WesWorld

Just about every graphic I post on this site is on my AOL FTP, since my roadrunner FTP never seemed to work here. -_-

Does it work on Imageshack?

I can see that one

Quoted

I think the site is rejecting AOL.

Here at work I can see it, but yesterday at home I didn't see it. I don't think that is the problem.

There's a version with more 40mm supplementing the wing mounts; However, I'm not planning on building it unless I'm editorially mandated to. << (ie; the moderators tell me my 20 gun monster won't be allowed... ;-; )

Can't see that one...can't see your signiture picture either.

-growl, snarl, seethe-

Well, I can't replace the sig graphic, since imageshack makes the url too long, but in case you've missed it;


and here's the neutered Lab;

I think the latest version is a much more realistic one - and it looks better to me. :o) Now you&acute;ve some places for boats at least.

Both designs already have boat space; adjacent to the Hangar. More boats could be fitted on either design above the forward pair of torpedo launchers, but I wasn't sure how wise that would be.

I'd still like to see more superstructure aft, its quite cramped and you seem to have the space to push the hangar further forward.

In the original drawing, the forward pom-poms are going to interfere with the firing arcs of the forward beam 14cms. Can they be moved to a spot adjacent to the forward funnel, allowing them to shoot over either beam gun?

I'd question the ability to maintain reasonable rates of fire while manually loading 37 kg shells, but you've already expressed your own self-doubt about the gun's utility...

The concern's I'd have with the drawing are for blast-effects on the forward and aft pom-pom mountings on each side, they seem pretty close to the upper main mountings and when those mounts are trained to the broadside I'd be concerned about blast in the open pom-pom mountings.

Well, keep in mind that the Labrador is making use of the hull and general layout of the Manitobas, and a lot of the recent issues brought up would apply to them too...

I can work on resiting the forward 40mm mounts next to the stacks. The only real place to resite the aft pair would be on stern, and I'm trying to keep the sterns of my larger ships pretty clear if possible. I'd also think that blast effects from the high centerline mounts would only really be a problem if fired at low elevation and 'over the shoulder' angles.

What else is really needed for the aft superstructure? Moving the hangar and catapult forward would be a lot of work, and would cause problems for the waist 5.5" mounts. Keep in mind that if there becomes a demand for more 'space', that hangar will probably provide more than enough, along with the possiblity of expanding the general superstructure over the catapult if it's decided to remove the scout planes.

And yes, the current version of 5.5" DP guns (like the historical 5.25" guns) will probably prove disappointing, but workable. It might also drive the development of truly automatic mounts far earlier than historical.

Well for starters the aft superstructure is about the size of a quad 40mm gun tub while esthetically it looks rather odd.

Moving the hangar further forward would give you room for a larger aft superstructure and as such a nice place for those aft 40mm mounts.

But why is there a need for more aft superstructure? Is there anything (beyond supporting the obvious equipment already pictured) that needs to be handled there that can't be done elsewhere on the ship?

The Labs have the same superstructure as the Manitobas (more, actually, with the added level to the bridge, and extentions for the additional 5.5" mounts), which had no complaints. Also, looking at a profile of the Atlantas, they had very little structure aft; most of it being concentrated forward.

Perhaps I should be more specific, the tower structure under the aft dirrector is quite small, as I said its about the size of a 40mm gun tub.

Your crews will need access to the tower which would in turn require more internal space for passages ect. unless its essentially a tube like structure with a verticle ladder from below decks to the dirrector. The aft mast also appears to limit the dirrectors optics (wings).

Atlanta, if we go by this picture, had much more superstructure. Similar in width but much longer.

Hm. What about removing the aft director, and replacing it with two directors (p/s) either atop, or adjacent to the Hangar?

I think Atlanta has about the same length and width; Atlanta has a bit more structure by being a deck or two higher, and faired into the stack(s). I could add another deck, linking the bridge to the hangar, but I'm not sure that'd be worth it, since the stack trunkings would still go through most of it.

My general thoughts are that although SS lets you put all those guns onto that hull in practice it just won't fit. (should be simmed with 4 raised mounts centreline ends and 4 raised mounts midships btw)

She would be a far more satisfactory ship with 5 or 7 mountings and doesn't really give up much in capability for that.

Tribal class DD

The alternative to the 20 gun monster;

Labrador class, Canadian Light Cruiser laid down 1934


Displacement:
7,836 t light; 8,336 t standard; 9,358 t normal; 10,175 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
564.50 ft / 557.00 ft x 56.00 ft x 18.75 ft (normal load)
172.06 m / 169.77 m x 17.07 m x 5.72 m

Armament:
18 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (6x3 guns), 83.19lbs / 37.73kg shells, 1934 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
32 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1934 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
10 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (5x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1934 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1,562 lbs / 709 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 350
12 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 365.00 ft / 111.25 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 101 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 74,363 shp / 55,475 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 9,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,839 tons

Complement:
475 - 618

Cost:
£3.776 million / $15.106 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 233 tons, 2.5 %
Armour: 1,635 tons, 17.5 %
- Belts: 609 tons, 6.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 180 tons, 1.9 %
- Armour Deck: 847 tons, 9.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,139 tons, 22.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,754 tons, 40.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,521 tons, 16.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 75 tons, 0.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
12,461 lbs / 5,652 Kg = 149.8 x 5.5 " / 140 mm shells or 1.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 15.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 78 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.76
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.35

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.560
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.95 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.77 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
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: 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Forecastle (33 %): 27.50 ft / 8.38 m
- Mid (50 %): 27.50 ft / 8.38 m (18.00 ft / 5.49 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Stern: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 22.82 ft / 6.95 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 96.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 142.3 %
Waterplane Area: 22,882 Square feet or 2,126 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 94 lbs/sq ft or 460 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.14
- 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

Automatic Dual-Purpose twin 5.5" guns simmed as triples.
ROF will be not exceed 12 Rounds per minute due to the technology limitations of the time period,
and the guns will still be crew intensive.

Right about now readers should recall the frequent (yet never commented on) explosions and other
mysterious going-ons at Canadian Vickers over the past few sim years.
This project wasn't all of them, tho. :B

Manitoba and Labrador, from seawolf over on WPDB;