WesWorld

What do you guys think? Is this the answer to the problems the SAE has on the rivers in South America?



Viktor Garcia, laid down 1935

Displacement:
123 t light; 132 t standard; 141 t normal; 149 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
132,74 ft / 131,23 ft x 22,97 ft x 3,28 ft (normal load)
40,46 m / 40,00 m x 7,00 m x 1,00 m

Armament:
2 - 3,46" / 88,0 mm guns in single mounts, 20,79lbs / 9,43kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
4 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1935 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 43 lbs / 19 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1,18" / 30 mm 98,43 ft / 30,00 m 3,94 ft / 1,20 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 115% of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,38" / 35 mm 0,98" / 25 mm -
2nd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Conning tower: 0,79" / 20 mm

Machinery:
Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 1 shaft, 600 ihp / 448 Kw = 15,01 kts
Range 2.000nm at 8,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 17 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
19 - 26

Cost:
£0,069 million / $0,277 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 5 tons, 3,8%
Armour: 26 tons, 18,2%
- Belts: 19 tons, 13,7%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 6 tons, 4,2%
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,3%
Machinery: 35 tons, 24,5%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 47 tons, 33,6%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 18 tons, 12,8%
Miscellaneous weights: 10 tons, 7,1%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
121 lbs / 55 Kg = 5,8 x 3,5 " / 88 mm shells or 0,2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,29
Metacentric height 0,9 ft / 0,3 m
Roll period: 10,4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,11
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0,83

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0,500
Length to Beam Ratio: 5,71 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 11,46 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 84
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: 8,53 ft / 2,60 m
- Forecastle (20%): 5,91 ft / 1,80 m
- Mid (50%): 4,92 ft / 1,50 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 4,92 ft / 1,50 m
- Stern: 5,25 ft / 1,60 m
- Average freeboard: 5,50 ft / 1,68 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 118,0%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 99,6%
Waterplane Area: 1.930 Square feet or 179 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 93%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 19 lbs/sq ft or 92 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,66
- Longitudinal: 1,24
- Overall: 0,70
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
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

Looks pretty good. However I would add a single medium calibre gun, say 40mm? And up armor the CT.

Edit, Why VDT and not diesel?

I'd add some light caliber MG's as well, otherwise she looks good.

I'd suggest 2 shafts, in a river you'll want all the manueverability you can get. I'd also be a bit concerned with the strength, it acts like while she's armored she may not have the hull members to hold up the armor.

Looks ok to me.

Coal/wood burning for logistical ease, 20mm cannon for rapid fire support and a useful main gun calibre too. At 15kts she's no slouch on the river either.

Bridge looks a tad too big to me but the overhang shades the wheelhouse nicely.

Why is there belt armour? Would not deck armour be a better bet with a slope down to the waterline like early 20th century gunboats?

Speaking of belt armor...

Quoted

Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

Considering that you currently have 115% coverage and you only need 3% more, I assume that you missed that remark.

Funny thing is that I looked at my own river gunboat of the Seta class and it turns out that I did what Hood is saying right now: No belt armor and a bit of deck armor.
... honestly, why I did that I do not know.

Other than that, looks like a neat design.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Funny thing is that I looked at my own river gunboat of the Seta class and it turns out that I did what Hood is saying right now: No belt armor and a bit of deck armor.
... honestly, why I did that I do not know.

Uhm, the Seta's have a 1" armored belt.....

You've already seen that my armanent choices include the mid-caliber automatic weapon, and MGs,

For these types of missions, I'm in favor of the belt extending from the deck down a bit underwater. Also some thin deck armor to ward off shallow plunging fire. I think more along the lines of ironclad than protected cruiser, but in days of automatic weapons, I could see a mission kill from a 20mm chewing up the unarmored portions of a protected cruiser.

The two propellers for manueverability is echoed.

Does the Parana basin have coal? If not, wood or diesel would be desirable.

Lastly, am I missing something? As a <24kt vessel, it's not a fast combatent, so isn't 1.0 + comp hull required. At least that's why my Putten, Gruno and Tijgerhaai classes are all >1.0.

Where are the specs for those designs Kirk?

Netherlands encyclopedia under Destroyers and Frigates.
Destroyers and Frigates

They are the 2nd, 3rd and 5th from the bottom.

Tijgerhaai is the largest, but if I can dump comp hull on smaller ships like Gruno and Putten as light combatants without the speed, that would effect their follow up vessels, which means I can uparmor the Putten II series I may bring out in 1936.

I've been looking at river gunboats in my newly purchased Groners German Warships 1918-1945 Vol 1.

Given the limited draught and low freeboard of most river gunboats (I'm generalsing here) are VTE engines likely to be under the waterline or sort of half over and half under?

Would diesels, being more compact be under the waterline?

If so then why not just have the deck amroured and have slopes to the waterline, make it 20-30mm and 20mm won't get through the slopes.

I'm designing a successor to the Patria with 50mm belt and 30mm deck but piling on belts as well as deck armour is driving up the size and weight.

Now another question I have is armament, which will be bette 75mm guns or more 37mm rapid fire guns.

I don't think that belt or deck armour is worth it on these ships. Theres so little hull to actually protect. You'd be better off welding some armour plates either side of the superstructure. Say 20-30mm plates to keep light gunfire out.

Armament: Maybe mount a 105mm howitzer instead for a larger shell. Not sure if SS can sim this will. Just give 4-5tons of misc weight and bolt a land mounting to the fore deck. A couple of 20mm and machine guns should do nicely for the other armament.

