WesWorld

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 22
(4/10/03 1:57:16 pm)
Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a post-treaty environment, does something like this have a useful role to play on the High Seas?

Battlecruiser, laid down 1925

Length, 710 ft x Beam, 99.0 ft x Depth, 28.0 ft
28116 tons normal displacement (26712 tons standard)

Main battery: 9 x 12.0-inch (3 x 3; 1 superfiring)
Secondary battery: 8 x 5.9-inch (4 x 2)
AA battery: 12 x 4.1-inch
Light battery: 12 x 1.4-inch

Weight of broadside: 9028 lbs

Main belt, 12.0 inches; ends unarmored
Armor deck, average 3.0 inches
C.T., 10.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 11.0" / secondary, 2.0"
AA, 1.0" shields / light guns, 1.0" shields

Maximum speed for 137096 shp = 31.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 9000 nm / 12 kts

Typical complement: 1086-1411


Estimated cost, $32.203 million (£8.051 million)

Remarks:

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Magazines and engineering spaces are roomy, with superior
watertight subdivision.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 1128 tons = 4 pct
Armor, total ..................... 7864 tons = 28 pct

Belt 2814 tons = 10 pct
Deck 2452 tons = 9 pct
C.T. 200 tons = 1 pct
Armament 2398 tons = 9 pct

Machinery ........................ 4451 tons = 16 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 11904 tons = 42 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 2719 tons = 10 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 50 tons = 0 pct
-----
28116 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 5.2 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 25397 tons
Standard displacement: 26712 tons
Normal service: 28116 tons
Full load: 29127 tons

Loading submergence 1262 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.03

Shellfire needed to sink: 35286 lbs = 40.8 x 12.0-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 3.5
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 72 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.52

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.10

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.50
Sharpness coefficient: 0.37
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 7.14
'Natural speed' for length = 26.6 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 55 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 83 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 182 percent


Displacement factor: 111 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.97
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 182 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.52
(for 23.5 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +4.9 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.02

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

710.00 x 99.00 x 28.00; 23.50 -- Dimensions
0.50 -- Block coefficient
1925 -- Year laid down
31.00 / 9000 / 12.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
50 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
9 x 12.00; 3; 1 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
8 x 5.90; 4 -- Secondary battery; turrets
:
12 x 4.10 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
12 x 1.40 -- Fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
12.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00; 100 -- Belt armor; relative extent
3.00 / 10.00 -- Deck / CT
11.00 / 2.00 / 1.00 / 1.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 16
(4/10/03 3:09:55 pm)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it looks pretty good. The speed is exellent as well. Not enough to chase down my Type A cruisers but pretty close. BTW i am thinking of either building 2 15" Battleships identical to the ones already laid down or build a couple new ones that are more towards that design. I am concerned with speed though and the fact that airplanes need a bit of head of speed to launch off carriers so i may decide to build 2 new ones with higher speed for escorting carriers in the scouting group. Anyhow I have some ideas I will post as soon as we get the treaty signed and the rest of the difficulties taken care of.
Lessons for modern warfare:
"human intel is necessary, always be on the look out, and expect the unexpected"

Come to the Wargamer Forum at JPs Panzers Board

AdmKuznetsov
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 8
(4/10/03 3:20:06 pm)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm. 9x12" guns in 1925.

I don't see it. Overkill for a cruiser-killer/raider, but not enough to the penetrate decks/belts of its contemporaries in the fleet scout/fast battle wing role. If it's the fast wing/fleet scout, try 6x14" and 31.5 kts on the same tonnage. If its a cruiser-killer/raider, go with 12x10" and 33 kts. on the same tonnage.

But in a post-Treaty environment, I'd think a while about it. One plus is it will allow you to bulk up other ships, so a fleet limited to (say) 12 capital ships and 360ktons might get 3 of these, 6 BB @ 30ktons, and 3 BB @33ktons.

Visit my Russian/French fantasy fleet page:
admkuznetsov.tripod.com

Slick Pilot
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 2
(4/10/03 4:08:10 pm)
More detail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many tables on the mess deck? Haha!!

What? No emoticons, aowwt? I'm sure you'll get to those.

LordArpad
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 4
(4/10/03 4:17:56 pm)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, they are quite capable of tangling with my 24 cm cruisers for instance :-)

cheers

Bernhard

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 3
(4/10/03 6:45:07 pm)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This design looks like an early Alaska-class. You´ve no bulkheads (not that realistic on a 27,000 tons hull) and a BC of 0.5 - indicating this unit to have a cruiserish hull.

