WesWorld

During the war on the rivers in South America the South Africans were severely lacking warships for such river warfare - both to fight superior Argentine/Paraguayan units and to support army forces.

The Viktor Garcia class gunboats were a quick answer but not really suited for either mission. So the RSAN designers tried different concepts.

What do you think?

RM36A, South African River Monitor laid down 1936



Displacement:
173 t light; 198 t standard; 205 t normal; 211 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
139,30 ft / 137,80 ft x 26,25 ft x 3,61 ft (normal load)
42,46 m / 42,00 m x 8,00 m x 1,10 m

Armament:
2 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102,98lbs / 46,71kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1930 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 207 lbs / 94 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 180

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 0,79" / 20 mm 102,03 ft / 31,10 m 3,94 ft / 1,20 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 114% of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,97" / 50 mm 1,97" / 50 mm -
2nd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -

- Armour deck: 0,79" / 20 mm, Conning tower: 1,97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 1 shaft, 402 shp / 300 Kw = 12,72 kts
Range 2.000nm at 8,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 13 tons

Complement:
26 - 35

Cost:
£0,152 million / $0,610 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 26 tons, 12,6%
Armour: 70 tons, 34,3%
- Belts: 14 tons, 6,6%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 20 tons, 9,6%
- Armour Deck: 36 tons, 17,4%
- Conning Tower: 1 tons, 0,7%
Machinery: 8 tons, 3,9%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 64 tons, 31,2%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 32 tons, 15,6%
Miscellaneous weights: 5 tons, 2,4%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
163 lbs / 74 Kg = 1,6 x 5,9 " / 150 mm shells or 0,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,71
Metacentric height 1,6 ft / 0,5 m
Roll period: 8,6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,21
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,14

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,550
Length to Beam Ratio: 5,25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 11,74 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 8,53 ft / 2,60 m
- Forecastle (20%): 5,91 ft / 1,80 m
- Mid (50%): 4,92 ft / 1,50 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 4,92 ft / 1,50 m
- Stern: 5,25 ft / 1,60 m
- Average freeboard: 5,50 ft / 1,68 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 113,8%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 92,3%
Waterplane Area: 2.448 Square feet or 227 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 67%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 21 lbs/sq ft or 103 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,53
- Longitudinal: 1,16
- Overall: 0,57
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform



RGB37A, South African River Gun Boat laid down 1937



Displacement:
434 t light; 464 t standard; 531 t normal; 585 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
217,79 ft / 213,25 ft x 24,61 ft x 5,91 ft (normal load)
66,38 m / 65,00 m x 7,50 m x 1,80 m

Armament:
4 - 4,13" / 105 mm guns (2x2 guns), 35,32lbs / 16,02kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
4 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1937 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1937 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 150 lbs / 68 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 220

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,38" / 35 mm 0,79" / 20 mm -
2nd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
3rd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Conning tower: 0,59" / 15 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 2.500 ihp / 1.865 Kw = 18,53 kts
Range 2.800nm at 12,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 121 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
54 - 71

Cost:
£0,286 million / $1,143 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 19 tons, 3,5%
Armour: 12 tons, 2,3%
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 11 tons, 2,1%
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Conning Tower: 1 tons, 0,2%
Machinery: 153 tons, 28,8%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 200 tons, 37,7%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 97 tons, 18,3%
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 9,4%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
426 lbs / 193 Kg = 12,1 x 4,1 " / 105 mm shells or 0,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,20
Metacentric height 0,9 ft / 0,3 m
Roll period: 11,2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,33
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,600
Length to Beam Ratio: 8,67 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 14,60 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
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: 12,47 ft / 3,80 m
- Forecastle (20%): 7,55 ft / 2,30 m
- Mid (44%): 7,55 ft / 2,30 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 7,55 ft / 2,30 m
- Stern: 7,55 ft / 2,30 m
- Average freeboard: 7,94 ft / 2,42 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 131,9%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 102,2%
Waterplane Area: 3.838 Square feet or 357 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 103%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 36 lbs/sq ft or 175 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,97
- Longitudinal: 1,32
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

I like the first one better, though I might down gun to 120mm and add even more armor and some mortars.

I do question if it qualifies for the 0.5 hull str category though.

The second one reminds me of my Grunos, but much better suited for river work. I like the complex reciprocating engine and coal, less stress on SAE.
But I don't like the combination of no side armor and a steam plant. With fairly short river ranges, even HMGs from shore or strafing planes could hole the boiler and make life interesting on board.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
I like the first one better, though I might down gun to 120mm and add even more armor and some mortars.

