WesWorld

Figured out my issue with the 57mm, which wasn't the 57mm at all. Rather, Perds had low-balled the armor on the beam 125mm guns so I'd chewed through some miscellaneous weight making that right and not initially realized it.

So here's a variant with proper armor on the beam 125s and 12x2 - 57mm tertiary.

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1924 (Engine 1936)

Displacement:
27,949 t light; 29,228 t standard; 31,039 t normal; 32,487 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
705.93 ft / 695.54 ft x 100.07 ft x 28.38 ft (normal load)
215.17 m / 212.00 m x 30.50 m x 8.65 m

Armament:
8 - 13.78" / 350 mm guns (2x4 guns), 1,308.20lbs / 593.39kg shells, 1924 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns (4x2 guns), 59.59lbs / 27.03kg shells, 1924 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns (4x2 guns), 59.59lbs / 27.03kg shells, 1924 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
24 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1924 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
48 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1924 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 11,578 lbs / 5,252 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 14.2" / 360 mm 419.95 ft / 128.00 m 12.01 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 1.57" / 40 mm 419.95 ft / 128.00 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 93 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.57" / 40 mm 452.10 ft / 137.80 m 26.21 ft / 7.99 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.7" / 400 mm 9.84" / 250 mm 15.7" / 400 mm
2nd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.18" / 30 mm
3rd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.18" / 30 mm
4th: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5.12" / 130 mm, Conning tower: 15.75" / 400 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 116,000 shp / 86,536 Kw = 29.02 kts
Range 7,300nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,259 tons

Complement:
1,168 - 1,519

Cost:
£8.189 million / $32.758 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,447 tons, 4.7 %
Armour: 11,025 tons, 35.5 %
- Belts: 3,372 tons, 10.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 691 tons, 2.2 %
- Armament: 2,029 tons, 6.5 %
- Armour Deck: 4,599 tons, 14.8 %
- Conning Tower: 335 tons, 1.1 %
Machinery: 3,255 tons, 10.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,054 tons, 38.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,090 tons, 10.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 167 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
43,660 lbs / 19,804 Kg = 33.4 x 13.8 " / 350 mm shells or 7.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 17.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.50
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.08

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.95 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.37 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 65
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -3.28 ft / -1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28.54 ft / 8.70 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Mid (50 %): 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 20.34 ft / 6.20 m (20.01 ft / 6.10 m before break)
- Stern: 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Average freeboard: 20.94 ft / 6.38 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 160.4 %
Waterplane Area: 48,573 Square feet or 4,513 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 181 lbs/sq ft or 882 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.39
- Overall: 1.00
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

Bit of a work in progress, but here's Akbar as built (above) and after her 1943 refit (below). Most of the superstructure alterations would've taken place in her 1936 refit.

As noted in the Meeting Place, I apparently budgeted for a 5,000 t (light) repair ship in 1934 - but since I was on my way out, no sim was presented and no encyclopedia entry made.

So this is the Bharati stealth repair ship. I'll call it Luharakhana, which is Hindi for Forge.

Luharakhana, Bharati repair ship, laid down 1929, refitted to service 1934

Displacement:
4,959 t light; 5,092 t standard; 6,306 t normal; 7,277 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
413.87 ft / 406.82 ft x 68.90 ft x 13.12 ft (normal load)
126.15 m / 124.00 m x 21.00 m x 4.00 m

Armament:
1 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns in single mounts, 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1929 Model
Dual purpose gun in deck mount
on centreline aft, 1 raised gun
4 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1.31lbs / 0.59kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm guns (2x4 guns), 0.10lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1929 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
4 - 0.31" / 8.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.02lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1929 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 41 lbs / 19 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 2,728 shp / 2,035 Kw = 13.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 728 t
[simmed as: Range 30,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,185 tons]

Complement:
353 - 459

Cost:
£0.759 million / $3.034 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 5 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 4 tons, 0.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 4 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 84 tons, 1.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,091 tons, 33.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,347 tons, 21.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 2,775 tons, 44.0 % + 1,457 t simmed as bunkerage = 4,232 t
-1,500 t: Workshops and fabrication plants
-1,457 t: Low-slung cargo and parts/spares warehouse (simmed as bunkerage)
-700 t: Cranes: 1 x 400 t, 1 x 200 t, 2 x 50 t
-500 t: Accommodation for 250 displaced personnel
-50 t: Medical facilities
-25 t: Weight reserve


Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
18,502 lbs / 8,392 Kg = 523.8 x 4.1 " / 105 mm shells or 3.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.23
Metacentric height 4.2 ft / 1.3 m
Roll period: 14.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle, rise forward of midbreak, raised quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.600
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.90 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.17 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 27 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m (24.28 ft / 7.40 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 24.28 ft / 7.40 m (16.40 ft / 5.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 24.28 ft / 7.40 m (16.40 ft / 5.00 m before break)
- Stern: 24.28 ft / 7.40 m
- Average freeboard: 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 53.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 221.7 %
Waterplane Area: 20,500 Square feet or 1,905 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 211 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 74 lbs/sq ft or 363 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.93
- Longitudinal: 1.91
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

I'm looking at options for the two Talwar class carriers as they approach mid-life refit time in 1948 and 1949.

The class was laid down in 1932 and 1933 and are children of Cleito; compromised to generally fit inside Bharat's treaty tonnage allocations of the time. By the time 1948/49 rolls around, they're probably considered light carriers - Trishula, completing in that timeframe, displaces more than both ships combined.

Notionally, Talwar would soldier on as a strike platform until the mid fifties, then endure in secondary duties (training, ASW) until deletion in the early 1960s. Val's life would be more like the late fifties and mid sixties respectively. History shows that the similarly-sized British CVLs could operate jets into the 1980s, so I think - with suitable upgrades - the Talwars could handle first-generation jet aircraft.

Sadly, angled-deck installation is probably out of the question in 1948/49. My reading suggests that this isn't going to be a thing until the early to mid '50s, by which point the end is in sight for these ships and no such work will be authorized.

A basic 25% refit (~4,000 t) would see:

-Replacement of the 105/35/15 mm battery with 125/57/25 mm weapons
-jiggling of miscellaneous weight, deleting the "stored planes" in favor of larger Flag facilities, more FC/electronics/comms, and other stuff.
-The basic mid-life refit extension.

A comprehensive 50% refit (~8,600 t) would see:

-Replacement of the battery
-Mid-life refit
-Installation of 2.1 m wide bulging, which allows:
-Increase in bunkerage (20,000 @ 12 to 15,000 @ 15), and:
-Increase in the height of the torpedo bulkhead from the current inexplicably short 3.00 m to 6-something
-Increase the stem height to simulate installation of an enclosed cyclone bow
-Replacement of machinery: Lighter, but slightly higher output, for approximately the same speed (remember the bulging?)
-Bump deck armor from 80 mm to 100 mm
-Bump miscellaneous weight from 3,920 to arond 4,300 t, allowing more CIC, FC, comms, and such. Airgroup remains 60.

I'd be curious to get your thoughts on the preferred approach here.

Given the alternative plans, I personally think that the 25% Refit is the more effective way to go. Investing so much tonnage in refitting the Talwars would seriously crimp your ability to fund new construction in the period in which they are being refitted - at ~9,000 tons a refit that represents a serious drain. Now only you know your plans for future construction, and in the light of those plans, the costlier refit might be valid, but for me, I'd prefer to invest in new construction.

Either proposal looks good to me from a technical sense; I believe that you are correct, angled decks would not really come into use until the early/mid-1950s, but the first generation of carrier-borne jet aircraft operated from straight-decks; it was only after sufficient experience with jet aircraft operations had been built up that the need for an alternative was clear.

If I had any suggestion to make, it would be to omit the heavy gun component of the armament refit in favor of additional mid-caliber guns, or command and control facilities. Leave the long-range air defense to the screening elements.

I'd agree with Bruce about selecting the 25% refit over the 50% refit - and saving money for making something in new construction better than it otherwise might be.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Either proposal looks good to me from a technical sense; I believe that you are correct, angled decks would not really come into use until the early/mid-1950s, but the first generation of carrier-borne jet aircraft operated from straight-decks; it was only after sufficient experience with jet aircraft operations had been built up that the need for an alternative was clear.

