WesWorld

HMCS Resurgent and HMCS Reliant, to be laid down in 1935 as replacements for Renown and Repulse* in the event Canada signs no treaty at San Francisco

[SIZE=1]*replacements on the battle line, only.[/SIZE]


HMCS Resurgent, Canadian Battlecruiser laid down 1935

Displacement:
41,008 t light; 42,901 t standard; 45,332 t normal; 47,277 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
726.35 ft / 720.00 ft x 108.50 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
221.39 m / 219.46 m x 33.07 m x 9.14 m

Armament:
9 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,687.50lbs / 765.44kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
24 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (8x3 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1934 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
64 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x8 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 17,315 lbs / 7,854 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 468.00 ft / 142.65 m 13.50 ft / 4.11 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.25" / 32 mm 468.00 ft / 142.65 m 28.00 ft / 8.53 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 219,949 shp / 164,082 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,375 tons

Complement:
1,553 - 2,019

Cost:
£21.229 million / $84.917 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,214 tons, 4.9 %
Armour: 14,070 tons, 31.0 %
- Belts: 3,873 tons, 8.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 606 tons, 1.3 %
- Armament: 3,668 tons, 8.1 %
- Armour Deck: 5,922 tons, 13.1 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 6,249 tons, 13.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,325 tons, 40.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,324 tons, 9.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
63,788 lbs / 28,934 Kg = 37.8 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 7.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
Metacentric height 6.2 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 18.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.79
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.89

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.677
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.64 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.08 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 63 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
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: 36.00 ft / 10.97 m
- Forecastle (45 %): 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Mid (75 %): 32.00 ft / 9.75 m (26.00 ft / 7.92 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Stern: 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Average freeboard: 31.22 ft / 9.52 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 100.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 244.5 %
Waterplane Area: 64,023 Square feet or 5,948 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 207 lbs/sq ft or 1,009 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.93
- Longitudinal: 1.89
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

Automatic Dual-Purpose twin 5.5" guns simmed as triples.

That can't be the whole sim you're posting as the automatic rapid fire guns used before 1940 will give you:

Quoted

Warning: Date too early for rapid fire gun - 2nd battery

Edit: oh yeah. One more thing.

Quoted

Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.89

Don't you prefer to have it a bit higher than that?

Edit 2: Another thing:

Quoted

Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
That can't be the whole sim you're posting as the automatic rapid fire guns used before 1940 will give you:

Quoted

Warning: Date too early for rapid fire gun - 2nd battery

Edit: oh yeah. One more thing.

Quoted

Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.89

Don't you prefer to have it a bit higher than that?

Edit 2: Another thing:

Quoted

Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

1) I took off that one warning, because simming them as automatics causes them to weigh more, and better simulates that the guns are heavier than normal DP guns. I can drop it back to DP guns and have some weight savings if the GMs want.

2) My attempts to get a better seaboat rating on a ship fitting in a type 3 slip/dock ended up with freeboard approaching 40ft. So she won't handle that well in a hurricane, that's a tradeoff that has to be made for the size restriction. And in reality, not every ship built was a good seaboat, and one might even say it's a bit unrealistic that there's little to no 'bad' seaboats in the sim.

3) ...it was telling me I only needed 468 ft earlier. Now it's saying 470.75. Bumping it up to 471 ft gets the usual full protection stuff, and doesn't affect hull strength. I'll wait to post an updated report on if there's any other changes I make on people's suggestions tho.

She´s longer than a Type 3 dock anyway, so why bother?

Why not aim for a beam of about 35-36m?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Why not aim for a beam of about 35-36m?

Probably because he wants to be able to fit through the Panama Canal, which has locks that are 110 feet wide.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
2) My attempts to get a better seaboat rating on a ship fitting in a type 3 slip/dock ended up with freeboard approaching 40ft. So she won't handle that well in a hurricane, that's a tradeoff that has to be made for the size restriction. And in reality, not every ship built was a good seaboat, and one might even say it's a bit unrealistic that there's little to no 'bad' seaboats in the sim.

The problem that I see is that with the 0.89 seaboat rating, she can't maintain her maximum speed in a dead calm without shipping water. In the North Atlantic, A turret is likely to be having problems operating a lot of the time.

I tend to agree, even though we don't see alot of weaker boats, Atlantic vessels should be able to take some punishing seas.

Quoted

I took off that one warning, because simming them as automatics causes them to weigh more, and better simulates that the guns are heavier than normal DP guns.

