WesWorld

Two ships to be laid down upon the impending failure of the Cowes conference.

Picture now up;

Modified from a picture Gravina posted when he retired from running the UK, I hope he doesn't mind (:




HMCS Canada, Canadian Battleship laid down 1932

Displacement:
38,829 t light; 41,113 t standard; 43,548 t normal; 45,496 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
718.57 ft / 710.00 ft x 101.50 ft x 30.00 ft (normal load)
219.02 m / 216.41 m x 30.94 m x 9.14 m

Armament:
12 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4x3 guns), 1,938.00lbs / 879.06kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (10x2 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1932 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
64 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x8 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (12x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 25,051 lbs / 11,363 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 460.00 ft / 140.21 m 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.00" / 25 mm 460.00 ft / 140.21 m 28.00 ft / 8.53 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 7.00" / 178 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 5.50" / 140 mm, Conning tower: 6.00" / 152 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 113,355 shp / 84,563 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,383 tons

Complement:
1,506 - 1,959

Cost:
£18.828 million / $75.311 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,756 tons, 6.3 %
Armour: 15,452 tons, 35.5 %
- Belts: 5,777 tons, 13.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 477 tons, 1.1 %
- Armament: 2,873 tons, 6.6 %
- Armour Deck: 6,165 tons, 14.2 %
- Conning Tower: 160 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 3,346 tons, 7.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,075 tons, 39.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,719 tons, 10.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
57,817 lbs / 26,225 Kg = 34.3 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 7.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 6.1 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 17.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.99
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.705
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.65 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Mid (75 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Average freeboard: 23.20 ft / 7.07 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 91.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 168.6 %
Waterplane Area: 60,594 Square feet or 5,629 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 98 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 212 lbs/sq ft or 1,034 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.43
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

why not just build a modified St Vincent type?

More bang, more armour, fits a class 3 ship/dock.

Quoted

Originally posted by Earl822
why not just build a modified St Vincent type?

Speaking of which where are the stats for that badboy?

Canada's an adequate design but she will take a long time to build. I'd personally like to see a 3x3 design that gives you all the possitive warnings.

Picture's up

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by Earl822
why not just build a modified St Vincent type?

Speaking of which where are the stats for that badboy?

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?th…did=6&styleid=1

RLBH does need to update his encyclopedia tho... *cough*

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Canada's an adequate design but she will take a long time to build. I'd personally like to see a 3x3 design that gives you all the possitive warnings.

Well, No 'midrange' capital ship is gonna bear the name Canada, and anything that's 40k tons is going to take a while to build, and that's the current world standard. Build time isn't gonna go down given our building rules, so the only offset to that is getting started.

She simmed a lot better when I accidently had her set up with quad turrets, tho, for the record.

I also considered 16" or 18" designs, but I figured that'd upset too many applecarts, and this design keeps the 'good faith' sentiment Canada's been espousing at the conference, and still falls under the Capital ship limits should some unforseen event occur that prompts Canada to join the treaty.

Heh, somehow at this point I don't see Canada and/or Australia joining the CT if its found that in fact they are not legally binded due to the signature issue, and also due to the mutual distrust between Japan and Canada/Australia over Chosen and Formosa.

Looks like the status quo wil remain and nations will merely pay lip service to the treaty for the next 4 years.

Have you tried a smaller 4x2 design? The stat I usually look at first is this:

Quoted

Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
57,817 lbs / 26,225 Kg = 34.3 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 7.4 torpedoes

okay, yeah, but I don't have much of an idea how to improve that. I've had a hard enough time getting recoil and stability values adjusted and whatnot <<

Is it size related? the St. Vincents are noticably larger, but I believe Canada would be superiorly protected.

If I was going for less guns to make it cheaper, I'd either go with a Nevada arrangement, or more likely the more traditional 3x3 layout. Using twins seems highly uneconomical unless I end up Vanguarding, and I'm not planning to scrap R&R any time soon.

If I'm correct your ships shell weight along with its level of protection will determine the number of shell hits it can absorb. Your ship also has a high Block Co-eff and lower range when compared to say the Memnons. A 3x3 design might get you a smaler, cheaper ship built sooner.

I'd like to see a 3x4 design with a Block Co-eff in the .650 range and say 10,000 nm@15 knots.

I'd run it through SS myself but I'm just about ready for bed right about now....

Nice ship, nice drawing - but her main turrets are too small, methinks. Have you compared their size with historical 38cm guns, especially the tripples on the Italian BBs?

