WesWorld

ok, if you've read the Q3/25 report, and the news reports (if not, you can do it now ), you'll be aware that a brand new class of dutch destroyers is about to sail the seas...

so here are the specs. The ship is declared as displacing 2000 tons standard:

Z44, Dutch Destroyer laid down 1925

Displacement:
1.951 t light; 2.017 t standard; 2.244 t normal; 2.425 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
387,33 ft / 377,30 ft x 32,81 ft x 14,93 ft (normal load)
118,06 m / 115,00 m x 10,00 m x 4,55 m

Armament:
4 - 4,92" / 125 mm guns in single mounts, 59,59lbs / 27,03kg shells, 1925 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns in single mounts, 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1921 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1923 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
4 - 0,51" / 13,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,07lbs / 0,03kg shells, 1920 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 247 lbs / 112 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
8 - 21,0" / 533,4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0,59" / 15 mm 0,39" / 10 mm 0,39" / 10 mm
2nd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 50.011 shp / 37.308 Kw = 34,00 kts
Range 4.000nm at 15,00 kts (Bunkerage = 409 tons)

Complement:
162 - 211

Cost:
£0,885 million / $3,542 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 31 tons, 1,4 %
Armour: 14 tons, 0,6 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Armament: 14 tons, 0,6 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0 %
Machinery: 1.259 tons, 56,1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 597 tons, 26,6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 293 tons, 13,1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 2,2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
458 lbs / 208 Kg = 7,7 x 4,9 " / 125 mm shells or 0,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,20
Metacentric height 1,3 ft / 0,4 m
Roll period: 12,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,56
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,05

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,425
Length to Beam Ratio: 11,50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19,42 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 65 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 68
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6,56 ft / 2,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Forecastle (0 %): 15,58 ft / 4,75 m
- Mid (75 %): 15,58 ft / 4,75 m (12,30 ft / 3,75 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 12,30 ft / 3,75 m
- Stern: 12,30 ft / 3,75 m
- Average freeboard: 14,76 ft / 4,50 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 194,0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 76,8 %
Waterplane Area: 7.745 Square feet or 720 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 63 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 36 lbs/sq ft or 173 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,50
- Longitudinal: 1,76
- Overall: 0,56
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform




comments welcome

That´s a very good destroyer. Balanced, with all features necessary. Probably light on the main guns compared to some foreign designs but that will hardly be a problem given her overall design.

I just don´t understand why you added a third light gun caliber?....

Conclusions; not as good as the 200t smaller Navigatori class Italy just laid down.

- 4x125mm vs. 6x130mm guns

- 34knts vs. 34.5knts++

- 4000nm@15 vs. 3000nm@15knts

- Navigatori is bound to be better looking

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Conclusions; not as good as the 200t smaller Navigatori class Italy just laid down.

- 4x125mm vs. 6x130mm guns

- 34knts vs. 34.5knts++

- 4000nm@15 vs. 3000nm@15knts

- Navigatori is bound to be better looking

Well, you must understand that Z45 wasn't the best design I had for a 2000ton destroyer...

however the particular situation of Netherlands made me think. The last Dutch destroyer design dates from 1918, and the previous one from 1913. The Italian navy has ample experience in designing and building small fighting vessels,however the Dutch fleet has focused a lot more on big vessels until now.

It won't make any sense that in such a situation I came up with a 35knot destroyer with six 130mm guns...a design, on the other hand, that I have done sucessfully in SS2.

For instance, your ship has a transom stern (and that makes quite a difference in Destroyer design). My design doesn't. If the naval design bureau in Holland hasn't designed a new destroyer for 7 years, it won't have a lot of experience to bring new features into the new class.


Instead I chose to go through a step-by-step design situation. the Z45 is a more or less simple and decent design. It gets the job done and has acceptable performance. The first batch of 12 2nd class destroyers (Z53 class,to be started in 1926) will be of a quite more advanced design, with transom stern, and a tad faster. I'm simulating the expertise the naval designers get with each new class they design to be built.

Given that I plan to build 12 destroyers per year from 1926 onwards, until the older destroyers are all retired and the cleito treaty tonnage I am allowed to build is full, what i'm going to do is to slightly change each yearly design to improve it a bit without changing the overall features by a lot.


anyway, the Navigatori is an excellent ship, but the Z45 is pretty good too. In an 1-vs-1 gunfight encounter, the italian ship would get the upper hand most of the times, however the Z45 loads a couple torpedoes more, has more misc weight (more ASW equipment and DCs), and much faster-firing single mounts, something that in the AA role is better than slower-firing twin mounts .



Hooman:

the 13mm machineguns are common features on older dutch destroyers. They are mostly useless in a ship with 40mm and 20mm guns, but I'll let the naval designers learn it by trial and error. As I said I'm trying to simulate the dutch lack of proper experience in designing modern destroyers. Small things like these are done for that reason.

Probably the future Z53 class will already have them deleted...if not, the Z53 1927 batch will for sure .

I like the way you´re developing your DD classes. It does seem to make a lot of sense to have it that way.

