WesWorld

Gents,

the RSAN in her current fight against Argentinean and Brazilian aggression has to defend her vital shipping lanes. Available for this job are

- a mix of several destroyer or torpedoboat classes of which especially the latter lack range and are not well suited to hunt submarines
- ~20 light destroyer of 600ts to 750ts which are build to fight surface targets and have limited seagoing capabilities
- 16 600ts frigates laid down 1925 which are purpose build for the role
- 6 units of the Guard class patrol crafts laid down 1922 which are multi-role vessels
- 4 multi-purpose sloops of 1000ts laid down 1929 and meant to act as fishery patrol vessel and escort
- 4 new multi-purpose sloops of 1500ts and designed for arctic environment

Additional ships like submarine chasers, minesweepers etc. are available for coastal use.

From the above I´d say the RSAN is short of true escorts of reasonable size and capabilities. Would you agree?

If so, does the design below fill the gap? If you would use a different design, why?

South African Frigate laid down 1935

Displacement:
885 t light; 935 t standard; 1.271 t normal; 1.540 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
262,82 ft / 255,91 ft x 31,17 ft x 11,15 ft (normal load)
80,11 m / 78,00 m x 9,50 m x 3,40 m

Armament:
4 - 4,13" / 105 mm guns (2x2 guns), 35,32lbs / 16,02kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (1x2 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,89kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
2 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 146 lbs / 66 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,38" / 35 mm 0,98" / 25 mm -
2nd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
3rd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 5.362 ihp / 4.000 Kw = 20,23 kts
Range 7.000nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 605 tons

Complement:
106 - 138

Cost:
£0,449 million / $1,797 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 18 tons, 1,4%
Armour: 13 tons, 1,0%
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 13 tons, 1,0%
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 300 tons, 23,6%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 469 tons, 36,9%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 386 tons, 30,4%
Miscellaneous weights: 85 tons, 6,7%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2.068 lbs / 938 Kg = 58,6 x 4,1 " / 105 mm shells or 0,7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,39
Metacentric height 1,6 ft / 0,5 m
Roll period: 10,5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,16
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2,00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0,500
Length to Beam Ratio: 8,21 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16,00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1,64 ft / 0,50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 19,69 ft / 6,00 m
- Forecastle (20%): 15,09 ft / 4,60 m
- Mid (75%): 15,09 ft / 4,60 m (7,22 ft / 2,20 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15%): 7,22 ft / 2,20 m
- Stern: 7,22 ft / 2,20 m
- Average freeboard: 13,49 ft / 4,11 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96,4%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 132,6%
Waterplane Area: 5.314 Square feet or 494 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 151%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 45 lbs/sq ft or 222 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,88
- Longitudinal: 3,94
- Overall: 1,03
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
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Are you roleplaying a shortage of turbines by choosing VTE?

Given that surface raiders are a threat, I'd be looking to install a minimal torpedo armament to give those raiders a little more to think about.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Are you roleplaying a shortage of turbines by choosing VTE?

Given that surface raiders are a threat, I'd be looking to install a minimal torpedo armament to give those raiders a little more to think about.

Well, I though VTE would be a good choice as these are easy to maintain which is of interest as I expect many escorts being manned by RSAN reserve or former civilian sailors.

The idea of having a turbine plant bombed might back up this technical feature, indeed. I might use that for our news (once there is time to put together more of them).

I´m not sure if I agree on the TT thing. The RSAN has enough DDs or DLs to send a few with every convoy. A Guard-class patrol craft should also be capable to take on most surface threats and finally there are also lots of cruisers available to send one or two with the more vital ships (like troop transports). What there is not is a bunch of vessels to keep enemy submarines away, sheppard a convoy and keep all units together, provide help in case of emergency and probably add some AAA even though these frigate hulls are probably too small to act as decent AA platform.

So I think TTs would be a waste of weight and deck space but I may be wrong.

More input?

Are there a lot of deep ocean submarine operations going on in the war? As far as I know, both Argentina and Brazil have a few (heck, the Argentine boats are German in origin), but not that many (only 6 or less apiece it appears) and it seems that deep ocean operations might not be where they're operating.

Why not carry out some emergency trawler conversions to create a number of patrol craft cheaply, and easily?

The armament is pretty excessive. A better line of development is probably Flower - Castle - Loch type vessels. The VTE are most likely a good choice. They're easy to use, maintain and are cheap.

