WesWorld

Minas Gerais, Empire of Brazil Destroyer laid down 1944

Displacement:
1,811 t light; 1,914 t standard; 2,400 t normal; 2,789 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
376.53 ft / 372.00 ft x 35.40 ft x 15.20 ft (normal load)
114.77 m / 113.39 m x 10.79 m x 4.63 m

Armament:
4 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (2x2 guns), 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
12 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (3x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 231 lbs / 105 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 400
6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 350.00 ft / 106.68 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 145 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.80" / 20 mm - 0.80" / 20 mm

- Armour deck: 0.25" / 6 mm, Conning tower: 1.80" / 46 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 37,052 shp / 27,641 Kw = 32.50 kts
Range 4,800nm at 21.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 875 tons

Complement:
170 - 222

Cost:
£1.481 million / $5.924 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 29 tons, 1.2 %
Armour: 163 tons, 6.8 %
- Belts: 109 tons, 4.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 8 tons, 0.3 %
- Armour Deck: 39 tons, 1.6 %
- Conning Tower: 7 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 946 tons, 39.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 593 tons, 24.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 589 tons, 24.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 80 tons, 3.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,007 lbs / 457 Kg = 19.1 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.39
Metacentric height 1.9 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 10.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 56 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.27
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.11

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.420
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.51 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 64 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.00 ft / 0.30 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 15.50 ft / 4.72 m
- Mid (50 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Quarterdeck (30 %): 13.30 ft / 4.05 m (15.00 ft / 4.57 m before break)
- Stern: 13.30 ft / 4.05 m
- Average freeboard: 15.03 ft / 4.58 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 142.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 99.2 %
Waterplane Area: 8,521 Square feet or 792 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 35 lbs/sq ft or 171 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.72
- Overall: 0.57
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate

45 tons for electronics
35 tons for ASW kit

The Idea behind this design was a destroyer capable of 4800nmi @ 21 knts. maximum speed was sacrificed to allow for an armored belt and deck. the deck is thin, intended for splinter protection.

The belt is a poor tradeoff for speed or any other factor. While some destroyer designs featured armored decks for splinter protection, I know of no historical designs that incorporated any sort of belt. The main armament is also thin - I believe that if you ditched the belt you could increase the main armament to three twin DP mounts and perhaps also increase the torpedo armament.

Minas Gerais, Empire of Brazil Destroyer laid down 1944

Displacement:
1,761 t light; 1,916 t standard; 2,402 t normal; 2,791 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
376.53 ft / 372.00 ft x 35.40 ft x 15.20 ft (normal load)
114.77 m / 113.39 m x 10.79 m x 4.63 m

Armament:
6 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (3x2 guns), 52.72lbs / 23.91kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 355 lbs / 161 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 500
6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.80" / 20 mm - 0.80" / 20 mm
2nd: 0.25" / 6 mm - -

- Armour deck: 0.25" / 6 mm, Conning tower: 1.80" / 46 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 37,080 shp / 27,662 Kw = 32.50 kts
Range 4,800nm at 21.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 875 tons

Complement:
171 - 223

Cost:
£1.557 million / $6.230 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 44 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 59 tons, 2.4 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 12 tons, 0.5 %
- Armour Deck: 39 tons, 1.6 %
- Conning Tower: 7 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 947 tons, 39.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 621 tons, 25.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 641 tons, 26.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 90 tons, 3.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
902 lbs / 409 Kg = 17.1 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.36
Metacentric height 1.8 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 11.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 54 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.08

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.420
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.51 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 64 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.00 ft / 0.30 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 15.50 ft / 4.72 m
- Mid (50 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Quarterdeck (30 %): 13.30 ft / 4.05 m (15.00 ft / 4.57 m before break)
- Stern: 13.30 ft / 4.05 m
- Average freeboard: 15.03 ft / 4.58 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 149.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 98.7 %
Waterplane Area: 8,523 Square feet or 792 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 37 lbs/sq ft or 179 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.74
- Overall: 0.57
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate

-1 Belt + 1 turret (superfiring) added some ammo and 37mm

I think this is a good improvement over your original design - however, as is, the fuel as a percentage of total weight is probably higher than it really ought to be... more than a quarter of the ship's mass. I realize that you have a particular operations requirement in mind; however, for smaller vessels, that might not be attainable in practice.

