Hear are my two standard 13,000ton CAs

17inc

Unregistered

Sunday, May 25th 2003, 5:46am

London class, UK Aust cruiser laid down 1929

Displacement:
12,488 t light; 13,000 t standard; 14,313 t normal; 15,307 t full load
Loading submergence 976 tons/feet

Dimensions:
677.13 ft x 68.00 ft x 17.00 ft (normal load)
206.39 m x 20.73 m x 5.18 m

Armament:
9 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns
15 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
24 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 2,703 lbs / 1,226 kg
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 7.60" / 193 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 90 % of normal area
Main turrets 8.00" / 203 mm
Armour deck 1.50" / 38 mm, Conning tower 8.00" / 203 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 90,634 shp / 67,613 Kw = 30.63 kts
Range 18,200nm at 10.00 kts
over power at 107,978 shp / 80,551Kw=32kts
Complement:
654 - 850

Cost:
£4.442 million / $17.770 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 338 tons, 2.4 %
Armour: 3,231 tons, 22.6 %
Belts: 1,221 tons, 8.5 %, Armament: 961 tons, 6.7 %, Armour Deck: 948 tons, 6.6 %
Conning Tower: 102 tons, 0.7 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,784 tons, 19.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,135 tons, 42.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,825 tons, 12.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 2.8

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 22,462 lbs / 10,189 Kg = 87.7 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.4
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 82 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.66
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.18

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.640
Sharpness coefficient: 0.38
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.53
'Natural speed' for length: 26.02 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim: 70
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 81.9 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 201.3 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 124 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.99
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 120 lbs / square foot or 587 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.08
(for 23.00 ft / 7.01 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 6.73 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Kent Ballarat class, uk Aust Cruiser laid down 1930

Displacement:
12,426 t light; 13,000 t standard; 14,201 t normal; 15,105 t full load
Loading submergence 984 tons/feet

Dimensions:
644.20 ft x 68.50 ft x 16.30 ft (normal load)
196.35 m x 20.88 m x 4.97 m

Armament:
12 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 4 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (4 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
20 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
25 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 3,481 lbs / 1,579 kg
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 7.60" / 193 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 90 % of normal area
Main turrets 8.00" / 203 mm
Armour deck 1.50" / 38 mm, Conning tower 8.00" / 203 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 87,518 shp / 65,289 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 7,000nm at 15.00 kts
Over power is at 113,675shp/ 84,802Kw =32kts
Complement:
650 - 845

Cost:
£4.900 million / $19.599 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 435 tons, 3.1 %
Armour: 3,213 tons, 22.6 %
Belts: 1,173 tons, 8.3 %, Armament: 983 tons, 6.9 %, Armour Deck: 956 tons, 6.7 %
Conning Tower: 101 tons, 0.7 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,652 tons, 18.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,125 tons, 43.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,775 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 2.8

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.00
Shellfire needed to sink: 20,630 lbs / 9,357 Kg = 80.6 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 4.3
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 73 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.71
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.691
Sharpness coefficient: 0.40
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.14
'Natural speed' for length: 25.38 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim: 73
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 84.8 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 188.2 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 118 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 124 lbs / square foot or 608 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.04
(for 21.30 ft / 6.49 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 5.06 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

both ships are desing for 30kts but when built can make 32kts and just come in on the 13,000ton mark. for treaty Cruisers

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

2

Sunday, May 25th 2003, 11:08am

Questions

No misc weight thus no planes?

Kent-class: 30% "over power"?

Why quads?

Go to the top of the page

17inc

Unregistered

3

Sunday, May 25th 2003, 2:09pm

as why

1) aircaft just dont like them plus there more at home on a riader and you have to stop to pick them up. The RAN is working on radar to replace them i hope by the Mid to late1930s to have some ships with sets up and runing a lot of R&D time is going to that.

2) As to why the the kent have 30% over power rate thats just the way the program works.

3) as to why quads if im crossing someones T well 8 rounds landing then 4 and 12 to 8 is even better.

Go to the top of the page

LordArpad

Professional

Posts: 1,032

4

Sunday, May 25th 2003, 2:43pm

Well done!

Hi 17 inc

I like them both but especially the 12*21 one

ok seakeeping is squeezed, but then you are, more likely to fight in good weather that in the Antarctic.

why don't you show us a 1921 design?

and I like the quads, they are about your only chance to get 12 main gun on a 13.000 t hull (how on earth did you manage to hit that figure so precisely?

cheers

Bernhard

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

5

Sunday, May 25th 2003, 2:55pm

Weird...

