WesWorld

*waves hand*

You want to build very few, very large cruisers...

"I want to build very few, very large cruisers..."
(shakes head)
wait, what?

For South Africa they will need serious cruisers to match those from Denmark, Britian, India, Argentian, Filipinos, and others that might try to interfere with your trade routes at some point in the future.

Agreed, the 8,000 ton cruiser seems to be the favorite here. Looks like Hoo may step away from his trademark small, fast and potent designs! ;-)

Quoted

Originally posted by Earl822
Presently Nordmark only has 5 classes of CL in full service, with most of the rest of our Cl's built from 1904 onwards are still in reserve. Despite this, the proportion of our active cruisr force is from 1915, and haven't yet been refitted. I am considering flottila leaders, but am unsure of their usefulness in a more multitask role.

That´s interesting information but I´m curious what you think the RSAN can learn from it....?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Build as big as possible, i.e. 8.000ton ships rather than 6.000tons or smaller. Room for growth and stability should be paramount, even at the expense of other qualities.

With a hull that large, multipurpose has to creep in, so hangar for 2 aircraft, a bit of excess weight for extra stores, not too many torpedoes, 6 or 8, a few AA guns.

Something like La Galissonnière?

Speed should be 30-31knts to keep up with carriers and other capital ships.

I think that the RSAN will eventually get into Colony Class ships, the needs of the two navies being broadly similar.

Thanks for the analysis. La Galissonnière always has been one of my favorites - probably the best CL every build (best means most balanced).

30kn seems a bit slow for a modern cruiser. I also wonder why you think there has to be a plane on any design? When I look on foreign designs I have to notice that my 8-gun-cruisers are too weakly armed. So if I want to up-gun my designs something has to go - and given the SAEs preference of at least decent if not good armor I won´t shave my cruisers plates too much.

The British Colony-class cruisers are what I have in mind anyway (see above). So - should I probably build two classes? One Colony-kind of vessel with 12 guns but no floatplane which will then be used in company with a 9-gun ship which features floatplane facilities?

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
ave you thought about using 8000t Oyodos? With flag facilities they would make fine CL leaders.

Good idea - I just don´t like the OYODOs and I don´t rate them very high. Especially their main gun layout is something I never plan to copy....

Quoted

Originally posted by Guilherme Loureiro
After that, I'd build at least 4 8,000 cruisers, something like La Galissonière, like Red Admiral said. What I'm not sure is what I'd build after those cruisers(CL30?), another DL class or more cruisers.

Keep in mind the RSAN has used only 63% of its tonnage allotment for cruisers category B so far. And this includes 11 Torpedoboats of 2,000ts each armed with 15cm guns.

So actually I have a lot of free tonnage to play with. I can´t even use it all within the next few years, I´m sure. So I´ll focus on building realistic ships, vesseös that fit into RSAN doctrine and the requirements of the SAE international trade routes.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Agreed, the 8,000 ton cruiser seems to be the favorite here. Looks like Hoo may step away from his trademark small, fast and potent designs! ;-)

Yeah, looks like 8,000ts cruisers are the favorite design.

(But rest assured - I´m not completely giving up on small mini-cruiser. TROMP is just too inspiring. ;o) Even if I build something along those lines just for fun.)

I'm in a similar position, I will probably end up with a pre 1920's centred cruiser force, in the 1940's, I can't decide whether to go for a large scale replacement program now, or wait and replace them when I've rebuilt my capital ships. I've also got to consider the idea of large leaders, and whether I need to build these, or just continue to build larger light cruisers.
The RSAN must consider how in times of war, they will keep their trades routes open, against the threat of attack by surface raiders, and submarines. A large 8000ton cruiser is more able to lead ships in a flotilla.

Quoted

The British Colony-class cruisers are what I have in mind anyway (see above). So - should I probably build two classes? One Colony-kind of vessel with 12 guns but no floatplane which will then be used in company with a 9-gun ship which features floatplane facilities?

I think that a 12-gun ship on 8.000tons leaves a design that is too cramped and sacrifices other qualities. Then you could go for a 9-gun ship to save deckspace, but the 4x2 arrangment is better for gunnery...and so it goes on. I wouldn't be surprised to see 4x2x150mm gunned cruisers with similar armour as before but more AA gun power and a bit more misc. weight for other things.

Quoted

TROMP is just too inspiring. ;o) Even if I build something along those lines just for fun

Well, if you want your Tromps, you can always decide that you want x tons set aside for such ships and see if you can achieve your objectives with the remaining tonnage. At 63%, you still have some 110,000 tons left so that is probably not a problem. If you were to use the 16,000 tons for a few Tromp-like ships, you still have enough tons left for twelve 8,000 ton light cruisers and one 1,000 ton torpedo boat.

