WesWorld

Finally getting back on track. I present to you my first ever (to be built), from scratch (not rebuilt), warship over 18,000 tons.

HMAS Lion will use refurbished ex-Iron Duke turrets, and will join Tiger and Panther in the battleline as the flagship of the RAN.

Two Leopards will be built. They too use ex-ID weapons. They will be used as escorts for the RAN's new carriers.

Two of the three ships will be laid down late 37. Note, the SS2 files are a bit old and have not been updated in a while, they might have mistakes.

Thoughts?



The new ships compared to Tiger and Panther.

HMAS Lion, Australia Battlecruiser laid down 1935

Displacement:
29,208 t light; 30,749 t standard; 34,350 t normal; 37,231 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
737.44 ft / 720.00 ft x 92.00 ft x 33.00 ft (normal load)
224.77 m / 219.46 m x 28.04 m x 10.06 m

Armament:
8 - 13.50" / 343 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1,400.00lbs / 635.03kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns (12x2 guns), 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
28 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (7x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
20 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 12,505 lbs / 5,672 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 96 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.00" / 25 mm 450.00 ft / 137.16 m 21.00 ft / 6.40 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 7.00" / 178 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 1.20" / 30 mm - -

- Armour deck: 5.00" / 127 mm, Conning tower: 9.00" / 229 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 151,001 shp / 112,647 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,481 tons

Complement:
1,261 - 1,640

Cost:
£14.220 million / $56.882 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,393 tons, 4.1 %
Armour: 9,992 tons, 29.1 %
- Belts: 2,091 tons, 6.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 350 tons, 1.0 %
- Armament: 2,895 tons, 8.4 %
- Armour Deck: 4,452 tons, 13.0 %
- Conning Tower: 205 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 4,290 tons, 12.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,383 tons, 39.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,142 tons, 15.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
49,608 lbs / 22,502 Kg = 40.3 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 6.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
Metacentric height 4.9 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 17.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.87
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.08

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.83 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.05 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.30 ft / 1.01 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 35.00 ft / 10.67 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Mid (40 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Stern: 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Average freeboard: 26.88 ft / 8.19 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 92.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 191.4 %
Waterplane Area: 48,128 Square feet or 4,471 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 183 lbs/sq ft or 894 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.93
- Longitudinal: 1.78
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent



***


HMAS Leopard, Australia Battlecruiser laid down 1936

Displacement:
23,134 t light; 24,256 t standard; 27,383 t normal; 29,884 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
737.04 ft / 720.00 ft x 90.00 ft x 29.00 ft (normal load)
224.65 m / 219.46 m x 27.43 m x 8.84 m

Armament:
6 - 13.50" / 343 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1,230.19lbs / 558.00kg shells, 1936 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
18 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns (9x2 guns), 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1936 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
28 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (7x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1936 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
20 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1936 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 8,375 lbs / 3,799 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 412.00 ft / 125.58 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 88 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.00" / 25 mm 412.00 ft / 125.58 m 21.00 ft / 6.40 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 7.00" / 178 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 1.20" / 30 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 9.00" / 229 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 114,244 shp / 85,226 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,628 tons

Complement:
1,063 - 1,383

Cost:
£11.272 million / $45.089 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,047 tons, 3.8 %
Armour: 7,394 tons, 27.0 %
- Belts: 1,454 tons, 5.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 320 tons, 1.2 %
- Armament: 2,090 tons, 7.6 %
- Armour Deck: 3,354 tons, 12.2 %
- Conning Tower: 176 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 3,205 tons, 11.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,338 tons, 41.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,248 tons, 15.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
47,544 lbs / 21,566 Kg = 38.6 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 6.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 5.7 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 15.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.56
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.32

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.510
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 39
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.30 ft / 1.01 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 34.00 ft / 10.36 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Mid (40 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Stern: 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Average freeboard: 26.35 ft / 8.03 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 205.2 %
Waterplane Area: 45,321 Square feet or 4,210 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 123 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 167 lbs/sq ft or 817 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.69
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

I'm a tad nervous about Lion's stability... 1.05 is a tad low, IMHO. Otherwise, she looks solid. The Leopards also look solid, though I might prefer a bit more vertical armor.

