WesWorld

Inigo Montoya, Iberia CA laid down 1921

Displacement:
12,333 t light; 12,858 t standard; 15,058 t normal; 16,758 t full load
Loading submergence 814 tons/feet

Dimensions:
656.17 ft x 67.26 ft x 22.97 ft (normal load)
200.00 m x 20.50 m x 7.00 m

Armament:
8 - 8.27" / 210 mm guns (2 Main turrets x 4 guns)
12 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (6 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
12 - 2.24" / 57 mm AA guns
Weight of broadside 2,695 lbs / 1,222 kg
12 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 5.12" / 130 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 97 % of normal area
Main turrets 7.09" / 180 mm, AA gun shields 0.79" / 20 mm
Armour deck 2.95" / 75 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 105,648 shp / 78,814 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
679 - 883

Cost:
£3.115 million / $12.461 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 337 tons, 2.2 %
Armour: 2,951 tons, 19.6 %
Belts: 856 tons, 5.7 %, Armament: 539 tons, 3.6 %, Armour Deck: 1,556 tons, 10.3 %
Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,638 tons, 24.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,407 tons, 35.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,726 tons, 18.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 3.6

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

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.15
Shellfire needed to sink: 17,356 lbs / 7,873 Kg = 61.4 x 8.3 " / 210 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.9
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 75 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.46
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.10

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.520
Sharpness coefficient: 0.34
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.13
'Natural speed' for length: 25.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim: 68
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 96.0 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 120.0 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 117 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.98
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 118 lbs / square foot or 575 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.16
(for 19.69 ft / 6.00 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 3.25 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

the 100 mm are twins, not yet in AA mountings, 2 either side, 1 each superimposed over the quads
the quads simply save loads! of weight (before you ask, Hooman :-)
57 mm are triplets, at the mom still manually loaded
side armour is 15° inclined
now weight for floatplanes has reasons in Iberian naval doctrine that will become clear
2 funnels, 1 main command tower
seakeeping is intentionally low, after all the Armada operates in rather pleasant waters...

She looks a very capable ship for the 1920's. Good speed, armour and firepower. I'm not sure if quad turrets on a cruiser would be feasible in 1921 but probably doable. Maybe spend some extra months on the shakedown cruise getting rid of gremlins?

She will be one of the most powerful cruisers on the sea; until my armoured cruisers emerge.....

Well, I actually fully expect her to have about as many gremlins as KG V and sisters.

And I had her much better armed until I realized that I hadn't chenged the year! *grumble*

cheers

Bernhard - looking forward to your cruisers

Here is a glimpse of an Armoured cruiser design.
13,000t
12 8.25" guns 3 turrets
30knt speed
Large immune zone against 8" gunfire. i.e. belt <5000yds. deck>25000yds.
Belt and desk completely immune to 6" gunfire.

I'm unsure wether or not to call my Zaras ACs?

But Iberia needn't worry about such ships.

I have to ask. Is anybody not planning to build 13,000 t heavy cruisers?

Nordmark won't build any of them in the near future - Nordmark does not have a suitably modern gun of the requisite calibre in or nearing service, and would have to devote resources towards developing one - the alternative is to restart production of the 1895-pattern 21cm/40 rifled guns, but the navy dropped that idea before it was spoken. There may be some plans in the future, however.

"I have to ask. Is anybody not planning to build 13,000 t heavy cruisers?"

Eh... Shouldn´t you know better than asking such a question? ;o) At least when talking about the next years?

I do plan to build some 13,000 ton behemuths but i aslo want to build smaller ones as well. As to how many, well you'll just have to find out later!

I was only going to build 2 13,000t cruisers and use them as capital ship assets in low-threat areas. My Zara class are below 13,000t but are better all-round as cruisers.

In real life the Zara's are one of my favorite designs. They are decently armoured, look good and have a decent speed. Definatly the best Italian cruiser.

I'm undecided as to the size of India's second heavy cruiser class. Going for the big ol' 12,000 to 13,000 cruisers is a possibility, and I've designed a few of them. I can also go for:

-A 9600 t unit with 4x2 8.2", 4" belt, and 31 knots...I need to see if a 3x3 arrangement offers any advantages.

-Or, I have an odd 8050 t, 2x3 8.2", 4" belt, 31 knot design resembling a small Deutschland.

Neither unit would be a match for a 13,000 t cruiser on a one for one basis, but I could get five or six out of my tonnage, as opposed to four.

J

i'd build the larger ship. It at least has a chance against larger cruisers. Why not fiddle around with the Exeter design?