WesWorld

The ZL-100 is a light cruiser/destroyer leader, intended to provide heavier firepower for a destroyer force. The torpedoes ar e laid out with 6 tubes on each side, no centerline tubes (I'd love to have them, but a 13m beam makes that seem unlikely).

KM ZL-100, German Light Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
2,794 t light; 2,927 t standard; 3,239 t normal; 3,489 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
477.06 ft / 459.32 ft x 42.65 ft x 13.78 ft (normal load)
145.41 m / 140.00 m x 13.00 m x 4.20 m

Armament:
6 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (3x2 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1925 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
2 - 3.46" / 88.0 mm guns (1x2 guns), 20.79lbs / 9.43kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
4 - 3.46" / 88.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 20.79lbs / 9.43kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
12 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
12 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1928 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 764 lbs / 347 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
12 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.76" / 70 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 2.76" / 70 mm
2nd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.18" / 30 mm
3rd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.18" / 30 mm
4th: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 54,756 shp / 40,848 Kw = 35.00 kts
Range 5,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 562 tons

Complement:
214 - 279

Cost:
£1.694 million / $6.777 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 96 tons, 2.9 %
Armour: 94 tons, 2.9 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 81 tons, 2.5 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 13 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1,502 tons, 46.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,093 tons, 33.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 445 tons, 13.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 10 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
984 lbs / 446 Kg = 9.6 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 2.0 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 12.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.74
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.420
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.77 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.57 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
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: 27.89 ft / 8.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Stern: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 18.39 ft / 5.60 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 172.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 91.0 %
Waterplane Area: 12,679 Square feet or 1,178 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 78 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 46 lbs/sq ft or 223 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.65
- Overall: 0.56
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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Quoted

The torpedoes ar e laid out with 6 tubes on each side, no centerline tubes (I'd love to have them, but a 13m beam makes that seem unlikely).

You like to have side and centerline tubes??

Theres no way all that is going to fit onto that hull.

Centreline tubes are ok, they'll fit onto a beam up to 14.4m or more.

3 duple 150mm turrets forwards. All that weight forwards will submerge the hull way before you get up to 35knts. I fail to see how you can fit 88mm guns, and so many 37mm and 20mm guns onto a hull that is the same size as Fletcher. It just can't be done.

On the general concept; The 150mm gun is bad for small ships.

Quoted

Although a powerful gun, it had a slow rate of fire for a destroyer weapon and was really not suitable for such a small ship. The heavy weight of the shells was also a problem as the gun lacked power assist, meaning that the shells had to be manually fed into the breech. As the guns were originally used in single, open mountings, bad weather greatly hampered their operation.

Now ZL-100 is larger than the 1936A type, but not by much. ZL-100 also mounts 3 twin turrets, rather than the much lighter singles, and the twin 88mm guns as well.

@Walter



Replace the triple mounts on each beam with triple centreline mounts to give the same broadside.

If you join the CT, why waste cruiser tonnage on such a design??

Quoted

You like to have side and centerline tubes??

No, then I'd be French. No, I'd rather have centerline tubes than side mounted, but I was dubious about whether they'd fit. Further thought (especially considering the size of the 600mm torps) says it would be possible, so the torpedo load will probably drop to 8, all on the centerline.

I see I've messed up the turret layout, they should be laid out more rationally (2 forward, 1 aft), and I'm revising the 88mm armament. Revised design to follow.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that the 150mm isn't the best choice for a small hull, but it WAS done, both in WWI and before WWII, so there was at least one school of thought that thought that the trade-offs were worthwhile.

Quoted

If you join the CT, why waste cruiser tonnage on such a design??

Not a question of IF, only when. As to whether or not it's a waste, Germany doesn't really need long-range cruisers, she doesn't have any overseas possessions to protect. I'm pondering whether to use cruiser tonnage (of which I have a fair amount) to build my destroyer leaders rather than using relatively scarce destroyer tonnage.

Revised design, turret layout corrected, 88mm armament all on the centerline now, torpedo loadout reduced to 8 tubes, hull lengthened 5m. A big destroyer, basically, but it would use CT cruiser tonnage. 1 of the 88mm mounts is superfiring over the aft torpedo bank, it cannot fire to the rear of the ship, while the other is superfiring over the aft 150mm mounting.


