WesWorld

The training carrier and landing ship Avispón will finally be refitted this year. Nothing major, just a few small changes.

Avispón , Italy Training Carrier/ Landing Ship laid down 1925 (Engine 1934)

Displacement:
5,626 t light; 5,781 t standard; 6,664 t normal; 7,371 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
539.12 ft / 524.93 ft x 52.49 ft x 19.69 ft (normal load)
164.32 m / 160.00 m x 16.00 m x 6.00 m

Armament:
1 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns in single mounts, 67.24lbs / 30.50kg shells, 1933 Model
Breech loading gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (2x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1940 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward
2 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 86 lbs / 39 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 400

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2.76" / 70 mm 449.48 ft / 137.00 m 8.69 ft / 2.65 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 132 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.59" / 15 mm -
2nd: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.38" / 35 mm, Conning tower: 1.42" / 36 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 62,034 shp / 46,277 Kw = 32.63 kts
Range 5,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,589 tons

Complement:
368 - 479

Cost:
£1.492 million / $5.967 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 11 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 902 tons, 13.5 %
- Belts: 428 tons, 6.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 5 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 458 tons, 6.9 %
- Conning Tower: 11 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,785 tons, 26.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,113 tons, 31.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,038 tons, 15.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 815 tons, 12.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
7,136 lbs / 3,237 Kg = 106.4 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 1.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 2.3 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 14.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.02
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.14

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.430
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.38 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 62
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Mid (38 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m (14.76 ft / 4.50 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Stern: 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Average freeboard: 18.01 ft / 5.49 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 102.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 158.4 %
Waterplane Area: 17,967 Square feet or 1,669 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 124 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 71 lbs/sq ft or 346 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.88
- Longitudinal: 1.43
- Overall: 0.92
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

25% Refit Notes
Italian 47mm guns removed and replaced by 37mm mounts, one qaud 47mm mount removed totally
Two 20mm cannon added
152mm gun replaced by a 130mm gun
RDF set added
Refurbishment of interal fittings for life extension
New catapult fitted

Here is a hypothetical refit of the heavy cruiser La Argentina. This would be done during 1944 and then the Vecento de Mayo would be decommissioned. Weight saved is put into better AA, 0.5kt extra speed but armour is unchanged.

La Argentina, Argentina Heavy Cruiser laid down 1933 (Engine 1944)

Displacement:
11,727 t light; 12,305 t standard; 13,283 t normal; 14,065 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
634.11 ft / 623.36 ft x 67.26 ft x 21.49 ft (normal load)
193.28 m / 190.00 m x 20.50 m x 6.55 m

Armament:
12 - 7.48" / 190 mm guns (4x3 guns), 253.53lbs / 115.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 4.53" / 115 mm guns (6x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1940 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
12 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 3,605 lbs / 1,635 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
6 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.72" / 120 mm 367.45 ft / 112.00 m 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 91 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4.72" / 120 mm 2.76" / 70 mm 2.76" / 70 mm
2nd: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 1.18" / 30 mm
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.76" / 70 mm, Conning tower: 3.15" / 80 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 100,000 shp / 74,600 Kw = 33.17 kts
Range 7,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,760 tons

Complement:
618 - 804

Cost:
£5.164 million / $20.658 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 386 tons, 2.9 %
Armour: 2,883 tons, 21.7 %
- Belts: 850 tons, 6.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 491 tons, 3.7 %
- Armour Deck: 1,503 tons, 11.3 %
- Conning Tower: 38 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 2,554 tons, 19.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,755 tons, 43.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,555 tons, 11.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 1.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
19,451 lbs / 8,823 Kg = 92.9 x 7.5 " / 190 mm shells or 2.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 3.3 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 15.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 57 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.76
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.10

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.516
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.27 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.61 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.31 ft / 6.80 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 22.31 ft / 6.80 m
- Stern: 22.31 ft / 6.80 m
- Average freeboard: 23.01 ft / 7.01 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 178.8 %
Waterplane Area: 29,489 Square feet or 2,740 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 118 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 125 lbs/sq ft or 609 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.69
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Refit Notes
New boilers and turbines
Replacement of 100mm with 115mm DP mounts
Replacement of sextuple 20mm with 20mm twins
New 37mm twin mounts
New directors
Two RDF sets fitted
Removal of two triple banks of torpedoes

The proposed refit of La Argentina is straightforward enough, though it does reduce the steadiness of the ship a bit. Overall I'd say it works.

