WesWorld

What do you think?




CA36E, South African Heavy Cruiser laid down 1936

Displacement:
14.974 t light; 15.616 t standard; 16.901 t normal; 17.930 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
665,04 ft / 652,89 ft x 74,64 ft x 24,28 ft (normal load)
202,70 m / 199,00 m x 22,75 m x 7,40 m

Armament:
9 - 9,84" / 250 mm guns (3x3 guns), 524,70lbs / 238,00kg shells, 1936 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 4,53" / 115 mm guns (6x2 guns), 46,40lbs / 21,05kg shells, 1936 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
20 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (6 mounts), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1936 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised guns
24 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns (4x6 guns), 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1936 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 5.324 lbs / 2.415 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7,87" / 200 mm 349,28 ft / 106,46 m 15,42 ft / 4,70 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 82% of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8,66" / 220 mm 3,94" / 100 mm 7,87" / 200 mm
2nd: 1,38" / 35 mm 0,98" / 25 mm 1,38" / 35 mm
3rd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
4th: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2,76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 100.000 shp / 74.600 Kw = 32,13 kts
Range 8.000nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2.313 tons

Complement:
740 - 963

Cost:
£7,543 million / $30,173 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 612 tons, 3,6%
Armour: 4.572 tons, 27,1%
- Belts: 1.851 tons, 10,9%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 1.000 tons, 5,9%
- Armour Deck: 1.721 tons, 10,2%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 2.806 tons, 16,6%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6.884 tons, 40,7%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.928 tons, 11,4%
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0,6%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
21.991 lbs / 9.975 Kg = 46,1 x 9,8 " / 250 mm shells or 2,5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,12
Metacentric height 4,0 ft / 1,2 m
Roll period: 15,7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,56
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0,500
Length to Beam Ratio: 8,75 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29,47 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1,64 ft / 0,50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28,87 ft / 8,80 m
- Forecastle (35%): 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Mid (54%): 22,97 ft / 7,00 m (15,09 ft / 4,60 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15%): 15,09 ft / 4,60 m
- Stern: 15,09 ft / 4,60 m
- Average freeboard: 20,17 ft / 6,15 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82,3%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 157,2%
Waterplane Area: 33.764 Square feet or 3.137 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 138 lbs/sq ft or 676 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,96
- Longitudinal: 1,35
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Looks like it has decent stats for a fairly compact size. There's nothing truly spectacular, but it appears to be a good all-around package for a decent price.

Overall I like the design, but from a sim perspective I'd likely stick with my Daedalus class CA's. They are 3,500 tons and 19 million cheaper. The Daedalus class also has torpedo's and aircraft for scouting making them slightly more versatile.

The Daedalus may be slightly inferior in the armament and armour department but her torpedo survivability is comparable as is her AA capability's.

Still the CA36E design is quite handsome, hopefully if she's not built she influences future SAE CA esthetics!

The thing that I'd be concerned about is the short belt in relation to the length of the ship: less than 55% of the length is armored, which leaves a lot of the waterline unprotected.

The lack of aircraft is also a bit of a surprise, though there's weight reserved that might be for them.

I originally intended to have A/C facilities amidship but then decided against, Floatplanes on large combatants have not been of much help during most operation lately but as experienced on the Hertogs could lead to very serious fires in battle. On cruisers designed for fleet duties, scouting and trade protection A/Cs are still mandatory but on capital ships they might disappear sooner or later.

Note: With 11 boats (and actually place for more) she most likely rates as the best equiped in this category. Not having floatplane facilities has its merrits. ;o)

Her belt is not very long, sure, but there is not enough weight reserve for more protected area without decreasing protection of her cital. She truely is an all-or-nothing design.

TSA, you like her look? I thought she should somehow continue the design principles started with the Über-CAs of the Radiance Class.

The concern I'd have with the short belt is not enough protected volume, hits from secondaries and HE rounds on the ends might be enough to put her under or cause her loss.

I doubt that. It´s an old argument, also often used versus other AoN design, especially the Iowas. And it was proven wrong everytime. Subdivision, deapth of hull and of course reserve boyancy within the citadel have to factored. Some HE rounds against her bow or stern may cause flooding but not sink her, I´m sure.

Protecting the buoyancy isn't so much of a problem its more just protecting a large enough area of the ship and the systems contained within. For a cruiser its probably a bit more important given the large amount of 6" or 8" hits that could be expected. There is a lot more to it than just thickness. The USN's cruisers seem well protected if you just look at the thickness, but that armour barely covers any of the hull.

I'm suprised at how compact she manages to be. I'd probably move the turrets furthers towards the ends for more accomodation space. Cruisers like this aren't that big but need large crews.

I know what you mean about crews. However, lengthening her midship section would also ask for more amor - even if SS does not accoutn for it.

I can only second what you said about length of coverage. Just take a look on british cruisers of the era - hardly any real belt at all. Just some armor patches for engines and ammo!

Quoted

I know what you mean about crews. However, lengthening her midship section would also ask for more amor - even if SS does not accoutn for it.

I find thats where drawing the ships helps. Sometimes the belt has to be extended a fair bit from what SS says in order to avoid larger unarmoured portions around the magazines.

I'm not sure about armour on cruisers as they're likely to bit hit quite often by shells and torpedoes. Its only by having large protected areas that you can get protection from shell hits.

I think you could probably go for smaller funnels and greater heavy AA armament given the size of the powerplant and ship respectively.

To reduce smoke interference there are relatively powerful blowers build into the funnels which adds to their size.

Why is her AA suit linked to her powerplant size?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
To reduce smoke interference there are relatively powerful blowers build into the funnels which adds to their size.

Why is her AA suit linked to her powerplant size?

I'd wager RA's thinking about the difference between the USN Cleveland-class and the Fargo-class. While nominally the same design, the Fargo class merged everything into a single funnel in order to improve AA arcs. Ditto for the Baltimore-class and the Oregon City-class.

Well, I also counted in machinery dispersal and looks .... The latter a none technical argument of course. But I actually tried a single funnel version but it looked too German so I decided against. This one better fits the RSAN design trees.

I wasn't particularly clear.

Smaller funnels given the 100,000shp powerplant. If you have a look at historical ships you can judge the size a bit. E.g. Balitmore has 20% greater power and smaller funnels.

In terms of AA armament I think another two 115mm turrets given the size of the ship. I'm not keen on the current raised arrangement of the midships turrets as it doesn't gain much for them. They'll have restricted arcs in that direction anyway because of the light AA guns and the bridge. Better to drop down to the weatherdeck level.

I´ll try smaller stacks then and test what it looks like.

On those secondaries - I thought they would have better arcs forward this way. Not sure if it´s worth having them raised.

You originally stated "I'm suprised at how compact she manages to be." What exactly do you mean?

EDIT: Two more 115mm mounts will cost me 0,02hs and I have nothing I´m willing to trade for that. Guess I will stick to 12x115mm then.

Quoted

You originally stated "I'm suprised at how compact she manages to be." What exactly do you mean?

Space below water is 82% in SS whereas for most cruisers it seems to be 100%+

compacter than El Cid, but barely a match for her, which given the difference in time is astounding.