WesWorld

I find that Wesworld's smaller nations face a number of challenges in developing their naval forces - a smaller number of factories which limits the tonnage of shipbuilding materials available; undeveloped naval infrastructure in terms of slips and dry docks; and force requirements that exceed resources. This dilemma forces smaller nations to consider the option of buying second hand, confining their naval forces to a brown water fleet, or seeking to construct small but viable surface combatants.

For the nation that has greater resources, the following light destroyer sketch would - all things being equal - be of doubtful utility. But it is something that a smaller navy might consider viable to fill a niche and still stay within resource constraints.

TBD, TBD Light Destroyer laid down 1944

Displacement: 1,120 t light; 1,166 t standard; 1,299 t normal; 1,406 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

343.42 ft / 334.65 ft x 32.15 ft x 9.84 ft (normal load) [104.67 m / 102.00 m x 9.80 m x 3.00 m]

Armament:

3 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns in single mounts, 30.51lbs / 13.84kg shells, 1944 Model Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount
4 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (1x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
4 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
4 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 108 lbs / 49 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300
4 - 21.0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

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: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Conning tower: 0.98" / 25 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 28,352 shp / 21,150 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 4,200nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 240 tons

Complement: 107 - 140

Cost: £0.926 million / $3.705 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 14 tons, 1.0 %
Armour: 12 tons, 0.9 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 9 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 3 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 623 tons, 47.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 447 tons, 34.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 179 tons, 13.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 25 tons, 1.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 482 lbs / 218 Kg = 15.8 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 1.1 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 12.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 86 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.34
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.16

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has a flush deck and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.429
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.41 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.00 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 68 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 74
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.82 ft / 0.25 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.73 ft / 5.10 m
- Mid (50 %): 14.44 ft / 4.40 m
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 14.44 ft / 4.40 m
- Stern: 14.44 ft / 4.40 m
- Average freeboard: 15.48 ft / 4.72 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 165.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 139.6 %
Waterplane Area: 7,012 Square feet or 651 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 82 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 31 lbs/sq ft or 152 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.55
- Overall: 0.59
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

If a nation needed real destroyers, but still faced severe resource constraints (such as a two-factory nation), the following might serve as an example. It is reasonably sized, reasonably armed, and could be built in some numbers - if there was no competing designs to be built at the same time.

TBD, TBD Destroyer laid down 1944

Displacement: 1,488 t light; 1,554 t standard; 1,761 t normal; 1,926 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

368.06 ft / 360.89 ft x 36.09 ft x 11.48 ft (normal load) [112.18 m / 110.00 m x 11.00 m x 3.50 m]

Armament:

4 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52.72lbs / 23.91kg shells, 1944 Model Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, all amidships
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 228 lbs / 104 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 225
8 - 21.0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:

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

Conning tower: 0.98" / 25 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 28,833 shp / 21,510 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 5,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 372 tons

Complement: 135 - 176

Cost: £1.195 million / $4.782 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 29 tons, 1.6 %
Armour: 19 tons, 1.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 15 tons, 0.9 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 3 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 726 tons, 41.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 635 tons, 36.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 272 tons, 15.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 80 tons, 4.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 823 lbs / 373 Kg = 15.6 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 1.3 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 13.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 80 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.46
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.16

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has a flush deck and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.412
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.93 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 64 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
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: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 17.06 ft / 5.20 m
- Mid (50 %): 14.44 ft / 4.40 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 14.44 ft / 4.40 m
- Stern: 14.44 ft / 4.40 m
- Average freeboard: 15.56 ft / 4.74 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 151.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 102.7 %
Waterplane Area: 8,383 Square feet or 779 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 98 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 40 lbs/sq ft or 197 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.59
- Longitudinal: 2.17
- Overall: 0.67
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

One of the greatest challenges facing a smaller nation is the construction of larger vessels, both from a cost perspective and from the need for available infrastructure. However, if ambitions are kept in check I do believe that the task can be accomplished within the scope of the game's rules and design conventions.

A small cruiser - or destroyer leader if you will - can be constructed on a Type 1.5 slip - of course, the task is easier if larger slips are available in country or if arrangements were made to have the vessel built abroad.

Pursuant to Rule 2.1, the vessel described below can be constructed in 13.55 months (4550/1000 tons = 4.55, +9 = 13.55) or five quarters. That represents an allocation of 910 tons to construction per quarter - a large but not impossibly large commitment for even a power with but two factories.