Regarding your old vessels which are to be replaced by those new destroyers make sure you take care of article K Ic of the Cleito Treaty. So no replacement of your Type 1918+ DDs until 1930...

You know, building 12 DDs per year is quite an aggressive building program. Won´t this make the NL loose ground regarding cruisers etc. compared to other powers (Japan for example)?

Ciao,

HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Regarding your old vessels which are to be replaced by those new destroyers make sure you take care of article K Ic of the Cleito Treaty. So no replacement of your Type 1918+ DDs until 1930...

I'm aware of it. The expansion program is a tad more complex than what I have explained thus far (to avoid overcomplicated explanations). Remember that I have much older DDs to replace before, so It goes like this:


The 12 DDs launched in 1926 will replace the 1903 Z13 class DDs when completed (in 1927). The ones launched in 1927 and completed in 1928 will do the same with the 1909 Z25 class. The 1928-29 batch will not replace anything: they will just enlarge the destroyer list. Finally, between the 29-30 and 30-31 batches a total of 14 destroyers will be built. Those 14 will replace the 12 last "old" destroyers, in 1931.

So, between 1926 and 1931 a total of 58 destroyers will be commisioned (8 Z45s, and 50 Z53s in different batches) for a total of 96000 tons, filling the CT tonnage given to Netherlands for destroyers.

Quoted

You know, building 12 DDs per year is quite an aggressive building program. Won´t this make the NL loose ground regarding cruisers etc. compared to other powers (Japan for example)?

I made some math when I planned the building program and I think not. the 12 destroyers of the Z53 class will keep less than 4800 tons per month, the two Utretch battleships under construction will take some 4000 tons between both, and the Hund class carrier conversion another 1700 tons, for a total of 10500 tons per month.

In Q4/1926 the Hund will be completed. In Q4/1928 the Utrechts will be ,too, freeing resources for more shipbuilding.

Netherlands has 14 factories, potentially 14000 tons per month plus the (relatively few) potential scrap metal I can recover from retired ships. The program will require a big effort, but Netherlands has the power to pull it off and build more ships at the same time, even more when the Hund and Utretchs are completed


Also, it is a flexible plan. If I need to direct resources elsewhere on a given moment, I can do it just by delaying or slowing the pace of destroyer building .

Perhaps it's not the best design, but it is a solid, balanced one. I like your choice of gun caliber; it means India and the Netherlands could use each other's ammunition if they had another war.

One concern - by essentially building your entire DD allotment in ~6 years, you've got a bit of a block obsolesence issue coming later on. No continuity for destroyer design after 1931 either - they'll be back drawing sloops or aircraft carriers and forget what they learned about destroyers.

Okay, two concerns then - at 2000 t, you'll reach your 96,000 limit with 48 destroyers - not 58 as you noted.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

One concern - by essentially building your entire DD allotment in ~6 years, you've got a bit of a block obsolesence issue coming later on. No continuity for destroyer design after 1931 either - they'll be back drawing sloops or aircraft carriers and forget what they learned about destroyers.

that's a pretty good point, now that you brought it up and I think of it. Maybe will be 12 started in 1926 and 27 and then each two or three years...

Quoted

Okay, two concerns then - at 2000 t, you'll reach your 96,000 limit with 48 destroyers - not 58 as you noted.

The future DDs to be built in batches of 12 aren't of the Z45 class, but of a smaller 2nd class DD (to be named Z53) displacing 1600 tons. I can't build more than 19500 tons of 2000 ton destroyers according to the CT.

So, 8x2000= 16000
and 50x1600=80000
Total tonnage=96000 tons.

Oh - I didn't realize that the T53s were smaller. In which case, no problem.

The other advantage to spreading out a shipbuilding program is that you don't need huge amounts of slipways one year and have nothing for them to do the next.

If you went to, say, six destroyers per year, you'd only need three slipways for it, and you'd have your fifty-eight destroyers built in ten years. Not much of an issue for block obsolesence, more opportunity to upgrade designs, etc.

Personally, I'm trying to average four a year for India, though the number does jump around some.

Also important is to keep track of maintenance as your DDs will age. When build your ships are rated as 100% but their status will decrease by a percent every few years (at least 5% in 15 years according to our infrastructure rules but depending on deployment and role-play a higher rate can be assumed reasonably).

And once their status dropped below a certain level I´m sure you want to have a refit for them - in which case you need a dock for each of them.

Something one should keep in mind, methinks.

Quoted

It won't make any sense that in such a situation I came up with a 35knot destroyer with six 130mm guns...a design, on the other hand, that I have done sucessfully in SS2.

Strangely, in SSv1.1 I get exactly the same result without a transom stern. Whereas with SSv2 I have to use a transom stern to get the same speed.

Any chance that we can see a drawing of her soon?

I susspect that when I get to redoing my CL's in SS/2 that they will grow abit larger, SS/1 seems to allow more goodies in a smaller hull.

