33.9 x 15.7 " / 400 mm shells or 15.6 torpedoes
	Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.64
	Metacentric height 11.1 ft / 3.4 m
	Roll period: 16.5 seconds
	Steadiness	- As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 81 %
			- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.16
	Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.62

Hull form characteristics:
	Hull has a flush deck,
	  a normal bow and a cruiser stern
	Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.391 / 0.394
	Length to Beam Ratio: 4.75 : 1
	'Natural speed' for length: 24.97 kts
	Power going to wave formation at top speed: 37 %
	Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
	Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
	Stern overhang: 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
	Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
				Fore end,	 Aft end
	   - Forecastle:	20.00 %,  28.18 ft / 8.59 m,  23.06 ft / 7.03 m
	   - Forward deck:	30.00 %,  23.06 ft / 7.03 m,  17.95 ft / 5.47 m
	   - Aft deck:	30.00 %,  17.95 ft / 5.47 m,  17.95 ft / 5.47 m
	   - Quarter deck:	20.00 %,  17.95 ft / 5.47 m,  17.95 ft / 5.47 m
	   - Average freeboard:		20.15 ft / 6.14 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
	Space	- Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 73.3 %
		- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 120.7 %
	Waterplane Area: 37 543 Square feet or 3 488 Square metres
	Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 154 %
	Structure weight / hull surface area: 290 lbs/sq ft or 1 417 Kg/sq metre
	Hull strength (Relative):
		- Cross-sectional: 1.38
		- Longitudinal: 3.06
		- Overall: 1.49
	Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
	Excellent accommodation and workspace room
	Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
	Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

[Thanas]

wow, just four gun barrels in two turrets? That is seriously asking to get you ass kicked.

[Lonestar]

wow, just four gun barrels in two turrets? That is seriously asking to get you ass kicked.

The Glorious lives!

[Thanas]

^Snicker. Yeah.

Also, his design is underarmored for its size and is way too slow for a battlecruiser. Heck, every single one of my old battleships is as fast or faster than it.

[Beowulf]

It actually looks a lot like a pre-dreadnought. 4 big guns, 8 heavy secondaries. It's far too slow, given that my 2nd generation dreadnoughts will be faster than it. (1st gen is only 18.5 kt). The guns are inadequately armored (hint: the guns always have the heaviest armor on the turret face, heavier than the belt.) And there's little reason for it to carry depth charges. Most likely, they'll just need to be tossed overboard when clearing for action, since it's useless against ships, and they're far too dangerous to have on board at that point. It's also far, far too beamy.

[Thanas]

I am not sure that it is too beamy, the relationship of beam to length seems to be the same as in Von der Tann.

[Beowulf]

I'd suggest a length limit rather than a "capital ship". Maybe something like 400-450 ft?

Erm no... some light ships were absurdly long, being very long helps you in terms of handling speed well. I think that the 20kt limit is fairly apt, everything below that is too small for our notice, everything beyond that is probably going to be in the 30kt+ range.

Although it's true some light ships are absurdly long, it's really the length and beam of your slipway(/dry dock) that determines how big of a ship you can build, and which costs to increase. It's doesn't cost any more for infrastructure to build a ship that has an increased block coefficient to gain tonnage. Of course, at some point you can't increase it any further, and need to build a bigger ship. The exact length could be fudged a bit, but the point is that the physical size of the slip the ship would be constructed on is a limit that plagued a number of nation's build programs.

I am not sure that it is too beamy, the relationship of beam to length seems to be the same as in Von der Tann.

Sure, the waterline beam isn't... add in the 33 foot wide bulges though. Accounting for those makes it one of the beamiest pre-WWII warships, if not the beamiest.

[CmdrWilkens]

Didn't Wilkens say that changing lock size would be impossible with tech due to the water simply not being there?

It is possible for Panama to support bigger locks. In 1939 US began construction on a third set of locks that would have been 1200 feet long by 140 feet wide, intended to accommodate a new generation of warships including the Montana Class battleships. This of course was canceled on the US entry into WWII and never resumed. The reason the canal is near capacity today is because of the sheer volume of traffic going through it, not the size of the locks. However, the third locks project has recently been resurrected, building upon the abandoned US excavations. The new locks are to be 1400 x 180 feet (not to mention 60 feet deep, to accommodate newer mega-containerships), and are intended to have a lockwater reclamation system to ease their burden on the water supply.