Iron Duke has five twin 13.5"/45 turrets. How do you get ten turrets from her?

My concerns about the ships would be their protection from torpedoes.

I could be wrong, but if I am not mistaken, Australia had 2 Iron Duke class BBs... so that is 2x5=10 turrets.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
I could be wrong, but if I am not mistaken, Australia had 2 Iron Duke class BBs... so that is 2x5=10 turrets.

That did cross my mind, but I could only find one.

Australia has 4 capital ships (according to the most recent report).

The Australian encyclopedia shows us:
1 HMAS Panther (ex-HMS Princess Royal)
2 HMAS Australia (Ex-HMS Iron Duke)
3 HMAS Tiger

While it is not given in the encyclopedia, the fourth one is, if I am not mistaken, also an Iron Duke class ship.

Seems the minor powers of the region are thinking on similar lines. Bharat with the Delhis, the Hyderabads and in 1940 with the Samjamir; Philippines with the Aguinaldo and Australia with the Cats. Similar ships with similar capabilities.

Using the turrets should save about 2000t to the cost of the Lion and around 1500t each on the Leopards.

Actually Australia got all 3 Iron Dukes. Only 4 show up on the last report, cause one is no more...

Yes, the Cats where designed with the SATSUMA ships in mind. The Leopards outclass both the Samals and the Indian cruisers and can hold their own against any SATSUMA ship fast enough to threaten a carrier.

A few touches, the Leopards as they will be built:


HMAS Leopard, Australia Battlecruiser laid down 1937

Displacement:
23,132 t light; 24,261 t standard; 27,355 t normal; 29,830 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
737.04 ft / 720.00 ft x 90.00 ft x 29.55 ft (normal load)
224.65 m / 219.46 m x 27.43 m x 9.01 m

Armament:
6 - 13.50" / 343 mm guns (3x2 guns), 1,230.19lbs / 558.00kg shells, 1937 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
20 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns (10x2 guns), 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
28 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (7x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1937 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
20 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1937 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 8,479 lbs / 3,846 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 88 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.00" / 25 mm 410.00 ft / 124.97 m 21.00 ft / 6.40 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 7.00" / 178 mm 12.0" / 305 mm
2nd: 1.20" / 30 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 9.00" / 229 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 113,583 shp / 84,733 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,568 tons

Complement:
1,063 - 1,382

Cost:
£11.676 million / $46.704 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,060 tons, 3.9 %
Armour: 7,506 tons, 27.4 %
- Belts: 1,608 tons, 5.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 319 tons, 1.2 %
- Armament: 2,081 tons, 7.6 %
- Armour Deck: 3,322 tons, 12.1 %
- Conning Tower: 176 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 3,148 tons, 11.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,297 tons, 41.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,223 tons, 15.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 120 tons, 0.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
46,829 lbs / 21,241 Kg = 38.1 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 6.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 5.7 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 15.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.57
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.29

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.500
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.19 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 38
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.30 ft / 1.01 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 34.00 ft / 10.36 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Mid (40 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Stern: 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Average freeboard: 25.95 ft / 7.91 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 200.4 %
Waterplane Area: 44,898 Square feet or 4,171 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 122 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 168 lbs/sq ft or 819 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.68
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Let´s hope the Aussies will never meet the RSAN in anger. ;o) Both the Reliance and Triumph classes will cause these units some headache....

Seriously, I do not understand the combination of weight, armament and speed. India is far awaaaay from the Aussies to really worry about. On the other hand Japanese vessels may operate in Aussie waters with that backbone of SATSUMA bases. Yet IJN vessels don´t seem to play a role. Why?

Then, 24k tons is quote expensive to get a ship that is either overkill against any cruiser or even super-cruiser (with very few exceptions) but too weak to hold its own against any real capital ship or BC afloat in WesWorld.

Don´t get me wrong, she is a contender to be taken serious but she´s not really causing headaches and nightmares I assume (Don´t know, a SAE vs. Australia is so unlikely I don´t have to worry anyway).

So what´s the point in building a 24k tons super-super-CA/mini-BC with 31kn speed, six medium size main guns and 10" armor?

