WesWorld

my inability to run springsharp rears it's head;

i'm leaning towards two possibilities for the RCN cruiser fleet;

a modified Hector Class, with c5000 tons displacement, and 8 x 5.5" guns, improved seakeeping qualities, and other minor adjustments. Treaty limits would allow for 14 ships of this type.

A larger design (8000 tons), with either 4x3 5.5", or 4x3 6"
Treaty limits would allow for 8 ships of this type.

(treaty limits assumes disposing of the Chester CLs, retaining the Diana CLs, and allowing for 4 class A cruisers[either modernized effinghams, or more likley new builds])

The larger design would require aviation facilities, which would also be preferred on the smaller design (I'm flexible if space/tonnage is needed elsewhere)

Both designs would require a minimum speed of 32 knots, 533mm Torpedos (i'm flexible on the number, Diana and Hector designs have two quad mounts), and be capable of being built in Canadian yards (After the drydock enlarging at Esquimalt, I plan on having at least two type 3 slips at Canadian Vickers, in addition to the type 3 Drydock. These can be upgraded to type 4 if the larger design demands it).

You won't need a Class 4 slip for your class A cruiser, those slips are for BIG BBs or BCs, a Class 3 slip will hold a ship with a waterline length of up to 220m.

Here's a possible design for the 8000 ton entry. She can be built in any Class 3 slip or drydock. I went with the 5.5" gun, as much because it's different as anything else. She's not quite the sea-boat some of the British designs are, but her armor is better.

Okanagan, Canadian Light Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
7,902 t light; 8,237 t standard; 9,180 t normal; 9,934 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
631.93 ft / 625.00 ft x 63.00 ft x 17.00 ft (normal load)
192.61 m / 190.50 m x 19.20 m x 5.18 m

Armament:
12 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (4x3 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns (4x2 guns), 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,285 lbs / 583 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
8 - 21.0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 381.25 ft / 116.21 m 9.52 ft / 2.90 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 94 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 3.50" / 89 mm
2nd: 1.50" / 38 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.50" / 38 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 1.50" / 38 mm, Conning tower: 3.50" / 89 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 68,190 shp / 50,870 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,697 tons

Complement:
468 - 609

Cost:
£3.042 million / $12.166 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 161 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 1,567 tons, 17.1 %
- Belts: 458 tons, 5.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 333 tons, 3.6 %
- Armour Deck: 743 tons, 8.1 %
- Conning Tower: 33 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 2,039 tons, 22.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,055 tons, 44.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,278 tons, 13.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 80 tons, 0.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
14,827 lbs / 6,725 Kg = 178.2 x 5.5 " / 140 mm shells or 1.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 3.2 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 14.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.35
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.480
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.92 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.62 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.64 ft / 0.50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Mid (40 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m (18.50 ft / 5.64 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (17 %): 18.50 ft / 5.64 m
- Stern: 18.50 ft / 5.64 m
- Average freeboard: 20.92 ft / 6.38 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 185.9 %
Waterplane Area: 26,784 Square feet or 2,488 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 131 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 101 lbs/sq ft or 493 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.24
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

80 tons reserved for aircraft facilities.

And here's a suggestion for the 5000 ton idea. Note that she only has 6 5.5" guns, because I couldn't get 8 on her AND get the good sea-keeping a Canadian ship might want. 8 guns are possible, though, if you're willing to have normal sea-keeping.

Stikine, Canadian Light Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
4,953 t light; 5,149 t standard; 5,676 t normal; 6,098 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
534.76 ft / 530.00 ft x 55.00 ft x 14.50 ft (normal load)
163.00 m / 161.54 m x 16.76 m x 4.42 m

Armament:
6 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (3x2 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
6 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
16 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1931 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 692 lbs / 314 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2.50" / 64 mm 368.35 ft / 112.27 m 8.90 ft / 2.71 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 107 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 1.50" / 38 mm 3.00" / 76 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 2.50" / 64 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 53,338 shp / 39,790 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 949 tons

