WesWorld

The two remaining Gangut class BBs are getting kinda old, being a 1910 vintage, and the first two Imperitritsa Marias aren't much newer. I'm tinking of the following:

Adm Makarov class, Russian Heavy Cruisers laid down 1933

Displacement:
17,637 t light; 18,661 t standard; 21,708 t normal; 24,145 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
764.57 ft / 754.59 ft x 62.34 ft (Bulges 75.46 ft) x 27.23 ft (normal load)
233.04 m / 230.00 m x 19.00 m (Bulges 23.00 m) x 8.30 m

Armament:
12 - 9.21" / 234 mm guns (4x3 guns), 440.92lbs / 200.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
6 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (2x3 guns), 79.37lbs / 36.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (4x3 guns), 79.37lbs / 36.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
32 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 6,769 lbs / 3,071 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
12 - 20.9" / 530 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 633.17 ft / 192.99 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: 0.98" / 25 mm 121.39 ft / 37.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Upper: 0.79" / 20 mm 65.62 ft / 20.00 m 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
Main Belt covers 129 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
0.79" / 20 mm 633.17 ft / 192.99 m 22.97 ft / 7.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.87" / 200 mm 3.15" / 80 mm 3.94" / 100 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -
4th: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -

- Armour deck: 2.76" / 70 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 137,462 shp / 102,547 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 10,800nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,484 tons

Complement:
893 - 1,162

Cost:
£8.521 million / $34.084 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 743 tons, 3.4 %
Armour: 4,466 tons, 20.6 %
- Belts: 1,577 tons, 7.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 424 tons, 2.0 %
- Armament: 720 tons, 3.3 %
- Armour Deck: 1,646 tons, 7.6 %
- Conning Tower: 99 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 4,005 tons, 18.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,348 tons, 38.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,071 tons, 18.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
24,843 lbs / 11,269 Kg = 63.5 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 3.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 3.2 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 17.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.75
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.490
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.38 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
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: 37.24 ft / 11.35 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 27.40 ft / 8.35 m
- Mid (40 %): 27.40 ft / 8.35 m (17.39 ft / 5.30 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17.39 ft / 5.30 m
- Stern: 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Average freeboard: 22.25 ft / 6.78 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 129.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 116.5 %
Waterplane Area: 32,291 Square feet or 3,000 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 143 lbs/sq ft or 696 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.26
- 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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Semiautomatic twin HA 130mm DP mounts simmed as triples

2 Seaplanes, 1 Catapult

Horror!!

Really, that is a frightening ship, if only in speed an armament.

I'd like to see the gun arrangement for the ship. Looks like an interesting design. Very fast but thin armor. Looks like they will be based in Indochina. Those planned BCs will come in handy.

is triple turrets on the centerline, with only the 130s superfiring. And just as the Sviatoslavs bear a resemblance to the Imperator Petr Velikis, the Admiral Makarovs will resemble the battleships I'll be replacing the Izmails with.

The waters around Indochina are a bit restricted for a ship like this. They'll split their time between Murmansk, Petropavlovsk, and Papeete.

Quoted

Really, that is a frightening ship,

Well, that's kinda what she's for...

Quoted

if only in speed an armament

Deck armor is the emphasis of her armor protection, because she'll be keeping the range long.

She looks a nice ship. Why actually Russia would build her is quite beyond me.

Quite similar to one of my own designs in fact, but with a lot less armour.

You'll probably be wanting a Atpbk thicker than 20mm, thats only enough for one layer and won't stop a great deal.

I can't see Gavin's pic, naturally, but think a sketch of Makarov would be useful to see the various firing arcs and the aircraft placement.

With her speed and main armament caliber I´d go for short range battles instead but that´s probably me. Her range also seems excessive - meant to operate in the Pacific?

Otherwise an interesting design. :o)

Her armor's not really heavy enough for a short-ranged battle against heavy cruisers, the 8"-8.2" shells would be able to penetrate her belt at shorter ranges. With her speed, she can probably keep reasonable control of the range against most heavy cruisers and stand off at a range where her 9.2" guns will hurt the CA and the 8" guns firing back will be less likely to hurt her.

RA - all I see are a couple of Red X's.

