WesWorld

Quoted

What would be the overal difference in having the 8k design mounting 6" triples over the 5.5"? Mostly, I'm assuming a loss of armour.

That's the most likely result, yes. Alternatively, you could lose secondary armament, speed, range, or sea-keeping, but armor's the easiest.

Quoted

Alright, I thought the quarterdeck and forecastle % related to the hull breaks, not structure. I thought it looked wrong, i'll fix it in the next hour or so.

SS assumes that there are no major items on the forecastle or quarterdeck.


The plan for the 5.5" makes sense to me. GB gave them to Canada so they could consolidate their calibers, it would make little sense for Canada to take on the burden of maintaining multiple calibers when GB doesn't want to.

Completed graphic, for now.



Looks like a baby Suffolk.

Seems like I'll have enough room to pile on some AAA if needed in the future.

Would a Transom stern help any? Either freeing up displacement, or helping with seakeeping.

Quoted

Would a Transom stern help any? Either freeing up displacement, or helping with seakeeping.

The design, as simmed, already has a transom stern. It frees up tonnage which is then turned into freeboard, which helps sea-keeping.

d'oh. I'll have to edit in the transom later, then. Figures I'll miss something important like that, heh. Other than that, how's it look? This is my first attempt at putting a ship pic together based on nothing but a springsharp report.

Not bad a'tall. I'd suggest trimming the armour belt on each end (should end just beyond A and Y turrets), and the hangar looks a tick blocky, but otherwise...A-OK.

I'm welcome to suggestions on what to do with the hangar, besides the cutouts forward all I can think of is extending it forward as superstructure, and raising the funnels. That'd make it kinda top-heavy, though, and I'll probably go that route for the CA down the line (I'm wagering those will look even more County-like). I also figure the large, flat roof gives ample space for increased AA down the line.

Edit with the transom, and slightly raised fo'c'sle is up, I'll fix the belts later tonight or tomorrow.

You need to group the 4" guns together so that they get their ammunition from the same locker.

2 funnels, not raked with the hangar as part of the bridge structure.

4 shaft powerplant.

Quoted

4 shaft powerplant.

Why, when the sim is of a two-shaft powerplant?

Its more normal for the RN to use 4 shaft powerplants. It improves subdivison a bit as well. Able to have 2 separate engine rooms. Harder to do that with 2 shafts.

It's not an RN ship, it's an RCN ship. The thought behind the two-shaft layout was that historically one of the hard things to produce was the shaft gearing, this way the ship only needs half as much (the same reason the US FFG-7 class was built with only one shaft).

Admittedly, the number of shafts has no effect on SS, so if ShinRa wants 4, it's an easy switch.


On the 4" guns, as drawn it's matching the sim again, the 4" battery was on the side ends, it's unlikely they'd be able to draw from the same ammo locker (not to mention that doing that would be adding a single point failure to the ship).

Mounting the 4" guns together is historical and means you only need 1 ammunition locker per side instead of 2.



Could go an arrangment like Belfast aft. The longer ammunition trunks improved the rate of fire a bit.

Or go for a quadruple turret, as drawn by Crystaleye;



A few historical designs leading up to Arethusa/Leander;

1929 6” cruisers 2 or 3 lots!
Jan 1 - 5
All 515’ wl x 52’ 6000 tons std 60000shp 31.25 knstd, 30kn deep 1600 tons oil endurance 6000nm

a. 5x1 6” open 2. b. 6x1 5.5” c. 4x2 6” d. 3x2 6” e. 2+1+1+2 6”

armour all 3” side 2” crown to magazines except c. 2” & 1.75”
Machinery side/crown a, b, 3/1.5 c. 1/1 d 1.75/1 e. 1.5/1


There was also a series ‘your starter for Arethusa’ late in 1929
A 6800 tons 4x2 6” 4x1 4” 547’wl 31.5kn 3.5”NC mag sides 3” DI m/ch sides
B6000 ton 4x2 4x1 4” 6” 525’ 33kn 3.5”NC mag sides
C 5600 ton 515’ 3x2 6” 4x1 4” 33kn 3.5”NC mag sides

D. 4200 ton 470’ 5x1 62 2x1 4” 36kn 2” DI mag sides
E. 3000 ton 430’ 6x1 5.5 2x1 3” 38kn nil

followed mid 1930 by A and B of 470’ and 4800 and 4850 tons 32kn 3x2 6” based on the 4200 ton design

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a83/Dmu…uiser5x16in.jpg

I'm thinking of swapping the aft pairs of 40mm and 4" How much would that affect the SS report, and would that enable them to draw from the same ammo lockers?

