WesWorld

Yes she does look like a Town class cruiser. But shes not. I'll try and cut down on the superstructure a bit for a more Italian look. Then again the ship is atypical for Italy.

And no specs untill 1924, I mentioned about the mental health problems before i think?

I guess (quite difficult w/o top view):

~8000ts
170m long
35kn
12x130mm
12x76mm
6x 533mm TT
Splinter protection

Am i right?

Cheers,

HoOmAn

nononono! that would be my AK class! *g* try again. and look closely at those turrets. you have seen them before.

Displacement is correct, length is ~175m. Correct with 6x533mm TT. Armour, armament and speed are wrong. yes you have seen those turrets before.

I thought I had seen them before but who would be crazy enough to put four quads on such a vessel?

Something like this I expect:

g, laid down 1924

Length, 175.0 m x Beam, 17.0 m x Depth, 6.4 m
9214 tonnes normal displacement (8389 tonnes standard)

Main battery: 16 x 13.0-cm (4 x 4; 2 superfiring)
Secondary battery: 12 x 7.6-cm

Weight of broadside: 561 kg

6 TT, 53.3 cm

Main belt, 10.0 cm; ends unarmored
Armor deck, average 3.5 cm

Battery armor:
Main, 3.5 cm / secondary, 2.5 cm shields


Maximum speed for 70030 shaft kw = 33.25 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 6300 nm / 15 knots

Typical complement: 470-611


Estimated cost, $10.457 million (£2.614 million)

Remarks:

Relative extent of belt armor, 123 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Magazines and engineering spaces are cramped, with poor
watertight subdivision.

Roomy upper decks; superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 154 tonnes = 2 pct
Armor, total ..................... 1308 tonnes = 14 pct

Belt 662 tonnes = 7 pct
Deck 499 tonnes = 5 pct
Armament 147 tonnes = 2 pct

Machinery ........................ 3091 tonnes = 34 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 3499 tonnes = 38 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 1112 tonnes = 12 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 50 tonnes = 1 pct
-----
9214 tonnes = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 0.8 m

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 8102 tonnes
Standard displacement: 8389 tonnes
Normal service: 9214 tonnes
Full load: 9838 tonnes

Loading submergence 1834 tonnes/metre

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.15

Shellfire needed to sink: 3387 kg = 111.2 x 13.0-cm shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.1
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 72 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.45

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.20

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.48
Sharpness coefficient: 0.32
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 8.37
'Natural speed' for length = 24.0 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 58 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 122 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 143 percent


Displacement factor: 105 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.96
(Structure weight per square
metre of hull surface: 485 kg)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.54
(for 6.30 m average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +1.76 m)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

574.00 x 55.76 x 20.99; 20.66 -- Dimensions
0.48 -- Block coefficient
1924 -- Year laid down
33.25 / 6300 / 15.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
50 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
16 x 5.12; 4; 2 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
12 x 2.99; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
0 -- No tertiary (QF/AA) battery
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
6 / 0 / 20.98 -- TT / submerged / size
++++++++++
3.94 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00; 123 -- Belt armor; relative extent
1.38 / 0.00 -- Deck / CT
1.38 / 0.98 / 0.00 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


(Note: For portability, values are stored in Anglo-American units)


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Armament is wrong. She is beamier. A bit slower. Bit less belt and deck. 35mm armour for turrets??? How come you are using Springstyle again?

Quoted

35mm armour for turrets???

Well, it seems to be slightly better than what the Japanese had. I even simmed the Mogami just in case I am in the mood to build her (so you know what to hit on that ship).

Walter

...therefore I had to guess.

I wonder how she could be beamier on a length of ~175m? I already used a bc of 0,48 which seems to be on the lower edge for a balanced 8kts-design. In general I tend to go with a high bc for that size.....

And she´s slower? I choosed 70k kW (equals ~90k WPS) because that´s a reasonable poweroutput for an italian cruiser. In fact, their cruisers - even the Condotterie I-class - all had 100k WPS and more. Knowing that this is somewhat difficult to sim with spring* I reduced the output by 10%.

However, I´d like to ask if you really want to you that picture for a cruiser laid down 1924? Her look is lightyears ahead of her era then - as already pointed out - but before changing her look, which I really adore, I would change her date and draw a new one for 1924...

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

35mm armour for turrets???

Well, it seems to be slightly better than what the Japanese had. I even simmed the Mogami just in case I am in the mood to build her (so you know what to hit on that ship).

Dito for the early british cruisers. 25mm for splinter protection is all they got...

Why am I using springstyle again? Well, actually the desktop pc I´m using currently doesn´t feature the .NET extension for Windows so I can´t use springsharp. :o/

Regards,

HoOmAn

well, ya know, I agree - she is even further away than my Avoca. What did the first floatplane installations look like?

Early catapults....

http://warships.web4u.cz/indexlode.php?l…trida=Tourville

http://warships.web4u.cz/indexlode.php?l…a=Duguay-Trouin

You are correct about the looks Hooman, they are too British. I'm trying to do another version but there are a few problems. i think a general redesign might be needed...

Quoted

Early catapults....

Were those ships built that way, or were those catapults added later?

Walter

IIRC, they were build with them....

She is more italian than the above, with speed instead of lots of armour and guns. The catapult is fixed crossdeck. The quadruple 100mm guns are similiar to those on my generale class DD.

Does the aircraft seem in scale? It is a single seat job i simmed with planebuilder.

Damn, is that thing ugly!!!

Comments:

Her crane seems a little bit short, though.

How many shafts? She seems quite narrow aft...

The plane seems somewhat small.

On the top view you´ve put the compass platform from my object sheet on her bow!!! Why is that?!?

Why do you use such an odd layout? What´s the "logic" behind it?

Just curious...

HoOmAn

The crane is long enough.

2 shafts.

The plane is probably a little bit small.

Compass platform?? Looks more like one of winches off Bismarck's bow. I got the idea from my model of her.

The layout means that 9 guns could bear on the forward arcs. They are used more for cruisers.

Well I know were she is most vulnerable, right by those aft turrets which are awefully close to the prop shafts. My own personal taste would dictate that I would put one main turret aft and change the three secondarys to four tripples placing two midships (stradled by the triple AA mounts and one on either end of the superstructure to get the maximum effect from the gun arcs of all guns. I would say this of her though....if I were an enemy torpedo squadron attacking an Italian CV group and saw this diddy I'd attack her first rather than the carriers!

I could see mistaking her for a Nelson/Dunkerque style capital ship and lobbing some iron her way.

Although it is, perhaps, not the most aesthetically pleasing design I've ever seen, is there anything fundamentally wrong with the concept? I assume a cruiser with this layout would benefit from a reduced belt and concentrated magazines just the same as a battleship.

I'd be curious to see a version with the three secondary guns all on the centerline aft, in a mirror-image of the main battery.

J

The forward guns would make it possible to throw some extra armor on those magazines. Given the amount of deck space she has that aft turret arrangement seems un-nessassary.

I expect her to be rather cramped aft. She´s a very narrow hull and with the very large magazin spaces you need aft I wonder if there will be enough room for the shafts.

Further more I´d like to point our that I can´t image her to have a turbine room aft of her second funnel. There´s hardly enough room assuming the boilers, for which there is a second funnel, are below and forward. To change this one needs to move the third main turret closer to the second, the bridge closer to the 3rd turret and the rest of the superstructure closer together too. There´s much deckspace wasted, though. Maybe RA can present us a picture of that ship with its sturcture moved forward? I´d be very interested to see that.

HoOmAn