Complement:
326 - 425

Cost:
£2.048 million / $8.192 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 87 tons, 1.5 %
Armour: 876 tons, 15.4 %
- Belts: 338 tons, 6.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 157 tons, 2.8 %
- Armour Deck: 364 tons, 6.4 %
- Conning Tower: 17 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 1,595 tons, 28.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,385 tons, 42.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 723 tons, 12.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 10 tons, 0.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
7,496 lbs / 3,400 Kg = 90.1 x 5.5 " / 140 mm shells or 1.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 2.8 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 13.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.28
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.470
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.64 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.45 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (40 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m (18.00 ft / 5.49 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (13 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Stern: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 19.95 ft / 6.08 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 103.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 179.7 %
Waterplane Area: 19,652 Square feet or 1,826 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 77 lbs/sq ft or 376 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.84
- Longitudinal: 1.53
- Overall: 0.90
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
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 growth.

The North Atlantic and North Pacific will be these ship's home waters, and the weather associated with, (including ice). So I'd have to hear some other people's opinion on the minimum seakeeping capabilities needed. I'd also like some opinions on which option would we better suited for Canadian needs.

btw, are we calculating treaty displacements on light, or standard? (i'd been assuming standard)

Well, I honestly think you're going to need a boat that can ride out heavy weather. Also, armoured ends would do wonders to survive potential iceburg or iceflow inpacts. Nothing more than 1.5" (which is standard for USCG/USN icebreakers), but something is better than nothing.

standard displacement

light is used for calculating construction costs, etc... but the treaty counts standard.

I'm leaning towards the larger cruiser at the moment. Before I work on detailing a picture, I'd like to make sure I've interpreted the SS report right, and gotten the proportions correct (including forcastle and quarterdeck breaks)...



Looks like I have a lot of superstructure to fill...

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
You won't need a Class 4 slip for your class A cruiser, those slips are for BIG BBs or BCs, a Class 3 slip will hold a ship with a waterline length of up to 220m.

Not "waterline length" but "length over all", IMHO.

Quoted

Not "waterline length" but "length over all", IMHO.

No, we went through that a while back: it was waterline length, not OAL.

Quoted

Also, armoured ends would do wonders to survive potential iceburg or iceflow inpacts. Nothing more than 1.5" (which is standard for USCG/USN icebreakers), but something is better than nothing.

That ... proved to be less difficult than I thought. I was able to fit 1" of armor on the waterline ends of Stikine at the cost of 0.5" of belt armor and a few minor changes.


On the question of what to do: myself, I'd be tempted to split the difference and get 4 of the larger ships (better combat vessels) and 6 of the smaller ones (good for patrols, good for getting Canadian industry started building warships).

Sea-keeping: I would say cruisers and above should not accept less than a 1.20 rating. The trick is deciding where to draw the line, because increasing the freeboard cuts into the amount of tonnage available for armor......

Wasn't it
Slip => wl
Dock => oa

Not that I saw. Of course, now I can't find that discussion, either.


Does SpringStyle make a differentiation between waterline and overall?

Seakeeping depends on the size of your ship more than anything else. A Battleship will ride out heavy seas better than a corvette. Most of the time, sea state is 3 or less. Things get kind of confusing though. Italy, in 1930/31 will start testing a device for increasing seakeeping ability without unduly affecting hull strength - speed will suffer a little however.

SS makes no visible difference between waterline and overall length.

My advice would be just to build the larger ships. Think Town-Class. And ditch the 5.5" gun.

Quoted

I'm leaning towards the larger cruiser at the moment. Before I work on detailing a picture, I'd like to make sure I've interpreted the SS report right, and gotten the proportions correct (including forcastle and quarterdeck breaks)...

The Okanagan design has 22% of the hull (from the bow aft) clear of any major systems (ie, the main armament and bridge start 22% of her waterline length aft of the bow), and the aft-most 5.5" mount ends 17% of her hull length forward of the stern. So I think the revised drawing needs to extend the bow and stern before worrying about filling in the superstructure. The waterline break is 40% aft from the bow, so it would be around the bridge, possibly just aft of it or underneath it.