TBD, TBD Light Cruiser laid down 1944

Displacement: 4,550 t light; 4,805 t standard; 5,398 t normal; 5,872 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

486.92 ft / 475.72 ft x 45.93 ft x 18.04 ft (normal load) [148.41 m / 145.00 m x 14.00 m x 5.50 m]

Armament:

8 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (4x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.41kg shells, 1944 Model Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, all amidships
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 569 lbs / 258 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 450
8 - 21.7" / 550 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:

Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 393.70 ft / 120.00 m 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 127 % of normal length

Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.57" / 40 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.57" / 40 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

Armour deck: 0.98" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 60,786 shp / 45,346 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,067 tons

Complement: 314 - 409

Cost: £2.935 million / $11.742 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 71 tons, 1.3 %
Armour: 676 tons, 12.5 %
- Belts: 356 tons, 6.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 36 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 270 tons, 5.0 %
- Conning Tower: 13 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,552 tons, 28.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,150 tons, 39.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 848 tons, 15.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 1.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 5,955 lbs / 2,701 Kg = 88.8 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 1.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 1.9 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 14.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.19

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has rise forward of midbreak and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.479
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.36 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.88 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.64 ft / 0.50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 23.79 ft / 7.25 m
- Mid (50 %): 21.33 ft / 6.50 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: 19.10 ft / 5.82 m

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 107.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 121.0 %
Waterplane Area: 14,852 Square feet or 1,380 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 121 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 77 lbs/sq ft or 376 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 2.50
- 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

A vessel the size of a light cruiser is probably at the limit of a smaller nation's internal shipbuilding capacity; certainly a two-factory nation would be hard pressed to construct such a vessel even if it had a Type 2.0 building slip. For a nation with three to five factories however, such a vessel is not impossible to construct and still be able to afford a reasonable number of supporting warships.

Now, compared with the historical 10,000-ton Brooklyn class of the US Navy, the design proposed below might seem rather puny; certainly it would be at a disadvantage if compared with vessels of that size. Compared with historical European light cruisers though - the British Leander or Colony class, or the French La Galissoniere class (albeit a 1930s design but one of the loveliest cruiser designs ever IMHO) - I think would not fare poorly.

By rule 2.1 (which I like to call the "Iron Law of Shipbuilding") this vessel would take 16.2 months to construct, or six quarters. If 1,200 tons per quarter were allowed to construct such a vessel, a nation with three factoies would still have 1,800 tons per quarter for other projects. Therefore, for a navy at the upper end of "small nation", this design can be considered viable.


TBD, TBD Light Cruiser laid down 1944

Displacement: 7,200 t light; 7,512 t standard; 8,291 t normal; 8,914 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

557.71 ft / 547.90 ft x 56.10 ft x 17.22 ft (normal load) [169.99 m / 167.00 m x 17.10 m x 5.25 m]

Armament:

9 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (3x3 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1944 Model Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes) on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (4x2 guns), 30.51lbs / 13.84kg shells, 1944 Model Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists on side, all amidships
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1,220 lbs / 553 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
8 - 21.0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:

Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.54" / 90 mm 360.89 ft / 110.00 m 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 101 % of normal length

Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.94" / 100 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

Armour deck: 1.97" / 50 mm, Conning tower: 3.94" / 100 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 69,234 shp / 51,648 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,402 tons

Complement: 433 - 564

Cost: £4.222 million / $16.888 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 152 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 1,662 tons, 20.0 %
- Belts: 612 tons, 7.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 203 tons, 2.4 %
- Armour Deck: 812 tons, 9.8 %
- Conning Tower: 35 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1,768 tons, 21.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,448 tons, 41.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,091 tons, 13.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 170 tons, 2.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 13,019 lbs / 5,905 Kg = 126.4 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 1.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 2.5 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 72 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.51
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.29

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has a flush deck and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.548
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.77 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.18 ft / 9.20 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.93 ft / 7.60 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: 21.94 ft / 6.69 m

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 86.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 168.2 %
Waterplane Area: 22,293 Square feet or 2,071 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 126 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 93 lbs/sq ft or 452 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.01
- 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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

For a small nation that has the requirement to protect its seaborne commerce, ships like destroyers may not be the best answer. The ocean escort vessel - a sloop, frigate or such - is often a better choice. In designing such a vessel, there are many considerations:

Speed - speed is costly, and an antisubmarine escort really does not need more than 20 knots (though the latest submarine designs from the major powers are pushing that limit). Therefore, for an escort, higher speeds are of questionable value.

Strength - while speed is not necessarily a prime requirement, a vessel of less than 24 knots is not a light fast combattant per Point 1 of the Design Rules for Gentlemen; therefore, a 20 knot escort will need to have a relative composite hull strength of less than 1.0. This imposes its own limits.

Size - depending upon the resources available to a smaller nation, it might choose a small number of very potent escorts or a larger number of smaller, less potent vessels.

The design offered here is in the larger, more potent part of the spectrum, yet it can be constructed on a Type 0.5 slip. It requires little more than ten months to construct, at a rate of around 270 tons per quarter - not too great a burden on a limited budget.