Agreed. I've just done the research to see if I could justify fitting an angled deck to the Foudroyant, but I don't believe I could reasonably justify that choice.

Thanks for the input.

Funds are tight just with the core CV/CL/DD/SS/SL and infrastructure programs in place, but I could squeeze it out if I really wanted to.

Hadn't thought about the alternate battery - I assume you mean more 57mm and either sticking with 105mm or just not having them at all.

My thought would be to take out the 105mm battery and replace them with additional 57mm - if not in the same locations, elsewhere, using the weight thus released.

The British Colossus/Majestic class CVLs were built without large-caliber gun batteries in favor of increased LAA armament; by that stage of the war if the enemy got within heavy gun range of the carrier things were not good and the best way to deal with a kamikaze was as much lead as you could put up.

Something I haven't really wrapped my Bharati head around is transportation of bulk cargo and ammunition. There are, in essence, three different jobs:

-Supplying materials to the various island ports and depots.
-Supply of materials ashore during amphibious assaults or disaster relief operations.
-Refilling warship magazines away from base.

It'd be kind of swell to haul ammo, bulk stores, and fuel around on one generic hull, but the ammo part would make the ships kind of explodey. There's also the inconvenience of tasking a large all-in-one ship to move six hundred tonnes of concrete to Diego Garcia when I also want to refuel a carrier group two thousand kilometres to the northwest. So my head says to build the smallest ship practical for ammo/cargo transportation.

The baseline's set by the ammo needs of a carrier squadron - Trishula, two Bangalore class cruisers, and six Rawalpindi class cans would need ~1,800 t of shells, so I'll allocate 2,000 to allow for growth. No need to provide for 350mm shells since the battleships are being retired soon anyway - it's all 150mm and smaller. Figure another five hundred tonnes for derricks, lighters/boats, and refrigeration equipment. Provide for 20 kts speed so it doesn't take forever to catch up with a carrier squadron.

I'd build probably three ammo and three cargo variants of the same basic hull. One of the latter might be tasked to the Naval Infantry for supporting amphib ops. Thoughts?

Thinking Calm Thoughts, Bharati Ammo/Cargo Ship, laid down 1946

Displacement:
4,626 t light; 4,761 t standard; 5,449 t normal; 5,999 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
333.23 ft / 328.08 ft x 65.62 ft x 14.76 ft (normal load)
101.57 m / 100.00 m x 20.00 m x 4.50 m

Armament:
1 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns in single mounts, 59.59lbs / 27.03kg shells, 1946 Model
Dual purpose gun in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline aft
6 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (3x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1946 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
8 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1946 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 97 lbs / 44 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 400

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
No drive to shaft, 2 shafts, 13,405 shp / 10,000 Kw = 20.15 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,238 tons

Complement:
316 - 412

Cost:
£1.553 million / $6.212 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 12 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 9 tons, 0.2 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 9 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 335 tons, 6.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,671 tons, 30.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 822 tons, 15.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 2,599 tons, 47.7 %
-2,000 t: Ammunition storage (ammo ships) or bulk cargo (cargo ships)
-200 t: Refrigeration equipement
-200 t: Cranes/Derricks
-100 t: Extra boats/LCM
-99 t: Weight reserve, possibly a bit of passenger accommodation

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
10,377 lbs / 4,707 Kg = 174.1 x 4.9 " / 125 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 3.2 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 15.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.02
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.59

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, rise aft of midbreak, low quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.600
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 38
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: 29.20 ft / 8.90 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.28 ft / 7.40 m (16.40 ft / 5.00 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m (24.28 ft / 7.40 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m (24.28 ft / 7.40 m before break)
- Stern: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 21.13 ft / 6.44 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 195.9 %
Waterplane Area: 15,745 Square feet or 1,463 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 161 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 74 lbs/sq ft or 360 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.88
- Longitudinal: 3.11
- 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

Providing a balanced fleet train and keeping it supplied at sea isn't an easy topic. You've got several options in terms of constructing it, and building a common class of rather fast (if not too large) specialist vessels is perhaps one of the more expensive available to you.

That said, your design looks rather good, except you forgot to specify how the engines are connected to the propellers - a small oversight.