Integrating the hangar with the forward superstructure means spending another day gutting the drawing, and I don't think the results would be that appealing, but I'll give it a shot if I have the time later today. If I go that route, the 4" guns would go where the aft 40mm and the Cranes are currently, and the cranes moved to the forward 4" mounts, I think.

Canada is drawing from the plans for the Diana class already in their possesion, and plans for the never-built Hector class. Both designs feature raked funnels. Any reason to revert to straight funnels besides asthetics?

Given that this ship is consderably larger than the Diana or Hector designs, I'll go for four shafts.

Also, how much would squeezing in 5.5" quads cost me in other areas, out of curiousity? I think RA is trying to nudge me into a Canadian Pisa class...

Quoted

I'm thinking of swapping the aft pairs of 40mm and 4" How much would that affect the SS report, and would that enable them to draw from the same ammo lockers?

Only in the text output, it shouldn't have any affect on anything else.

Quoted

Given that this ship is consderably larger than the Diana or Hector designs, I'll go for four shafts.

That would not pose a problem, though there's very little difference (less than 2%) in shaft horsepower between Hector and Okanagan.

Larger ship has more room for the machinery, and redundancy is a good thing for a combat ship. If Bismarck had 4 props, she would've been more likely to have survived Ark Royal's torpedo attack without being as crippled.

Raked funnels were originally adopted to confuse rangefinders. This didn't work so the RN reverted back to straight funnels.

Secondaries and props adjusted in the above picture.



Hangar and Catapult merged to the forward superstructure, bridge has been raised one level, and funnels reduced to two taller ones. Doesn't look as pretty, but I'll probably go for the earlier 'look' for the eventual CAs down the line

They'd look even uglier with straight stacks, so I left them raked. Is there any real disadvantage to doing so?

also, any other thoughts on triple vs. quad 5.5"?

Well quad 5.5" turrets raise your ship's tonnage over class B levels? If not, and you can take the problems with the rate of fire of what are really twin twins, then go for it.

You can get a cruiser with a fairly powerful punch (16 guns in 4 quads) in a 8000t vessel if you use the 5.5 gun, thought I´m not sure how realistic she´d be. This is what I got:

8000t Canadian Light Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
7.628 t light; 8.000 t standard; 9.032 t normal; 9.857 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
567,50 ft / 560,00 ft x 56,00 ft x 18,00 ft (normal load)
172,97 m / 170,69 m x 17,07 m x 5,49 m

Armament:
16 - 5,51" / 140 mm guns (4x4 guns), 83,72lbs / 37,98kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 4,02" / 102 mm guns (4x2 guns), 32,38lbs / 14,69kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
16 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,89kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
10 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1.632 lbs / 740 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
12 - 21,0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4,00" / 102 mm 380,00 ft / 115,82 m 10,00 ft / 3,05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 104 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4,00" / 102 mm 1,00" / 25 mm 2,00" / 51 mm
2nd: 2,00" / 51 mm - -
3rd: 1,00" / 25 mm - -
4th: 0,50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2,00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 72.676 shp / 54.216 Kw = 32,00 kts
Range 9.000nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1.857 tons

Complement:
463 - 602

Cost:
£3,241 million / $12,963 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 204 tons, 2,3 %
Armour: 1.684 tons, 18,6 %
- Belts: 630 tons, 7,0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 203 tons, 2,2 %
- Armour Deck: 851 tons, 9,4 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0 %
Machinery: 2.173 tons, 24,1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3.497 tons, 38,7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.403 tons, 15,5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 70 tons, 0,8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
11.413 lbs / 5.177 Kg = 136,3 x 5,5 " / 140 mm shells or 1,5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,14
Metacentric height 2,7 ft / 0,8 m
Roll period: 14,4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,54
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0,560
Length to Beam Ratio: 10,00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26,83 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28,00 ft / 8,53 m
- Forecastle (33 %): 27,00 ft / 8,23 m (18,00 ft / 5,49 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 18,00 ft / 5,49 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18,00 ft / 5,49 m
- Stern: 18,00 ft / 5,49 m
- Average freeboard: 21,10 ft / 6,43 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 97,4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 125,5 %
Waterplane Area: 23.005 Square feet or 2.137 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 93 lbs/sq ft or 453 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,94
- Longitudinal: 1,67
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

BTW, glad to be back in the boards with you all, even if I´m out of the sim.

Welcome back.

and BTW thats a monster of a ship!!!

Yes, right out of the pages of the Regia Marina. :-)