WesWorld

Hoenir , Denmark CLL laid down 1926

Displacement:
3,824 t light; 4,000 t standard; 4,399 t normal; 4,718 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
492.28 ft / 480.00 ft x 44.00 ft x 18.00 ft (normal load)
150.05 m / 146.30 m x 13.41 m x 5.49 m

Armament:
8 - 6.10" / 155 mm guns (3 mounts), 113.62lbs / 51.54kg shells, 1926 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1926 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, 6 raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1926 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,005 lbs / 456 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
6 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 405.32 ft / 123.54 m 7.55 ft / 2.30 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 130 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 0.59" / 15 mm - -
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.46" / 37 mm, Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 45,323 shp / 33,811 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 12.00 kts (Bunkerage = 718 tons)

Complement:
269 - 351

Cost:
£1.523 million / $6.092 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 126 tons, 2.9 %
Armour: 728 tons, 16.6 %
- Belts: 239 tons, 5.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 113 tons, 2.6 %
- Armour Deck: 365 tons, 8.3 %
- Conning Tower: 11 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 1,439 tons, 32.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,457 tons, 33.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 575 tons, 13.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 1.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,258 lbs / 1,024 Kg = 19.9 x 6.1 " / 155 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.04
Metacentric height 1.6 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 14.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.76
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.405
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.91 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.14 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Mid (50 %): 14.50 ft / 4.42 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 14.25 ft / 4.34 m
- Stern: 14.25 ft / 4.34 m
- Average freeboard: 14.99 ft / 4.57 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 129.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 104.9 %
Waterplane Area: 13,532 Square feet or 1,257 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 93 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 63 lbs/sq ft or 309 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.71
- Longitudinal: 1.18
- Overall: 0.75
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
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


So, what do you think?

It all seems to fit ok!

L:B ratio is on the bleeding edge...


And I still say those 57mm mounts of yours look like spiders after a close encounter of the Garfield kind. :-)

L:B is actually lower than the original.

As for the 57's, I dare you to get too close,
them Spiders bite!!!!

*rolls up a newspaper*

Here in Vancouver the spiders are resistant to newspapers and brooms, you can hear them walk accross the floor, their eyes glow in the dark and they can cover the palm of your hand because they are so big. They are mostly legs but the hobo spiders can give you a nasty bite and scar once the welt heals up.

Now you know why a person like myself, who never used to have a phobia of spiders, quickly developed one once I moved here.

As for the Cruiser I think you can move the two forward turrets further towards the bow, allowing for more superstructure. That way she won't look so squat and out of proportion superstructure wise.

Have you tried a two funnel layout? It may make her look more buisiness-like, try two smaller funnels in different positions. I also wonder about the stern hangar on such a small ship, it'll make your hull machinery spaces extremely cramped aft in a 4000 ton hull. This is where moving those forward turrets further forward may give you the space to allow for an above deck catipult.

I also think thats an awefull lot of guns on a 4000 ton hull, see if you can ditch some AA and armor for some extra speed.

Remember, there are worse spiders in the world. I am glad they do not live in my neighbourhood.

When I first moved here I noticed a spider crawling accross the living room rug one night and grabbed a broom and preceeded to beat the thing as it limped for cover, after about 12 hits it stoped crawling. yes there are worse spiders than that, and yes I'm glad I don't have to beat a spider that requires 30 hits, all while its flinging hairs at you to persuade you to run for cover or jumping at you, or even trying to burrow into your chest which supposedly some spiders in Iraq do, but I hear that is just an urban legend.

Sorry about my long spider rant, did I mention I have a phobia of them?

The Stern "hangar" is for the Huginn system so there will be enough space for it.

I'd try a 2 funnel arrangement to see what it looks like. Probably better than 1 massive funnel.

I still don't like her. 32knts is too slow, and that belt armour isn't going to stop destroyer shells. 5"/51 can penetrate it ~ 8000yds, but since it will have already been stopped by mutliple hits topsides, it doesn't matter.

Indeed, the sacrifices one makes just to get eight 15.5 cm guns on a 4,000 ton hull.

I don´t think she has to fear DD guns with her 50mm belt. The 5"/51 was quite a powerful gun indeed but also one of future kind.

Regarding HOENIRs funnel arrangement - I agree, she probably should have a funnel smaller than she actually has or two instead of one. On the other hand CG has developed some kind of domestic look for his ships (bridge-funnel arrangements) so keeping her as she is probably is not a bad choice.

I agree with the audience. HOENIR is extremly powerful. But one also has to note how CG got so much out of a 4000ts hull: l:b beyond 10:1 (not a problem in general, though) combined with a BC that would better fit a DD, a hull strength of 0,75 and a transom stern to top it all.