Perhaps I'm biased, but the existing Niterói-class destroyer, while a tad bit more expensive, is a superior design. Faster, better-balanced, better armament, excellent range, more room for electronics fit, a better seaboat, higher stability and steadiness, and already a proven design with the MIB.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Perhaps I'm biased, but the existing Niterói-class destroyer, while a tad bit more expensive, is a superior design. Faster, better-balanced, better armament, excellent range, more room for electronics fit, a better seaboat, higher stability and steadiness, and already a proven design with the MIB.

True dat!

True Brock. But practice makes perfect and destroyers are among the hardest ships to sim well.

The 6mm armoured deck isn't worth it. As a player every ton counts against the building time and not only that but the armoured deck does adverse things to stability and seakeeping. Best not to bother with the extra hassle. Use the hull strength it will free up on extra speed.

about the range. this destroyer actually has vastly superior range at a comparable speed (over 10,000 nmi at 15 knts) this is masked by the fact that the vessel needs a range of 4800 at 21 knts. The ships armament is an interesting story. it has less torpedo armament, which can be a serious liability. slightly better AA, which may be a good thing when operating at a distance. the 1.5 knt maximum speed difference does not bother me. sustained speed is more important, especially if you have been spotted by recon and need to disappear before the strike force arrives.

Minas Gerais, Empire of Brazil Destroyer laid down 1944

Displacement:
1,806 t light; 1,961 t standard; 2,402 t normal; 2,755 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
379.43 ft / 372.00 ft x 35.40 ft x 15.20 ft (normal load)
115.65 m / 113.39 m x 10.79 m x 4.63 m

Armament:
6 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (3x2 guns), 52.72lbs / 23.91kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 355 lbs / 161 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 500
9 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.80" / 20 mm - 0.80" / 20 mm
2nd: 0.25" / 6 mm - -

- Conning tower: 1.80" / 46 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 37,080 shp / 27,662 Kw = 32.50 kts
Range 9,800nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 794 tons

Complement:
171 - 223

Cost:
£1.568 million / $6.273 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 44 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 20 tons, 0.8 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 13 tons, 0.5 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 7 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 947 tons, 39.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 706 tons, 29.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 596 tons, 24.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 90 tons, 3.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,004 lbs / 455 Kg = 19.0 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
Metacentric height 1.6 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 11.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.67
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.30

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.420
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.51 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 64 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.00 ft / 0.30 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Quarterdeck (30 %): 11.00 ft / 3.35 m (18.00 ft / 5.49 m before break)
- Stern: 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Average freeboard: 16.65 ft / 5.07 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 149.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 91.9 %
Waterplane Area: 8,523 Square feet or 792 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 38 lbs/sq ft or 188 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.51
- Overall: 0.58
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

I removed the splinter deck and modified the freeboard. the extra deck space allowed me to upgrade the torpedo armament. the ships stability is also much better.

I still like that first design, but the 3 quad 37mm should be raised.

From a practical point of view, I am doubtful that three centerline mounts for torpedo tubes could be installed given the limits of deck space. I am certain that while Springsharp permits it, in reality there would problems. Two quintuple sets of tubes would be more efficient use of deck space.

There are also practical concerns regarding your desired operational radius. Destroyers (and other smaller surface escorts) are notorious fuel hogs, and while they may carry enough fuel "on the books" for a long distance cruise, upon arrival their fuel tanks would be close to empty. This has a disproportionate impact on their stability, as Admiral Halsey (USN) found when his Third Fleet was struck by a typhoon while operating off the Philippines. Several destroyers were lost due their lack of stability brought on by empty fuel tanks. It is something to keep in the back of one's mind when planning operations.

It is one reason that the German Kriegsmarine has invested in so many fleet tankers.

I have to agree with Bruce all his points; stability, reliable endurance, and deck space are all problems.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

There are also practical concerns regarding your desired operational radius. Destroyers (and other smaller surface escorts) are notorious fuel hogs, and while they may carry enough fuel "on the books" for a long distance cruise, upon arrival their fuel tanks would be close to empty. This has a disproportionate impact on their stability, as Admiral Halsey (USN) found when his Third Fleet was struck by a typhoon while operating off the Philippines. Several destroyers were lost due their lack of stability brought on by empty fuel tanks. It is something to keep in the back of one's mind when planning operations.

It is one reason that the German Kriegsmarine has invested in so many fleet tankers.

Same reason why the Brazilian Navy started building their own force of fleet tankers, too. Long range is one thing, but it's just not reasonable to pack so much fuel into a destroyer.