What is the ships role? What are its likely opponents? Which navy is close to India and what design philosophy can be found behinds its designs? Japan? Netherlands? South Africa? Australia? Russia? Italy? What do you think about those navies and what do you expect them to build? How does your ship fit into the scene?

A 4x2 layout for your secondaries seems a little bit odd. Scharnhorst-like, just without the additional two single mounts on each side. If you really decide to go with so few secondary guns you´ll need a layout that grants you 6 guns per broadside, allowing two 3 gun half salvos (important for spotting splashes and FC).

I like the ships speed and range but a 12" gun and belt seems somewhat small/thin. 12" of armor will not protect you from heavy calibers while your own 12" guns will not be able to penetrate a full-sized BBs vitals (protected by 13" - 15" of armor) in return.

Deck armor is adequate but CT armor seems somewhat thin to really protect the command crew. As it is it only creates topweight without doing anything good. So you better skip it or enhance it.

Main guns behind 11" of armor? Why?

50 tons for misc weight? Hardly enough for some planes and catapults. So what is it used for? Staff?

Relative cross-sectional hull strength seems a little bit low. There´s not much left to allow modifications when new technology is available or AAA has to be improved.

The ship is quite good for its limited size but when compared to other "small" BBs/BCs like Dunkerque or Scharnhorst it lacks armor, speed, range and even some gun power. Of course both the french and the german designs are of a later date and a tid bit larger.

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 18
(4/10/03 10:02:01 pm)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 50 tons of misc would be fine for 2 planes and a catault. I do think that at least 6 guns on either side for secondaries is almost a given on any ship besides destroyers and lighter ships.

Uhm slick if you read a message in the 'meeting place' i posted a thread stating that since Springstlye spits out so much info i decided to remove emoticans from the design boards. it just takes too much time for people to post and retrive them.
Lessons for modern warfare:
"human intel is necessary, always be on the look out, and expect the unexpected"

Come to the Wargamer Forum at JPs Panzers Board

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 5
(4/11/03 4:11:32 am)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The 50 tons of misc would be fine for 2 planes and a catault. I do think that at least 6 guns on either side for secondaries is almost a given on any ship besides destroyers and lighter ships.*

50 tons is hardly enough for two planes and a catapult. IIRC, the rule of thumb says one needs 25ts for catapult, hangar and supporting structure and 25ts for every plane. So if only 50ts are available you can only have one plane on a catapult or two planes w/o catapult etc.

6 guns on either side is a given for secondaries? I can think of several classes w/o 6 secondaries per side but maybe your definition of "lighter ships" doesn´t fit mine.
Back to Rock Doctors design: He only has 8 secondaries in four turrets. So he needs some unusual layout to get a 6 gun broadside for his secondaries. Maybe two turrets superfiring aft above the main turret, adding more topweight because FC and maybe also AAA has to be placed even higher.

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 20
(4/11/03 8:33:19 am)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
uhm the lighter ship is basicaly torpedo boats and other small craft. i would like to know a cruiser or battleship that has less than 6 guns on one side built after the Washington treaty. note that AA guns do not count. As for the rule, what i read from ricks note is that aircraft weigh 25 tons a peice or the square of then number of aircraft, whichever is greater.
Lessons for modern warfare:
"human intel is necessary, always be on the look out, and expect the unexpected"

Come to the Wargamer Forum at JPs Panzers Board

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 22
(4/11/03 9:54:32 am)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted

As for the rule, what i read from ricks note is that aircraft weigh 25 tons a peice or the square of then number of aircraft, whichever is greater.

I thought so as well. No mention is made about additional tonnage for a catapult. But of course, the 'plane rule' was given in the carrier section of the notes. I can't remember anything about planes on other ships.
I can understand that you use a minimum of 25 tons per aircraft on a carrier. Even if a plane is about 5 tons, the remaining 20 tons would be for fuel, torpedoes and bombs for the plane. However if you have an unarmed 2 ton plane based on a battleship, I believe 25 tons is quite a lot.