Don´t get me wrong, SS combined with our rules define our designs and probably except for her BC CG just made use of what was available. Nevertheless I want you to keep in mind that using _all_ those features together gets you designs that are hardly realistic - especially in the mid-20s.

HOENIR is easily twice as capable as the real worlds TROMP which had about her size and was laid down 10 years later.

This should probably in a thread of it's own but heres question - the AA armament of this ship (and others) in the mid 20's seems extremely robust. Even if you recognized the value of airpower, would you have seen the need for so many AA guns this early?
The US & Japan had naval air power but their surface ships lacked large amounts of AA firepower. Only after war began did ships carry large amounts of AA guns.
Also, most AA guns of the 20's were relatively low caliber - in some cases 30/50cal MGs so the 57mm gun seems ahead of its time.

Quoted

This should probably in a thread of it's own but heres question - the AA armament of this ship (and others) in the mid 20's seems extremely robust. Even if you recognized the value of airpower, would you have seen the need for so many AA guns this early?

I keep tellign them all but they just don't listen. A single 37mm-40mm gun hit will take out a plane of this vintage. The 37mm-40mm gun also has enough perfomance, max altitude ~ 5000m which would be above that of a load carrying aircraft. Simply put, aircraft aren't that well developed, but are getting much better. A 57mm semi-automatic gun can only fire about 20rpm whereas a heavy AA gun ~ 5" can do around 10-15rpm. There isn't much advantage either way really. Most people seem to be using 50/55/60 cal dual purpose guns for some reason? Why, when a shorter gun is better?

Belt penetration isn't the worry for Hoenn. Her worry are shells that don't hit the belt.

It should be noted that all those small guns on the Japanese ships aren't AA guns but are actually PPA (Peasant Pacifier Artillery) or PSS (Population Suppression System). I do believe it is easier to handle such a small caliber weapon instead of something like a 5 inch gun. Also using a 5 inch shell to shoot at the peasants seems a bit like overkill.
:-)
(I was actually looking at the ships from a WW II point of view and adding a few more guns just to be sure, which was obviously the wrong thing to do; next time it'll be different)

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

I keep telling them all but they just don't listen. A single 37mm-40mm gun hit will take out a plane of this vintage. The 37mm-40mm gun also has enough perfomance, max altitude ~ 5000m which would be above that of a load carrying aircraft. Simply put, aircraft aren't that well developed, but are getting much better. A 57mm semi-automatic gun can only fire about 20rpm whereas a heavy AA gun ~ 5" can do around 10-15rpm. There isn't much advantage either way really. Most people seem to be using 50/55/60 cal dual purpose guns for some reason? Why, when a shorter gun is better?

Heres the standard AA armament for a few Atlantian ships compaired to the closest foriegn equivilents.

Tyrrhenia class BB,32,296 t standard: 6 - 3.00", 8 - 1.00" compaired to the Francesco Caracciolo 8 - 3.94" and 12 - 0.54" In contrast to these two designs the USS Pennsylvania only has 4 - 3.00".

Alioth class Carrier, 13,401 t standard: 8 - 1.57", 12 - 1.00" when compaired to the Italian Francesco Morosini class CV with 16 - 2.56" and 32 - 1.46" A better comparison would be the Vengeance class Carriers displacing 32,500 tons with 8 - 4.00" and 12 - 1.00"

Menelaus class CA, 11,141 t standard: 8 - 4.50"(not DP but high angle), 12 - 1.00" when compaired to the South African Cape Good Hope class CA with 16 - 3,46" and 10 - 1,57"

Ares class CL, 8,205 t standard: 8 - 3.00", 8 - 1.57", 12 - 1.00" compaired to the Italian Condottieri I class CL

G-class DD, 1,415 t standard: 4 - 1.00" when compaired to the Italian Navagatori class DD's 2 - 37mm and 6 - 0.54"

Quoted

Tyrrhenia class BB,32,296 t standard: 6 - 3.00", 8 - 1.00" compaired to the Francesco Caracciolo 8 - 3.94" and 12 - 0.54" In contrast to these two designs the USS Pennsylvania only has 4 - 3.00".

Hey some of the Caracciolo designs called for 24! 100mm guns, all in single mounts. There isn't much difference between these AA suites really.

Quoted

Alioth class Carrier, 13,401 t standard: 8 - 1.57", 12 - 1.00" when compaired to the Italian Francesco Morosini class CV with 16 - 2.56" and 32 - 1.46" A better comparison would be the Vengeance class Carriers displacing 32,500 tons with 8 - 4.00" and 12 - 1.00"

I've just basically replaced the old 13.7mm machine guns with 37mm guns. The 13.7mm gun won't kill a plane with a single shot. The 65mm semi-automatic guns are also there against all those pesky Greek boats.

