SDN World 3 Ship Design Thread

[Steve]

25 knots? Save yourself some weight and bring the speed down to 23-24 knots, or cut weight elsewhere for speed of 28+.

[Evincer]

Peru-Bolivia has several 1920 destroyers. The OOBs do not detail these ships, however. I am posting below what I think they might look like, but keep in mind I obviously don't know how to use Springsharp. I am certainly willing to take suggestions!

Heavy Destroyer, Peru-Bolivia Destroyer laid down 1920

Displacement:
1,576 t light; 1,639 t standard; 1,849 t normal; 2,016 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(376.82 ft / 376.82 ft) x 36.50 ft x (12.00 / 12.70 ft)
(114.85 m / 114.85 m) x 11.13 m x (3.66 / 3.87 m)

Armament:
8 - 4.70" / 119 mm 45.0 cal guns - 51.92lbs / 23.55kg shells, 100 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1920 Model
8 x Single mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
16 - 1.58" / 40.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1.94lbs / 0.88kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model
4 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
32 - 0.30" / 7.6 mm 45.0 cal guns - 0.01lbs / 0.01kg shells, 400 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model
8 x Quad mounts on centreline, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 447 lbs / 203 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 22.75 ft / 6.93 m torpedoes - 1.466 t each, 5.862 t total
In 1 sets of deck mounted centre rotating tubes
Main DC/AS Mortars
1 - 600.00 lbs / 272.16 kg Depth Charge + 40 reloads - 10.982 t total
in Stern depth charge racks
2nd DC/AS Mortars
1 - 600.00 lbs / 272.16 kg Depth Charge + 40 reloads - 10.982 t total
in Stern depth charge racks

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm -
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 26,041 shp / 19,426 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 4,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 378 tons

Complement:
140 - 183

Cost:
£0.491 million / $1.965 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 161 tons, 8.7 %
- Guns: 122 tons, 6.6 %
- Weapons: 39 tons, 2.1 %
Armour: 100 tons, 5.4 %
- Armament: 100 tons, 5.4 %
Machinery: 788 tons, 42.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 566 tons, 30.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 273 tons, 14.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
739 lbs / 335 Kg = 14.2 x 4.7 " / 119 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.23
Metacentric height 1.6 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 12.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 59 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.48
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.18

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.392 / 0.404
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.32 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.41 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
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 %, 21.36 ft / 6.51 m, 13.59 ft / 4.14 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 13.59 ft / 4.14 m, 13.59 ft / 4.14 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 13.59 ft / 4.14 m, 13.59 ft / 4.14 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 13.59 ft / 4.14 m, 13.59 ft / 4.14 m
- Average freeboard: 14.21 ft / 4.33 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 158.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 139.3 %
Waterplane Area: 8,420 Square feet or 782 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 80 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 42 lbs/sq ft or 205 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.60
- Longitudinal: 1.42
- Overall: 0.65
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

EDIT: It looks as if the move to Springsharp 3.0 threw off some of the hull size figures!

[Steve]

SpringSharp sucks for destroyers because it presumes max weight machinery while destroyers historically used lightweight engines and machinery (more hp for the pound, basically). As a result you cannot get historical destroyers simmed because they will require smaller engines to fit their tonnage.

[Evincer]

That is unfortunate. Is there anything that I should list regarding details for the 1920 ship? You can use what I posted as a template for details about the ship.

[Ma Deuce]

we could consider allowing players to set the engine year ahead considerably (maybe 20 years) for "light combatants" to simulate lightweight machinery.

[Thanas]

I am not sure that is necessary. If you set the shipstrength to 0.51, which Springsharp allows, you can built tremendously capable destroyerys that outclass any contemporary design.

[Steve]

Huh? I've never seen that work, the destroyers are always much slower because they can't fit the necessary machinery.

And while that's a good idea, Ma Deuce, it means that once 1930 rolls around we hit a cap. I'd prefer a mathematical formula of some sort to translate engine, like if someone sets it to 30,000hp to make the design remain at weight but we'd consider it 50,000 or 55,000 or whatever.