Well, for me it´s not either the monitor or the gunboat. The RSAN needs both for her river flotillas. The questions is: what details may I have overlooked?

Mortars I also thought about but a) I don´t know how to realistically sim them and b) deck space is a real issue on such a small ship. The hull is too shallow for large crew quarters so her superstructure needs to be as large as possible.

I also played around with something a bit larger but in the end gained little as all weights increased and the net gains were small.

Quoted

I do question if it qualifies for the 0.5 hull str category though.

I dunno. What does the board think? My idea here was that "strained by open-sea conditions" is quite true for such a small craft. A shallow draft I focused on but not seakeeping.

Quoted

The second one reminds me of my Grunos, but much better suited for river work. I like the complex reciprocating engine and coal, less stress on SAE.
But I don't like the combination of no side armor and a steam plant. With fairly short river ranges, even HMGs from shore or strafing planes could hole the boiler and make life interesting on board.

This design focuses on a shallow draft but otherwise she´s similar to the Grunos, I tend to agree.

Reciprocating engines are reliable and easy to fix if away from a yard. Boilers fed with coal or wood also help to keep the ship running should supply lines be cut in case of war. However, on the other side I wonder if the whole machinery plant is too complex for such a vessel. Geared diesels may be a better choise. What do you think? Diesels for a second generation of these ships?

Armor is an issue, I agree. However, it costs a lot. But I have 50 tons of misc weight put on her to get a realistic overall design. Those 50ts could be used for armor. BUT when looking at historical gun boat designs of the 1930s like the British Scorpion or Locust classes you´ll see they are larger, more lightly armed and also not armored. So again springsharp probably allows much better designs anyway, putting armor on my design might be too much.

What do you think?

As these ships are designed for rivers or maybe close coastal work, perhaps you should add or replace a gun with a howitzer. Most Uk china gunboats had a howitzer and the ex Austrian river monitors in sevice with the balkan states had a 120mm howitzer.

Like Kirk I'm a bit uncertain about the monitor's hull strength. My own research into river monitors indicated most of the WWII types, with armament similar to these monitors, were around 500 tons or thereabouts. (And I decided Hrolf's German monitors were about the right size for Bulgaria's fleet, as well; hence why I bought the license.)

The larger gunboats are very nice, and I have no qualms on those vessels.

I tend to agree, the RM36A design has a similar armament to an RN Insect class gunboat on a much smaller hull, might be abit topheavy. It does look very nice though, perhaps a smaller armament of 37-50mm guns in tank turrets?

The RGB37A design on the otherhand seems like a much better design.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
It does look very nice though, perhaps a smaller armament of 37-50mm guns in tank turrets?

If he wants to stick with that particular tonnage, I'd agree; the alternate would be to build something more on par tonnage-wise with the German monitors. The German monitors, though, have the additional strength of adding 88mm "secondaries".

As for mortars and howitzers... hmm.

Mortars don't take much room overall, and convey their energy down, so are fairly light.

Howitzers generally weigh less than an equivalent bore gun, with a heavier shell.

In both cases I would try to isolate what a field piece of that bore weighs and choose a naval gun of roughly the same weight.

Then assign the shell weight appropriate for the piece.

The Soviet 1938 120mm mortar weighed 280kg and fired a 16kg bomb.

It's so light it's hard to tell how much weight SS is assigning to a single piece because of rounding, but if you put in a 100 or 1000 weapons it's easy to tell.
A 1.65" gun in SS weighs as much as a 120mm mortar.

The soviet 1938 122mm howitzer ran 2,450kg combat while the 1931 122mm gun was 7,100kg combat...which had about twice the range.

SS places a 122 naval piece at 6.93 tons, which should be naval standard, so 2240lbs, or 7,041kg.

So for a 122mmhowitzer, I would argue one could use a 2.43 ton 86mm gun to sim it.

Not perfect, but should be a reasonable approach.

Thanks for those information on howitzers. I may use that on another design.

Regarding hull strength of that little monitor of mine: Why does it have to be 1.00? SS says the ship will suffer in open sea environment and I´m fine with that. Who would seriously sail such a vessel beyond a river estuary?

We have special rules for fast units, for submarines, for carriers, for passenger liners and all kind of other stuff but a ship build for river service that SHOULD have no chance to stand the open sea has to have a hull strength of 1.00?

Why? What is that SS remark for if not for esactly such case?

