WesWorld

Designed as fast escorts for the new CV's planned for the early 1930's (Yorktown & Enterprise). The quad 14" turrets can be replaced at a later date with triple 16" turrets. The design is modified from the so-called "Chesapeake" design from 1933.

USS Intrepid, United States Battlecruiser laid down 1933

Displacement:
36,046 t light; 37,979 t standard; 40,788 t normal; 43,035 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
771.95 ft / 760.00 ft x 90.00 ft (Bulges 100.00 ft) x 32.00 ft (normal load)
235.29 m / 231.65 m x 27.43 m (Bulges 30.48 m) x 9.75 m

Armament:
12 - 14.00" / 356 mm guns (3x4 guns), 1,575.00lbs / 714.41kg shells, 1933 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority aft
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (8x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1933 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
16 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1933 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 19,911 lbs / 9,031 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 536.00 ft / 163.37 m 11.38 ft / 3.47 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 109 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
2.50" / 64 mm 536.00 ft / 163.37 m 30.04 ft / 9.16 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 7.00" / 178 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 168,426 shp / 125,646 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,056 tons

Complement:
1,434 - 1,865

Cost:
£17.886 million / $71.542 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,184 tons, 5.4 %
Armour: 12,325 tons, 30.2 %
- Belts: 3,064 tons, 7.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,489 tons, 3.7 %
- Armament: 2,703 tons, 6.6 %
- Armour Deck: 4,763 tons, 11.7 %
- Conning Tower: 306 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 4,908 tons, 12.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,929 tons, 39.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,742 tons, 11.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 700 tons, 1.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
48,689 lbs / 22,085 Kg = 35.5 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 7.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.06
Metacentric height 4.8 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 19.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 61 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.92
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.587
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.60 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.85 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 13.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.25 ft / 1.60 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Forecastle (21 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Mid (50 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Quarterdeck (17 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Stern: 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Average freeboard: 25.34 ft / 7.72 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 105.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 171.0 %
Waterplane Area: 51,494 Square feet or 4,784 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 203 lbs/sq ft or 990 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.51
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Uh! Plain ugly! [SIZE=1](sorry)[/SIZE]

Do you think one funnel is enough for her boiler uptakes given her power output for 32kn?

Her machinery doesn´t seem to feature unit layout, does it? Not a problem in general but weren´t the USA already beyond that point?

Do you expect vibration problems at her stern (hangar arrangement)?

A new bow type for your capital ships? Isn´t this a step backwards and don´t you expect those ships to be wet forward (compared to your older designs)?

Her light gun suit seems awfully weak for a WesWorld capital ship - especially one designed in the 1930s....

Just some comments,

HoOmAn

So...you're building a 37,000 t escort for a 22,000 t carrier?

Is the 700 t misc. weight a reserve for when she's re-gunned?

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
So...you're building a 37,000 t escort for a 22,000 t carrier?

This is exactly the first thought I had when I looked at the design. The only surface threat for Carrier groups (if any) comes from cruisers and destroyers, as there's currently no battleship fast enough to catch a carrier on the run...if they get to gun range on the first place.
So, a cruiser with a heavy AAA battery and 210mm guns is much more effective as a carrier escort than a 37000 ton battleship. It's too much ship for focusing it to an escort task.


Other than that...well...is ugly. VERY ugly...but looks like a pretty capable design for her size.

S'pose the US might be thinking of some nations' battlecruiser capabilities in this regard.

I still like this layout, if only because it's something different, but making it pretty is not such an easy task.

Although I would give her more of a clipper bow...

Also agree with Hoo, a coupla extra Chicago Pianos wouldn't hurt.

The extra weight would seem to be for not only the potental regunning to 16 inch, but also for any future upgrades....AAA suites, larger bow, alteratons to the design by 1933...like faster engines.

Also its not a 37,000 ton battlecruiser to escort one 22,000 ton carrier...but two carriers.

26,000-ton carriers, actually (the BC conversions).

Clarifying an earlier comment of mine in another thread...the "two cats on a transom" arrangement I do think looks good.

Quoted

Other than that...well...is ugly. VERY ugly...but looks like a pretty capable design for her size.