Personally, I would prefer to rely more upon mercantile conversions to help keep the specialist replenishment ships at sea. That is the approach I took with the very large Donau class replenishment ships. They carry a fair amount of fuel and supplies but were rather expensive. Rather than build a lot of them, I opted for less capable, but more affordable, conversions.

The Mittenwald class refrigerated store ships I based of a historical design for German fruit carriers - fast enough but certainly not able to directly accompany a task force. They would shuttle supplies from base to the larger replenishment vessels via cross-decking. The Sachsenwald class ammunition ships, also based on a historical mercantile hull, carry the reserve ammunition and stay carefully in the rear where it ought to be marginally more safe.

For hauling general cargo about I opted for two Cunewalde class store ships, using the hull design of a small German motor tramp. They haven't the speed to keep up with the larger supply ships but are fine for carrying military cargo to and fro.

Overall I find this approach to the problem more flexible and less expensive in the long run.

Thanks for the input.

I'd be building these ships to merchant standards (1/4 cost), so they'd be no more expensive than a conversion.

SS actually wouldn't let me click on a machinery type, for some reason. I clicked "Oil fired" and "turbines" and it didn't appear to change the ship's stats, so I just shrugged and went back to diesel.

I'll need to think on my strategic requirements some more. It's entirely possible that a focus on the Indian Ocean, allied only to Persia, Hedjaz, and SAE means no ammo ships are really necessary; rather, shoot off all the ammo and whoever's left heads home for a top-up and repairs.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

I'd be building these ships to merchant standards (1/4 cost), so they'd be no more expensive than a conversion.

Not to throw a wrench into things, but did we decide that was a legit alternative for merchant-style auxiliaries? I know we'd discussed that previously (and I personally am very much in favor of it), but I don't recall it being definitively decided. I've still been handling auxiliaries as conversions-from-civil, and if we're going to do things this way, I'm going to switch the way I do auxiliaries a bit.

I don't know if it has been made official, but I've been clearly and openly doing it since I rejoined a few years ago.

My observation is that many conversions have the same functional result, including the "current" engine year, so I don't see that I have an undue advantage with this approach. If anything, I suffer (slightly) from tying up slips for the (unmodified) duration of construction

Suits me just fine!

Recalled that Foxy's building something called "Littorial Combat Ships". I gave it a go - small, fast, heavy gun battery. My out come is heavier, but faster.

I suppose I could just use the remaining miscellaneous weight for ASW and call it a destroyer, but I just don't see 6" guns being used as the main battery on such any destroyer.

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1946

Displacement:
2,846 t light; 2,995 t standard; 3,438 t normal; 3,793 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
470.57 ft / 455.05 ft x 45.93 ft x 12.80 ft (normal load)
143.43 m / 138.70 m x 14.00 m x 3.90 m

Armament:
4 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1946 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1946 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1946 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 461 lbs / 209 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300
8 - 21.7" / 550 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.95" / 75 mm 1.18" / 30 mm 2.95" / 75 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 53,620 shp / 40,000 Kw = 34.25 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 798 tons

Complement:
223 - 291

Cost:
£2.373 million / $9.491 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 58 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 122 tons, 3.5 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 122 tons, 3.5 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 1,333 tons, 38.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,105 tons, 32.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 593 tons, 17.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 228 tons, 6.6 %
-89 t: Additional weight of automatic 6" guns
-50 t: Radar, sonar, fire control, electronics
-89 t: Other stuff. I dunno what.


Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,566 lbs / 711 Kg = 15.2 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 2.0 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 13.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.44
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.450
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.91 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.51 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 64 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Stern: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Average freeboard: 20.08 ft / 6.12 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 146.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 167.6 %
Waterplane Area: 13,849 Square feet or 1,287 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 43 lbs/sq ft or 212 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.70
- Overall: 0.56
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Quoted

4 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1946 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)

Quoted

-89 t: Additional weight of automatic 6" guns

... so are the guns Dual Purpose guns or are they automatics?

Quoted

I suppose I could just use the remaining miscellaneous weight for ASW and call it a destroyer, but I just don't see 6" guns being used as the main battery on such any destroyer.

I have looked at a 15cm gun version of the Shimakaze as well in the past, but wasn't sure if I should do that or just stick to the 5" guns for destroyers, regardless of size...