Wolfhound error?

This is mostly for BuNine, if it hasn't already been noted.

While I don't object to the similarity of the Wolfhound and Roland destroyers in their acceleration, I noticed that the Avalon is quite a bit slower. The Wolfhound ought, then, to also be slower, closer to the Avalon.

Some time ago, discussing the Culverin specs in HOS, Tom Pope stated that the listed accel wasn't correct for the flight one, but came with the Flight II's 1st gen Grayson compensator; it was supposed to be added to the errata page on their website.

I just realized the listing for Wolfhound is much much higher than the same-generation Avalon; there just isn't enough tonnage difference to make 30Gs difference, and the Avalon is thus also 30Gs slower, as well as 30K tons lighter than Roland.

So it looks like the listed Wolfhound spec got a later gen compensator than the Avalon. The Avalon compensator had about a 40% increase in accel over the pre-war Valiant; the Wolfhound exceeds the same-size Apollo by more than 50%.

Sorry if this was already known, just wanted to point it out. Basically, though, it means the latest (1920)and current compensator provides an acceleration (at least, for light ships) about 50% higher than the prewar ships of like tonnage, while the 1919 version provided somewhere around 40%.

IIRC, the Erewhon Navy's are around 30% for DD sized ships.
I expect Haven is closer to Erewhon's specs, than Manticore's, but we won't know that until HoL.

Regards,
Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:This is mostly for BuNine, if it hasn't already been noted.

While I don't object to the similarity of the Wolfhound and Roland destroyers in their acceleration, I noticed that the Avalon is quite a bit slower. The Wolfhound ought, then, to also be slower, closer to the Avalon.

Some time ago, discussing the Culverin specs in HOS, Tom Pope stated that the listed accel wasn't correct for the flight one, but came with the Flight II's 1st gen Grayson compensator; it was supposed to be added to the errata page on their website.

I just realized the listing for Wolfhound is much much higher than the same-generation Avalon; there just isn't enough tonnage difference to make 30Gs difference, and the Avalon is thus also 30Gs slower, as well as 30K tons lighter than Roland.

So it looks like the listed Wolfhound spec got a later gen compensator than the Avalon. The Avalon compensator had about a 40% increase in accel over the pre-war Valiant; the Wolfhound exceeds the same-size Apollo by more than 50%.

Sorry if this was already known, just wanted to point it out. Basically, though, it means the latest (1920)and current compensator provides an acceleration (at least, for light ships) about 50% higher than the prewar ships of like tonnage, while the 1919 version provided somewhere around 40%.

Yeah, I'd seen that when I did my accel curve spreadsheets.

I basically had to assume that despite the Wolfhound and the Avalon being launched the same year, that the Avalon was an older design and came off the ways with a slightly older compensator.

Avalon has 145.1% of the pre-war accel for her displacement.
Wolfhound has 151.51% of the pre-war accel.

Assuming that commentator efficiency tracks directly to compensator generation then Wolfhound and Roland are of the same generation.

Then Avalon appears to share a compensator generation with the Saganami-B and Saganami-C CAs and the Agammemnon BC(P).


This isn't the only case where a the lead ship of a class was launched, or at least designed, with an compensator less efficient that her same-year stablemates. Presumably it's because that class ran into issues, or was low priority, and had a delayed launch after the compensator was "locked in". But we know that HoS only lists the lead unit specs; so later ships presumably get current gen compensators when laid down and the lead ships would get upgraded next time they're in the yard for a major overhaul.

Jonathan_S wrote:Yeah, I'd seen that when I did my accel curve spreadsheets.

I basically had to assume that despite the Wolfhound and the Avalon being launched the same year, that the Avalon was an older design and came off the ways with a slightly older compensator.

Avalon has 145.1% of the pre-war accel for her displacement.
Wolfhound has 151.51% of the pre-war accel.

Assuming that commentator efficiency tracks directly to compensator generation then Wolfhound and Roland are of the same generation.

Then Avalon appears to share a compensator generation with the Saganami-B and Saganami-C CAs and the Agammemnon BC(P).