I can't look beyond the ship's ugliness to see whether it is a capable design or not.
o_O
*runs away in terror upon seeing the Intrepid for the second time*

As for her funnel/machinery arrangement, its historical per Friedman's books. Several designs from the period also had the stern A/C configuration and hanger. As for her looks, well...I can't say I'm too thrilled with it either but you should see one of the other US BC designs from the period, 5 turrets, 3 forward with two super firing. Looks butt-ugly compared to this one! She's in no way a finalized design, just a proposal. As for having it escort carriers, the United States has noticed that many of the designs announced in the past few years have been growing faster and faster and it is entirely possible that by the middle of the next decade there may be capital ships capable of chasing down a large carrier like the Ranger, Constellation, or the upcoming Yorktowns. Currently the Lexington and Saratoga are paired with the Ranger and Connie, so the Intrepid and her sister would be paired with the new carriers. The bow needs to be changed. I may also lower the speed though 30-31 kts is as low as I would like to go. The extra weight is for the possible upgrade of the main guns. I actually designed her as a 16" ship, then dropped the guns down to 14" while leaving the rest of the design alone. As for AAA, she's got the historical armament for the period but could probably support a couple more quad 1.1's and some lighter AAA. I do think though that we are at times going a bit overboard with the AAA fits on our ships. Aircraft might be a bit more advanced than in real life, but most are still biplanes made of wood and cloth with small payloads. Therefore, my ships are closer to real world AAA fits.

Quoted

As for having it escort carriers, the United States has noticed that many of the designs announced in the past few years have been growing faster and faster and it is entirely possible that by the middle of the next decade there may be capital ships capable of chasing down a large carrier like the Ranger, Constellation, or the upcoming Yorktowns.

Can't be sure about them Yorkers, but the RCN Dairen and the RFN T'ai-pei are capable of overtaking the Ranger and Constellation (surprises me that I didn't use a transom on them since the speed is >= 34)... and I think they are currently the only capital ships that can do that. (of course, what kind of threat to the US are Chosen and Formosa)

Canis - I'm curious if you've contemplated copying the armament layout onto a Lexington hull/superstructure. Just keep the little control tower between turrets Q and X from this drawing, and omit the aft cage mast from the Lexington.

Just a thought.

J

Not the first time i've seen the design of course, but I feel compelled to comment on how people call the Nelson's ugly. ::shudders::

I know it's based on an actual design, but I can't figure out how it came to be. For a ship, that in theory, has it's primary task in escorting (and again, in theory, would be limited in it's independant manuvering), the aft turrets have limited firing arcs, especially if manuvearing away from a pursuing enemy.

Move the boats and cranes between the funnel and bridgework, place the aft superstructure behind the funnel, and have the midships turret facing aft. In theory, at long ranges, the midships turret could then at least fire aft. Not sure how realistic that is, though.

Plus, I wonder how many Senators and Congressmen would have the reaction "Nothing that ass ugly is representing our country!"

Quoted

"Nothing that ass ugly is representing our country!"

XD
Couldn't have said it better myself! :-)
The superfiring turret aft might make the ship look better... or maybe not.

I didn't even say superfiring, as that would be an even more radical design change, and if you're starting to make things that different, might as well start from scratch, and make it pretty. (:

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

The superfiring turret aft might make the ship look better... or maybe not.

Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.51
- Overall: 1.00


The superfiring turret aft means a heavy redesign of the whole ship...takes a a heavy toll on the hull strenght and stability...

Use the ugliness to terrorize the enemies of the United States. However, ugliness can be countered by a good combat record, and an admiring crew.

There's a concept, America starting wars so people stop calling their battlecruisers ugly....

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
There's a concept, America starting wars so people stop calling their battlecruisers ugly....

If that turns into an official policy ,and USA keeps on designing such ugly things, then we're in for a period of constant wars .

Quoted

I didn't even say superfiring, as that would be an even more radical design change, and if you're starting to make things that different, might as well start from scratch, and make it pretty. (:

That's the best option of them all. ^_^
When you mentioned "facing aft", I was immediately thinking about those German cruisers. My bad.

Quoted

The superfiring turret aft means a heavy redesign of the whole ship...

I think that the "mount and hoist" option may help (help the enemy that is :-)).

Quoted

There's a concept, America starting wars so people stop calling their battlecruisers ugly..

If they were to look at Hood and make something like that, they would not have to worry about any nation calling those battle cruiser 'ugly'. That way America does not have to start wasting money on a war with the insulting nation.