Excessive "Pitch" on many hulls

['Rax]

I saw this on some of the later US battleship hulls in previous versions, and now playing around with the custom-battle ship builder, I'm finding that a lot of hulls, including battleship, battlecruiser and cruiser hulls are nearly impossible to build with less than 20% pitch - and a lot of fairly reasonable layouts and armor schemes will produce nearly 50% pitch. I was used to seeing this from torpedo boats and destroyers previously, but not on the much bigger hulls. Is anybody else having issues with this?

[keithty]

Same here, the pitch and roll is now much higher than it had been previously.

[SeeSeeBee]

Yes they need to address this, the limit to belt thickness has made it alot harder to tweak stability.

[vanDyck]

Probarbly they want to get away from perfect stable hulls, even through WWII there were a lot of warships with stability issues and differences. The vanguard for example is called a way better "seaship" then the iowa class.

[Commissar [GSF]]

Publicado originalmente por Oggmeista:

Early hulls are not meant to be perfect regardless of how "good" your design is, , if they were there would be very little need to develop later hulls

i don't expect perfect, but a 90kton+ 1920's BB is not going to have severe pitch issues.

[vanDyck]

You would wonder how bad some historic designs were:

-Deutschland (the pocket-BB) nearly lost all engine power during a storm as most of the air intakes were too low and took water
-the K-class cruisers were so weakly build they started cracking during bad weather and had to keep a certain amount of fuel and stay away from bad weather
-most US and japanes cruisers and DDs were top heavy and overloaded and dangerously instable had had to go through refits and recronstruction
-japanese TB tomozuru capsised during a storm
-several BBs (scharnhorst class, iowas) were quite wet ships and took a lot of water over, even putting frontal gun turrests out of action.
-german Z-class DDs with the twin 6" frontal turret had a tendency to dig into the waves, nearly sinking themselves.

Overall you can say that post washington designs were somewhat overloaded as the navies and the designers wanted to to put too much into a limited size hull, leading to instable and top heavy ships. Would it be better without the treaties? Maybe, but the next limit is costs, so i think the problem would not be so bad, but still be there too keep costs (and sizes, think of infrastucture and channels) low.

[dichebach]

Publicado originalmente por vanDyck:

You would wonder how bad some historic designs were:

-Deutschland (the pocket-BB) nearly lost all engine power during a storm as most of the air intakes were too low and took water
-the K-class cruisers were so weakly build they started cracking during bad weather and had to keep a certain amount of fuel and stay away from bad weather
-most US and japanes cruisers and DDs were top heavy and overloaded and dangerously instable had had to go through refits and recronstruction
-japanese TB tomozuru capsised during a storm
-several BBs (scharnhorst class, iowas) were quite wet ships and took a lot of water over, even putting frontal gun turrests out of action.
-german Z-class DDs with the twin 6" frontal turret had a tendency to dig into the waves, nearly sinking themselves.

Overall you can say that post washington designs were somewhat overloaded as the navies and the designers wanted to to put too much into a limited size hull, leading to instable and top heavy ships. Would it be better without the treaties? Maybe, but the next limit is costs, so i think the problem would not be so bad, but still be there too keep costs (and sizes, think of infrastucture and channels) low.

Yes, and in reality there were also airplanes.

[Ninjafroggie]

a LOT of the historical top heavy-ness issues, particularly the smaller hulls, is because when wwII started, designers quickly realized that ships had nowhere near enough AA weaponry. US DDs from the fletchers onwards, however, were quite stable designs even with all the topside weight. The only reason any of them sank in typhoon cobra is because they were about to refuel right before it hit...normally they would flood the fuel tanks with seawater ballast as they emptied to maintain stability, but right before refueling all the water is pumped out. Combining that lack of ballast with a major tropical cyclone is what it took to sink them, while all the ships that didnt go into the storm with empty fuel/ballast tanks survived. I call that good enough.

[Mace]

Publicado originalmente por Oggmeista:

Early hulls are not meant to be perfect regardless of how "good" your design is, , if they were there would be very little need to develop later hulls

You consider the super battleship II hulls "early"? Anything bigger than a cruiser I can't get below 35% pitch, and that's with cranking the armor through the roof.