Now that you mention it Hoo, they do look small, otherwise its an interesting representaion.

A BC of .705 is VERY high for a warchip, looks most like a tanker. It's probably why you can get all this into a ship that fits a Type 3 dock that istn't super wide or deep, but it also appears to result in not-so-good behavior like the relatively low resistance to torpedoes

Also, in Canada's case, I'd REALLY want a Good Seaboat rating, if these ships get deployed to the North Atlantic or the more northerly reaches of the North Pacific.

Previous comments on the 140mm DP mountings will still apply: all the good and bad points of the hisoric 5.25" DP mount, just even more so.

I would have thought one way to go would be to build a ship which uses the main guns & turrets from one of the R Class ships, which presumably will be scrapped when the St Vincent Class enter service.

Alternatively why not buy and rebuild a QE Class ship or two

Just for some form of comparison, here is the Sim for Nordmark's new Battleships, to be laid down during 1933

BB33, Nordmark Battleship laid down 1933

Displacement:
37,400 t light; 39,201 t standard; 43,680 t normal; 47,263 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
812.01 ft / 800.00 ft x 105.00 ft x 28.00 ft (normal load)
247.50 m / 243.84 m x 32.00 m x 8.53 m

Armament:
8 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,873.93lbs / 850.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (10x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.40kg shells, 1933 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
32 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (16 mounts), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 16 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 16,387 lbs / 7,433 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15.0" / 381 mm 500.00 ft / 152.40 m 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.75" / 44 mm 500.00 ft / 152.40 m 28.00 ft / 8.53 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.0" / 381 mm 12.5" / 318 mm 13.0" / 330 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 2.00" / 51 mm - -
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 6.00" / 152 mm, Conning tower: 8.00" / 203 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 94,418 shp / 70,436 Kw = 27.00 kts
Range 5,032nm at 24.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,062 tons

Complement:
1,509 - 1,963

Cost:
£15.403 million / $61.610 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,862 tons, 4.3 %
Armour: 16,587 tons, 38.0 %
- Belts: 4,554 tons, 10.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 907 tons, 2.1 %
- Armament: 3,461 tons, 7.9 %
- Armour Deck: 7,452 tons, 17.1 %
- Conning Tower: 214 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 2,751 tons, 6.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 16,020 tons, 36.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,280 tons, 14.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 180 tons, 0.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
77,648 lbs / 35,220 Kg = 46.0 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 13.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 6.8 ft / 2.1 m
Roll period: 17.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.55
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.27

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.650
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.62 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.47 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 33.00 ft / 10.06 m
- Forecastle (40 %): 26.00 ft / 7.92 m
- Mid (55 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m (15.00 ft / 4.57 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Stern: 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Average freeboard: 22.10 ft / 6.73 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 66.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 156.8 %
Waterplane Area: 67,134 Square feet or 6,237 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 118 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 184 lbs/sq ft or 898 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.01
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

3 Units Planned

Misc Weight is:-

75tons Aircraft
45tons Flag Facilities
60tons Electronics

Hmmmm. Why are you restricting yourself to Type 3 hulls, anyway? You've got 2 Type 4 drydocks that could be used for construction, and a pair of Type 3's that could be upgraded to Type 4s without problems.

The design seems solid (other than the BC issue).

Personally I would have gone for a pair of rebuilt QEs though. Cheaper and you won't turn yourself into an international pariah.

Rebuilt QE's won't stop the pariah problem, if the Canadians ditch the Treaty there likely will be diplomatic repercussions, and a pair of QEs won't fit under the Canadian limits with the two light BCs they already have.

Canada is a bit of a chunky ship, I agree. I'd lose the third set of 140 mm, which don't have such a great firing arc anyway, and trim the belt length. That should free up a bit of hull strength to in turn allow a lower BC.

I agree with Hooman on the turret size, they look smallish.

Otherwise, she does appear capable - I'm not really sure what's wrong with being able to absorb seven torpedoes before becoming a reef. It seems like a reasonable number to me.

Strange how the Commonwealths are thinking. Canada wants something BIG. While Australia is planning small with a pair of 20-24,000 ton BCs.

I assume Canada wants the R's freed up from non-battlecruiser-chasing tasks like keeping Japan away from Vancouver Island.

Agree that the torpedo rating seems fine - after all my 50,000 ton monster plan is rated at 9.5.

(Don't forget that Spring* calculates using 20" torpedoes.)