TBD, TBD Ocean Escort laid down 1944

Displacement: 1,070 t light; 1,156 t standard; 1,452 t normal; 1,689 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

291.54 ft / 282.97 ft x 36.75 ft x 11.48 ft (normal load) [88.86 m / 86.25 m x 11.20 m x 3.50 m]

Armament:

6 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (3x2 guns), 30.51lbs / 13.84kg shells, 1944 Model Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
4 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (1x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
12 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 194 lbs / 88 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 500

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 0.59" / 15 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Conning tower: 0.98" / 25 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 5,219 shp / 3,893 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 8,200nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 534 tons

Complement: 116 - 152

Cost: £0.514 million / $2.058 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 24 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 16 tons, 1.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 14 tons, 0.9 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 3 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 133 tons, 9.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 746 tons, 51.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 382 tons, 26.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 10.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 4,418 lbs / 2,004 Kg = 144.8 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 1.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 1.3 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 13.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 68 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.44
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has low quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.426
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.70 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.82 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 34
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.64 ft / 0.50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.66 ft / 3.25 m (18.04 ft / 5.50 m before break)
- Stern: 10.66 ft / 3.25 m
- Average freeboard: 17.64 ft / 5.38 m

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 57.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 196.9 %
Waterplane Area: 6,508 Square feet or 605 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 232 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 54 lbs/sq ft or 265 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.81
- Longitudinal: 7.18
- 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

A small nation could choose to eschew a blue water navy and concentrate its limited resources on coastal defense. Construction of small, well-armed coastal escorts has its advantages. The unit cost per vessel is much smaller; they require less building infrastructure; and they can be built far faster.

Rule 2.1, the "Iron Law of Shipbuilding" provides that vessels less than 500 tons require only tonnage/1000 plus 4 months to construct. The design outlined below could thus be completed it little less than five months, at a cost of 235 tons per quarter. Since it requires only a Type 0.0 slip for its construction, two such vessels could be built on a such a slip during the course of a year - one in the first two quarters, a second in the third and fourth quarters, with the required turn around time comprising the remaining 1.3 months of the second quarter. The cost of the two vessels would be less than 1,000 tons, and a number of these craft could be constructed in a comparatively short time.

It represents one option for a smaller navy to pursue.


TBD, TBD Coastal Escort laid down 1944

Displacement: 470 t light; 522 t standard; 614 t normal; 688 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

239.07 ft / 229.66 ft x 24.93 ft x 7.38 ft (normal load) [72.87 m / 70.00 m x 7.60 m x 2.25 m]

Armament:

4 - 2.99" / 76.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 13.39lbs / 6.08kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 56 lbs / 25 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 1,250

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 - -

Conning tower: 0.98" / 25 mm

Machinery:

Diesel Internal combustion motors, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 4,270 shp / 3,186 Kw = 22.00 kts
Range 3,750nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 165 tons

Complement: 61 - 80

Cost: £0.252 million / $1.010 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 7 tons, 1.1 %
Armour: 7 tons, 1.2 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 6 tons, 0.9 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 2 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 109 tons, 17.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 286 tons, 46.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 144 tons, 23.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 60 tons, 9.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 1,222 lbs / 554 Kg = 91.3 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 0.7 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 12.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 82 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.21
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.90

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has a flush deck and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.508
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.21 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.39 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 18.86 ft / 5.75 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Mid (50 %): 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Stern: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Average freeboard: 12.78 ft / 3.90 m

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 83.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 146.5 %
Waterplane Area: 3,999 Square feet or 372 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 180 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 34 lbs/sq ft or 166 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.83
- Longitudinal: 5.47
- 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
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

A smaller nation faces very stiff challenges if it seeks to build any ship of force - the larger the ship, the more expensive it will be in terms of tonnage and the greater will be its demands on the naval infrastructure available to the nation. Even if the issue of available docks and slips is avoided by contracting for construction of a vessel abroad it will still be a burden and limitation to other naval construction.

The design offered below is an approximation of the historical "Deutschland" class panzerschiff of the OTL German Kriegsmarine. At nearly 11,800 tons light displacement it does look impressive on paper, and that could be a reason why a small nation might wish to construct such a vessel. But it will take seven quarters of effort to construct the vessel, and require nearly 1,700 tons of shipbuilding materials per quarter to accomplish the task. For a two-factory nation, that is practically the entire naval budget - to say nothing of the need for a Type 2.5 slip or dock in which to construct the vessel.