The current Filipino destroyer plan is as follows:

1926-1928: 2 1550t laid down per year
1929: 3 1550t
1930: 4 600t (large TB)
1931-1934: 2 ~1550t per year
1935: 1 ~1550t

Will definitly have more starting in '38 but no concrete plans yet.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Regarding your old vessels which are to be replaced by those new destroyers make sure you take care of article K Ic of the Cleito Treaty. So no replacement of your Type 1918+ DDs until 1930...

Now RAM's reply indicate he had it tracked out, but he seems to have modified his plans between Q3/25 and Q1/28, as he was building CLs, and planning on DDs.

Anyhow, I was making a spreadsheet to track the Netherlands fleet, ages, slip sizes, treaty compliance, etc.

By my count (see below), the destroyer force is 98,164 tons with the Z53s, which is slightly over the Clieto limits, but the Z13s will be retired and compensate. The excess tonnage could also but can be absorbed by the permitted shifting of 10% of the 240,000 cruiser tonnage, of which there is 42,742 left. RAM’s projected rebuild of the Z25s will free up further space by de-rating them from destroyer.

The problem is both the Z44 and Z45 count as 3.E.II “sub-category (a)” destroyers of which the United Netherlands can have 19,200 tons, and they displace 37,828 tons.

RAM thought he had this worked out apparently, but I'm not following. I think the fleet I "inherited" may already been beyond the treaty limits.

RAM's last Q1/28 OOB lists 48 destroyers.
The destroyer history seems to be:
Scrapped 12x 1900 Z1 class

12x 1903 Z13 class, 1,097st
18x 1909 Z25 class, 1,554st
12x 1919-20 Z44 class, 1,819st RAM stated these would be renamed .
8x 1925 Z45 class, “2,000”st
----
50 (not 4
Then per RAM’s intentions I have commenced the 12x 1928 Z53 class, “1,600”st I presume to replace the Z13s.

So Questions :

1. Did I miss something?
2. Are the excess destroyers ok if I count them against cruiser tonnage? I see nothing in the Cleito treaty that would prevent them being subcategory (b) cruisers?
3. Should I go back and redesign the 1919-1920 Z44 class to be subcategory (b) destroyers?

Somewhat related :
I’m wondering how the torpedo boats folks are building are fitting into the Cleito treaty? I’m guessing they are under the unrestricted G(I)(a) <600 ton category. While torps & speed are listed as a no-no for the G(I)(b) category, the smaller vessels don’t have that limitation. I just want to clarify before finding out that they count against my destroyer tonnage or somesuch.

Quoted

I’m wondering how the torpedo boats folks are building are fitting into the Cleito treaty? I’m guessing they are under the unrestricted G(I)(a) <600 ton category. While torps & speed are listed as a no-no for the G(I)(b) category, the smaller vessels don’t have that limitation. I just want to clarify before finding out that they count against my destroyer tonnage or somesuch.

Correct, if the standard displacement is under 600 tons, a vessel can have torps and other weapons banned from larger unlimited vesseels.

Quoted

1. Did I miss something?
2. Are the excess destroyers ok if I count them against cruiser tonnage? I see nothing in the Cleito treaty that would prevent them being subcategory (b) cruisers?
3. Should I go back and redesign the 1919-1920 Z44 class to be subcategory (b) destroyers?

1 - doesn't look like it.

2 - Unless the "DDs" fit one or more of the qualifiers for the cruiser category (displacement, gun size), I don't think that you can simply move them up a slot. If I'm wrong, Germany may be reprogramming some of it's builds in future years....

3 - That would make some sense, or you could give them 140mm guns and they'd count as sub category (b) cruisers.

Well I prefer option #3, though #2 would be easiest to "explain".

In other news
(2x39,651) + (2*22,124) + (2x27,109) + (2x32,239)=242,246

I'm already over in Capital tonnage as well ! At least a systematic -5% covers that.

Heck if I hadn't redesigned the K17s before laying them down, I'd be going over in Sub A !

Aaaaarrghhhhhh

At least I still have my coffee.

Quoted

Aaaaarrghhhhhh

Like I said, your sanity is the first casualty.

I think I figured out RAM's plan. Look at this:

Quoted

So, between 1926 and 1931 a total of 58 destroyers will be commisioned (8 Z45s, and 50 Z53s in different batches) for a total of 96000 tons, filling the CT tonnage given to Netherlands for destroyers.

Here he's not counting any of the ships built before 1926 at all as DDs, so either the Z-44s are being discarded (I'm not sure if they're old enough under CT rules for that but they might be), downgraded to subcategory (a) unlimited ships, or something else like being equipped with 140mm guns (or he forgot about them).

One thing I found odd: the design for the Z-44 says laid down in 1917, but the notes in the destroyer section say 12 ships built in 1919 and 1920. If they were, instead, built in 1917 and 1918, they would be pre-CT designs and available for replacement in 1929-1930 (twelve year lifespan for pre-1920 smaller vessels, as I recall). It still leaves them as a problem, though, if they're category A DDs, since the new Z-45s are landing right on top of them.... I'd say the best choice is to reduce them in size a little bit, so they'll fit under the 1600 standard ton reporting limit.

Or, of course, admit that the Dutch are cheating. I'm certain the Indians would be happy to make a stink about that idea!