This isn't the only case where a the lead ship of a class was launched, or at least designed, with an compensator less efficient that her same-year stablemates. Presumably it's because that class ran into issues, or was low priority, and had a delayed launch after the compensator was "locked in". But we know that HoS only lists the lead unit specs; so later ships presumably get current gen compensators when laid down and the lead ships would get upgraded next time they're in the yard for a major overhaul.

I didn't notice others, except for the Culverin; and Pope admitted it was a error or misprint.

Another reason could also be that in 1919 Janacek started the emergency construction with existing designs (which is why there is a 4th flight Reliant, and probably why there are so many Sag-Bs), and at that time the Sag-C was an experiment, and Nike was still in the future. If he decided he needed more cruisers first, the destroyers may have ended up being finished later in the year, with later compensators. Which is why I was hoping for a comment from the BuNiners.

If I thought I'd understand the math in that spreadsheet, I'd ask to see it, but it is much better for my state of confusion not to see it.

Regards

Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:I didn't notice others, except for the Culverin; and Pope admitted it was a error or misprint.

Another reason could also be that in 1919 Janacek started the emergency construction with existing designs (which is why there is a 4th flight Reliant, and probably why there are so many Sag-Bs), and at that time the Sag-C was an experiment, and Nike was still in the future. If he decided he needed more cruisers first, the destroyers may have ended up being finished later in the year, with later compensators. Which is why I was hoping for a comment from the BuNiners.

If I thought I'd understand the math in that spreadsheet, I'd ask to see it, but it is much better for my state of confusion not to see it.

Regards

Rob

The math isn't bad, though the constants are pretty ugly looking. (And I could have saved myself a lot of work if I'd remembered that More Than Honor had a table with the accel breakpoint tonnages listed (where the curve changes).
Actually it's probably just as well I didn't; since that table appears to have an error -- or at least a disagreement with some of the published 'pre-grayson' accels in the reference material.



The work was basically plotting ship accel vs tonnage, then drawing lines. The equations are a few basic slope-intercept formula from high school algebra (which one depends on the tonnage range bracket the ship falls into).

Just doing that let me calculate the accelerations of all but 2 pre-grayson ships to within +/- 0.4g of published (the vast majority within 0.05g); though I'm sure I'll be updating it with many more Havenite ships once House of Lies comes out.
The two anomalies were the Culverin-class DD you already mentioned (28.5g off) and the Mars-A class CA (which HoS had at 1.2g less than I expected).
Oddly the Mars-B, with almost the same tonnage, was back on the line and I came within 0.003g of HoS


Then the 2nd part of the sheet takes all the known "post-grayson compensator" ship accels and compares them to what it calculated their "pre-grayson" accel would have been; expressing the difference in a percentage.

For example:
Medusa-class SD(P); 1914 PD; 8554750 tons; 502.8g listed accel; 399.1362787864 calculated 'p-g' accel; 125.97% of 'p-g' accel

Jonathan_S wrote:The two anomalies were the Culverin-class DD you already mentioned (28.5g off) and the Mars-A class CA (which HoS had at 1.2g less than I expected).
Oddly the Mars-B, with almost the same tonnage, was back on the line and I came within 0.003g of HoS

snipped a bit.

FWIW, the Mars-A was likely listed using the original accel rate, not the one from after it was modded by the GSN; a Havenite compensator wouldn't be as efficient, as their tech base had stalled, and they likely didn't much help on that front from the Sollies.

Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:The two anomalies were the Culverin-class DD you already mentioned (28.5g off) and the Mars-A class CA (which HoS had at 1.2g less than I expected).
Oddly the Mars-B, with almost the same tonnage, was back on the line and I came within 0.003g of HoS

snipped a bit.

FWIW, the Mars-A was likely listed using the original accel rate, not the one from after it was modded by the GSN; a Havenite compensator wouldn't be as efficient, as their tech base had stalled, and they likely didn't much help on that front from the Sollies.

Rob

Maybe, but it's the only one of the Havenite ships that has that discrepancy.

And between HoS's captured Havenite ships, and specs on uncaptured versions from Jayne's People's Republic of Haven Navy, and the SITS ship books I've got tonnage and original accel stats on 17 different Havenite-classes.