[CmdrWilkens]

Thanas' solution of allowing Destroyers to have a Comp Score of .51 would probably work better.

[Sea Skimmer]

The rule of thumb used to be sim destroyers to .50 hull strength though this may no longer be valid, it worked fine on version 1 and okay on version 2. Springsharp has never done a good job of simulating the true ship impact of smaller caliber guns and torpedo tubes so you’ll never have a truly satisfactory outcome in any case. The program will always let you over arm ships.

Destroyers used way more then lightweight machinery in any case; they also had high tensile steel hulls and used methods of hull framing which were fundamentally different then those used for larger warships. They also just flexed a fair bit more in the open sea and had much shorter service lives as well as greatly inferior maintenance access which led to lower availability rates. Standards for miscellaneous equipment, habitability and scales of manning (for example the number of lookouts) were also inherently lower.

[Thanas]

Huh? I've never seen that work, the destroyers are always much slower because they can't fit the necessary machinery.

Really? My standard Destroyer in a 34 knots version:

Z25, Germany Destroyer laid down 1925

Displacement:
1.453 t light; 1.530 t standard; 1.658 t normal; 1.761 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(436,67 ft / 426,51 ft) x 34,45 ft x (13,12 / 13,54 ft)
(133,10 m / 130,00 m) x 10,50 m x (4,00 / 4,13 m)

Armament:
6 - 4,72" / 120 mm 45,0 cal guns - 53,17lbs / 24,12kg shells, 150 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1925 Model
3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
24 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm 45,0 cal guns - 1,97lbs / 0,89kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1925 Model
12 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 - 0,50" / 12,7 mm 45,0 cal guns - 0,06lbs / 0,03kg shells, 600 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1925 Model
2 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 367 lbs / 166 kg
8 - 20,9" / 530 mm, 26,25 ft / 8,00 m torpedoes - 1,673 t each, 13,381 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted centre rotating tubes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0,50" / 13 mm - -

- Conning towers: Forward 6,00" / 152 mm, Aft 0,00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 35.704 shp / 26.636 Kw = 34,00 kts
Range 2.600nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 231 tons

Complement:
129 - 168

Cost:
£0,662 million / $2,647 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 93 tons, 5,6%
- Guns: 80 tons, 4,8%
- Torpedoes: 13 tons, 0,8%
Armour: 22 tons, 1,3%
- Armament: 4 tons, 0,2%
- Conning Tower: 18 tons, 1,1%
Machinery: 841 tons, 50,7%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 476 tons, 28,7%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 206 tons, 12,4%
Miscellaneous weights: 20 tons, 1,2%
- On freeboard deck: 20 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
357 lbs / 162 Kg = 6,8 x 4,7 " / 120 mm shells or 0,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,10
Metacentric height 1,2 ft / 0,4 m
Roll period: 13,2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,66
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0,301 / 0,310
Length to Beam Ratio: 12,38 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20,65 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3,28 ft / 1,00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20,00%, 14,76 ft / 4,50 m, 11,81 ft / 3,60 m
- Forward deck: 30,00%, 11,81 ft / 3,60 m, 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
- Aft deck: 35,00%, 11,48 ft / 3,50 m, 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
- Quarter deck: 15,00%, 11,48 ft / 3,50 m, 11,48 ft / 3,50 m
- Average freeboard: 11,83 ft / 3,61 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 182,4%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 84,9%
Waterplane Area: 8.632 Square feet or 802 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 62%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 35 lbs/sq ft or 171 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,47
- Longitudinal: 0,83
- Overall: 0,50
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

20 tons for depth charges carried. (1 thrower, 2 stern racks, total of 36 charges)
or for minelaying equipment

EDIT: Give me 200 tons more and I can make it a 36kt version. It really is doable, you just have to mess with the hull design a bit.

EDIT 2: Springsharp explicitly allows hullstrength of down to 0.50 for small combatants. See that i do not get a Caution: Hull strength warning?

[Steve]

That design's a bit under-armed in terms of torpedoes (only 8?), under-ranged (Germany might not need more than 2,600 or so nm, but the US and Japanese destroyers had ranges about twice that for Pacific operation), and slow (34 instead of 36-38 knots). Fubuki had 50,000hp engines for 38 knot speed at a higher tonnage than that ship.