KM ZL-100, German Light Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
2,903 t light; 3,034 t standard; 3,355 t normal; 3,612 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
493.46 ft / 475.72 ft x 42.65 ft x 13.78 ft (normal load)
150.41 m / 145.00 m x 13.00 m x 4.20 m

Armament:
6 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (3x2 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1925 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
4 - 3.46" / 88.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 20.79lbs / 9.43kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
12 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1928 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 723 lbs / 328 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
8 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.76" / 70 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 2.76" / 70 mm
2nd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.18" / 30 mm
4th: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 55,077 shp / 41,087 Kw = 35.00 kts
Range 5,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 578 tons

Complement:
219 - 286

Cost:
£1.709 million / $6.837 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 90 tons, 2.7 %
Armour: 90 tons, 2.7 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 77 tons, 2.3 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 13 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1,530 tons, 45.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,103 tons, 32.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 452 tons, 13.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 90 tons, 2.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,021 lbs / 463 Kg = 9.9 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 1.9 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 12.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.70
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.25

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.420
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.15 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.93 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 61 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56
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: 27.89 ft / 8.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Stern: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 18.39 ft / 5.60 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 170.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 129.8 %
Waterplane Area: 13,132 Square feet or 1,220 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 80 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 45 lbs/sq ft or 218 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.45
- Overall: 0.55
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

10 tons reserved for depth charges and rails

30 tons reserved for command accomodations and electronics

50 tons reserved for mines and growth

Hrolf,

I think the l:b ratio is unrealistic high and is in combination with a transome stern and a low hull strength the reason why it is possible to build such an incredible heavy armored, fast and heavy armed vessel on just 3,000ts. That´s an ARETHUSA on a hull half the historical size and a speed 3kn higher! The only historical design that cames close to it in some ways was TROMP probably (6x 15cm, 33,5+kn) but she was also 700ts heavier, had no secondary battery, only a quarter of your designs armor and not that much misc weight.

To the board:

I wonder if we should revise our gentlemen rules, probably even our construction rules setting physics in WesWorld? We´ve seen several designs lately that make use of extremly high l:b ratios AND transome sterns AND our rule that small vessels only need a cross-sectional hull strength of 0,5. I have no problem if somebody´s using one such feature, not even two together but all three?

Proposal: Only two such features can be used for an individual design.

Example: If somebody wants to use a transome stern AND a cross-sectional hull strength below 0,75 he should NOT use a l:b ratio above 10:1.

I think we really have to find an agreement that puts an end to this kind of unrealistic power gaming.

Hrolf,

this is in no way meant to attack you personally but designs in WesWorld are already much better in many ways than what was developed historically. One reason is hindsight but the other is springsharp and the "physical/gentlemen´s" rules we´ve developed and followed so far. As of yet I could live with the results but at one point things are going to be too extreme - and this point is reached now. For me, at least.

I know your ship is designed according to our rules but it clearly shows - as have some others in the past - there is something wrong with our rules. So either we step back from such extreme designs voluntarily or we have to change something else.

It´s a matter of fact that we have different characters as players in WesWorld. Some focus more on the maximum possible while some others try to find some kind of "realistic" way to deal with things. I think we have to revise our middle course to not spoil one party´s fun too much.

I really hope you, and all others, understand my position. Proposals what can be changed are very welcome.

This ship seems to be a 'clone' of the actual SP-1 scout cruiser series. They only part that doesn't really match is the range.
What about mixed drive (diesel & steam) to get longer range/endurance.
You would have your destroyer leader/scout cruiser plus a ship that could conduct independent commerce raiding ops.

Hoo,

No offence taken, I'll agree that this is rather an extreme design, using the "physical laws" of WesWorld and SS as the physical limits. But I have doubts whether 2 out of 3 will allow destroyers to be built that are close to their realistic abilities (at least before SS 3.0 comes out), particularly in speed. However, I'm not opposed to modifying the Design Rules if we can come up with something that works for the smaller ships


On ZL-100 in specific, she's (at least according to some sources) about 400 tons standard lighter than Tromp, though she is larger in all dimensions other than draught. Her actual weight of armor is a good deal less than Tromp, though, because ZL-100 carries armor only on the gun mountings and the conning tower, she has no belt or deck armor (both of which Tromp had). Tromp had 450 tons of armor, where ZL-100 has only 90. She is, really, a German contre-torpilleur like Mogador, rather than a little CL like Tromp


A revised and heavier design, using a 10:1 l:b ratio (about the same standard displacement as Tromp):

KM ZL-100, German Light Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
3,199 t light; 3,338 t standard; 3,742 t normal; 4,066 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
494.41 ft / 475.72 ft x 47.57 ft x 13.78 ft (normal load)
150.70 m / 145.00 m x 14.50 m x 4.20 m

Armament:
6 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (3x2 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1925 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
4 - 3.46" / 88.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 20.79lbs / 9.43kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1929 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
12 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1928 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 723 lbs / 328 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
8 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.76" / 70 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 2.76" / 70 mm
2nd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.18" / 30 mm
4th: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm -
5th: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 59,212 shp / 44,172 Kw = 35.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 728 tons