Don´t get me wrong, I´ll modify the design accordingly if necessary but I do not really understand the point.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Regarding hull strength of that little monitor of mine: Why does it have to be 1.00? SS says the ship will suffer in open sea environment and I´m fine with that. Who would seriously sail such a vessel beyond a river estuary?

...

Why? What is that SS remark for if not for exactly such case?

Don´t get me wrong, I´ll modify the design accordingly if necessary but I do not really understand the point.

I'm willing to cede argument on the hull strength warning, but that's not really the soul of my concern. The ship is, in my humble opinion, a tad too light in comparison to similarly-armed vessels in real life. For instance:

The British M29 monitor, with 2x6"/L45 guns (same as the QE's casemated secondaries) and one 57mm AA gun, displaced ~535 tons. Yes, it was forty feet longer and twice the draught, but I make the presumption that the British designers did the best job they could on them.

The Yugoslavian monitors (via Austria-Hungary) had a range of armaments and sizes:
- Vardar: 530 tons with 2x120mm, 2x66mm and 2x120mm howitzers.
- Sava: 450 tons with 2x120mm and 1x120mm howitzer.
- Drava: 380 tons (or 525 tons) with 2x120mm, 2x66mm, and 3x120mm howitzers.
- Morava: 400 tons with 2x120mm guns.

The Yugoslavian monitors are better-armed than your design, and the British monitors probably have a higher freeboard... but if I may venture to point out that they're all in the 400-ton to 500-ton range The only real "gunboat" I've found on a comparable tonnage is the slightly longer, but 50% heavier, Artilleriefahrprahms the Kriegsmarine built in WWII.

When I was setting up the Bulgarian Danube Flotilla, I decided 500 ton monitors were probably the ideal for their size and armament. Hrolf had a solid design, and I could not make anything superior.

Therefore, my conclusion is that a monitor of this size is going to displace round about 300-400 tons. Can you build a 2x15cm-armed monitor on 200 tons? Maaaaybe... but I'm not a naval architect, and I'd think the SAE will find them unsatisfactory if they ever have to use them. Were it not for those real-life ships, I'd accept the issue of reduced hull strength without much fuss whatsoever...

Point taken on historical designs BUT why should I suddenly bother? Isn´t SS defining our physics?

You´re setting a really dangerous precedence here. If we need to check first which historical designs can be taken as precedence for fictional ones and than go with their size I hereby request that ALL ships in WesWorld need to be re-designed! To proof my point following your argument (by example):

- The british Arethusa class historically was the smallest cruiser design - with 6x6" in twins and 4x4" in singles at 32kn on about 5500 tons. I expect every single cruiser design that is lighter but carrys a similar or even heavier armament to be redesigned. The British designers knew their job, I assume. Of course you could argue about Yubari but she had her main guns without barbets, was lighter armed in general and build to DD hull standards. Capitani Romani came much later and also is more lightly armed and some kind of overgrown DD while the Dutch Tromp had no barbets again etc. SO the Arethusa are really setting the norm.

- I expect EVERY fictional capital ship in WesWorld to be redesigned for which its designer cannot proof it would have been possible to build it in OTL. Obviously when comparing WW ships to historical once ours are faster, more heavily armored and armed and every little bit of deck space is crowded with light guns.

- We have many small CV designs in WesWorld with airgroupd that histoically would never fit on a similar sized hull - except if used as a transport. However, they are based on our ruled. But if we now need historical precedence they all need to be changed.

Other questions that spring to mind:

There were no historical hyprid carriers. In WesWorld at least the Indians build one. Needs to be scrapped now?

How low does can I drop HS if hull strength on my former appreach was too low? Does it have to be 1.00? I´m still intending a ship that is fore rivers alone - so the SS note of "strained in open sea" is just fine (raised that point before). Feel free to have it sunk should we script a story and I sail it cross the Atlantic.....

What if I can make it on 200ts and 1.00 HS? Just checking it, all I have to give up are those 5 tons misc weight I added for no purpose on the original design plus some acceptable armor modifications. The ship will still remain half the size of those historical examples you provide. Or I reduce armament to 127mm guns which still is heavy compared to your examples above and without misc weight and some minor tweaks on gun armor I also can achieve 1.00 HS. On a displacement a tad bit below 200ts standard....

Below is a variant with identical armament, very slightly increased dimensions (thus size) and some tweaks on her armor. She has HS of 1.00 and gets no warning. Can I ride Cape Hoorn wither now? According to your argument it should be easily possible.....