This is exactly the kind of cruiser I like (and would fit as a Midrange Ship, wink wink, nudge nudge...). BC might be a tick low, but if Darth Hooman isn't complaining neither am I. ^_^

Don't have a sketch, but the turret arcs are like this:

A - 3x234mm - 270 deg arc forward
B - 2x130mm - ditto
P - 3x234mm - 120 deg arc on each beam
Q - 3x234mm - 120 deg arc on each beam
Y - 2x130mm - 270 deg arc aft
Z - 3x234mm - ditto

She dosen't have much of a quarterdeck, with her engineering spaces so huge, so the catapult is amidships.

I've given her the range to operate in the Pacific, but Murmansk is the fulcrum of Russian naval power. The big icebreakers (Adm Rodzhestvenskii class completing this year, plus the four Arcticas ) are meant to give the Russian Navy options that weren't available to Adm Rodzhestvenskii. So Murmansk will be their home port, but they're able to operate in the Pacific.

Quoted

RA - all I see are a couple of Red X's.

Thats your problem. The pics are definitely there and show Russian Cruiser X from late 30s.

Before I missed the turret arrangement, I thought it was a conventional fore/aft arrangement. This arrangement is a big no-no given the massive machinery plant needed to be fitted. You'll find it extremely difficult to fit boilers and turbines in the small space between magazines.

The main problem [which is quite major in my opinion] is insufficient room for growth. As built she'll be fine, but then discarded in the mid-40s because it will be simply impossible or massively expensive to update her with radar, directors, light AA guns, more accomodation space etc. Having the catapult amidships worsens things considerably, unless you mount it atop a turret which limits its usefulness for heavier aircraft. Then there are the firing arc problems for the middle turrets as you add more AA guns, directors, boats, aerials...

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
0.79" / 20 mm 633.17 ft / 192.99 m 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped

Does really that super thin bulkhead do anything other then making the ship more cramped?
Will removing it really affect the survivability significantly, otherwise i can think of better use for that weight?
I love ships in this size category (18-25k tons), and i have i really nice 20k (8x28cm, 32kts) design if anybody is interested

Considering HMS Nelson had 17mm more armor on her torpedo bulkhead when compaired this design I wouldn't be to harsh with the thickness. Then again Wesworld designs tend to have significantly more TB armor than historical designs.

Its also worth noting that the U.S.S. Alaska lacked a TB which in hindsight was a significant vulnerability for a 30,000 ton ship.

Alaskas survivability....

Quoted

53.5 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 4.1 torpedoes

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

RA - all I see are a couple of Red X's.

Thats your problem. The pics are definitely there and show Russian Cruiser X from late 30s.

Gavin I'm disappointed...you didn't use your kittynolike picture!

Quoted

I love ships in this size category (18-25k tons), and i have i really nice 20k (8x28cm, 32kts) design if anybody is interested

Feel free to start a separate thread if you'd like - there may be a couple of nations out shopping for something of that ilk.

Gavin raises very valid points, though I reckon the issue of shoe-horning everything into the hull now is probably the more pressing concern.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Considering HMS Nelson had 17mm more armor on her torpedo bulkhead when compaired this design I wouldn't be to harsh with the thickness. Then again Wesworld designs tend to have significantly more TB armor than historical designs.

Its also worth noting that the U.S.S. Alaska lacked a TB which in hindsight was a significant vulnerability for a 30,000 ton ship.

Alaskas survivability....

Quoted

53.5 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 4.1 torpedoes

Yes, nelson had 17mm more, and so hade almost everything else, i can not find any ship with less then a 30mm TB. Most ships had around 40mm thick TB;s.

While lacking a TB is a big flaw in a 30k ton ship, i dont think is is a flaw in a 18k tons ship, esp one that is very cramped...

Without the bulkhead she can take ~2.3 torpedos, which really isn't much. The thin TDS does help some.

Gavin does have a good point on capacity for growth. I may make her a bit bigger. Or not at all.

And ya gotta wonder how the designers of "Cruiser X" got bigger guns, 2 superfiring turrets and 4 kts more speed on 3000 less tons.

