WesWorld

Last design of the night - a small destroyer projected for sometime in the late 30s, about half the size of the recent Piquero.

DD37?, Filipino destroyer laid down 1937

Displacement:
811 t light; 840 t standard; 1,015 t normal; 1,154 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
261.08 ft / 259.19 ft x 26.25 ft x 12.14 ft (normal load)
79.58 m / 79.00 m x 8.00 m x 3.70 m

Armament:
2 - 4.53" / 115 mm guns (1x2 guns), 48.50lbs / 22.00kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline forward
4 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1.32lbs / 0.60kg shells, 1937 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all aft
4 - 0.54" / 13.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.11lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1937 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 103 lbs / 47 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 24.0" / 610 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.59" / 15 mm -
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 26,380 shp / 19,679 Kw = 32.52 kts
Range 6,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 313 tons

Complement:
89 - 116

Cost:
£0.606 million / $2.424 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 12 tons, 1.2 %
Armour: 6 tons, 0.6 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 6 tons, 0.6 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 517 tons, 51.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 276 tons, 27.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 203 tons, 20.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
250 lbs / 113 Kg = 5.4 x 4.5 " / 115 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 0.8 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 12.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 54 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.35
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.70

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.430
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.87 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.56 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 73 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 76
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 6.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 12.47 ft / 3.80 m
- Mid (45 %): 12.47 ft / 3.80 m (10.83 ft / 3.30 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.83 ft / 3.30 m
- Stern: 10.83 ft / 3.30 m
- Average freeboard: 12.12 ft / 3.70 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 174.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 50.8 %
Waterplane Area: 4,436 Square feet or 412 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 65 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 29 lbs/sq ft or 141 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.49
- Longitudinal: 2.75
- Overall: 0.58
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

Cross-sectional hull strength is a smidge low.

It's a quaint design - what's the philosophy behind it?

Why a dual mount forward which decreases ROF and not a single forward and aft? I second Rockys question.

I'll bump up cross-sectional - thanks.

The idea behind the design is a smaller, cheaper DD (half the price of a Piquero) that a) uses the new 115mm mount and b) could be produced in large numbers to augment coastal forces around the Philippines, and free up fleet destroyers from convoy escort and torpedo-boat missions to escort capital ships and battle groups.

The twin mount forward is more of a stylistic choice by me than anything, but my excuse is that the 115mm has only been deployed in twin mounts so far, and a single mount might not exist. Still, point taken re: ROF, I'll probably change it.

Whether twins have a ROF penalty compared to singles depends on a lot more than just the fact that they're a twin or a single mount. Some twins show quite a degradation compared to a single of the same gun, others show no change.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Whether twins have a ROF penalty compared to singles depends on a lot more than just the fact that they're a twin or a single mount. Some twins show quite a degradation compared to a single of the same gun, others show no change.

Is weight a factor in this? Swampy I recall actually chose the 115mm calibre to keep shell weight down.

It's more a matter of how well the mounting is designed (is there room to work, do any hoists bring ammunition up fast enough, etc) than weight of shell.

Quoted

Is weight a factor in this? Swampy I recall actually chose the 115mm calibre to keep shell weight down.

Yeah, after some discussion I realised that the 130mm would be hard on your average native Filipino* over a prolonged battle, so I wrote that into the Revolution and went for the smaller calibre. 115 was also the precise midpoint between the 75mm and 155mm calibres bracketing it; with the larger now being 150 perhaps I should have gone for a 112.5mm weapon. ^_^

(* The increased Iberian presence/amount of Iberian blood in the population notwithstanding.)

As for single v double, the Delfin-class subs mount two single 115mm...

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen

Quoted

Is weight a factor in this? Swampy I recall actually chose the 115mm calibre to keep shell weight down.

Yeah, after some discussion I realised that the 130mm would be hard on your average native Filipino* over a prolonged battle, so I wrote that into the Revolution and went for the smaller calibre. 115 was also the precise midpoint between the 75mm and 155mm calibres bracketing it; with the larger now being 150 perhaps I should have gone for a 112.5mm weapon. ^_^

(* The increased Iberian presence/amount of Iberian blood in the population notwithstanding.)

As for single v double, the Delfin-class subs mount two single 115mm...

Aha, forgot about the Delfins, thank you.

The rationale makes sense. Hey, I bet when the time comes to refit the 130mm-armed ships, I could introduce a lighter shell...

We share a fetish for odd calibres, so it all works for me.

Drawing of the possible design.

Ahhh!!! Ugly warship syndrom! Git 'er away!

She looks kind of heavy foward.

It's okay I guess. I've seen uglier ships...
*Looks at Real World Nelson Class*
... really ugly ships...
*Looks at Wesworld Invincible Class*
... hideous-looking ships.
:-)

I'm going to work on her a bit. Maybe she'd look better with a different bridge, or twin funnels, or a sexier freeboard...