Such a vessel might appeal to a moderate sized navy belonging to a nation with seven to nine factories - the percentage of the available budget absorbed by this sort of vessel is much less, and there might exist in country facilities for building more than one such vessel at a time. If commerce raiding were a valid strategy for that nation to use against its opponents, in such circumstances it might be a worthwhile effort. However, with their greater resources, the major nations of Weswold have already constructed many vessels of far larger force in anticipation of hunting down and destroying a commerce raider of this type. It would not, therefore, be a wise choice for a smaller nation attempting to deter a larger power.


TBD, TBD Armored Cruiser laid down 1944

Displacement: 11,778 t light; 12,550 t standard; 14,300 t normal; 15,700 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

609.18 ft / 597.11 ft x 67.26 ft x 21.98 ft (normal load) [185.68 m / 182.00 m x 20.50 m x 6.70 m]

Armament:

6 - 11.02" / 280 mm guns (2x3 guns), 669.80lbs / 303.81kg shells, 1944 Model Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes) on centreline ends, evenly spread
12 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (6x2 guns), 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1944 Model Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists on side, evenly spread
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1944 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 4,698 lbs / 2,131 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 180
8 - 21.0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:

Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 393.70 ft / 120.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 101 % of normal length

Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 4.72" / 120 mm 4.72" / 120 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm -
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

Armour deck: 3.54" / 90 mm

Machinery:

Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 56,348 shp / 42,036 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 17.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,150 tons

Complement: 653 - 849

Cost: £7.447 million / $29.788 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 587 tons, 4.1 %
Armour: 3,791 tons, 26.5 %
- Belts: 1,285 tons, 9.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 562 tons, 3.9 %
- Armour Deck: 1,944 tons, 13.6 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 1,439 tons, 10.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,761 tons, 40.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,522 tons, 17.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 1.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 25,060 lbs / 11,367 Kg = 37.4 x 11.0 " / 280 mm shells or 2.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 3.3 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 15.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 77 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.94
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.42

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has a flush deck and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.567
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.88 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.94 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Stern: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Average freeboard: 22.51 ft / 6.86 m

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 67.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 159.2 %
Waterplane Area: 29,658 Square feet or 2,755 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 124 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 127 lbs/sq ft or 619 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.72
- 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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

One of the subjects briefly mentioned in earlier posts in this thread is the option a smaller nation has in purchasing a used vessel from another player country. There are several schools of thought on this topic. Larger navies rarely acquire second-hand vessels except in extenuating circumstances – the need is seen as pressing, the design is not too different than a nation’s own designs, the deal is very attractive from a cost perspective or the purchase is pre-emptive, to keep the vessel or vessels offered for sale out of the hands of some third power; there could be several of these reasons behind any one particular purchase by a larger power.

Some smaller nations make a regular practice of purchasing vessels as they come on the open market – it allows them to build up a far larger navy than if they constructed their own ships using their own naval infrastructure. The danger with this approach is that the smaller nation’s fleet become a collection of un-related designs with varying capabilities and varying ship systems and armaments. Further, it is rare that modern warships are sold by the major powers – vessels offered for sale are often at the end of their useful lives and the original owner does not see value in extending their service. These factors leave the purchaser with the need to consider refitting his newly acquired vessels to meet the standards of his other warships.

The design appended below pertains to a class of eight torpedo boats of the Wesworld German Kriegsmarine, constructed in the late 1930s. Due to changing missions, they were no longer required by that service and were offered for sale – eventually passing to China in 1942, when the vessels were between two and five years old – uncommonly modern for most vessels on the market.

The cost of a second hand vessel is set by negotiation between the seller and purchaser. In this case, China paid a premium price of 6,000 tons, reflecting the fact that the vessels were quite new. While the payment was made by installment, China obtained the vessels immediately – a decided advantage. These are all considerations a player must examine when deciding to build or purchase second-hand. For its part, China did not find need to refit the vessels in question before taking them into service.

If these vessels were to be refit, rules 2.2.2.1 through 2.2.2.6 would come into play, depending upon the objectives set by the new owner. If these vessels were to be rearmed with the 100mm dual purpose gun employed on the other designs in this thread, the vessels would liable to a major refit as defined by rule 2.2.2.4 - Alterations to guns of 66mm-195mm not involving barbette alterations. Any other element of work covered by rules 2.2.2.1 through 2.2.2.4 could be accomplished at this same time – and at the highest cost – that of a Major Refit for vessels of 2,999 tons or less – 15% of the light tonnage.

On the design in question, that would amount to approximately 163 tons per vessel – or an additional 1,304 tons for the class of eight. It would require approximately 46 days per vessel to effect the refit, presuming that the ship was in port at the time. Note: while sonar could be added to the vessels per rule 2.2.2.4, it would require that the work be performed in a dry dock of the appropriate size.