The water reclamation system is the critical component and I'm not sure that in 1925 the tech exists to adequately re-purpose it. So here is Ryan's dilemna:


- Your annual tonnage throughput is probably NOT going to exceed the 200m DWT that pass through now
- You can reach that annual total in a whole bunch of different ways:

• Reduce the total number of sailings allowed but increase tonnage and dimensions
  Increase the number of sailings but decrease tonnage and dimensions
  Keep the number and size of current sailings

Each option obviously has consequences in terms of the economics, if you increase sailings your per ship charges would drop but the individual size loss may make it uneconomic by the 70s or 80s. For the time frame we are in your commercial prospects are still bright even with smaller dimensions though military prospects are problematic but you likely also reduce your capital outlay and your annual dredging cost. If you decrease the number of sailings and increase individual ship tonnage you increase the capital cost, increase your running costs, and increase the per ship crossing fee but you gain benefits once supertankers start to come about and you allow for bigger military crossings.


Simply put from an economic standpoint it doesn't make all that much sense to increase the draft and beam while reducing the number of available sailings so unless your military partners are paying up for the ability to move bigger ships through your economic bonus is lower. Is it going to be profitable? Almost certainly no matter how you cut it having the canal even with a Nicaraguan alternative will be a net economic benefit to you the question is how much of one and for how much of an upfront cost.

[Karmic Knight]

Would anyone mind me picking up the Dutch South American territories, Bali, Flores, and Sulawesi?

[Steve]

Would anyone mind me picking up the Dutch South American territories, Bali, Flores, and Sulawesi?

Suriname is open, but Bali, Flores, and Sulawesi are claimed by Klavo's Indonesia-Malaya so you should talk to him.

[Karmic Knight]

Suriname is open, but Bali, Flores, and Sulawesi are claimed by Klavo's Indonesia-Malaya so you should talk to him.

Really, I thought he stopped his southern island claims at Java. If he did not, I will just give up those claims entirely, my idea was that the DEIC retreated to those islands after being kicked out of Klavo's Indonesian islands.

[Master_Baerne]

Hey, does Springsharp work for Vista? It seems not to.

[Steve]

Hey, does Springsharp work for Vista? It seems not to.

Don't know, do you have Microsoft .Net Framework though? Version 2.0 or 3.0 is needed.

Are you using 2.1 3.0 Beta?

[Beowulf]

Hey, does Springsharp work for Vista? It seems not to.

Try Win 7? Both V2.1 and v3.0b3 work for me.

[Ryan Thunder]

Hey, does Springsharp work for Vista? It seems not to.

Try Win 7? Both V2.1 and v3.0b3 work for me.

They all work fine for me in Vista.

[Alfred Thayer Mahan]

King Gustav I of The Tre Kronor hereby claims his birthright before God and His sight! May He bless the protector of the unified realms of Denmark and Sweden and their historic possessions!

[Minister of Pigeonry]

Well, I’ve been following the progress of SDN World Three for a while now and finally got the nerve enough to make an account here in hopes of joining in, talked to Steve and he has no problems with my participating thus far. As it is, I’m new to SDN and STGOD’s, but not new to forum-based RPGing. So, bit of a Newb here.

Country-wise I’m looking to claim Spain and a few overseas territories including Spanish Morocco, Western (Spanish) Sahara, the Canary Islands, the Balearic Iles in the Med, Spanish Guinea in Africa and Uruguay. Additionally, are there any unclaimed islands left in the Caribbean region, or have they all been snapped up? Steve let me know Peru has been claimed, does anyone know the status of Chile?

Claims are in the Magenta

If anyone has any problems with those claims I’ve listed let me know and I’ll drop some if need be.

[Karmic Knight]

Peru has not been claimed to my knowledge, and Chile is part of Raj's Chile/Argentina combination.

[Minister of Pigeonry]

Peru has not been claimed to my knowledge, and Chile is part of Raj's Chile/Argentina combination.

I see, thanks for the info. Probably should have asked about Bolivia and Paraguay as well but that may be a bit much and seeing as they're sort of landlocked and away from my other holding in the region that could be difficult what with having to go through Argentina to reach the latter

As for Peru I'm told it's to be claimed as someone's Home Territory.

[Norseman]

The three Guineas seem fairly unclaimed and OTL they were all colonies, I'd rather like having some colonial territories next to my Socialist Republic It'd give the Peoples Committee for the Control of Information something to do.