Quoted

And ditch the 5.5" gun.

What's the percieved advantage of the 6" gun? Range, yes (at least with the newer 6" guns versus the old 5.5"), but the 5.5" has a large advantage in rate of fire. Neither gun had an AP round, so that's not a differentiator.

Now, if we were talking about the American 6"/47, then I can see ditching the 5.5". THAT gun is clearly superior to the 5.5", or the British 6"/50.

The 5.5" only has a rate of fire advantage in single mounts. Continuous rate of fire will be similar to the 6" gun. There is a limit to how many 100lb+ shells and power bags that you can move around continuously. Rate of fire for both guns will decrease to about 6rpm over time, probably less. The enclosed 6" mount on Diomede could do 8rpm because it had an ammunition hoist. But it weighed considerably more than the normal 6" single.

Ballistic advantage of the 6" gun. Easier to hit with it. Standard ammunition between Canada and GB.

The 6"/47 suffers because it only has an AP shell and low velocity. The 6"/50 with SAP is more than adequate for dealing with cruisers. Most of the time you don't penetrate armour, in which case the SAP shell gives over twice as much "bang".

The 6"/47 did not have ONLY AP available, it could and did use all of the rounds developed for the 6"/53. So it, unlike the 6"/50, had a AP round AND a HE round, not to mention the HCC and ACC rounds with over 50% more bursting charge than the 6"/50's common or HE rounds. The SAP shell gives you about 80% more bang, with a burster of 3.75 lbs versus the 6"/47 APs 2 pounds, but if your shell breaks up on the armor and doesn't explode, it doesn't much matter what size the burster was.

In manually loaded AND RAMMED guns, like the 6"/50, you'll slow down faster than with power-rammed guns like the 6"/47.

Continous rate for a 5.5" gun would likely be higher than a 6" gun as the 5.5" gun is firing a lighter shell, by about 20 pounds per shell.

Quoted

Not that I saw. Of course, now I can't find that discussion, either.


Does SpringStyle make a differentiation between waterline and overall

Know where and how to look for something. :-)

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?th…89a96ef1306ca3f

Apparently we agreed on length waterline since there was no apparent advantage on the design. It's purely consmetic. Like I said back then, if the increase in length overall had an impact on the design, I would have gone for the "slip => wl" and "dock => oa". Hooman also stated in the thead that he uses length oa to determine the size of slip/dock needed.

I can confirm we went with WL for slips and OL for drydocks. Springstyle doesn't IIRC recognize WL vs. OL, Springsharp however does.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

I'm leaning towards the larger cruiser at the moment. Before I work on detailing a picture, I'd like to make sure I've interpreted the SS report right, and gotten the proportions correct (including forcastle and quarterdeck breaks)...

The Okanagan design has 22% of the hull (from the bow aft) clear of any major systems (ie, the main armament and bridge start 22% of her waterline length aft of the bow), and the aft-most 5.5" mount ends 17% of her hull length forward of the stern. So I think the revised drawing needs to extend the bow and stern before worrying about filling in the superstructure. The waterline break is 40% aft from the bow, so it would be around the bridge, possibly just aft of it or underneath it.

Alright, I thought the quarterdeck and forecastle % related to the hull breaks, not structure. I thought it looked wrong, i'll fix it in the next hour or so.

re: guns;
obtaining the 5"/38 from the USA is as far as Canada is willing to go at this point, for political reasons.

Given the 5.5" fairly widespread use elsewhere in the fleet, Canada plans to develop a full range of ammunition for the weapon, as it plans to fit them as secondary armament for any capital ship rebuilds / new builds (plans can be changed, and as stated elsewhere, capital ships are far into the distant future right now). I'm tempted to develop a 5.5" DP mounting, but even with WW accelerated technology, I feel that's still a few years off.

The 5.5" gun mounted on the new cruisers (either design) will be based upon the gun in service, but being 20 years later, I'm assuming it will incorporate modern improvements.

What would be the overal difference in having the 8k design mounting 6" triples over the 5.5"? Mostly, I'm assuming a loss of armour.