Weight more?? How much heavier do they get? When I tried it out with the Okuni and changed her 24 130mm guns from DP to Automatic, I went from an armament weight of 2094 tons to 2135 tons. That means an increase of about 1.7 tons per 130mm gun which is nothing on a ship of that size. Hull strength was 1.00 and stays 1.00. Of course a 130mm gun is not the same as an 140mm gun so I then changed those 130mm guns to 140mm guns to see what would happen but that doesn't make much difference either when I go from DP to Auto. Hull strength stayed the same at 1.00 with the 140mm guns.
Also, you're already simming triples as twins for additional weight. Wouldn't that be enough? Or did you have something else in mind and did my mind make the right assumption of "Automatic rapid fire guns" + "Automatic Dual-Purpose" = "Austomatic firing DP guns" when I read your ship data? (because that is how I read it).

Quoted

My attempts to get a better seaboat rating on a ship fitting in a type 3 slip/dock ended up with freeboard approaching 40ft. So she won't handle that well in a hurricane, that's a tradeoff that has to be made for the size restriction.

No, that's incorrect. That's a tradeoff that has to be made for being able to achieve such speed.
You do not need a 40 feet freeboard when you lower the speed.

Quoted

one might even say it's a bit unrealistic that there's little to no 'bad' seaboats in the sim.

Shows you that while the Wesworld Admirals are all bastards (except Ryoko), they are not heartless bastards and do think a little bit about the well-being of the sailors.
*Sends sailors aboard Filipino warship*

Quoted

it was telling me I only needed 468 ft earlier. Now it's saying 470.75.

Uh-oh! You must have made a minute change afterwards which caused that to happen.

Quoted

Probably because he wants to be able to fit through the Panama Canal, which has locks that are 110 feet wide.

With the Mexican Canal being constructed, who cares about a limit of 108 feet?
... unless Canada plans to betray its allies by joining AANM, in which case he would no longer be able to use that Canal.

Quoted

Shows you that while the Wesworld Admirals are all bastards (except Ryoko), they are not heartless bastards and do think a little bit about the well-being of the sailors.

But they do care about being able to transit the heavy seas of the North Cape and the Bering Sea at speed. Hence the efforts of Russian naval architects to get good seaboats.

The seakeeping rating is extremely subjective and isn't in line with historical vessels. Take the P-class escorts from WWI, they had 6ft 3" freeboard max but were still considered as good sea boats for their size. Of course in heavy weather you can't run at maximum speed anyway because of causing structural damage. This depends on draught more than anything else. Most destroyers will be limited to around 18knts in heavy weather.

There is no substitute for size, especially waterline length.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

I took off that one warning, because simming them as automatics causes them to weigh more, and better simulates that the guns are heavier than normal DP guns.

Weight more?? How much heavier do they get? When I tried it out with the Okuni and changed her 24 130mm guns from DP to Automatic, I went from an armament weight of 2094 tons to 2135 tons. That means an increase of about 1.7 tons per 130mm gun which is nothing on a ship of that size. Hull strength was 1.00 and stays 1.00. Of course a 130mm gun is not the same as an 140mm gun so I then changed those 130mm guns to 140mm guns to see what would happen but that doesn't make much difference either when I go from DP to Auto. Hull strength stayed the same at 1.00 with the 140mm guns.
Also, you're already simming triples as twins for additional weight. Wouldn't that be enough? Or did you have something else in mind and did my mind make the right assumption of "Automatic rapid fire guns" + "Automatic Dual-Purpose" = "Austomatic firing DP guns" when I read your ship data? (because that is how I read it).

Like you said, the weight isn't that much. Changing it to DP just gives me a few more tons to play with.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

My attempts to get a better seaboat rating on a ship fitting in a type 3 slip/dock ended up with freeboard approaching 40ft. So she won't handle that well in a hurricane, that's a tradeoff that has to be made for the size restriction.

No, that's incorrect. That's a tradeoff that has to be made for being able to achieve such speed.
You do not need a 40 feet freeboard when you lower the speed.

That, too. But the Excelsiors do 28 knots, so I figured 33 knots was the only goal worth aiming for past that, really. And if I'm going back to 28 knots, might as well just build two more Excelsiors. But yeah, the main limitation is the desire to keep it in a type 3 dock/slip

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

Probably because he wants to be able to fit through the Panama Canal, which has locks that are 110 feet wide.

With the Mexican Canal being constructed, who cares about a limit of 108 feet?
... unless Canada plans to betray its allies by joining AANM, in which case he would no longer be able to use that Canal.

No, but we still don't have an opening date for the Mexican canal, so Canada's not building anything too big for the Panama canal yet.

Canada's intermittent pursuit of an adequate Fleet Destroyer design continues!

With no treaty restrictions on the horizon, Canada has decided to opt for a larger, high-speed homogenous design instead of the Destroyer/Destroyer Leader scheme Cleito encouraged.