Those AA guns, what are they firing over? Or are they just raised mounts?

Those are just raised mounts.

Another light AA layout is 4x4 and 2x2 37mm.

An alternative scheme would involve doing a 50% rebuild of Almirante Brown and just a 25% refit of La Argentina to refurb the fittings and fit the new light AA and leave the 100mm on the ship and the older machinery, which is only 10 years old. Brown being a 1925 ship either needs a rebuild or selling. A rebuild might get a bit more life from her and add some armour too.

Plus my two Japanese-built carriers might get basic refurbs this year as well.

A decision has to be made on Patagonia and the last three Yucuman class DDs will also be decommissioned and three ex-Atlantean cruisers. All in all a hectic year!

You should see what the US has to make decisions on! USS Texas, the Northampton Class cruisers, the Columbia Class cruisers, the Sackett Harbor Class carriers, and all the Coast Defence Ships!

Speaking of those 3 AA cruisers, are they up for sale?

Yes they could be sold if a buyer comes forward.

Northamptons AND Sackett Harbors... hmmm...

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Northamptons AND Sackett Harbors... hmmm...

[OOC]

Considering that Northampton just completed a refit, I doubt that her sisters will be coming to the market.

The Sackett Harbors perhaps, though they would make useful training or escort carriers with a modest refit. In view of the USN's increasing global interests, disposing of them at this point might not be wisest.

Mm, concur in the main. The USN doesn't have so many cruisers and carriers that they can really afford to part with any.

Was more what the USN has to decide on this year than a "for sale" post.

Northampton's stay in service, I may have to keep the Sackett's around for awhile at decreasing effectiveness before refitting them, I just don't have the tonnage to fund the Two-Ocean Navy the US really needs, and fund the expanding US global commitments at the same time. So, I have gone with the expanding US global commitments at the expense of the Two-Ocean Navy.

The Sackett's are probably declining in ability given increasing aircraft sizes and they are quite small. Even so the USN could probably use them for training and as aircraft ferries overseas etc.

Not sure that gaining a fleet for world commitments is neccessarily wise. If you can't support two main fleets to protect your own coastline, I'm not sure in wartime the US could adeqautely support three/ four fleets across the world (until US industry spools up for war of course and assuming a global war threat). Sailing a few capital ships around the world is one method of global presence, but finding a base and a justification to sustain a permanent global presence is another, much more costly basis. I find it difficult to see many outside threats to the USA, apart from Iberia locally and perhaps Japan & China. Both of these are in two oceans and I can't think of a third ocean threat, except maybe the Indian Ocean (but in a non-world war scenario I'm sure the USN could handle the BNS with too much disruption). Also, membership of NATO gives access to several allies with global reach and coverage. That is the neat touch of SAER, using the allies local strengths to cover a massive area without any one navy having to increase its presence/ size to meet new commitments. It seems strange in a world so tied up with allies and Treaties that every navy seems to willingly duplicate each other. I know its off-topic but, are Treaties really just lip-service to support each other or are there any real rational benefits at all?

Quoted

I know its off-topic but, are Treaties really just lip-service to support each other or are there any real rational benefits at all?

France had a global base network and 6 capital ships. Russia had 14 capital ships with just Murmansk and Petropavlovsk with relatively free access to the World Ocean. The last two Gangut class spent time in Indochina, and the Imperator Nikolai I/Imperitritsa Marias spent several years at Brest.

All are now in the Black Sea now that France has a serious battle line.

Quoted

I know its off-topic but, are Treaties really just lip-service to support each other or are there any real rational benefits at all?