Hmmmm.... I wondered myself if it might be a good idea to skip the aft mount. Would free up some deck space and might allow to slightly reduce the vessel in size.

Would you go with coal burning VTE to avoid war-time shortage of oil?

How many would you build?

I think it depends on the ressources of the country. If you must import the oil and have a lot of coal mining it would be better go with coal burning.

How many depends on the size and number of the convois the ships should protect. I think you should have a minimum of 3 in every convoi. One on each side and one in front of the convoi. If you have two convois bounding to south america and two bounding home, one convoi in south america unloading the goods, one convoi in south africa loading the goods makes a summary of 6 each protected by 3 vessels => a minimum of 18 ships

But that's only my humble opinion

The design is quite similar to the S19 class Sloop the Dutch built in 1930, and the planned S44 successor. These were meant for the same role you are planning for. However they were also peacetime builds.

Wartime, I'd be tempted to go with an update of the 600t vessels.

As for VTE, there are some merits, but it will likely require the ships to be slower- not an option for the Dutch.

Coal burning... I've tinkered with this idea. Belgium is doing it mainly because it's politicians want to use domestic coal.

For the RSAN though, partial or full coal-firing might make sense, allowing day-to-day activities to be purely coal-fired, and reducing demand on oil, while adding flex to the supply system.

Coal firing makes sense as South Africa has coal but very little in the way of oil. Its dirty and requires more manpower though, so there is a trade off between the two.

Numbers, around 20 should be fine unless there is a really major submarines campaign ongoing.

If this war continues into 1936 I can contribute another raider to the region....Deathshadow should be repaired and rebuilt by then. Of course then we are talking raiding by air followed by surface capture. (really should have then acquire a decent dirigible to attempt Crimsom Skys like piracy)


[SIZE=1]Image by ShinRa Inc[/SIZE]

Arcadia will take a little bit longer, say 1938?
The Queen Emeraldas will lay low as support ship as is normal.

Interesting...

Is that what I think it is at the stern?

Deathshadow is going to cause some problems to Murdoch. As Princess Vespa will be involved smuggling combat aircraft to Argentina.

Argentina's POV: Its good the RSAN is using scare resources in wartime to build extra escorts from a threat of only six subs (not all of which are on patrol, at most I've had three out at once).

OOC: I'd agree fully on the VTE and coal, who cares about a little extra dirt?

Two single mounts would be sufficent armament or one twin. It depends on what surface targets you'll find. A damaged surfaced sub is unlikely to put up much of a fight but in coastal areas you may run into enemy destroyers or cruisers. As you say other DDs will be around so you may feel its better to rely on other ships for firepower. I'd say there is no point in torpedo tubes.

Captain's quarters (sailing ship style). He's really confident in his men's ability to land on the deck.

Would probably be turned into a landing operations room of some sort, or the pilot's club.

I've been playing with short fat ship designs after a few posts elsewhere. On a hull not optimised for speed its possible to cram in loads of superstructure for living space, light AA guns etc, and radar + comms when time comes without adversely effecting stability. Seakeeping is pretty good and the fatness gives a relative improvement in torpedo protection. It might be worth having a play around with something with a l:b ratio of around 5-6:1 and see what the results are.

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
(really should have then acquire a decent dirigible to attempt Crimsom Skys like piracy)

Suprised you haven't yet, actually. :B

I see you went with the full-deck option, too. Nice. (:

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

I like it....any details?

Nice pic, RA. I just wonder why you´ve put the most aftermost gun where she is? For a ship like that - and for one already crowded with guns - I would keep the stern section clear for deck operations....

I also thought of a shorter but beamier hull. Tat would have increase manoverability most likely. Tug like. But I then decided to go with something more usual as short "fat" ship tend to be more lively as their length is shorter then wave period especially when talking ship below 1000ts. Well, that, and I´don´t like the look... :o)

The thing on the stern area is that big sideways pointing mortar with 8 barrels. Theres also the depth charge racks further towards the stern. If shes found to be a bit cramped then the 25mm guns will be removed.

Shes about 1800tons so much larger than what you're looking at, but a lot more capable. A couple will probably be built in 1936.

Argentina is interested. The short fat type might be quite good. How fast is she? I'd assume she would be slower than most slimmer escorts.