Thus, for most of a year’s naval budget, a two-factory power could acquire and refit a useful flotilla of torpedo craft. Rarely does the opportunity present itself however. My personal opinion is that a nation is better served by constructing its own designs to fit its needs, and it should not count in making a major ‘score’ when a larger navy sells off its older tonnage.

Quoted

T-13, German Torpedo boat laid down 1937

Displacement: 1,083 t light; 1,138 t standard; 1,238 t normal; 1,318 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

323.74 ft / 311.68 ft x 29.53 ft x 11.48 ft (normal load) [98.68 m / 95.00 m x 9.00 m x 3.50 m]

Armament:

6 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (3x2 guns), 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1928 Model Dual purpose guns in deck mounts on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
2 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (1x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1929 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
16 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1936 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 219 lbs / 99 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 240
6 - 21.0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:

Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm -
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 31,862 shp / 23,769 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 180 tons

Complement: 103 - 135

Cost: £0.797 million / $3.186 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 27 tons, 2.2 %
Armour: 17 tons, 1.3 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 17 tons, 1.3 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 608 tons, 49.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 401 tons, 32.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 155 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 30 tons, 2.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 387 lbs / 176 Kg = 11.0 x 4.1 " / 105 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.35
Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 10.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.29
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has rise forward of midbreak and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.410
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.56: 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.30 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 70 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.64 ft / 0.50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Mid (45 %): 18.04 ft / 5.50 m (11.48 ft / 3.50 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
- Stern: 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
- Average freeboard: 14.44 ft / 4.40 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 179.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 84.5 %
Waterplane Area: 5,916 Square feet or 550 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 61 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 31 lbs/sq ft or 151 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 2.98
- Overall: 0.59
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped

5 tons reserved for depth charges and rails
25 tons reserved for mines and growth

Interesting points, and designs Bruce.

As Romania, I both bought second hand and built new, my own strategy was primarily to build anything cruiser sized or smaller, and either have built, buy necessary parts, or buy complete ships second hand anything larger. My thoughts on this are, that Romania can likely handle building the smaller ships, but larger ones are more problematic. Also when buying larger ships, I lucked out in that most of the ships I have purchased used for the most part guns already in use in the Romanian Navy. My own thought is that while second hand ships are attractive if one needs to "bulk up" numbers, Own Designs are newer, and considering the stress placed on smaller ships better IMHO.

When I played Brazil, the emphasis changed a bit, in that the only "Brazilian design" I built was one cruiser and some small submarines. Everything else was either built elsewhere, or built in Brazil, but the primary design came from elsewhere. However, I made sure that my armament was to what Brazil had specified already, or was in use or coming into use in allied/friendly countries.

Quoted from "TheCanadian"

As Romania, I both bought second hand and built new, my own strategy was primarily to build anything cruiser sized or smaller, and either have built, buy necessary parts, or buy complete ships second hand anything larger. My thoughts on this are, that Romania can likely handle building the smaller ships, but larger ones are more problematic. Also when buying larger ships, I lucked out in that most of the ships I have purchased used for the most part guns already in use in the Romanian Navy. My own thought is that while second hand ships are attractive if one needs to "bulk up" numbers, Own Designs are newer, and considering the stress placed on smaller ships better IMHO.

Thank you!

As Romania, you contracted to have a smaller battleship, the Tapae, constructed in France to your specifications. At nearly 34,500 tons, the ship requires nearly thirty five months of construction time, and a rate of about 2,300 tons per quarter - plus any fees paid to France for the use its shipbuilding facilities. From your point of view - with nearly half of your shipbuilding budget tied up in a single vessel - is this a worthwhile investment?

For an answer to that, you have to look at what Romania is building towards, which is two distinct fleets;

Fleet 1, is primarily built for use in the Black Sea, built around the Regeles, the Arges, and the Wallachia's with destroyer, submarine, land based air, and minesweeper support.

Fleet 2 is primarily built for use in the Mediterranean, built around Trajan, Tapae, the Zalmoxies, the Dacia's with destroyer support along with auxiliaries.

Obviously, there are some pieces missing, which are to be built once the Zalmoxies cruisers complete. The end result will (hopefully) give Romania a significant squadron for use outside the Black Sea, while not depriving it of its Black Sea responsibilities.

Now, I could have purchased the sister to the Trajan, however when Tapae was laid down her fate in the Italian Navy was not settled, so I went with the Tapae option.

Quoted from "TheCanadian"

For an answer to that, you have to look at what Romania is building towards, which is two distinct fleets;

Fleet 1, is primarily built for use in the Black Sea, built around the Regeles, the Arges, and the Wallachia's with destroyer, submarine, land based air, and minesweeper support.

Fleet 2 is primarily built for use in the Mediterranean, built around Trajan, Tapae, the Zalmoxies, the Dacia's with destroyer support along with auxiliaries.