Complement:
238 - 310

Cost:
£1.856 million / $7.422 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 90 tons, 2.4 %
Armour: 91 tons, 2.4 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 77 tons, 2.1 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 14 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1,696 tons, 45.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,232 tons, 32.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 543 tons, 14.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 90 tons, 2.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,261 lbs / 572 Kg = 12.2 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 0.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 12.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.50
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.420
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 63 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
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: 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 24.61 ft / 7.50 m (18.04 ft / 5.50 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Stern: 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Average freeboard: 19.75 ft / 6.02 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 167.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 146.3 %
Waterplane Area: 14,647 Square feet or 1,361 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 84 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 47 lbs/sq ft or 230 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.55
- Overall: 0.56
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

10 tons reserved for depth charges and rails

30 tons reserved for command accomodations and electronics

50 tons reserved for mines and growth

Quoted

Originally posted by JohnEStauffer
This ship seems to be a 'clone' of the actual SP-1 scout cruiser series. They only part that doesn't really match is the range.
What about mixed drive (diesel & steam) to get longer range/endurance.
You would have your destroyer leader/scout cruiser plus a ship that could conduct independent commerce raiding ops.

It's similar, agreed, though with a different role. I don't really WANT the range of the Spahkreuzer-type ships, mostly because WW Germany is not interested in surface commerce warfare with warships. For all Emden's successes, the other warship raiders were much less successful. If surface commerce warfare was contemplated, it's thought that merchant raiders would be more useful, and much cheaper. Also such ships could be converted in or near wartime without worrying Germany's neighbors, unlike building Spahkreuzer's.

As these ships would be serving as either heavy fleet destroyers or destroyer leaders, they're not necessarily good candidates for mixed propulsion yet. If the planned mixed propulsion CAs work out well, though, we shall see.....

I´m glad you don´t feel offended. I was a little bit worried but had to make my point.

The latest design looks much better, methinks.

Regarding TROMPs belt I like to point out that it was of very arguable value with its thickness of about 15mm. Same for her 10-25mm deck armor. Hardly more than making her bullet proof. But yes, it was there and the ship as a whole was designed more like a cruiser than a DD (hull form, freeboard etc.).

Heh, no argument on the value of Tromp's belt other than against splinters, but it and the deck armor were there and were heavy compared to the weight of ZL-100's armor plate, which is a good deal thicker but much more localized. ZL-100 is, as noted, a big destroyer, not a cruiser.

On the subject of what's realistic and what's not, in the big destroyer arena ships like Mogador have to be kept in mind: 8 139mms, 4 37mms, 13.2mms, 40 mines AND 39 knots on a 2900 standard displacement ton hull (10.8 l:b ratio).

The problem is SS. It hugely overstates the weight of the engines. I simmed Capitani Romani, the engine weight given by SS is over 100% more than it should be. Using negative misc. weight (which isn't the best thing to do) the design works out fairly well, and has hull strength of 1.00 even with her historical 126,000shp engines. SS only allows her to mount 70,000shp engines. SS doesn't accurately reflect reality, our own rules try to compensate for this but skew it further.

Which is one of the things that SS 3.0 is intended to fix. When they're done with it, we'll see how it stacks up.

I wouldn't mind some tightening of the design rules. I've come round to thinking that our hull strength allowance for smaller cruisers is a bit generous.

I'm certainly not opposed to revising the gentlemans rules, perhaps as a stopgap till SS 3.0 comes out.

150 shells/gun only?

The 150mm gun has a rate of fire of between 7 and 8 rpm, so 150 rounds is about right on a destroyer, that gives it 20 minutes of fire. Given it's almost excessive misc. weight, though, I might boost it a bit, up to 180 or so.

Oh and on a previous comment,

Quoted

ZL-100 also mounts 3 twin turrets, rather than the much lighter singles

, a look at navweaps on the 150mm/48 shows that adding the second weapon added only approximately 3,000 pounds to the mounting. Assuming that's a per-gun weight, not a per mount weight (it doesn't read like that, though), it's not a major difference.

Huh? Weight of 150mm/48 single electrically powered = 19,5tons Weight of Duple = 60,4tons. The hand worked single is even lighter.

Ah, my error: I was looking at the gun weight, not the mounting weight. ZL-100's mount weights would be somewhat higher than that, since it's better armored than the LDrh LC/38. Yeah, the hand-worked mount is lighter, but it's also likely to be slower to train and much more affected by weather, which will be one of the advantages of using all enclosed mounts.