Walter

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 6
(4/11/03 9:56:43 am)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*uhm the lighter ship is basicaly torpedo boats and other small craft. i would like to know a cruiser or battleship that has less than 6 guns on one side built after the Washington treaty. note that AA guns do not count. As for the rule, what i read from ricks note is that aircraft weigh 25 tons a peice or the square of then number of aircraft, whichever is greater. *

Nobody said DP secondaries are to be ruled out, sorry. Therefore you can take 90% of all cruisers. All of them had less then 6 secondary guns per broadside. An exception is the german Hipper-class for example with its 6 4.1" guns per side.

But even if you´re ruling out AA guns (Why shouldn´t they count?) think Deutschland, Scheer or Spee. Four 5.9" guns on all af them as secondaries per side.

You´re right abut Ricks rules: 25ts per plane. Fine. Stop your ship, use a crane, bring it to water and start from there.

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 24
(4/11/03 11:03:08 am)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted

You´re right abut Ricks rules: 25ts per plane. Fine. Stop your ship, use a crane, bring it to water and start from there.

Don’t you need tons for the cranes aboard a ship ? :-)

Actually, it would be more realistic to have 25 tons to represent the catapult, hangar and supporting structure. But I’m thinking more like this:

> 75 tons to represent 3 planes.
> 1 plane is x tons (depends on type); 3 planes is 3x tons.
> 75 (misc. weight) – 25 (ship structure) – 3x = fuel for planes.
> So with 3 planes of 2 tons each, I’ll have 44 tons left for fuel.

> 25 tons to represent 1 plane
> 1 plane is x tons (depends on type);
> 25 (misc. weight) – 25 (ship structure) – x = fuel for plane.
> In this case, miscellaneous weight must be added for the plane itself and fuel for it.


Going back to the three planes, assuming each plane can carry 700 kg of fuel (0.68 tons) and have a range of 270 NM, I can have a total of 64 missions of 270 NM with all three planes combined, or about 21 missions of 270 NM per individual plane.

So, when you have one plane, you must assign more than 25 tons of miscellaneous weight if you want a catapult on board. If you have 2 or more, it is not necessary, but will reduce the amount of aviation fuel carried along and thus the number of missions that can be flown.

Walter

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 25
(4/11/03 2:14:55 pm)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ship is smaller than Dunkerque or Scharnhorst, but that's because I do have a 26,700 ton limit to shoot for. It goes back to the treaty stuff - India has 80,000 tons of capital ship tonnage. Does she pursue two full-sized 40,000 t dreadnoughts, or can she get three useful 26,700 t ships instead? Your answers are influencing my own decision.

The craft would be a cruiser-killer, being that India (as also mentioned in the light carrier thread) is fixated on the idea of Guadacanal-style cruiser campaigns in late 1920. A holdover from the fictional war with the Dutch in 1915-7 when cruisers were all India possessed.

J

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 25
(4/11/03 3:09:26 pm)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you forgetting something?
India is allowed 80,000 tons.
80,000 - 17,389 = 62,611 tons left.

3 x 26,700 = 80,100
62,611 - 80,100 = -17,489 tons

... so you are 17,489 tons over the limit...
... unless I did something wrong.

Walter



The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 26
(4/11/03 3:22:12 pm)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this scenario I'm assuming the lead unit would replace Queen Fallatia, which was completed in 1908 and can thus be replaced at any time.

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 26
(4/11/03 3:27:31 pm)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... which would leave you with 100 tons over the limit...

... but who would notice that in reality ? We can see that with springstyle and a calculator, but how could one see if a nation is over the limit in real life ?


Walter

AdmKuznetsov
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 9
(4/11/03 7:16:09 pm)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted

but who would notice that in reality ? We can see that with springstyle and a calculator, but how could one see if a nation is over the limit in real life ?

It was pretty tough, I imagine. Get the length, beam, and draft out of Janes, and then take a SWAG at the block coefficient. You might get it within 5% or so. How many of the "treaty" battleships went over the 35,000 ton limit?

Visit my Russian/French fantasy fleet page:
admkuznetsov.tripod.com

aowwt
Administrator
Posts: 22
(4/11/03 11:40:40 pm)
Re: Large Cruiser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US battleships were over, the bismark's were over. I am not sure about the British but they were pretty close to it. I do know that for the type A cruisers most were over the 10,000 limit by a few hundred tons.
Lessons for modern warfare:
"human intel is necessary, always be on the look out, and expect the unexpected"

Come to the Wargamer Forum at JPs Panzers Board