"2) As to why the the kent have 30% over power rate thats just the way the program works."

What do you mean?

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

6

Sunday, May 25th 2003, 7:43pm

tonnage and turrets

My two conserns about the design are the turrets (i don't beleive medium and light calibers should be in quads, too cumbersome) and the tonnage. I don't remember if the original limit was 13,000 tons or not, I tend to favour the 12,000 ton limit myself.

Go to the top of the page

LordArpad

Professional

Posts: 1,032

7

Sunday, May 25th 2003, 9:53pm

well, the Treaty says 13000 tons and I quite like that. It at least makes meaningful designs possible not those WT crétins!

cheers

Bernhard

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

8

Monday, May 26th 2003, 10:25pm

Aussie CAs

Both designs seem solid - but given that Australia can only operate a handful of CAs, why have two classes built a year apart?

J

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

9

Tuesday, May 27th 2003, 10:20am

comments

Fearsome ships indeed. However Australia can only possess 2 of each class. Why not have 6 10,000t CAs to give more flexibility for only a small loss in power.

Go to the top of the page

17inc

Unregistered

10

Tuesday, May 27th 2003, 2:20pm

im plaing a 6x6 program

Im planing a six by six program by strat of 1929 3 londons , two nelsons in in 1930 3 londons 3 kents and 3 kents and 4 Escapade DDs by 1931 for 12 CAs. form 1932 4 DDs s and 12 as yet named ligth cruisers form on for tot of 24 CAs and CLS by 1940 . in the ALT time line AU manpower is a lot lager at near 25 milion pepole so yes i can bulid more the two 13,000 ton CAs

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

11

Tuesday, May 27th 2003, 3:05pm

Numbers

You probably do have the manpower for twelve cruisers, but the treaty restricts you to 60,000 t of heavy cruisers. As pointed out, you'll only get four full-sized cruisers out of that...

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

12

Tuesday, May 27th 2003, 7:20pm

Well, perhaps he hopes that the treaty would have been violated by then. In case this does not happen, he might go for two of each and later when he can build more CAs, redesign these two classes for improved versions of those classes.

Walter

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

13

Wednesday, May 28th 2003, 12:32am

hmmm

Not to burst anyones bubble here but if I were Austrailia i would mix it up a bit. I would build ships with compromise as the catch phrase. Several large, several medium and several small cruisers to keep numbers and individual strength up. A modified design with 3 triple 8" turrets would still be impressive and reduce the tonnage somewhat. I would personally build 2 super kents, 3 kents, and then consentrate on light cruisers.

Go to the top of the page

AdmKuznetsov

Sage

Posts: 2,918

14

Thursday, May 29th 2003, 3:35pm

Quoted

Fearsome ships indeed. However Australia can only possess 2 of each class. Why not have 6 10,000t CAs to give more flexibility for only a small loss in power.

That's what France has planned for her 60,000 tons of CAs, a series of two-ship classes of 10,000 ton CAs. With such a far-flung empire, that's the only way to go.

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

15

Thursday, May 29th 2003, 6:42pm

a question

why is Kent laid down in 1930 instead of 1924?
Why is London laid down in 1929 instead of 1926?

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

16

Thursday, May 29th 2003, 9:09pm

Why not ?

Certain delays with designing the ships. No suitable slips available for a certain time. Remember that it is a British design and we're in the 1920s. No faxes and internet in those days. All kinds of delays may occur getting the designs to Australia.

Walter

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

17

Friday, May 30th 2003, 10:27am

ah yes i see your point. I was refering to the historical Kent class as well.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

18

Friday, May 30th 2003, 8:47pm

It is a bit tricky. When seeing those names you'd probably tend to think of the British version first.
Even if the Kent and London were laid down as they were historically in Brittain, Australia might have some problems with the number of slips available to them. This might cause delays with laying down the Australian versions of the Kent and London and they would be simmed using the date when they are laid down.
So while the British Kent would be simmed with 1924 and the British London with 1926, the Australian Kent would be simmed using 1930 and the Australian London would be simmed using 1929.

Walter

Go to the top of the page

LordArpad

Professional

Posts: 1,032

19

Wednesday, June 4th 2003, 1:37pm

Quoted

So while the British Kent would be simmed with 1924 and the British London with 1926, the Australian Kent would be simmed using 1930 and the Australian London would be simmed using 1929.

I disagree. That would involve a redesign, at least of the engines IMHO. Otherwise the latter ships of the same class would be simmed with their building date rather than the 1st of class one's.

cheers

Bernhard