[Btw, isn´t a BC of 0,5 a bit low for such ship)

EDIT: Just noted her belt is less than 3 meters in height. Doesn´t leave much protected area above the waterline, does it?

Well, IIRC his idea is that Australia cannot match Japan and therefore he tries to have his ships match those from the Philippines and India.

... of course if the Australians is foolish enough to attack India, SAINT might come into play and the Australians may indeed meet the RSAN in anger.

Quoted

... but too weak to hold its own against any real capital ship or BC afloat in WesWorld.

In this case, her purpose is to buy time for the carriers to escape. She is fully able to do that.

And if those 119mm guns are DP instead of breech-loaders, she'd be very useful to a CV group under air attack.

Think Jervis Bay.

Though her belt could be taller.

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
Though her belt could be taller.

Agreed, that would be my main concern with this vessel. The torpedo protection is also weak, but the short belt height is probably even more of an issue.

No hoists for the 4.7" guns? Certainly doable, but that means that a full basic load of 4.7" rounds must be in lockers on the deck, essentially unprotected (especially since the 4.7" mountings are not enclosed).

Does it really make sense at this stage to have dedicated carrier escorts, especially such large and expensive ones?

I'm not sure on the strategic merit of simply pretending that the IJN doesn't exist. This sort of thing makes sense if Japan had the historical hordes of heavy cruisers, but instead has plenty of larger more dangerous ships.

For the 4.7" guns, typically deck lockers for the ammunition with hoists from the lockers to the secondary magazines.

Quoted

Does it really make sense at this stage to have dedicated carrier escorts, especially such large and expensive ones?

But when carrier groups of 4 or so start showing up, then ships like her will be worth the investment, both for the additional AAA, and to help the CVs escape heavy surface units.

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
But when carrier groups of 4 or so start showing up, then ships like her will be worth the investment, both for the additional AAA, and to help the CVs escape heavy surface units.

But thats quite some way in the future.

I designed the Chilean Constitution with the carrier escort role in mind. Carrier escort is one of the roles she is designed for, but not the only role she can or will fill.

The Admiralty sees these ships as inferior to any of her fast 15in armed battleships now building. While useful for supporting screening units and carriers the RN feels it unwise to go agianst any battleline with these ships (think Jutland MkII) but these are cheap ways of getting guns to sea and countering any of the larger CAs lurking around.

Proper BB fighting requires proper BB's at proper BB prices.

Fixed the 120mm guns, and added a foot of belt height.

Quoted

Seriously, I do not understand the combination of weight, armament and speed. India is far awaaaay from the Aussies to really worry about. On the other hand Japanese vessels may operate in Aussie waters with that backbone of SATSUMA bases. Yet IJN vessels don´t seem to play a role. Why?

I'm not sure on the strategic merit of simply pretending that the IJN doesn't exist. This sort of thing makes sense if Japan had the historical hordes of heavy cruisers, but instead has plenty of larger more dangerous ships.

Proper BB fighting requires proper BB's at proper BB prices.

The Imperial Japanese Navy (and the SAE if it comes to that) is a foe best left to the Royal Navy to handle.

But even then, the IJN battleline is old and slow, and the Kongos have no hope against these ships. Only the Tachibanas pose a threat, and even then the Leopards do have a chance against them.

SATSUMA has 10 large cruisers either in service or under construction, with more planned. That is without counting the Vadodaras, Basilans, and Yukinos. A 24k Cruiser Killer is exacly what I need.

Quoted

Does it really make sense at this stage to have dedicated carrier escorts, especially such large and expensive ones?

Ask the SAE that question...

This ship is not exacly a carrier escort. The ship will serve with the carrier in the hunter-killer role. I have very long and very vulnerable SLOC, and I can not afford to have them cut.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I'm not sure on the strategic merit of simply pretending that the IJN doesn't exist.

When one has allies more than capable of handling the Japanese, it has more strategic merit than wasting your entire GNP trying to match a foe that can outbuild you twice over or so.

That kind of madness is why the RCN stopped putting much "Well, this ship has to counter that ship" thought into it's design process recently.