[Thanas]

I am pretty sure that with 300 tons more to work with, I can achieve the same results. I'll try and post it tomorrow.

[Norseman]

25 knots? Save yourself some weight and bring the speed down to 23-24 knots, or cut weight elsewhere for speed of 28+.

I'll bear it in mind, though I worry about my battleline being a tad slow :-/ That said doesn't Springsharp consistently underestimate the hp needed to achieve certain speeds? As well as engine power I mean? Not sure what this things speed would be.

[Ma Deuce]

I'll bear it in mind, though I worry about my battleline being a tad slow :-/ That said doesn't Springsharp consistently underestimate the hp needed to achieve certain speeds? As well as engine power I mean? Not sure what this things speed would be.

Eh? I've found that more often it overestimates the amount of power needed to achieve a given speed, especially true with small combatants, though by no means limited to them (My replica of HMS Hood needs 170,000 hp to achieve 31 knots, though it's other attributes and tonnage match the real thing as closely as is possible in Springsharp and has a CS of 1.00). For slower battleships I've found it tends to be fairly close to real world examples.

Although a slower battleline is ironically not as much a concern in this time period, given that greater battle ranges make it possible for a slower fleet to simply turn inside a faster one, I can see your concern given your apparent lack of battlecruisers or "fast battleships".

[Norseman]

Although a slower battleline is ironically not as much a concern in this time period, given that greater battle ranges make it possible for a slower fleet to simply turn inside a faster one, I can see your concern given your apparent lack of battlecruisers or "fast battleships".

My fleet is designed partially to counter that of Chilatina, which means an emphasis on hitting power and armour, my latest design is my best armoured ship yet.

[Agent Sorchus]

It definitely overestimates hp needed for small combatants. I had a 800 ton ship that needed 50,000hp to propel it to 38 knots.

[Steve]

The program presumes max weight machinery, not lightweight as was used by MTBs, destroyers, and some cruisers. Apparently the creators know this and want to add engine weight factoring, but the function in 3b3 doesn't work, it hasn't been "activated" yet or something.

[Sea Skimmer]

The problem is basically that springsharp uses one generic set of hull lines modified by the block coefficient. In real life you could spend as much time as you cared to running model tank tests and constantly refining the lines of a hull for optimal performance on a specific ship. This will considerably affect a ship with very well thought out lines like HMS Hood, but not so much slower ships which tended to have little thought given to streamlining or playing with the bow wave shape. Indeed often considerable streamline advantages were realized without the designers even understanding why they worked (Yamato is a prime example of this, they tested hundreds of hull forms for her and saved something like 15,000shp in the end doing it) as a complete understanding wasn’t really possible before modern digital computers came into play. But hell even today we still have to do model tank tests.

[Norseman]

Well with my M1925s the designers would want as much speed as they could get out of a 100 000 hp engine so... what do I do about my speed?

[Ma Deuce]

My fleet is designed partially to counter that of Chilatina, which means an emphasis on hitting power and armour, my latest design is my best armoured ship yet.

And they don't have any battlecruisers either do they? In that case, you really only need make your newer battleships fast enough to exceed the surface speed of submarines, for which something in the 23-24 knot range should be sufficient. I don't see any battleship in the Chiletinian fleet faster than 23 knots anyway, and I doubt their battleline can do better than 21. Their only major warship that could outrun your battlefleet would be their lone fleet carrier, which as I recall isn't in service yet.

[Thanas]

I am pretty sure that with 300 tons more to work with, I can achieve the same results. I'll try and post it tomorrow.

And..turns out that I need to increase displacement to 2200 tons to get the same result with the same armament as the Fubuki class.

[Ma Deuce]

And now here is my integrated hull armor testbed, a radical scout cruiser for a navy of otherwise conservative designs. She's armed with a new design of 16 cm gun, succeeding the ubiquitous 14 cm gun on previous cruisers, which I shall post shortly. I supposedly have one in service as a testbed (see my OOB spreadsheet), which if successful would see 4 others completed a year later. Think of her as a supersized Yubari.