I think it probably depends on the specific treaties. SATSUMA seemed to hang pretty tightly together back before it all fell apart, as did FAR. There are a few alliance structures out there which don't seem to have quite as much staying power, though.

Quoted

I know its off-topic but, are Treaties really just lip-service to support each other or are there any real rational benefits at all?

I generally get the sense that perceived new responsibilities offset perceived new benefits. That is - "Country X can help me here, but now I've got to help them over there".

It may change what gets built and where it's stationed, but not total aggregate shipbuilding.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

Quoted

I know its off-topic but, are Treaties really just lip-service to support each other or are there any real rational benefits at all?

I generally get the sense that perceived new responsibilities offset perceived new benefits. That is - "Country X can help me here, but now I've got to help them over there".

It may change what gets built and where it's stationed, but not total aggregate shipbuilding.

Sometimes that is true, aye; though again I think it depends on the alliance.

For instance, there are occasions like ABC: Argentina and Brazil really have no interest in the Pacific Ocean and never go there, while Chile has no interest in the Atlantic and only goes east of the strait for naval exercises and travel for European port calls. In normal peacetime, Chile can trust Argentina and Brazil to aid their merchants in the Atlantic, while Argentina and Brazil can trust Chile to help their merchants in the Pacific. In the naval aspect, it increased security without increasing responsibilities, per se.

Conversely, Chile's participation in FAR (now GA) means they could get more easily entangled in a general world war that starts on the opposite side of the world...

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

I know its off-topic but, are Treaties really just lip-service to support each other or are there any real rational benefits at all?

For the Dutch, I inherited AANM (now AEGIS) from RAM. In 1928 (when his news stopped), AANM brought with it coverage of the Med-Red Sea, an Italian ally on the Red Sea to help keep my supply lines past Bahrat open, and an Iberian & Danish allies threatened by SATSUMA. Iberia could cover Dutch Guiana. Further, there was an agreement with the UK that Iberia/Italy would cover the Med, while the UK would cover AANM’s eastern possessions…i.e. the DEI. Also, control of the Red Sea, Gibraltar, Panama Canal, Straits of Malacca, bases around the world – the AANM forces sat on the wouldn’t chokepoints and could shut down most opposition trade anytime war started, or be in great positions for commerce raiding, while AANM’s size was comparable to most alliances/major powers.

There were some real negatives- being allied with Italy/Iberia distanced the Dutch from the SAE, the Italian player told me there was hostility between France and Iberia, which worried me but has proved wrong, and relations with the US was good under Canis D – which is why Atlantic Aviation was slated to have the North American designs like the P-51, but Hrolf decided Iberia’s allies were unwelcome, so I stopped building warplanes in the US. Then I found myself yoked to Mussolini’s Italy (which led to the UK backing out of part of the agreement), HEBCO’s Thailand, rabble rousing Peru, and dormant Iberia/Denmark.

As for SAER – that grew out of a desire for Strategic depth and an alternative to AANM. The Dutch approached the Brits and Aussies about the idea of a local alliance. All the western holdings in the far east are in dire straits if the Dutch East Indies fall, while the DEI also controls any supply/reinforcement routes SATSUMA chose to use. An Australia-DEI- Malaysia (UK) treaty would have made sense and be a potent means to oppose SATSUMA without all the entanglements of AANM. However the UK went off and arranged something much grander with overwhelming force …who were the Dutch to turn that down?

Now, it’s moved forward and there are new geopolitics, and for both metagame and in-game rationale, the Dutch are looking to disentangle themselves from the larger alliances and either seek neutrality or more regional arrangements.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

Quoted

I know its off-topic but, are Treaties really just lip-service to support each other or are there any real rational benefits at all?

I generally get the sense that perceived new responsibilities offset perceived new benefits. That is - "Country X can help me here, but now I've got to help them over there".

It may change what gets built and where it's stationed, but not total aggregate shipbuilding.

Actually, I looked at what Italy/Iberia built and what Bahrat fielded, and thought Italy's prime job was to clear out the Bahrati Navy while the Dutch Homefleet met with Iberia and moved through the Red Sea, took on stores in EAS- defeat the BNS- and then moved to DEI. With SAER that changed to include surging with the French/Russians. So my ship building was a little unbalanced in part due to where my allies were strong (and they were also unbalanced).