Here the classes are; sorted from in ascending order of the absolute value of the acceleration discrepancy:
[-0.0005g] Frigate (RHN) – CL
[-0.0005g] Conqueror (RHN) – CL
[+0.0030g] Mars-B (RHN) – CA
[+0.0036g] Tiger (RHN) – BC
[+0.0104g] Brilliance (RHN) – CL
[+0.0121g] Bastogne (RHN) – DD
[+0.0167g] Facteur (RHN) – DB
[-0.0173g] Sultan (RHN) – BC
[+0.0181g] Sword (RHN) – CA
[-0.0399g] Charles Wade Pope (RHN) – CL
[-0.0430g] Desforge (RHN) – DD
[-0.0490g] Convert (GSN) / Warlord (RHN) – BC
[-0.0808g] Triumphant (RHN) – BB
[+0.1031g] Duquesne (RHN) – SD
[+0.1409g] Astra (RHN) – AMC
[+0.1443g] Nouvaeu Paris (RHN) – DN
[-1.2098g] Mars-A (RHN) – CA

As you can see the Mars-A error is over 8 times the size of the next largest. I provisionally chalk that up to the mismatch between its overpowered nodes and its stock compensator (because they weren't able to steal the Grayson one).


For that matter it's not just the Manties, and Havenites that land on these accel "curve" lines. From SITS we have data on Andermandi and Silesian ships as well.

All told I currently have data on 71 ships, from 5 navies, with "unimproved" compensators and only 2 of them deviate by as much a 1g from those compensator "curve" lines. (Though Culverin appears in that count twice; once with the later flight accel error from HoS but also from Jayne's where it had the correct accel of 518.9g)

Jonathan_S wrote:The two anomalies were the Culverin-class DD you already mentioned (28.5g off) and the Mars-A class CA (which HoS had at 1.2g less than I expected).
Oddly the Mars-B, with almost the same tonnage, was back on the line and I came within 0.003g of HoS

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:snipped a bit.

FWIW, the Mars-A was likely listed using the original accel rate, not the one from after it was modded by the GSN; a Havenite compensator wouldn't be as efficient, as their tech base had stalled, and they likely didn't much help on that front from the Sollies.

Rob

Jonathan_S wrote:Maybe, but it's the only one of the Havenite ships that has that discrepancy.

And between HoS's captured Havenite ships, and specs on uncaptured versions from Jayne's People's Republic of Haven Navy, and the SITS ship books I've got tonnage and original accel stats on 17 different Havenite-classes.

[[snipped the tabular data]]

As you can see the Mars-A error is over 8 times the size of the next largest. I provisionally chalk that up to the mismatch between its overpowered nodes and its stock compensator (because they weren't able to steal the Grayson one).


For that matter it's not just the Manties, and Havenites that land on these accel "curve" lines. From SITS we have data on Andermandi and Silesian ships as well.

All told I currently have data on 71 ships, from 5 navies, with "unimproved" compensators and only 2 of them deviate by as much a 1g from those compensator "curve" lines. (Though Culverin appears in that count twice; once with the later flight accel error from HoS but also from Jayne's where it had the correct accel of 518.9g)

Pretty interesting. I never bought the SITS books. The error may be 8 times larger than others, but none of them really amount to much,to the spreadsheet is pretty accurate.

The Culverin accel being right in SITS doesn't surprise me at all--I think Tom Pope wrote that the one in HoS is correct for the Flight II; but for most of the ships, they only listed the original flight data.

Forex, I have no idea why there wouldn't be a "Flight II" Star Knight without the 3d fusion plant; nor would it have surprised me if one of the reasons Janacek didn't build a whole lot of new light ships doesn't turn out to be a never-implemented refit program giving the older ships "off-bore" capability, but with a modified version of the older missiles. So, a Havoc running anti-piracy patrol runs into a former Sillie light cruiser, and launches a 12 missile salvo (2 broadsides, 1 chase). Modifying the missiles while keeping the form factor doesn't do anything for your range--but Sillie (or Verge) pirates couldn't match the pre-war ranges, let alone what they were by Buttercup.

The reason that didn't actually happen? 1) Janacek couldn't find his own butt with ground guides and approach radars; 2) Off-bore firing on the Gauntlet(1917) was limited to adding the 2 chase sets to one broadside--DW didn't give the fire control on the bow/stern the ability to handle all the missiles it could fire (which certainly ought to have been corrected after Tiberian!- but there isn't any text about that).