RM36C, South African River Monitor laid down 1936

Displacement:
199 t light; 221 t standard; 228 t normal; 234 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
145,80 ft / 144,36 ft x 27,89 ft x 3,61 ft (normal load)
44,44 m / 44,00 m x 8,50 m x 1,10 m

Armament:
2 - 5,91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102,98lbs / 46,71kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1930 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 207 lbs / 94 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 0,79" / 20 mm 95,14 ft / 29,00 m 3,94 ft / 1,20 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 101% of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,38" / 35 mm 0,98" / 25 mm -
2nd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 0,39" / 10 mm, Conning tower: 1,38" / 35 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 1 shaft, 402 shp / 300 Kw = 12,52 kts
Range 2.000nm at 8,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 14 tons

Complement:
29 - 38

Cost:
£0,158 million / $0,633 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 26 tons, 11,3%
Armour: 45 tons, 19,8%
- Belts: 13 tons, 5,7%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 11 tons, 4,8%
- Armour Deck: 20 tons, 8,7%
- Conning Tower: 1 tons, 0,5%
Machinery: 10 tons, 4,2%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 118 tons, 51,8%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 30 tons, 12,9%
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0,0%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
361 lbs / 164 Kg = 3,5 x 5,9 " / 150 mm shells or 0,4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,51
Metacentric height 1,5 ft / 0,5 m
Roll period: 9,6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,18
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,01

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,550
Length to Beam Ratio: 5,18 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 12,01 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 71
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 8,20 ft / 2,50 m
- Forecastle (20%): 5,25 ft / 1,60 m
- Mid (50%): 4,59 ft / 1,40 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 4,59 ft / 1,40 m
- Stern: 4,59 ft / 1,40 m
- Average freeboard: 5,06 ft / 1,54 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 100,7%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 84,9%
Waterplane Area: 2.725 Square feet or 253 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 83%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 36 lbs/sq ft or 178 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,95
- Longitudinal: 1,59
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

I almost forgot two points regarding your 500 ton examples above:

1.) The British China Station gunboats emphasied on habitability. I don´t want that and don´t need that for my river monitor design. This is an important point - crew wuarters always eat up a lot of space and space requires a larger hull which will turn out heavier. This is a problem with most fictional WW designs - crew size, habitability and space or volume for handling a ship is not really taken care of.

2.) Your stats list displacement and guns but not armor. If those monitors were armored two or three times what I put on my river monitor design their size could easily be understood.

Space is more important on river monitors than weight. I'd guess that they were also rather overbuilt for purpose. Why go to the trouble of a hull designed up to battleship stress standards when you can get a monkey to weld some thick plates together. There's no need for weight saving because the ship will probably turn out cheaper with poorer hull construction. Its just that in WW its the opposite as displacement is the cost. I think I'd probably go for 1.50 HS as I've done with a few other second line ships. There's no _need_ to but I just like to make those designs into something I feel is a bit more realistic.

I don't really have any problems with these designs. I think I'd prefer more space but thats about it. For the pictures I think they look too shippy. Simpler bridges with no wings. Don't really need enclosed bridges either. If they're monitors you could probably get away with a really minimalist superstructure; conning tower, funnel; if gunboats then I think more superstructure for crew accommodation.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Point taken on historical designs BUT why should I suddenly bother? Isn´t SS defining our physics?

AFAICT, yes.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
You´re setting a really dangerous precedence here. If we need to check first which historical designs can be taken as precedence for fictional ones and than go with their size I hereby request that ALL ships in WesWorld need to be re-designed! To proof my point following your argument (by example):

The point of Wesworld, as I understand it, was to run a sim game to "test" different ship designs and ideas which were never made in the real world. So things like hybrid carriers and the like are just fine with me.

What I'm trying to do here is not set a precedent on designing our warships, but to address this particular example only. I feel the ship is too light in displacement in comparison to known OTL designs. Please note that I agreed with you on the issue of hull strength, and I merely demurred that this vessel can do it's job on this tonnage, per the examples above - and I also noted the issues which would potentially cause those larger hull sizes. (In the British monitors, higher freeboard and more crew quarters; in the Yugoslavian monitors, more guns.)

What I'm trying to do is not convince the forum these monitors are rule-breaking (as I already accepted your hull strength arguments) but to convince you that I think it's a bad design and you can do better. If you don't want to listen to me, *shrug*. It's your ship, and you design it and build it the way you please, and I'll accept it and move on.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
2.) Your stats list displacement and guns but not armor. If those monitors were armored two or three times what I put on my river monitor design their size could easily be understood.