Picture: The funnel is way too large for the powerplant. You'd also want considerably more superstructure, possibly 2 decks all over as there isn't room for quarters below.

Boats: Don't really think that two are needed on a ship this size. Could just attach a boat with a painter over the stern.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Looks pretty good. However I would add a single medium calibre gun, say 40mm? And up armor the CT.

I originally planned for a single 40mm AA but when drawing the vessel I found out there hardly is enough deckspace. I also think it would be overkill on such a small craft.

Quoted

Edit, Why VDT and not diesel?

Coal-burning steam engines can be easily maintained. On those rivers fuel won&acute;t be a problem and every second fisherman might be able to keep the engine going in case of emergency.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I'd add some light caliber MG's as well, otherwise she looks good.

I assume some marines or army elements to be on board and those surely have an 7,92 mm MG with them... Such weapon doesn&acute;t really add any weight to the ship.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
I'd suggest 2 shafts, in a river you'll want all the manueverability you can get. I'd also be a bit concerned with the strength, it acts like while she's armored she may not have the hull members to hold up the armor.

Two shafts would be nice and surely possible with diesels. Using a VTD however eats up much hull volume and I doubt there is enough space for two plants each driving a shaft.

Historical river gun boats also often had only one shaft and it doesn&acute;t seem to have been much of a problem.

But I may use 2 shafts on some follow-on designs which then may have diesel propulsion too....

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Speaking of belt armor...

Quoted

Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

Considering that you currently have 115% coverage and you only need 3% more, I assume that you missed that remark.

Funny thing is that I looked at my own river gunboat of the Seta class and it turns out that I did what Hood is saying right now: No belt armor and a bit of deck armor.
... honestly, why I did that I do not know.

Other than that, looks like a neat design.

Those missing 3% will be fixed. Thanks. I simply missed it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Lastly, am I missing something? As a <24kt vessel, it's not a fast combatent, so isn't 1.0 + comp hull required. At least that's why my Putten, Gruno and Tijgerhaai classes are all >1.0.

I actually wondered myself too and finally decided to go below 1,0 because she&acute;s just a river gun boat and should by all means be lost outside any river estuary.

She also doesn&acute;t seem to be too far off from historcial designs of the late 1890s and early 1900s (Vaterland for example). If this cumulates in a hull strength below 1,0 I&acute;m fine with it - for a purpose build river gun boat.

However, should the boards think 1,0 is indeed the way to goo I&acute;ll modify her design accordingly.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I don't think that belt or deck armour is worth it on these ships. Theres so little hull to actually protect. You'd be better off welding some armour plates either side of the superstructure. Say 20-30mm plates to keep light gunfire out.

Yes, a belt armor like on cruisers or BBs is unlikely. Her armor is meant to represent some protection of her vital spaces against light weapon fire. No idea to sim that so I went for a belt...

Quoted

Armament: Maybe mount a 105mm howitzer instead for a larger shell. Not sure if SS can sim this will. Just give 4-5tons of misc weight and bolt a land mounting to the fore deck. A couple of 20mm and machine guns should do nicely for the other armament.

I agree on the 20mmers and keep the howitzer idea in mind should future improvements be necessary.

Quoted

Picture: The funnel is way too large for the powerplant. You'd also want considerably more superstructure, possibly 2 decks all over as there isn't room for quarters below.

It may be too large but I thought it looks right and when browsing my Gröner or other books it seemed as if such funnels were quite standard...

Quoted

Boats: Don't really think that two are needed on a ship this size. Could just attach a boat with a painter over the stern.

Boats really is a difficult topic. How to say how many are needed? Her crew&acute;s quite large due to her heavy armament and patrol duties on the rivers may ask for simultanous control of several vessels. So a second boat may come in handy. Additionally, having it aft it would block part of the aft guns arcs....

"It may be too large but I thought it looks right and when browsing my Gröner or other books it seemed as if such funnels were quite standard..."

Th GB looks pretty good and i agree with HoOmAn, in some of my books the funnels looks very similar, too.

About the boats:

I think you need more than one of them, because you need one to examine the other vessels or smuggler bases on the river.
And i think it's better, to place the boats on davits on the side of the ship, than afterwards, where it can block the gun. The boats should be already hanged out on the davits, because of saving time. But that's my opinion ;-)

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Lastly, am I missing something? As a <24kt vessel, it's not a fast combatent, so isn't 1.0 + comp hull required. At least that's why my Putten, Gruno and Tijgerhaai classes are all >1.0.

I actually wondered myself too and finally decided to go below 1,0 because she´s just a river gun boat and should by all means be lost outside any river estuary.

She also doesn´t seem to be too far off from historcial designs of the late 1890s and early 1900s (Vaterland for example). If this cumulates in a hull strength below 1,0 I´m fine with it - for a purpose build river gun boat.

However, should the boards think 1,0 is indeed the way to goo I´ll modify her design accordingly.

Certainly if river gunboats are allowed to be below 1.0 (without penalty, that is), we'll need to decide what the rules are for them. When I designed the Habordansky and Maximilian I classes for the Danube Flotilla, I was assuming that the standard sim rules applied, if they didn't I'd have probably put some more armor on both of them.


As far as using Army howitzers goes, this is where it might be useful to use SS3 (since SS3 allows you to enter barrel length). In the case of the Maximilian I class, which use Army 15cm howitzers, I used a non-standard shell weight (though it's the weight of the standard Heer shell).