WesWorld

1939 Naval Planning Committee

Planning for a new class of fast battleships to replace the Queen Elizabeth Class has now resulted in contracts being placed for five of the new Admiral Class battleships. HMS Lion will be completed in 1940 brining the battleship fleet to ten modern fast battleships. However, although the Queen Elizabeth Class refit programme is now commencing work on the fourth ship (HMS Valiant between Jan 39-July 40) and will be joined by the last ship HMS Malaya between October 39-April 41 there will be a capability gap when the Resolution Class is decommissioned during 1938 until the Admirals complete in 1945. The Commander in Chief China and Far East Admiral Charles Morton Forbes has continued to press for two R’s to be rebuilt but the DNC has outlined some problems with the ships and the Sea Lords emphasised the necessary cost effectiveness needed to begin such work. Even allowing for dock space such refits could not commence until 1941 and would continue until 1943 /44 thus offering no real stopgap capability. Therefore a reduced life extension programme will be carried out on Resolution and Ramilles along the lines of the work to be undertaken on HMS Revenge for her new gunnery training ship role. The DNC has studied refit options for the two I Class battlecruisers but it seems insoluble problems with their layout prevents serious upgrading. At least, the Director of the Gunnery Division (DGD) would like to re-new the current AA outfit and fit radio-location devices and HMS Inflexible would be the first ship to undergo such work during 1940 with HMS Invincible to follow in 1941.

Commander in Chief Fleet Air Aim Admiral R. G. H. Henderson last year succeeded in gaining funding for Carriers I (HMS Hercules) and J (HMS Triumph) and work has begun, plans for two further Ocean Class carriers (K & L) are still on hold. Admiral Henderson is now looking at two new fleet carriers (M & N) after HMS Eagle completes this year but it seems likely that the order might be cut to just one vessel. Admiral R. G. H. Henderson has considered that a class of four large carriers might be operationally superior to the smaller carriers of the Ocean Class and it is possible that carriers M, N, O and P will be all large fleet carriers built during the early 1940s. Design work on the future fleet carrier continues and in the light of recent Italian developments size and air group have grown to limits constrained only by drydock lengths. Studies ordered by Henderson into 30,000 ton armoured flight-deck carriers have been sidelined in favour of continuing a layer deck armour scheme.

The cruiser programme has been paused and the Committee at length discussed new designs for future construction. A follow-on to the Colonies, the Southampton Class is under development for construction to begin next year. A follow-on for the Scylla Class light cruisers is also under development and it seems likely that after a discussions of a series of fast cruiser designs with 3x3 6in guns and 4x2 4.5in guns and 3in belts and 2in deck armour that the future British cruiser might settle on a single design to carry out the roles of fleet work, escorting and scouting and the DNC is somewhat in favour of focusing on a nine-gun cruiser. The DGD favours the twelve-gun ship for fleet work and the DNO favoured the nine-gun with new radar-assisted directors and upgraded AA fits with improved Mk II 57mm semi-auto medium AA guns. However, talks moved on to a sixteen-gunned cruiser in the light of recent moves by the German Navy to adopt a variant of the very successful commercial HDW cruiser, the Belgrano Class and Italy’s similar cruisers. The DNC had supplied a rough sketch design of a Colony with quad turrets but this was found to be too cramped and the length was increased to 623 feet and the whole design altered somewhat for better speeds. The DGD was impressed with the potential firepower but the DNO pointed out that no quadruple turret yet existed and that it might take a year or 18 months to build a prototype and that there were rate-of-fire issues to consider and the overall turret internal layout. He said he could not vouch for the turret being a success and that if it wasn’t then the class would be hampered and unable to revert to triples without serious rebuilding work. The First Sea Lord stated the need would only be for five ships anyway and that it was probably better to stick to the Southampton design for the time being.

