WesWorld

I could've sworn I'd have to bump it up to 10k tons to manage this, but I got away with it on slightly over 8k.

But I'll throw it down and let the riots commence


[SIZE=1]Edited to fix wing mount armour[/SIZE]
Labrador class, Canadian Light Cruiser laid down 1934


Displacement:
7,790 t light; 8,336 t standard; 9,358 t normal; 10,175 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
564.50 ft / 557.00 ft x 56.00 ft x 18.75 ft (normal load)
172.06 m / 169.77 m x 17.07 m x 5.72 m

Armament:
12 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (6x2 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1934 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (4x2 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1934 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
10 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (5x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1,697 lbs / 770 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 350
12 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 365.00 ft / 111.25 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 101 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 74,363 shp / 55,475 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,839 tons

Complement:
475 - 618

Cost:
£3.684 million / $14.735 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 212 tons, 2.3 %
Armour: 1,568 tons, 16.8 %
- Belts: 609 tons, 6.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 112 tons, 1.2 %
- Armour Deck: 847 tons, 9.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,139 tons, 22.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,796 tons, 40.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,567 tons, 16.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
12,637 lbs / 5,732 Kg = 151.9 x 5.5 " / 140 mm shells or 1.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 2.5 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 79 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.85
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.36

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.560
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.95 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.77 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 %): 27.50 ft / 8.38 m
- Mid (50 %): 27.50 ft / 8.38 m (18.00 ft / 5.49 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Stern: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 22.82 ft / 6.95 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 142.3 %
Waterplane Area: 22,882 Square feet or 2,126 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 123 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 95 lbs/sq ft or 466 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.21
- 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

I dunno how I feel the design, but you don't need any more modern CLs. You need destroyers.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

The battery layout is like a Clevelands? Except all 140mm instead of mixed 6" and 5". On 51' less length? You've got about the same speed, so you aren't making additional space with less machinery. You've also got 10' less beam and bigger, not smaller, wing mounts.

Question- why armor the gun houses for the main battery and not the wing mounts?

Destroyers are the next project. The way I have my near-future fleet plotted out needs a couple more CLs, and since they take longer to build, they'll be laid down before the DD project I'm fiddling with.

I'd ditch the aircraft facility's, as I've done with my Acestus class CL's after someone made a good point that not ALL your CL's need to ship scouting aircraft.

I'd think some modified Diana class CL's would be more usefull, cheaper to build in numbers and as such more expendable AA platforms.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Hmmmmmmmmmm

The battery layout is like a Clevelands? Except all 140mm instead of mixed 6" and 5". On 51' less length? You've got about the same speed, so you aren't making additional space with less machinery. You've also got 10' less beam and bigger, not smaller, wing mounts.

the 5.5" are all twin deckhouses; no triple 6" turret/barbettes like the Clevelands, which I think are far more space/weight consuming, no? Also, the wing mounts are next to the stacks, with the wider parts of the superstructure fore and aft.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser KirkQuestion- why armor the gun houses for the main battery and not the wing mounts?

Oversight; I'll correct it in a bit. --;

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I'd ditch the aircraft facility's, as I've done with my Acestus class CL's after someone made a good point that not ALL your CL's need to ship scouting aircraft.

The Labradors are being built with Aircraft facilities due to them being built on the same hull and general layout as the previous Manitoba classes, as an expediency and cost-saving measure. At some point in the future, the aircraft facilities will probably be seen as redundant, and replaced with other equipment.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I'd think some modified Diana class CL's would be more usefull, cheaper to build in numbers and as such more expendable AA platforms.

I don't much like the Dianas, as I think they're undergunned for their size and "Light cruiser" label. At some point they're due for a refit with the new DP guns, and be refitted to Destroyer Leaders.

With Canada no longer bound by Cleito, and no replacement treaty in the forseeable future, the idea of building larger and more capable ships is too appealing to pass up.

Speaking of, here's the current planned Destroyer. I had a 6 gun version, but I think that's a bit much for now.




HMCS Iroquois, Canadian Tribal class Destroyer laid down 1934

Displacement:
2,084 t light; 2,185 t standard; 2,401 t normal; 2,573 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
392.28 ft / 385.00 ft x 36.00 ft x 14.00 ft (normal load)
119.57 m / 117.35 m x 10.97 m x 4.27 m

Armament:
4 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns in single mounts, 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1934 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2 mounts), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
4 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 365 lbs / 166 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 49,795 shp / 37,147 Kw = 35.00 kts
Range 4,250nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 388 tons

Complement:
170 - 222

Cost:
£1.383 million / $5.531 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 46 tons, 1.9 %
Armour: 13 tons, 0.5 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 13 tons, 0.5 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 1,217 tons, 50.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 768 tons, 32.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 317 tons, 13.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 40 tons, 1.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
719 lbs / 326 Kg = 8.6 x 5.5 " / 140 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.35
Metacentric height 1.8 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 11.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.52
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.14

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.433
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.69 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.46 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 67 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Mid (60 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m (14.00 ft / 4.27 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Stern: 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Average freeboard: 17.60 ft / 5.36 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 181.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 106.5 %
Waterplane Area: 9,058 Square feet or 842 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 73 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 39 lbs/sq ft or 190 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.63
- Overall: 0.59
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate

Wrong button

Octuple 40mm mounts?!? o.O

How to feed those guns?