I understand and agree with all of your points. there is one mitigating factor. the destroyers can run at 15knts for the first leg of the journey to the Nigerian station (the reason for the range requirement as it stands) which means they will have ample fuel left for operations off the Nigerian coast. running at 15knts provides a lot of reserve fuel that will mitigate the stability problem, and if the need arises (the destroyer is spotted by recon) then it can maintain 21 knts. so there is a lot of operational freedom brought on by the fuel. I agree that this can be a liability, I am merely skeptical of the utility of tankers for long range operations in which there is no safe harbors, as the tankers become a vulnerability for the fleet.

I am somewhat confused by your thinking. Nigeria is a British colony - it is unlikely that Britain would appreciate a Brazilian force operating in its back yard unless it too was involved in a conflict with the SAE, in which case any Brazilian force in West Africa would be superfluous. The idea of Brazil attempting any action on its own against the SAE territory in Cameroon, with extended supply lines and no local bases, is untenable. Your designs seem to be focused on an improbable scenario.

I agree with Bruce. In the event of another war with the SAE, Brazil will be hard pressed to defend its own coasts, let alone conduct offensive operations across the South Atlantic.

the reason behind the thinking was twofold.

one, it provided an interesting design challenge. this is especially important as I am attempting to better understand ship design and the tools.

two, I felt that if the Brazilian fleet could threaten the Cameroon region it would force the SAE to widen it's defenses allowing for a more diverse set of options for the Brazilian navy, who's best bet is probably a base attack doctrine over a fleet in being.

three. the horn and the panama canal are about as far operationally as the Cameroon coast, so having this range allows for operation in these regions

four. because of the SAE presence in Uruguay it would be beneficial if the Brazilian fleet could bypass this region of the coast, which requires a prolonged duration in the Atlantic ocean, with the threat of attack by airborne and naval assets.

there was a mistake in the last post. I forgot to reset the bunkerage.

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 44 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 20 tons, 0.8 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 13 tons, 0.5 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 7 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 972 tons, 38.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 730 tons, 29.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 656 tons, 26.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 80 tons, 3.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,092 lbs / 495 Kg = 20.7 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
Metacentric height 1.6 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 11.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.71
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.27

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.432
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.65 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.24 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 64 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.00 ft / 0.30 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19.00 ft / 5.79 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Quarterdeck (30 %): 11.00 ft / 3.35 m (18.00 ft / 5.49 m before break)
- Stern: 11.00 ft / 3.35 m
- Average freeboard: 16.65 ft / 5.07 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 146.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 94.3 %
Waterplane Area: 8,812 Square feet or 819 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 39 lbs/sq ft or 191 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.38
- Overall: 0.59
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

I decided to zero her bunkerage to test dry stability and got 1.03 stab, 64 steady, and 1.16 sea.

the rear turret is raised. this is to provide extra room for the 3x3 torpedo mounts. I will create a line drawing later. basically the torpedoes are on the deck with superstructure above them. there is a room at the stern of the ship, inside is the armored hoist for the rear turret which is mounted above.only the forward turret is superfiring. I also lengthened her and gave her 100 more tons displacement to keep her strong cross-sectionally.

Facing the RSAN is tough, even with all three ABC navies it would be a tough fight to even break even. That's not including subtle help from the Nords and Dutch releasing RSAN ships from other colonial duties. All you can hope for is to impose enough damage to make them back-off and disrupt their military convoys into Buenos Aries. Trade protection is probably vital but I agree oceanic operations to pin back the RSAN fleet further out is a good idea (one that Argentina tried for the cost of a battlecruiser, though she did take out one carrier). Bases in Uruguay hamper co-operation, basically there was little Brazilian-Argentine link up across that zone because of enemy aircraft, ships, subs and mines. Factor in nuisances like the Pony Express raids and you've got a handful to deal with.

I would say that heavy torpedo armament is a good idea, I did build a few 'torpedo destroyers' but I agree that 2x4 or 2x5 TT mounts might be better for space.

well I could always build a Kitakami style torpedo cruiser. doubt the South Africans wold like that.

as for the picture. I need to set up an account on shipbucket or someplace. but it does work, as long as I only use a single large funnel behind the bridge.

I have created a simple png designed to show the layout, and also to help determine if everything fits on the hullspace. It is extremely low quality but may be useful in determining whether or not the design is valid.