The discussion also looked at replacing the sixteen-gunned cruiser or the Southamptons with an AA cruiser. There have been some calls for an AA cruiser from serving Admirals and the Naval Staff in the absence of a design decided to look into what an ideal ship would be. First the DNO outlined the available armament and likely layouts. There was only the 4.5in DP and the 3.7in HA mounts available as of now with no larger types under development. A 5in intermediate calibre was rejected owing to development costs and supply complications although the Canadian 5.5in was also looked into. A 6in DP was rejected as technically impossible with current technology. The 3.7in was rejected as too light as a cruiser main armament and realistically only the 4.5in was available allied to the Mk II 57mm semi-auto unless the Canadian 5.5in was brought. The DNOR (Director Naval Operational Requirements) thought the best vessel would be a light ‘super-destroyer’ type with minimal armour. The DNC concurred that an AA cruiser could not be adequately armoured against aerial bombs without becoming massive in size and cost and he thought a 3in belt and 2in deck would suffice or perhaps a 3in belt and deck if possible. The DEE (Director of Electrical Engineering) pointed out that the numerous radio electrical equipments now under development would require perhaps as much as twice the electrical power than previous cruisers and he outlined a system of four turbo-generators and four diesel generators in separate compartments for damage control and redundancy. The DNC also pointed out the likely space required for the bulky electronics below decks and cooling concerns and the room for a CIC. The DGD and the DNOR were keen to provide a Central Information Centre where all the incoming radio-location data could be plotted and the firing solutions passed to the directors (and director information also passed down into the computer) and also targeting data could from there be transferred to fleet fighters. All this ruled out a small ship and the cruiser grew to 7,000-7,500 tons with ten or twelve 4.5in guns with eight to twelve 57mm guns. Torpedoes would also be added and the likely speed was 33 knots. The DRW (Director of Radio Warfare) then gave an outline of the possible devices ready for 1940/41. The First Sea Lord asked whether the D Class cruisers couldn’t be refitted like some of the older C’s had been recently but the DEE stated the D’s did not have the electrical generating capacity and the DNC said he thought they lacked the internal space and speed for such a role. No decision was undertaken but a subsequent DNC sketch design was circulated to several commands and committees for comments. With further work, with assistance from Canada, the 4.5in gunned cruiser was upgraded with the new automatic 5.5in mount and was much larger and the DNC began work on a sketch design based on the Canadian Labrador Class which the Sea Lords approved of. It offered superior gun power plus aircraft handling equipment and good speed. Again the design was circulated to several commands and committees for comments.

The heavy cruiser programme has begun and the two Princess Royals complete this year. Last year the DNC revised the Princess Royal design to reduce weight but after adverse comments from the DNO the armament of the new Iron Duke Class has been considerably improved. An extra two twin 4.5in and two twin 57mm are fitted with revised layouts to improve arcs of all AA weapons and reducing topweight. The turret armour has been increased and the main belt deepened by two feet. Heavy debate in the committee led to several disagreements but the influence of the Commander in Chief North Atlantic Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay and the Second Sea Lord saved the class from cancellation but it seems unlikely that more than two will be built. The two Princess Royals and the two Iron Dukes will replace four old Kent Class cruisers with the other four to receive extensive refits.

The K Class destroyers for 1939 are repeats of the J Class with identical armament but some slightly lighter and the secondary armament has reverted back to two 57mm semi-auto twins as the DNO has promised significant improvements with the new Mk II. The DGD was unhappy at the change but the increasing obsolescence of the 2pdr meant an effective weapon must be carried to counter faster aircraft and dive-bombers. The DNO has begun to draft a new 2pdr specification due to misgivings over the 0.661in HMG lacking heavier stopping power. Depth-finding Asdic Type 143 is fitted alongside the Type 142 and Type 272 surface radio-location gear is also added. The Director of Electrical Engineering (DEE) is hoping that the new series of destroyer optimised radio-location gear will be ready for the follow-on L Class destroyers in 1940 to reduce weight and space concerns. The Commander in Chief China and Far East, Admiral Charles Morton Forbes is still calling for the ‘Escort Destroyer’ studied last year in some detail and while the slip capacity has improved it seems likely they will not be built as planned but will probably become a new enlarged fleet destroyer as the L Class. The DEE himself expressed the need to increase electrical generating power and the need for better machinery.

The submarine fleet has made great strides in improvement and from 1939 all Great War vintage submarines will be discarded. Already the U and Shark classes are providing the backbone of the new fleet. Now that trials on the S-1 are complete their Lordships have ordered five new fast hunter submarines of the S Class equipped with the latest hydrophone detection gear and hulls able to withstand deep pressures and streamlined for high-speeds underwater. By 1940 the submarine fleet shall have dropped to just 69 submarines but all but nine will be new construction with all but ten of the remaining fifty built within the last five years.