Selecting a larger design has allowed installation of the new Automatic 5.5" DP guns, with superfiring Octuple 40mm AA guns, and two quintuple Torpedo tubes amidship.

Misc. weight includes Sonar and ASW equipment, torpedoes, and the usual goodies.


HMCS Iroquois (Tribal class), Canadian Destroyer laid down 1935

Displacement:
2,189 t light; 2,301 t standard; 2,508 t normal; 2,673 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
392.36 ft / 387.00 ft x 36.00 ft x 14.00 ft (normal load)
119.59 m / 117.96 m x 10.97 m x 4.27 m

Armament:
6 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (2x3 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1935 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x8 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread, all raised mounts
4 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1935 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 531 lbs / 241 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
10 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm - 0.25" / 6 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 51,658 shp / 38,537 Kw = 35.00 kts
Range 4,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 373 tons

Complement:
176 - 230

Cost:
£1.557 million / $6.227 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 66 tons, 2.6 %
Armour: 19 tons, 0.7 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 19 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 1,238 tons, 49.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 826 tons, 32.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 319 tons, 12.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 40 tons, 1.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
715 lbs / 324 Kg = 8.6 x 5.5 " / 140 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.30
Metacentric height 1.7 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 11.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.70
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.10

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.450
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.75 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.46 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 68 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Mid (60 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m (14.00 ft / 4.27 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Stern: 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Average freeboard: 17.60 ft / 5.36 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 182.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 88.0 %
Waterplane Area: 9,231 Square feet or 858 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 71 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 41 lbs/sq ft or 202 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.65
- Overall: 0.59
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped

Automatic Dual-Purpose twin 5.5" guns simmed as triples.

On the new DD proposal, weight-wise it might be a good idea to at least replace the forward octuple 2-pounder with side mounted twin 2-pounders, the octuple mount is going to be a lot of weight up high to fire over your stacked twin 5.5" mounts forward.

Quoted

Misc. weight includes Sonar and ASW equipment, torpedoes, and the usual goodies.

How about a drawing...


http://www.uploading.com/en/files/GDET33…ipyard.zip.html

Cheers,

Do medium caliber, automatic, dual-purpose guns not seem a decade or so premature? I'm not just looking to the RCN design when I ask this - it's just the most recent example.

The board's adopted a "Three Year" policy for aircraft tech - would this not make some sense for naval tech as well?

It does - and we first adopted this policy much earlier. But it seem to have been thrown out of the window months ago and it´s a mood point to discuss the same thing time and again. *shrugs* Hence I no longer comment on any such designs... My way to ignore them.

Ultimately the 3 year rule was tossed, hopefully to be replaced with a more historical timeline of developement albeit with a 3 year lull. That doesn't seem to be happening, in fact the 3 year rule seems to have been replaced with a free for all, tech/doctrine being in some cases 10-20 years ahead of the developement curve.

My understanding was that the Canadian guns were not yet considered a success, so puting them on all following ships would seem premature.

Looking at the design it looks like a super destroyer but not yet a scout cruiser. I'd say a more standard 5.5" gun mount would be more realistic unless the ships are needed for AA defence. To my knowledge the Brits had enough experience to know that 5.25" seemed to be the size restriction for a usefull DP mount.

Unfortunately, like Hoo I've grown weary of commenting on more advanced designs, but I'm not as well versed in naval tech as Hoo and several others so if the experts won't discuss these matters....

Quoted

Do medium caliber, automatic, dual-purpose guns not seem a decade or so premature?

There are only two such weapons available, the Canadian 5.5" and the German 128mm. There would be no problems in building an autoloading mechanism. Getting it to be reliable and fire as fast as manually-loaded guns would be the problem. The mountings need multiple hoists for the cartridges and shells, then to rotate them through a variable angle and ram them, then eject the spent cartridge case. Whilst this is happening the mount itself is flexing because its on a ship. Parts need to be fairly strong (i.e. big) to withstand the stresses but also tight tolerances are needed. Its hard to piece together all the requirements into something that works 95% of the time. Instead, a man can place a shell into a loading tray at any angle, accurately, and compensate for any flexing, but the man will tire eventually. You've just got to wonder whether burst or continuous fire is more important.

There's also the Russian 130mm, a mechanized Italian 152mm, etc.

Whether multiple hoists are needed depends on the design, and whether access is needed to different types of rounds at any time. If only 1 type of projectile is used, things are simplified (though inflexible).

Yes, I forgot about the Russian 130mm automatic.

The Italian 152/53 is a mixture between this and the previous 152/53, in a mounting that allows high elevation.

Really, with an automatic, you could fix the cartridge-shell and make things a bit simpler but needing things to be designed beefier.