Note: To sim structrual integration of the hull armor, the belt and deck armor is represented at 1/3 it's actual thickness in Springsharp (in other words, she really has a 75mm belt and a 40mm deck). I don't know if Steve will allow this, although he was amenable to using the technique for battleship splinter armor outside the citadel. Furthermore, I will point out that several players are using IRL Japanese cruiser designs in their navies that use integrated armor, designs that will only work in Springsharp using this technique. However, there should be a few rules to prevent people form gaming this technique like a motherfucker:

-ONLY hull armor (deck and belt) can be considered integrated.
-Integrated armor should be limited in thickness to say 4 inch belts and 2 inch decks since this was the thickest integrated armor I can think of, as used on the Japanese 10-gun heavy cruisers, the largest warships with their citadels protected by integrated armor (battleships only had thin structurally integrated armor on their non-critical areas, because face-hardened cannot be integrated).

HMMS Binara, Royal Merina Navy Scout Cruiser laid down 1923 (Engine 1924)

Displacement:
6,506 t light; 6,750 t standard; 7,791 t normal; 8,623 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(543.08 ft / 531.50 ft) x 48.39 ft x (22.18 / 23.85 ft)
(165.53 m / 162.00 m) x 14.75 m x (6.76 / 7.27 m)

Armament:
6 - 6.30" / 160 mm 50.0 cal guns - 132.28lbs / 60.00kg shells, 170 per gun
Quick firing guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1923 Model
3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
4 - 3.15" / 80.0 mm 50.0 cal guns - 15.43lbs / 7.00kg shells, 300 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1923 Model
4 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
12 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm 90.0 cal guns - 0.18lbs / 0.08kg shells, 2,500 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1923 Model
6 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 858 lbs / 389 kg
Main Torpedoes
8 - 21.7" / 550 mm, 24.61 ft / 7.50 m torpedoes - 1.683 t each, 13.466 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 475.72 ft / 145.00 m 10.83 ft / 3.30 m
Ends: 0.98" / 25 mm 52.49 ft / 16.00 m 10.83 ft / 3.30 m
3.28 ft / 1.00 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 138 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.95" / 75 mm 1.77" / 45 mm 2.95" / 75 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 0.52" / 13 mm
Forecastle: 0.52" / 13 mm Quarter deck: 0.52" / 13 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2.95" / 75 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 92,000 shp / 68,632 Kw = 34.97 kts
Range 8,160nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,872 tons

Complement:
414 - 539

Cost:
£2.151 million / $8.604 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 230 tons, 2.9 %
- Guns: 203 tons, 2.6 %
- Weapons: 27 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 472 tons, 6.1 %
- Belts: 218 tons, 2.8 %
- Armament: 58 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 171 tons, 2.2 %
- Conning Tower: 25 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 3,030 tons, 38.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,712 tons, 34.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,284 tons, 16.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 63 tons, 0.8 %
- On freeboard deck: 63 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
4,768 lbs / 2,163 Kg = 38.2 x 6.3 " / 160 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 2.1 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 13.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.44
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.478 / 0.492
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.98 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.19 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 21.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 15.00 %, 30.18 ft / 9.20 m, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m
- Forward deck: 25.00 %, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m, 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Aft deck: 45.00 %, 18.04 ft / 5.50 m, 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 14.76 ft / 4.50 m, 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Average freeboard: 18.74 ft / 5.71 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 136.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 139.2 %
Waterplane Area: 17,464 Square feet or 1,622 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 105 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 86 lbs/sq ft or 421 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 1.95
- Overall: 1.00
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

Misc weight: 50 tons for two aircraft, 13 tons for torpedoes

[Steve]

Looks good.

[Steve]

Depending on how we get reports on the Merina vessel and on our own studies into the concept of the integrated hull armor for our cruisers, this could be Cascadia's next scout cruiser.

Note that she would be heavier, due in part to different design goals and particularly because she's designed to carry a larger fuel bunker for Pacific distances. I may yet find ways to trim her down to below 10,000T full load, though I'd like to keep her range intact. The Cascadian Navy is primarily concerned with ability to get their ships across the Pacific with minimal refueling stops along the way.