While a lot of the stuff in SITS may end up cannon, it doesn't all do so. Look at the data on the Star Knight, with just 8 offensive tubes. At least, that was the example in the promotional listing on the CD. In another thread, someone posted missile load data from several ships in the DD and CL ranges from Jaynes' or SITs; and the listing for the Apollo class did not match the stated numbers in HoS.

And before someone points out the Apollo citation in HoS didn't give any missile/tube numbers , I know that--they were cited in comparison with the David class in the GSN section. The David class put in more missile tubes, but no more magazine space, and numbers are given there.

Thanks for the listing, and all.

Regards,

Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:
Forex, I have no idea why there wouldn't be a "Flight II" Star Knight without the 3d fusion plant; nor would it have surprised me if one of the reasons Janacek didn't build a whole lot of new light ships doesn't turn out to be a never-implemented refit program giving the older ships "off-bore" capability, but with a modified version of the older missiles. So, a Havoc running anti-piracy patrol runs into a former Sillie light cruiser, and launches a 12 missile salvo (2 broadsides, 1 chase). Modifying the missiles while keeping the form factor doesn't do anything for your range--but Sillie (or Verge) pirates couldn't match the pre-war ranges, let alone what they were by Buttercup.

<snip>

Rob

One of the reasons the "3rd reactor" was such a big deal at the time was that the leaked specs listed the SK as having the same offensive power as the Prince Consort - 8 broadside tubes, where in reality it had 12 separated on 2 decks, all the while the ship grew ~50,000 tons. Officially, this a chalked up to the increased defenses AND the 3rd reactor - where in reality it also included 4 more tubes per broadside and more missiles.

So the Reactor isn't really a big thing - it just adds more battle damage resistance (allowing an iffy reactor to be shut down earlier in the fight.). The RMN just allowed it (and probably actively assisted) to be blown out of proportion to hide that fact hat the Star Knight had a 50% increase in throw weight.

Um the third reactor was a big deal moving foward, it is partly responsible for the delay on the Saganami class. It probably was also a good idea for the following designs.

You have to remember that the Alverez class was a de facto preview build of the Saganami class, one without full integration of the grayson compensator (that took a new hull frame), and with an all graser energy armanent, as I recall the graysons couldn't fully intermix the weapons as the reactors got in the way.
But then moving foward, the Sag-A and adrian, were very supperior to the Mars, and it meant the Saganami-B really was a BC someone had shrunk down. Admittedly they went a bit too far in the 'add offensive tonnage' department, but they could, thanks to the third reactor.

Theemile wrote:

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:
Forex, I have no idea why there wouldn't be a "Flight II" Star Knight without the 3d fusion plant; nor would it have surprised me if one of the reasons Janacek didn't build a whole lot of new light ships doesn't turn out to be a never-implemented refit program giving the older ships "off-bore" capability, but with a modified version of the older missiles. So, a Havoc running anti-piracy patrol runs into a former Sillie light cruiser, and launches a 12 missile salvo (2 broadsides, 1 chase). Modifying the missiles while keeping the form factor doesn't do anything for your range--but Sillie (or Verge) pirates couldn't match the pre-war ranges, let alone what they were by Buttercup.

<snip>

Rob

One of the reasons the "3rd reactor" was such a big deal at the time was that the leaked specs listed the SK as having the same offensive power as the Prince Consort - 8 broadside tubes, where in reality it had 12 separated on 2 decks, all the while the ship grew ~50,000 tons. Officially, this a chalked up to the increased defenses AND the 3rd reactor - where in reality it also included 4 more tubes per broadside and more missiles.

So the Reactor isn't really a big thing - it just adds more battle damage resistance (allowing an iffy reactor to be shut down earlier in the fight.). The RMN just allowed it (and probably actively assisted) to be blown out of proportion to hide that fact hat the Star Knight had a 50% increase in throw weight.

[quote="HungryKing"]Um the third reactor was a big deal moving foward, <snip>

Sorry - misspoke - armed Neobob was mentioning the removal of the 3rd reactor in later flights of the SK due to the "hubbub" concerning it, and I meant to say that the Hubbub concerning the reactor was completely overblown and not as controversial as it was initially portrayed to be to the public.