WesWorld

Pretty much still a work in progress, she is an experimental design to try out the torpedo cruiser role and to test the triple 4.7" mounts. I still havent decided to consider her an oversize DL or a small cruiser.

She carries 12 torpedo reloads, and the secondary armor sims light splinter shields for the torpedo mounts.

She is compared to my DL design here. Note: the torpedoes are not visible from the top, I showed them so their arrangement can be seen.



Adelaide, Australia Torpedo Cruiser laid down 1934

Displacement:
3,888 t light; 4,076 t standard; 4,631 t normal; 5,074 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
495.79 ft / 490.00 ft x 49.00 ft x 15.00 ft (normal load)
151.12 m / 149.35 m x 14.94 m x 4.57 m

Armament:
12 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns (4x3 guns), 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1934 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1934 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
20 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1934 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 659 lbs / 299 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
18 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.20" / 30 mm - -
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.20" / 30 mm, Conning tower: 1.20" / 30 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 53,767 shp / 40,110 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 7,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 999 tons

Complement:
279 - 364

Cost:
£2.071 million / $8.283 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 82 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 390 tons, 8.4 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 30 tons, 0.6 %
- Armour Deck: 353 tons, 7.6 %
- Conning Tower: 7 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,547 tons, 33.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,769 tons, 38.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 742 tons, 16.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 2.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
3,839 lbs / 1,741 Kg = 74.0 x 4.7 " / 119 mm shells or 0.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.22
Metacentric height 2.5 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 13.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.45
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.19

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has low forecastle, low quarterdeck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.450
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 25.42 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 9.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.46 ft / 0.75 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Forecastle (17 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m (20.00 ft / 6.10 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Quarterdeck (19 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m (20.00 ft / 6.10 m before break)
- Stern: 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Average freeboard: 18.61 ft / 5.67 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 125.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 105.0 %
Waterplane Area: 15,909 Square feet or 1,478 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 66 lbs/sq ft or 323 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.74
- Longitudinal: 1.65
- Overall: 0.80
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

Looks like something that will explode nicely when the "Zeros" strafe her with their cannons.

What kind of torpedoes will you be using?

I forgot they have 20mm cannons. Torpedo protection just went up.

Im using the plain 21" torpedoes. Nothing fancy.

Aren´t her main turrets too small in size?

Regarding your DL - top and side view of her forward superstructure don´t seem to fit.....?!

In general I like your TT cruiser. What´s the doctrine behind her?

I think the idea of a triple 120mm mount is bad.

Only other example of around the same calibre is the triple 4" mount from WWI fitted to Glorious/Courageous. It wasn't particularly successful due to the difficulty in loading the centremost gun. The Italians made the triple arrangement work later on with the 135/45 triple, but it would be far too heavy and have too much deck penetration to use on a small ship like this.

Potent design allthough again I'm with RA on the triples, bad idea.

I'd switch to twins and stick to your newer DD's gun layout, two mounts fore, two aft, and two wing turrets. I'd also ditch two TT mounts, only 4 of the 6 mounts have reloads anyway, and use the space for other equipment.

Of course thats just my humble opinion...

Three 1,300 t destroyers can do a better job of it, and with more tactical flexibility.

If you do prefer this option, I'd ditch the reloads and add some speed. As it is, you're too slow to successfully disengage and reload - enemy destroyers and even some cruisers will be able to overtake and continue firing on her - not a good environment for moving torpedoes around your deck.

Quoted

Looks like something that will explode nicely when the "Zeros" strafe her with their cannons.

Did someone just mention the Type 92 carrier borne fighter?? :-)

Quoted

Aren´t her main turrets too small in size?

I did some messing around with the picture and compared it with the RSAN Ringhorn, shrinking the Adelaide to the size of your Ringhorn picture (82% of the picture's current size).
At the same scale, the triple 120mm guns on the Adelaide only a little bit smaller than Ringhorn's triple 127mm guns.
Perhaps something has been drawn too big...

Quoted

Regarding your DL - top and side view of her forward superstructure don´t seem to fit.....?!

The same thing with the Torpedo cruiser. Since I was comparing it to your ship, I took the liberty to place the top view over the side. The two views of both the Destroyer and the torpedo cruiser don't quite match.
... but then again, it is only work in progress.
... on the other hand, a top view that does not match the side view makes it a little bit sloppy. A few more minutes spent on the picture, a few more lines drawn on the picture and then removed can make a difference.

I decided to shrink down the picture of the Senshi class to the same scale of the Adelaide and compare the Japanese 13 cm twins with the Australian 120 mm triples...
... and for some reason the turrets for the 13cm twins seem huge compared to the 120mm triple turrets.

What about american 5" twins as on their WW2 destroyers?

Which ones? There are quite a few types of 5 inch turrets used on the American DDs (actually only 3 I can think of).

Okay... compared with the Mark 22 mount used on the Porter and Somers classes, it looks okay, but compared to the Mark 38 mount used on the Sumner and Gearing classes, it looks like Godzilla stepped on top of the Australian triple turret.
:-)

Single purpose...

Quoted

Single purpose...

Mark 22 mount it is then.
The Adelaide turret is wider, but the US turret is a bit longer and a bit higher. So yes, looking at it now I would add a bit of length and height. Width... maybe.

Where are the reloads on the picture?

Standard 533mm torpedo is ~8m long.

deckspace for 1 torpedo = c.5m

18 +12 torpedoes carried = 150m^2 of deckspace.

150/1478 = 10% of total deckspace taken up by torpedoes which is a very conservative estimate when you consider that the mountings are considerably larger than the torpedoes themselves.

And those mounts need to train...

As I said. Conservative estimate.

Here is an updated pic, with bigger turrents, (hopefully) fixed superstructure, and reload torpedoes.

For the reloads I havent decided to leave them where they are or move the TT more to the ends and place the reloads under the 40mm guns.

As for the triple 4.7", well they are experimental, and I wanted an excuse to put triples on a ship. The IC answer is that there is not enough space for twins, and triples wont neccesarly be terrible, just not good, but they should be adequate.

Are you sure you´ve posted the right picture?

I can't see any difference.

Of course there is space for duple 4.7" mounts, just not 6 of them on the centreline. 2 duples fore and aft with singles on the beam.