I don't know about large torpedo boats, but you might want to investigate larger destroyers at some point in time. It seems ships are getting larger and submarines are starting to dive deeper, so a longer ranged destroyer that could operate independantly from a convoy should they need to start hunting an enemy submarine or track a raider.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Keep in mind the RSAN has used only 63% of its tonnage allotment for cruisers category B so far. And this includes 11 Torpedoboats of 2,000ts each armed with 15cm guns.

Hmm, had forgotten about those torpedo boats, I thought all the tonnage referred to aging(but still having some service life) cruisers. It does free up some tonnage for sure.

It looks like we have different points of view regarding how small cruisers can be while still fulfilling their tasks; you seem to regard 6,000 tons as enough, while I'd prefer having at least 7,000 tons(at least in the SAE's case - had it been another country, I'd seriously consider 5,000-6,000 ton ships). That's why I'm keen on DLs - they free up tonnage for big light cruisers. Going for a high/low mix of 6,000 and 8,000 ton ships gives you 30 smaller cruisers and 16 bigger ones with your allotment. I'd still go for bigger cruisers, but you probably wouldn't.

Quoted

Originally posted by Guilherme Loureiro

It looks like we have different points of view regarding how small cruisers can be while still fulfilling their tasks; you seem to regard 6,000 tons as enough, while I'd prefer having at least 7,000 tons(at least in the SAE's case - had it been another country, I'd seriously consider 5,000-6,000 ton ships).

Why do you think the RSAN needs larger ships than other countries? Because of inefficient designs so far (twin turrets where others already used triples etc.)?

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
I don't know about large torpedo boats, but you might want to investigate larger destroyers at some point in time. It seems ships are getting larger and submarines are starting to dive deeper, so a longer ranged destroyer that could operate independantly from a convoy should they need to start hunting an enemy submarine or track a raider.

I think cruisers are much better suited for indepandent missions than destroyers.

Then again - where to draw the line between cruiser and destroyer if the latter grow larger than 2,000ts?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I think that a 12-gun ship on 8.000tons leaves a design that is too cramped and sacrifices other qualities. Then you could go for a 9-gun ship to save deckspace, but the 4x2 arrangment is better for gunnery...and so it goes on. I wouldn't be surprised to see 4x2x150mm gunned cruisers with similar armour as before but more AA gun power and a bit more misc. weight for other things.

So after proposing Colony-type vessel you now say I should continue with the type of cruiser I developed so far?

Whilst you are still limited to 8.000tons, its hard to get a 12-gun design onto such a small hull. It depends how much you are willing to sacrifice the armour. If you need more armour then either a larger ship or less gunpower.

I do think it might be better to keep with your more traditional cruisers, maybe with 10 guns in 3-2--2-3 to give a bit more offensive power?

Uh, a 3-2-2-3 layout you´ll never see on a RSAN design. I really don´t like it and it´s not that good for salvo shooting, methinks.

If I go for a 10-gun design I´d choose 5 twin mounts but a 8,000ts cruiser might not be long enough. Guess I have to do a small sketch to be sure...

Regarding a 12-gun 8,000ts cruiser - you mentioned the COLONYs and my own 12-gun design posted above is also similar. Except for the lack of a floatplane the design doesn´t seem to need much improvement. Sure, the belt and face plates are thinner than on preceeding designs but nevertheless 80+mm should be enough to stop incoming 15cm shells at most battle ranges. Springsharp data also seems to be fine regarding stability (top heaviness) even though I may use some roleplaying here to give those designs a realistic touch.

Why do you think she needs more armor than a larger ship? Larger than 8,000ts means at least a cruiser of category A - and my CLs are not meant to fight these. At least not alone, that is.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Why do you think the RSAN needs larger ships than other countries? Because of inefficient designs so far (twin turrets where others already used triples etc.)?

Long patrols. The analogy here is with US cruisers, who had to cross long distances without the benefit of a large network of refueling stations like the RN did. Here, you have bases relatively close to your patrol areas, but I'd keep them on station as long as possible, because you have large sections of the South Atlantic and Indian oceans to cover.

BTW, I don't think twins are that inefficient. They are inefficient spacewise, but for gunnery twins are better than triples(I recall someone mentioning one twin mount was roughly equivalent to 1.5 single mounts, and one triple being equivalent to 1.75 single mounts, ROF-wise). Of course, there's a point triples become a must, but I don't think 4 twins are too inferior to 3 triples.

Quoted

If I go for a 10-gun design I´d choose 5 twin mounts but a 8,000ts cruiser might not be long enough. Guess I have to do a small sketch to be sure...

Dido...
... oh wait! You want to mount 150mm guns.
:-)
When looking at the linedrawing of the Condottieri II, I think that it could work. If you were to dump a fifth turret aft and increase the size to 8,000 tons, it might fit... unless you have too much machinery down there...