WesWorld

The new ''IONION'' class escort destroyer design.

First ship laid down on June 1938 and delivered to
Royal Hellenic Navy 8 months later and followed by
7 more ships of the same class.



IONION, ESCORT DESTROYER laid down 1938

Displacement:
1.216 t light; 1.254 t standard; 1.507 t normal; 1.710 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
301,81 ft / 295,28 ft x 32,81 ft x 14,11 ft (normal load)
91,99 m / 90,00 m x 10,00 m x 4,30 m

Armament:
6 - 3,00" / 76,2 mm guns (3x2 guns), 13,50lbs / 6,12kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
4 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns in single mounts, 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
4 - 0,31" / 7,9 mm guns (1x4 guns), 0,02lbs / 0,01kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline amidships

4 - 21,0" / 533,4 mm above water torpedoes (1x4)
2 rail ways for depth charges

Machinery:
Petrol Internal combustion motors,
Hydraulic drive, 2 shafts, 51.990 shp / 38.784 Kw = 35,00 kts
Range 1.100nm at 28,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 456 tons

Complement:
120 - 157

Ships of the ''IONION'' class escort destroyer:

RHNS IONION
RHNS AIGEON
RHNS KERKYRA
RHNS ZAKYNTHOS
RHNS SAMOS
RHNS CHIOS
RHNS NAXOS
RHNS PAROS

Nice pic.

But what´s the advantage of having two twin-launchers for torpedos?

My idea is that in a future reconstruction can sised a triplet or quadruplet torpedo launcher on each position, so the ship can carry the max possible number of torpedos, which will be 4/6/8. With your sugestion if there was one topedo launcer in the middle, the max housing torpedos will be 2/3/4

A destroyers hull might not offer enough beam and such masses on the sides do no good regarding seakeeping and self righting moments.

I also question that there is enough deckspace to turn a quad if installed on both deck sides. You a 10m beam and a usual torpedo has a length of about 6-7 meters and a diameter of ~53cm. The tubes add to the diameter so you have a quad at probably 2,8 meters. So if one launcher is turned fore and aft it might fit but you cannot turn both.

Having both launchers abreast also cuts your salve by 50% and DDs rarely get more than one chance to close on an enemy worth a deathride. So not being able to launch a full salvo halves the ships chances for a hit and potential effect. For targets where a second run is not a problem you won´t need so many TTs anyway, I assume...

Historically there were few DDs with TT banks on both sides - for some reason, I guess.

I guess you've right !!!
I will come back with an update !

First Alvama and now Navarchos; two good ship-artists in a short time period! How'd we get that lucky?

I like the ship, seems to be a decent ASW/light DD type for the Med. Actually, would make a good Bulgarian light DD, too.

Thanks a lot !
We are waiting for Bulgarian orders on our shipyards !

The one problem I see with the design is the main battery: 76mm is really too small for firing at anything bigger than an MTB, during the Great War it was found that even an 88mm was too small.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Historically there were few DDs with TT banks on both sides - for some reason, I guess.

American flushdeckers, Gridley, Bagley, and Benham classes all had side banks, mostly quad mounts on a 35 foot beam, the Bagley's retained their tubes throughout the war, others losing some not becuase of space but because of top weight issues preventing them from increasing their meager AA suites.

The Flush deckers had triple mounts on a 29 foot beam, the after mounts being removed for the escort role.

Quoted

Originally posted by Navarchos
Thanks a lot !
We are waiting for Bulgarian orders on our shipyards!

I'm building up my coastal and riverine forces at the moment; come 1940 or so I might be able to afford it. Additionally, I have a naval limitations treaty with Romania which affects what I can build or buy.

Looks like a similar approach to the Shannons that I designed for Ireland - albeit 12 knots faster. I'm imitating the British Black Swans, but used a 3.7" dual DP mount, rather than the 3" you used here - mostly because the 3.7" is one of my five standard guns (5.12", 3.7", 40mm, 20mm, .50cal).

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The one problem I see with the design is the main battery: 76mm is really too small for firing at anything bigger than an MTB, during the Great War it was found that even an 88mm was too small.

For surface combat I'd tend to agree; but I see this vessel in a similar role to the USN's Dealey-class DEs - the size and armament is the same, though Ionion is a good ten knots faster than Dealey.

In the Chilean fleet, I'm thinking of simply dividing the labor of my future destroyers into surface combatants and escorts and ASW escorts. Both ships will still be able to do both roles, of course; but a ship such as this will be cheap enough to do the ASW role. (And I've actually designed such vessels already.)

Navarchos, would you post the entire Springsharp?

one question.

Petrol?!?!?! Is this design intended for export to the Philippines?

Beware ye of smoking Filipinos & High-Explosive Penguins!

Turrets and barbettes are overkill for 3-inch and 40mm guns. It'd be better if you used deck mounts(with or without hoists).

I saw this camo, in a photo of a ww2 greek destroyer and i thought, how will look an ionion class escort destroyer with this colours and here it is, i think it's wonderfoul!!!
Also i added some small changes ( with no effection on springsharp's model) and a view of the ship from the bow!

Very good stuff.

That front view looks a bit "cramped in" but otherwise it´s a great drawing.

Great drawing !!!

I like your drawings very much

Wouldn't the firing arcs of the amidships 20mm singles only be 90* due to the supports legs for the tripod mast? I'd think moving the mounts back ~10' would allow at least some arc forward of directly abeam without interfering with the amidships 8mm quad mounts own arc. Just my 2cents.

Thanks a lot guys!!!
For the "cramped in" i draw it like this cause it looks more beautiful for me (it's not correct but it has better looking than a vertical one), as for the amidships 20 mm A/A guns it's OK because this are not the supports of the mast but the horizontal mast for the flags(as you can see there are flag ropes on it!!!). The supports of the mast are near to the chimney!

REALLY beautifull work!!!

Quoted

Originally posted by Navarchos
as for the amidships 20 mm A/A guns it's OK because this are not the supports of the mast but the horizontal mast for the flags(as you can see there are flag ropes on it!!!). The supports of the mast are near to the chimney!

OK, but they still can't fire forward of the beam without shooting out the ropes, if the barrel even clears them to begin with. Also, I, like BrockPaine, would like to see the rest of the Springsharp as well.

I love the level of detail, including the hull plates.