WesWorld

Thanks to Hooman here she is.




What do you guys reckon of her?


Guardino, Italian Frigate laid down 1917

Displacement:
1,019 t light; 1,050 t standard; 1,191 t normal; 1,300 t full load
Loading submergence 157 tons/feet

Dimensions:
280.00 ft x 27.58 ft x 9.00 ft (normal load)
85.34 m x 8.41 m x 2.74 m

Armament:
6 - 3.00" / 76 mm guns
2 - 1.59" / 41 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 85 lbs / 39 kg

Armour:
Main gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm
Conning tower 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 1 shaft, 4,848 shp / 3,616 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
101 - 131

Cost:
£0.126 million / $0.505 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 11 tons, 0.9 %
Armour: 7 tons, 0.6 %
Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Armament: 4 tons, 0.4 %, Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Conning Tower: 2 tons, 0.2 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 178 tons, 14.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 724 tons, 60.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 173 tons, 14.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 8.4 %

Metacentric height 0.8

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is adequate

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.05
Shellfire needed to sink: 2,041 lbs / 926 Kg = 151.2 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.0
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 61 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.11
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.600
Sharpness coefficient: 0.36
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.07
'Natural speed' for length: 16.73 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim: 59
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 65.4 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 93.1 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 218 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 2.01
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 83 lbs / square foot or 407 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 2.10
(for 9.00 ft / 2.74 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment -0.90 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 2.02

Hi Admiral,

there are severals things I´d like to comment.

First, I like her general layout. One can see that she´s some kind of a fast vessel. Not a DD, that´s for sure, but a fast excort vessel of some type. So I guess one could say your linedrawing "captures" the ships character quite good with that raised forecastle and clipperbow.

Second, why does she have such a small range? Even for the Med this is awful low. At a higher speed, and she´s pretty fast for an escorter, her bunkers will be dry faster than you can even say "Dry!". She´s a diesel powered boat after all which is a nice idea but should also allow a range twice or three times as much as you have it so far.

As for the pic: What programm do you use?

What are those black "things abreast the aft superstructure?

Your decks don´t seem to have a uniform height. The second deck of the aft superstructure for example seems somewhat low compared to the rest of the ship.

I would also love to see a top view of her. Those 76mm guns on the side decks seem somewhat cramped. Your design has a beam of less than 9m after all. So a top view would make sure you´ll know if you´re trying the impossible or not. As it is, the forward superstructur either has to be very, very thin or cut back in some kind. Otherwise you can´t place and then turn those guns on the side decks. Also take care the crew has a few squaremeters to handle the mount.

I also wonder where the sixth gun is or is one of the visible mounts a twin mount? Which one?

Another note has nothing to do with functionality but with her look. You maybe should think about raising her forward mast. As it is, it seems somewhat cut away or as if there´s something missing. The forward mast being that much lower than the aft mast also interfers with the optical dynamic of her superstructure. See, you´ve a some kind of line falling from bow to stern because the bridge is so much higher than the aft superstructure. Together with the raised forecastle this offers a good chance to make the dynamics of that vessel visible. Now, if you´re now using a fore mast that is cut away too much, you contradict this dynamic and it looks somewhat weird.

This is just my impression of course and while writing this I know very well that I also have a design or two where the aft mast is higher than the foremast and it works but the difference is not as big as on your pic.

Just my two cents...

Well theres alot I would personally change but thats not because shes a bad design, just completely different than any design I would put together which says alot about your creativity. I'm assuming the black things aft are depth charges allthough I'm not sure when depth charges were invented. Personally I would also raise that forward mast, Lower the "B" turret deck slightly, push the bridge forward and the wing turrets slightly aft where they would have more room. I'll try drawing your design to my specs and see what kind of ship I can come up with.
The design is good though, good work!