I'm using the following 'doctrine' for QF and AA weapons:

155mm - LA mounts only. Possibly HA mounts in the mid 30s.

130mm - Single deck mounts elevate to 70°. Twin deck mounts, to 65°. Single and twin turrets to 40°. (45-cal model scheduled for mid-30s)

100mm - Is 52-cal to serve as an anti-TB weapon, however all mounts do have HA (~65°) capability to act as heavy AA.

75mm - Japanese guns just introduced. See 100mm description.

57mm - 42-cal. All mounts are HA (75°).

40mm - The famous pom-pom. Might use the Bofors when it becomes available...?

37mm - 1930s development, for small craft in which a 75 or 57 would be overkill but the 25 is too small.

25mm - Single and (Japanese) triple mounts. The standard MdF AA weapon, and will be for some time.

13.7mm - primarily an anti-personnel weapon.

Hoenir (light), Denmark CL laid down 1926

Displacement:
3,845 t light; 4,000 t standard; 4,599 t normal; 5,078 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
492.28 ft / 480.00 ft x 46.50 ft x 18.00 ft (normal load)
150.05 m / 146.30 m x 14.17 m x 5.49 m

Armament:
6 - 6.10" / 155 mm guns (3x2 guns), 113.62lbs / 51.54kg shells, 1926 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns in single mounts, 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1926 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 6 raised mounts
16 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1926 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 731 lbs / 331 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
6 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 380.64 ft / 116.02 m 7.87 ft / 2.40 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 122 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 0.59" / 15 mm - -
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.57" / 40 mm, Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 46,442 shp / 34,646 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 12.00 kts (Bunkerage = 1,078 tons)

Complement:
279 - 363

Cost:
£1.449 million / $5.796 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 91 tons, 2.0 %
Armour: 750 tons, 16.3 %
- Belts: 237 tons, 5.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 87 tons, 1.9 %
- Armour Deck: 416 tons, 9.0 %
- Conning Tower: 12 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 1,487 tons, 32.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,442 tons, 31.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 754 tons, 16.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 1.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,814 lbs / 1,277 Kg = 24.8 x 6.1 " / 155 mm shells or 0.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 2.0 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 14.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.401
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.32 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.27 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 15.50 ft / 4.72 m
- Mid (50 %): 14.50 ft / 4.42 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 14.50 ft / 4.42 m
- Stern: 14.50 ft / 4.42 m
- Average freeboard: 15.15 ft / 4.62 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 122.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 110.0 %
Waterplane Area: 14,264 Square feet or 1,325 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 102 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 62 lbs/sq ft or 301 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.71
- Longitudinal: 1.15
- Overall: 0.75
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
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



Ok, I know she isn't any faster, but to get 1.4 knots extra, I had to reduce the deck to 25mm, turrets to 35mm, CT to 25mm and belt to 35mm. It suffered from a loss of damage resistance for this gain, and sorry, but overall I think that it was too much to give up.

As for the lighter weapon fit on my later designs, I am running with the idea that 1 plane almost cost me one of my (then) latest DD's, and while a single hit from a 37/40/75mm gun will destroy a period aircraft, it is a proven fact that aircraft are one of the hardest things to hit with non-radar aided guns (anyone working on radar yet?). And EVERYONE (or at least it feels that way) is building or operating carriers at this moment ( hell, I started because of Rocky's and my little fracas!).

Also, having conducted considerable studies with STC's and used them in combat, my thinking was that weight of fire from multiple guns would be more effective against them, because you can see them coming, so they have to get close to effectively use their torps - too far out and you have evasion time - hence more and smaller guns. If it's TB's at a distance, then the 155mm's can deal with them.

Am I completely "losing the plot" with my designs, bearing in mind that some of you have agreed with my policy of maxing out my ships due to the smaller numbers of hulls I will always have (no "N2" rule here!) or does the above ship ( closer to my original idea) seem more suitable.

Personally, I'd go for a bit of a hybrid - the first ship (with the same 57mm fit) with a 6 x 155 layout.

I'd be inclined to agree.......

I got the following from www.answers.com

Anti-aircraft gunners found that such small, fast-moving targets were difficult to hit. At first, it took, on average, 2500 shells to bring down a single V-1.

Now, when you bear in mind that the gunners KNEW the speed, height and bearing of the V1 and that it could not evade................

need I say more!

I like the second design much better, seems far more balanced for a 4000 ton design. Now you can design a larger modified version as a true CL for a follow on class of ships, one thats closer to the first design armament wise.