Hmmmm, can't see the pictures.

Octuple 40mm's are standard British 2-pounder pom-pom mountings, using linked feed. See http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_2pounder_m8.htm for details.

Other than that..... well, SS seems to like it, and the Canadians seem determined to persist with their 140mm designs. (Of course, if the DP design of these works, it does give impetus to the Rheinmettal boys that are tinkering with a 15cm FLaK design.......)

These octuple mounts had some problems with jamming, IIRC. Could be wrong...

What makes me wonder is if those are a good choice on a DD. You need to place them high to give good arcs but each mount weights 16+ tons (which is about the same weight as a standard 5" single in enclosed mount) - nothing you want to place high on a DD.....

Looks more like 1x4 and 1x12 to me... after all, only four of the 2pdrs are superfiring...

Quoted

nothing you want to place high on a DD

Something you want to place high on a DD of the enemy.

Jamming WAS a problem with the 2-pounder pom-pom, but it remained a standard Commonwealth weapon through the end of WWII.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Looks more like 1x4 and 1x12 to me... after all, only four of the 2pdrs are superfiring...

Fixed.

the RCN decided on as heavy a 40mm battery as possible to compensate for the possible failure of the 5.5" gun as an adequate DP weapon. Given the deckspace and size restraints of a destroyer, it came down to either two quad mounts, or two of the new octuple mounts. It's been decided to build them with the octuples; If that mount totally fails as well, it'll be a lot easier to replace it with a quad 40mm mount than it would be to replace additional 5.5" guns. The Labradors are shipping with the quad 40mm due to their lineage with the older Manitobas, plus concerns that doubling the 40mm mounts on that ship would cause topweight problems due to the triple-superfiring layout of the main guns.

Quoted

each mount weights 16+ tons (which is about the same weight as a standard 5" single in enclosed mount)

Well SS thinks each octuple mounting weighs 1.95tons. That is quite a difference. Which is why I use misc. weight to compensate for the difference.

My general comments on the cruiser would be to reduce the armament to 10x5.5" on that hull. If you want more armament, use a FIJI hull and then you can fit 7 mountings on it. Probably 3 fore, 2 aft, 2 wings.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
the 5.5" are all twin deckhouses; no triple 6" turret/barbettes like the Clevelands, which I think are far more space/weight consuming, no? Also, the wing mounts are next to the stacks, with the wider parts of the superstructure fore and aft.

The 5.5" would indeed be somewhat smaller than the 6", but four mounts get slightly smaller and 2 get larger, while the ship in length and breadth.

However, perhaps an Atlanta would be closer. Compared to Atlanta, you have 23 ft. more length, 3 ft. more beam, and 20x 5.5" vs. 16x 5", and 3x twin 40mm spots vs. 4 quad, and 6 x 20mm vs 10 x 20mm, 8 TT vs 12 TT.

Atlanta is only 0.5 knots faster, very close in size, and has fewer weapons. According to Haze Gray, they squeezed in an additional quad 40mm, and were going to reduce the 5" to add 40mm & 20mm, so I am of the opinion deck space was already a premium and have my doubts you could realistically fit that much more on basically the same hull.

It's worth keeping in mind that Atlanta was flushdecked, with a noticable rise and sheer forward, whereas Labrador maintains a fairly level deck with a raised fo'c'sle, with the waist mounts raised above the deck, with torpedoes on the deck below. Furthermore, Atlanta's superstructure was rather large, and definately wide forward, with Labrador's superstructure concentrated away from where I've positioned the waist mounts.

The deck space issues boil down to each ship being designed with it's intended armaments in mind, and situated accordingly; The artwork I've prepared seems to fit everything well enough.

It seems to boil down to whether you guys feel there's something wrong with the springsharp report I prepared or not.

I much prefer this design, but if I'm forced to it, I can prepare another one that replaces the waist mounts with more 40mm. :\

Only thing I would recomned is replacing one of the midship 5.5" mounts with another 40mm mount and adding Misc weight to simulate the extra weight of the mounts. Or making her bigger.

For some reason, I still don't see the drawings.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
For some reason, I still don't see the drawings.

There's only the one in this thread; try the direct link
http://members.aol.com/shinraactual/CL-Labrador1.jpg

I think the site is rejecting AOL. Or maybe it is just my browser because even the link doesn't show anything but "Sorry".