Adelaide, Cascadian Scout Cruiser laid down 1926

Displacement:
7,879 t light; 8,181 t standard; 9,454 t normal; 10,473 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(598.44 ft / 590.00 ft) x 57.00 ft x (19.60 / 21.13 ft)
(182.40 m / 179.83 m) x 17.37 m x (5.97 / 6.44 m)

Armament:
6 - 6.00" / 152 mm 53.0 cal guns - 115.77lbs / 52.51kg shells, 200 per gun
Quick firing guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1926 Model
4 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
6 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.27lbs / 14.64kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1926 Model
6 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm 50.0 cal guns - 0.53lbs / 0.24kg shells, 450 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm 90.0 cal guns - 0.07lbs / 0.03kg shells, 3,250 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
6 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 895 lbs / 406 kg
Main Torpedoes
12 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m torpedoes - 1.090 t each, 13.084 t total
In 6 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
2nd Torpedoes
12 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m torpedoes - 1.090 t each, 13.084 t total
In 1 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 565.00 ft / 172.21 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Ends: 0.33" / 8 mm 25.00 ft / 7.62 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Upper: 1.00" / 25 mm 565.00 ft / 172.21 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Main Belt covers 147 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 5.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
0.50" / 13 mm 560.00 ft / 170.69 m 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 47.00 ft / 14.33 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.10" / 3 mm - -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 0.75" / 19 mm
Forecastle: 0.50" / 13 mm Quarter deck: 0.50" / 13 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 4 shafts, 101,500 shp / 75,719 Kw = 35.03 kts
Range 8,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,292 tons

Complement:
479 - 623

Cost:
£2.860 million / $11.439 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 325 tons, 3.4 %
- Guns: 293 tons, 3.1 %
- Weapons: 33 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 1,078 tons, 11.4 %
- Belts: 393 tons, 4.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 186 tons, 2.0 %
- Armament: 135 tons, 1.4 %
- Armour Deck: 306 tons, 3.2 %
- Conning Towers: 58 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 3,249 tons, 34.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,175 tons, 33.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,575 tons, 16.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 51 tons, 0.5 %
- Torpedoes and 1 Scout Aircraft: 51 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
8,575 lbs / 3,890 Kg = 79.4 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 1.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.27
Metacentric height 3.3 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 13.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.502 / 0.516
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.35 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.64 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 7.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 17.50 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Forward deck: 32.50 %, 24.00 ft / 7.32 m, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Aft deck: 32.50 %, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Quarter deck: 17.50 %, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 20.31 ft / 6.19 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 147.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 175.8 %
Waterplane Area: 23,345 Square feet or 2,169 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 93 lbs/sq ft or 453 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.45
- Overall: 1.00
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

[Sea Skimmer]

Note: To sim structrual integration of the hull armor, the belt and deck armor is represented at 1/3 it's actual thickness in Springsharp (in other words, she really has a 75mm belt and a 40mm deck).

Who came up with that rule? It seems rather optimistic given that deck armor was almost always used as structure by everyone, plating added as latter upgrades excluded of course. What the Japanese did was have no backing plates to the structural armor, but on all major armored warships the armor always did have a major structural for stiffing even if it did not directly support weight. Many cruisers and battleships would snap in half in the open sea if you took all the armor plates off.

-ONLY hull armor (deck and belt) can be considered integrated.
-Integrated armor should be limited in thickness to say 4 inch belts and 2 inch decks since this was the thickest integrated armor I can think of, as used on the Japanese 10-gun heavy cruisers, the largest warships with their citadels protected by integrated armor (battleships only had thin structurally integrated armor on their non-critical areas, because face-hardened cannot be integrated).

The thickest armor used in this manner on Japanese cruisers was the 145mm thick belt and 65mm thick deck slope over magazines on the Tone class (machinery armor is thinned on all the big Japanese CAs). However some thicker material was supposedly used on Shokaku class and latter Japanese carriers, I’ve never been able to confirm exactly what nor the complete armor layout of the ships in the first place.