Here is a proposed escort to replace the ASW and AA escorts based on the Chaco Class minesweepers/minelayers (really wartime lash-ups when needs required quick conversions of designs at hand). The 620s would be purpose-built escorts and the Chaco escorts would be converted to minesweeper versions or sold off.


Project 620, Argentina Escort laid down 1944

Displacement:
779 t light; 822 t standard; 1,013 t normal; 1,166 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
265.94 ft / 262.47 ft x 33.63 ft x 9.84 ft (normal load)
81.06 m / 80.00 m x 10.25 m x 3.00 m

Armament:
4 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (2x2 guns), 30.51lbs / 13.84kg shells, 1932 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1940 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 130 lbs / 59 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.59" / 15 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 4,500 shp / 3,357 Kw = 20.29 kts
Range 6,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 344 tons

Complement:
89 - 116

Cost:
£0.384 million / $1.534 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 16 tons, 1.6 %
Armour: 14 tons, 1.4 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 9 tons, 0.9 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 4 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 115 tons, 11.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 534 tons, 52.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 234 tons, 23.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 9.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
3,044 lbs / 1,381 Kg = 99.8 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 1.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.19
Metacentric height 1.3 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 12.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.27
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.408
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.80 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.20 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 25
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: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Mid (65 %): 18.04 ft / 5.50 m (9.84 ft / 3.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Stern: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Average freeboard: 15.31 ft / 4.67 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 62.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 184.6 %
Waterplane Area: 5,459 Square feet or 507 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 214 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 49 lbs/sq ft or 239 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.82
- Longitudinal: 5.97
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Class Names:

Misc Weight
35 tons for A/S weapons (2x DCR 4x DCT for 60 DCs
25 tons for improved living conditions
15 tons for command spaces and extra equipment
25 tons for growth

Instead of the Project 620s the eight A/S and AA escort Chacos will be refitted to a common multi-purpose escort standard with ASDIC, DCs and AA weaponry. The SS report can be found in the encyclopaedia.


The old minelaying training ship, the Fulton, dates back to 1896. She will be replaced next year by a new purpose-built ship. In effect a bigger Chaco with more deckspace and room for some teaching areas. Will be used a multi-purpose training ship too (e.g. navigation and seamanship).

Project 713 Fulton, Argentina Mine Warfare Training Ship laid down 1944

Displacement:
378 t light; 392 t standard; 427 t normal; 455 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
209.62 ft / 203.41 ft x 24.61 ft x 6.23 ft (normal load)
63.89 m / 62.00 m x 7.50 m x 1.90 m

Armament:
1 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns in single mounts, 39.68lbs / 18.00kg shells, 1944 Model
Quick firing gun in deck mount
on centreline forward
2 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (1x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1944 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
2 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 43 lbs / 20 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.59" / 15 mm -
2nd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -

- Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 1,000 shp / 746 Kw = 15.32 kts
Range 5,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 63 tons

Complement:
46 - 61

Cost:
£0.137 million / $0.549 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 4 tons, 1.0 %
Armour: 5 tons, 1.2 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 3 tons, 0.6 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 2 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 26 tons, 6.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 194 tons, 45.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 49 tons, 11.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 35.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,119 lbs / 507 Kg = 36.7 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 0.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 0.7 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 12.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.12
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.479
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.27 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 14.26 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 25
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 17.06 ft / 5.20 m
- Forecastle (14 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (38 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m (7.55 ft / 2.30 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 7.55 ft / 2.30 m
- Stern: 7.55 ft / 2.30 m
- Average freeboard: 10.95 ft / 3.34 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 66.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 145.9 %
Waterplane Area: 3,273 Square feet or 304 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 178 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 32 lbs/sq ft or 154 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.86
- Longitudinal: 4.02
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Misc weight includes interchangable minesweeping and minelaying gear. Up to 60 mines can be carried.
20 tons for teaching spaces