Yeah, I know - because I couldn't find any specs on it. Online data on river monitors is very hard to find.

FWIW:
Link to picture of Yugoslav monitor.

As with all designs in wesworld, arguements can be explained easiest using real world designs, I don't think anyone called these designs crap so lets not get sensitive please! Constructive critisism is afterall why we post our designs!

I agree with Brock on the size arguement, only because the limited info on gunboats I have seems to back Brocks suggestions.

For example the British Fly, Blackfly, or small China gunboats as they are refered too in Janes, displace 98 tons and mount 1x4", 1x12pdr, 1x6pdr (not in all) 1x3pdr AA, 1x2pdr pom pom and 4-5 mg's.

I suppose its possible to mount 2x5.9" guns on a hull nearly twice the size but I don't think she has enough light guns to act as a true river gunboat. The heavy guns will hit hard but not often enough IMO. Your operating in a confined waterway so battles will be fairly close quarters.

Most designs I've seen with 2 guns in the 6" range Displace around 450-600 tons.

It´s a monitor, not a gun boat. It is not meant to fight battles. It´s meant to cruise up the river, slip anchor where friendly shores are and give fire cover for army ops several miles away. Once her mags are empty she slowly sails down the river again....

So she needs enough machinery power to sail upstream, some far reaching guns with a handful of shells and some (splinter) armor should the enemy return the favour. That´s it.

Anyway, point is taken. I will reconsider my design and decide if I´ll keep her as is or alter some stats.

But I have to add that I really find it odd that we run in a discussion of what is realistic over a 200ts river boat. There are truely other things in WesWorld were realism went out of the window a long time ago..... And I thought I really avoided pushing things. But hey, wait for my best selling book "From River Monitor to Man on Mars"...

*Shrugs* As I said, it's your decision on deploying the ship, presuming there are no other folks with qualms about the hull strength. I've certainly tried to argue a few causes before where SS allows something not seen in historical designs.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
The only real "gunboat" I've found on a comparable tonnage is the slightly longer, but 50% heavier, Artilleriefahrprahms the Kriegsmarine built in WWII.

I´d like to know the source of that info.

I currently have "Plattbugkreuzer - Artillerieträger der Marine im Einsatz" by Gerd-Dietrich Schneider on my knees. He was commanding officer of the 8. Artillerieträger Flotille for most of the second world war. According to his book an Artilleriefährprahm Type D2 had the following stats:

length 49,8m
beam 6,6m
sides 2,75m
draught 1,2m fore and 1,35m aft
displacement 240 tons
armament: 2x 88mm or 105mm, 1x 37mm, 8x20mm (two quads), 2x 15mm and sometimes also RAGs (Raketenabschussgestell => Rocketlauncher)
crew: 55-60
armor: 40mm plates over most of the waterline length and machinery spaces, thinner plates of vaious thickness for guns and rudder, 100mm concrete for bridge and 37mm gun emplacement => total weight 75 tons for armor

Compared to that the C variant of my monitor design as posted above doesn´t look too bad. It´s 20tons smaller but carries much less armament and crew while her armor weights only 45 tons.

Note also that the AFs of the Kriegsmarine were useful only up to seastate 4-5 which brings them close to the category of river vessels. Of course one has to consider their unusual hull form, especiall their flat bows (giving them their name => flat = platt in German).

So after considering things, and double checking AF stats in Gröner, I think the first version of the monitor might have been a bit optimistic but the C variant surely could be rated realistic.

By accepting a hull strenth a tad bit below 1.00 to get the "strained in open sea" warning I could probably even add some 5 or 10 milimeters of armor. However, not sure if I will...

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
The only real "gunboat" I've found on a comparable tonnage is the slightly longer, but 50% heavier, Artilleriefahrprahms the Kriegsmarine built in WWII.

I´d like to know the source of that info.

I generally check www.german-navy.de when I'm looking at most German ships; it's by no means superb details but it stated 300 tons for the Artilleriefährprahm on this page.

I guess I'm convinced now that 36C could work well enough for the design points you've outlined.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
*Shrugs* As I said, it's your decision on deploying the ship, presuming there are no other folks with qualms about the hull strength. I've certainly tried to argue a few causes before where SS allows something not seen in historical designs.

I had initial concerns, but I think Hoo's point of view is reasonable. The warning is for vessels in the open ocean, not rivers. This is a river vessel and will not face large waves.