I suspect the designer was relieved that nobody tried to actually build his design. Musta used balsa wood for the hull girder...

Quoted

Considering HMS Nelson had 17mm more armor on her torpedo bulkhead when compared this design I wouldn't be to harsh with the thickness

It depends whether this figure is taken to be the total thickness of all the layers, or just the last retaining bulkhead. Really a splinter plate needs to be 30-40mm thick. Dissapating the force of the explosion is something else entirely. Then again it depends on what the "splinter" is, it might be part of a 381mm shell, which punched through 40 longitudinal frames on one of the RN destroyers after being fired short by Veneto.

The torpedo defense system is also nearly useless vs. torpedoes with magnetic pistols [of which only British and Italian examples worked, and the British ones not much]

Quoted

And ya gotta wonder how the designers of "Cruiser X" got bigger guns, 2 superfiring turrets and 4 kts more speed on 3000 less tons.

Structurally weak, less armour, lightweight machinery, smaller freeboard, less range

Quoted

Originally posted by Korpen
Yes, nelson had 17mm more, and so hade almost everything else, i can not find any ship with less then a 30mm TB. Most ships had around 40mm thick TB;s.

While lacking a TB is a big flaw in a 30k ton ship, i dont think is is a flaw in a 18k tons ship, esp one that is very cramped...

True, 18,000 tons is on that cusp of "is a TB usefull or not?" The cramped warning doesn't help but I suspect thats from the low BC and beam. Two torps is too low a survivability IMO for an 18,000 ton ship, I can get that on an 11,000 ton CA which is why I would think a TB would be usefull.

and kept it under 18,000 tons Light. Analysis showed that a 40mm TDS provided no additional benefit. Without it she takes 2.5 torpedos.

Adm Makarov class, Russian Heavy Cruisers laid down 1933

Displacement:
17,991 t light; 18,945 t standard; 22,085 t normal; 24,598 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
777.65 ft / 767.72 ft x 62.34 ft (Bulges 75.46 ft) x 27.23 ft (normal load)
237.03 m / 234.00 m x 19.00 m (Bulges 23.00 m) x 8.30 m

Armament:
12 - 9.21" / 234 mm guns (4x3 guns), 440.92lbs / 200.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
6 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (2x3 guns), 79.37lbs / 36.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (4x3 guns), 79.37lbs / 36.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
32 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 6,769 lbs / 3,071 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 130
12 - 20.9" / 530 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 634.97 ft / 193.54 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: 0.98" / 25 mm 132.71 ft / 40.45 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Upper: 0.79" / 20 mm 65.62 ft / 20.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Main Belt covers 127 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
1.06" / 27 mm 634.97 ft / 193.54 m 22.97 ft / 7.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.09" / 180 mm 3.15" / 80 mm 4.72" / 120 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -
4th: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -

- Armour deck: 2.76" / 70 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 138,182 shp / 103,084 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 11,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,653 tons

Complement:
905 - 1,177

Cost:
£8.594 million / $34.374 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 743 tons, 3.4 %
Armour: 4,669 tons, 21.1 %
- Belts: 1,550 tons, 7.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 574 tons, 2.6 %
- Armament: 771 tons, 3.5 %
- Armour Deck: 1,675 tons, 7.6 %
- Conning Tower: 100 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 4,026 tons, 18.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,402 tons, 38.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,094 tons, 18.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
25,376 lbs / 11,511 Kg = 64.9 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 3.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 3.2 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 17.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.73
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.490
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.17 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.61 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
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: 37.07 ft / 11.30 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 27.07 ft / 8.25 m
- Mid (40 %): 27.07 ft / 8.25 m (17.22 ft / 5.25 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17.22 ft / 5.25 m
- Stern: 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Average freeboard: 22.05 ft / 6.72 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 127.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 116.1 %
Waterplane Area: 32,852 Square feet or 3,052 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 142 lbs/sq ft or 692 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.19
- 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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Semiautomatic twin HA 130mm DP mounts simmed as triples

2 Seaplanes, 1 Catapult

100 tons available for future growth

IIRC the general consensus was under 80' beam a TDS was unnecessary...not sure about tonnage, but on a ship this skinny the TDS is gonna do more harm than good IMHO.