Obviously, there are some pieces missing, which are to be built once the Zalmoxies cruisers complete. The end result will (hopefully) give Romania a significant squadron for use outside the Black Sea, while not depriving it of its Black Sea responsibilities.

Now, I could have purchased the sister to the Trajan, however when Tapae was laid down her fate in the Italian Navy was not settled, so I went with the Tapae option.

So, your decision to purchase a used major warship from abroad, and to commission the construction of a second, was part of a conscious strategy on your part. You see having a construction strategy, or desired end state, as a prerequisite to making a decision on what a smaller navy requires?

Well it depends how you define strategy as well as your method of obtaining it;

I ask myself three questions when I look at forming strategy (some of course may ask more).

1) What is my area of operations, and what are my interests in said area?

2) What are my resources, existing tonnage, tonnage production, and non-naval assets?

3) How can best I mesh question 1) and question 2) with the best bang for my buck?

So yes, I suppose I do think it is best to form a construction strategy, as part of an overall strategy. At the same time I don't necessarily think one should entirely attempt to out build a potential rival whether in number of ships or perceived quality of ships. There are after all sufficient examples throughout history to show having the most or biggest of something isn't always best.

Quoted from "TheCanadian"

I ask myself three questions when I look at forming strategy (some of course may ask more).

1) What is my area of operations, and what are my interests in said area?

2) What are my resources, existing tonnage, tonnage production, and non-naval assets?

3) How can best I mesh question 1) and question 2) with the best bang for my buck?

These are very good questions, one which apply to any nation in Wesworld, but particularly to smaller nations, as they do not have the huge budgets a major power might have. Of course, they may not have the commitments that a major power has either. The mid-range powers, nations with five to nine factories, are the likeliest to have significant commitments outside their immediate home waters that could bring them into conflict with one another, or - if all else fails - with a major power.

One option that can be taken in developing a smaller navy is to attempt to simulate a historical vessel of interest; in their own way a well-done sim of a historical vessel can be quite a challenge.

One such vessel is the historical Netherlands training sloop Van Kinsbergen - launched in 1939 and possessed of a long-career in the Royal Netherlands Navy. I found her entry in a copy of H.T. Lenton's "Navies of the Second World War - The Royal Netherlands Navy" and took her dimensions as a starting point.

The legend provided for her did not specify her cruising speed nor her radius of action - for them I had to make a reasonable assumption within the limits of Springsharp. I chose to build her with a transom stern, for this allowed me to keep her full load displacement within the limits of her legend. The inclusion of armor - which one would not normally expect on such a vessel - is apparently historical, for her entry in Lenton states that she had "some 260 tons" of armor worked into her design. I have tried to come close.

A ship of this sort would allow a smaller navy to conduct blue-water training for cadets in a very modern environment, and do a bit of flag-showing while doing so, on a relatively small budget - a ship this size would take four quarters to construct at a rate of 400 tons per quarter, give or take.


Van Kinsbergen, Netherlands Sloop/Training Ship laid down 1939

Displacement: 1,534 t light; 1,608 t standard; 1,800 t normal; 1,954 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

335.49 ft / 327.99 ft x 37.99 ft x 10.99 ft (normal load) [102.26 m / 99.97 m x 11.58 m x 3.35 m]

Armament:

4 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1939 Model Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1939 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, all amidships
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1939 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 221 lbs / 100 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300

Armour:

Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 229.66 ft / 70.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

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 0.59" / 15 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Armour deck: 0.98" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 12,689 shp / 9,466 Kw = 25.50 kts
Range 4,800nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 345 tons

Complement: 137 - 179

Cost: £0.727 million / $2.907 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 28 tons, 1.5 %
Armour: 249 tons, 13.8 %
- Belts: 77 tons, 4.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 14 tons, 0.8 %
- Armour Deck: 152 tons, 8.4 %
- Conning Tower: 6 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 343 tons, 19.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 814 tons, 45.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 266 tons, 14.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 5.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 3,475 lbs / 1,576 Kg = 65.9 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 1.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 13.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 73 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.37
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.33

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has low quarterdeck and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.460
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.63 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.02 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.64 ft / 0.50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 6.56 ft / 2.00 m (14.76 ft / 4.50 m before break)
- Stern: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
- Average freeboard: 14.65 ft / 4.47 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 175.0 %
Waterplane Area: 8,327 Square feet or 774 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 143 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 58 lbs/sq ft or 284 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 2.67
- 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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

" Quote
Designs for Smaller Nations - Armored Cruiser

A smaller nation faces very stiff challenges if it seeks to build any ship of force - the larger the ship, the more expensive it will be in terms of tonnage and the greater will be its demands on the naval infrastructure available to the nation. Even if the issue of available docks and slips is avoided by contracting for construction of a vessel abroad it will still be a burden and limitation to other naval construction.

The design offered below is an approximation of the historical "Deutschland" class panzerschiff of the OTL German Kriegsmarine. At nearly 11,800 tons light displacement it does look impressive on paper, and that could be a reason why a small nation might wish to construct such a vessel. But it will take seven quarters of effort to construct the vessel, and require nearly 1,700 tons of shipbuilding materials per quarter to accomplish the task. For a two-factory nation, that is practically the entire naval budget - to say nothing of the need for a Type 2.5 slip or dock in which to construct the vessel.

Such a vessel might appeal to a moderate sized navy belonging to a nation with seven to nine factories - the percentage of the available budget absorbed by this sort of vessel is much less, and there might exist in country facilities for building more than one such vessel at a time. If commerce raiding were a valid strategy for that nation to use against its opponents, in such circumstances it might be a worthwhile effort. However, with their greater resources, the major nations of Weswold have already constructed many vessels of far larger force in anticipation of hunting down and destroying a commerce raider of this type. It would not, therefore, be a wise choice for a smaller nation attempting to deter a larger power.
"




I note a similar approach for 1944 Peruvian Extra Heavy Cruiser.

Differences are the speed; update to 32kts to work with other fleet cruisers & T3x305 because Peru didn't use T3x280.



Jef

Nice work on the Van Kinsbergen. Simming a real ship is always a challenge.
Looking her up in Conway's gives her 16,000shp for 25.5kts, 128 tons of oil (no range given). The armour seems to have been a deck 12-25mm thick. Conway's gives slightly different dimensions and tonnage; 99.98m pp, 103.18m oa x 11.58 x 3.12m, 1760 tons standard and circa 2350 tons full load. By 1946 this had increased to 2095 tons and 2703 tons respectively with wartime additions. I'm guessing she didn't have a transom stern being a sloop and photos seem to indicate that too.

Quoted from "Hood"

Nice work on the Van Kinsbergen. Simming a real ship is always a challenge.
Looking her up in Conway's gives her 16,000shp for 25.5kts, 128 tons of oil (no range given). The armour seems to have been a deck 12-25mm thick. Conway's gives slightly different dimensions and tonnage; 99.98m pp, 103.18m oa x 11.58 x 3.12m, 1760 tons standard and circa 2350 tons full load. By 1946 this had increased to 2095 tons and 2703 tons respectively with wartime additions. I'm guessing she didn't have a transom stern being a sloop and photos seem to indicate that too.

You are quite correct; attempting to sim a historical warship in Springsharp is difficult, and forces compromises that have to be accepted as trade-offs, as I will touch on here.

I thank you for your additional information on dimensions, and your insight regarding the appropriateness of the transom stern. I have taken them and recast the sketch design, as posted below. I also removed the belt armor - but as you see, this reduces the total weight of armor on the ship far below the 260 tons quoted by Lenton. This suggests that *in this case at least* Springsharp does not model deck armor in a historical manner (alternatively, one could argue that Lenton is incorrect, but that brings on its own problems).

The tonnages have had to be dialed in, and I chose, rightly or wrongly, to focus on the original figure of 1,760 tons standard displacement. I have tried dial in the radius and speed to achieve a bunker figure close to 128 tons. My Springsharp design window says bunkers = 127 tons; but the output "Bunkers at max" figure is 229 tons. I am not certain which is the more correct for comparison to the 128 tons you cited.

One thing is clear, and that Springsharp is telling me that the design is undergunned, as compossite strength is greater than 1.00. This is a foible of Springsharp, as it tends to drive our design considerations to reach that magic 1.00 figure - thus many of our designs appear to be overgunned for their tonnage. When looking at historical vessels, we have to set this aside and accept the results.

The limitations of Springsharp and our design conventions are highlighted by another historical vessel. I attempted to sim the French colonial aviso Bougainville, whose dimensions I have as 98.00/103.70 x 12.98 x 4.80 with a normal displacement of 2,126 tons. When I input these into Springsharp it yields a bloc coefficient of 0.345 - less than the minimum BC of 0.380 our Gentlemens' Rules permit. So, it would seem, a historical Bougainville could not be simulated in Wesworld. Which is a shame - I find her and her sisters lovely vessels.

Quoted

Van Kinsbergen, Netherlands Sloop/Training Ship laid down 1939

Displacement: 1,684 t light; 1,760 t standard; 1,887 t normal; 1,989 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught

338.51 ft / 328.02 ft x 37.99 ft x 10.24 ft (normal load) [103.18 m / 99.98 m x 11.58 m x 3.12 m]

Armament:

4 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52.72lbs / 23.91kg shells, 1939 Model Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1939 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, 1939 Model Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 221 lbs / 100 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 0.59" / 15 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Armour deck: 0.98" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 2 shafts, 15,948 shp / 11,897 Kw = 25.50 kts
Range 4,500nm at 12.20 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 229 tons

Complement: 143 - 186

Cost: £0.829 million / $3.317 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:

Armament: 28 tons, 1.5 %
Armour: 174 tons, 9.2 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 14 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 154 tons, 8.1 %
- Conning Tower: 6 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 432 tons, 22.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 951 tons, 50.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 203 tons, 10.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 5.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 3,118 lbs / 1,414 Kg = 59.1 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 1.4 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 13.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 64 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.35
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.16

Hull form characteristics:

Hull has low quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.518
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.63 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 19.50 degrees
Stern overhang: 4.10 ft / 1.25 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 6.56 ft / 2.00 m (14.76 ft / 4.50 m before break)
- Stern: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
- Average freeboard: 14.65 ft / 4.47 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:

Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 92.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 169.9 %
Waterplane Area: 8,439 Square feet or 784 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 139 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 67 lbs/sq ft or 328 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.05
- Longitudinal: 2.80
- Overall: 1.15
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Looks even better!
Given Van Kinsbergen's weight growth during the war it would seem she had a fair bit of reserve left, although doubtless other weights were taken off the ship to compensate. Your sim would reflect that, indeed I wonder whether we've been too eager to hit the 1.00 mark and not left ourselves enough stretch in our designs beyond the allocation of misc weight. Trying to sim equivalent levels of refits and additions of weights based on real figures often falls far from the mark when I try to sim them in SS. Weight growths for British cruisers were scary but adding such weights post-completion in SS would soon eat up the hull strength. I think there would be strength to spare in most designs rather than optimised at 1.00 (whatever value that represents).
The max bunker figure has had me stumped in the past too, for example it says 229 tons at max displacement but further down "Fuel, ammunition & stores: 203 tons" at normal displacement. I assume therefore SS sims fuel required for the range you dial in for both normal and maximum load conditions? Although assuming you'd need extra power at full load to reach the cruise or max speeds, surely the power output would need to be adjusted too to reach those speeds?

The deck armour seems a weird addition for a sloop, I guess it was for anti-strafing protection. I wonder if the 260 tons you quote doesn't include some kind of splinter protection around the magazines below the deck too? Of course you're probably right about the calculations SS makes, probably scaled off larger ship design practices.

As a longtime player of small nations, I have a particular interest in designing ships for them. Here are my general thoughts.

1. Regarding production. Every historical nation in Wesworld has more factories, and thus more peacetime production, than its real-world counterpart. (The one exception is the US, which probably runs about at their historical level... but falls far short of their wartime level.) So I never approach ship design from the standpoint of trying to save fifty tons on a destroyer, etc. That's a pointless exercise to me. The key, in my opinion, is not to acquire an over-inflated opinion of what your country can or should be able to do.

2. "There is nothing more expensive than doing things cheaply." This is the crux of my argument against "pocket" ships, be they pocket battleships or pocket destroyers. If you're going to spend the money, then you need to make sure you spend enough to do the job the way it ought to be done. Your enemies will not be impressed that you meet your low budget requirements. Your allies will not be impressed that they have to bail you out, either.

3. "Don't build an all-star player, build an all-star team." I basically do this by identifying what the navy's mission is, who their enemies are, and what is demanded by the nation's political requirements in order to retain security. Every ship design theorized and constructed has to have a place in these requirements: if it doesn't, then it's not worth building. I also forecast my plans several years ahead, at least as a sort of skeleton on which to build.

For Ireland, my mission is trade protection in support of allied Great Powers (namely Britain). So Ireland's fleet is designed around a small surface combattant squadron (one heavy cruiser and four destroyers) and a group of surface escorts, minesweepers, submarine chasers, etc. The surface action group can hammer any merchant cruisers, while the escort groups protect against submarines.

For Bulgaria, the objective is different: they have a short coastline and relatively little in the way of merchant marine (even in comparison to Ireland). So there are more submarines (intended as a "stay-away-from-me!" sort of weapon) supported by two surface action forces - the "Day Squadron" (emphasizing gunnery) and the "Night Squadron" (emphasizing torpedoes and mines). Due to the threat of airpower, everything Bulgaria builds is designed to be fast, and have the fuel reserves to always be moving at high speeds. I did buy a used battleship secondhand... which, well, I now regard that as a bit of a mistake on my part. But it makes a good coast-defense ship and an impressive royal yacht.

In the increasingly independent Indochina, the maritime forces are more on the order of a regional coast guard. It is a strongly littoral force - heavy in submarine chasers and riverine warships. All blue-water missions are the responsibility of Indochina's senior partner, the French Union.