Recent amphibious operations and exercises and detailed studies of various foreign specialised landing support ships has led to the formation of a small coastal force able to land men and tanks on an enemy beach with small ramped landing craft. A sub-committee report late last year identified the need for a “mother-ship” to carry these smaller landing vessels and their cargoes of men and vehicles overseas while providing every means of technical support a dockyard could provide. Although like a tender such a vessel would also have command spaces and would feature a dry-dock aft, a floodable well deck able to carry landing craft (plus others in davits) with a stern door. Such a vessel would become an assault vessel. Termed the Landing Ship Dock the DNC sketched out a proposal 465 feet long, displacing some 6,500 tons and armed with dual-purpose 4.5in guns for shore fire and AA duties and light 2pdr AA. This was further refined and some weight cut back by deleting non-essential spaces but other space was given over the workshops and the final design came out at 7,000 tons normal with 3x2 4.5in, 4x8 2pdr and some 750 tons given to vehicles and 480 tons to troop capacity (280 men). The need for such a vessel is great and four have been authorised with work to begin this year or next.

Quoted

Design work on the future fleet carrier continues and in the light of recent Italian developments size and air group have grown to limits constrained only by drydock lengths. Studies ordered by Henderson into 30,000 ton armoured flight-deck carriers have been sidelined in favour of continuing a layer deck armour scheme.

Audacious isn't that bad for the 30-35,000ton bracket. It's only really the length which was the historical problem, making later rebuilds more difficult. Without docking problems being to the same extent here, a longer Audacious would be nice. Or the RN realises that they're likely to be pursuing operations in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and goes for one of the Malta designs instead.

Looking at historical AA cruiser designs you're probably underestimating the volume and weight required for fighter direction stations, radar, generating capacity etc. It's probably better to sacrifice some firepower for a more efficient ship.

I'm not sure I understand the large number of small coastal submarine design being built given the RN's lack of emphasis on European operations. I can't help but feel that something like the A-Class or larger is needed, but it may take a while to realise that.

The carrier is in a state of flux but several designs have been drawn up. Really its turning into a Malta but perhaps a bit lighter. The Pacific is the intended playground of the new carriers.

The AA cruiser is undecided, don't know if the expense is worth it. Really a project for later on in the 1940s.

Those coastal subs can cover the Med pretty well.
Agreements with India prevent the stationing of long-range subs at Singapore but more Shark Class will be built in the future. These things take time and the submarine fleet was in an awful mess. Slowly its getting more modern. The U Class will be upgraded too with more range.

You could just build the subs for Australia...

Just thought I'd show the Syclla follow-on class, the Syclla II. I'll either build these on the twelve gun Southamptons which are similar but with twelve guns. Obviously.

Scylla Class, Great Britain Light Cruiser laid down 1940

Displacement:
7,484 t light; 7,831 t standard; 8,860 t normal; 9,683 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
568.65 ft / 557.00 ft x 56.60 ft x 16.90 ft (normal load)
173.32 m / 169.77 m x 17.25 m x 5.15 m

Armament:
9 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3x3 guns), 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1936 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (4x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1936 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, all aft
12 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (6x2 guns), 6.00lbs / 2.72kg shells, 1936 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 0.66" / 16.8 mm guns (4x6 guns), 0.14lbs / 0.06kg shells, 1936 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 1,407 lbs / 638 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
8 - 24.5" / 622.3 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 300.00 ft / 91.44 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 83 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 74,000 shp / 55,204 Kw = 32.10 kts
Range 8,500nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,852 tons

Complement:
456 - 593

Cost:
£4.121 million / $16.483 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 176 tons, 2.0 %
Armour: 1,468 tons, 16.6 %
- Belts: 388 tons, 4.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 187 tons, 2.1 %
- Armour Deck: 874 tons, 9.9 %
- Conning Tower: 18 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,979 tons, 22.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,712 tons, 41.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,375 tons, 15.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 1.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
15,265 lbs / 6,924 Kg = 141.3 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 1.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.28
Metacentric height 3.3 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 13.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.42
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.33

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.582
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.84 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.73 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 37
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: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Mid (75 %): 25.00 ft / 7.62 m (14.00 ft / 4.27 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Stern: 14.00 ft / 4.27 m
- Average freeboard: 22.81 ft / 6.95 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 90.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 175.2 %
Waterplane Area: 23,621 Square feet or 2,194 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 127 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 94 lbs/sq ft or 458 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.12
- 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

Class Names: Galatea, Penelope, Leander, Orion, Neptune

Radar Equipment:
Surface Search Type 272 (low aerial search)
Gunnery Director Type 285 (one set on main director)
Gunnery Director Type 283 (one set on aft 4.5in director)
GunneryDirector Type 282 (two sets on 57mm directors)
Passive Radio Intercept Type 293 series

Misc weight includes
Provision for two aircraft
8 reload torpedoes and handling gear

Looks ok, but I'd probably increase size a bit, especially the beam comparing her to Swiftsure.

Then again, the UK has built over 40 light cruisers during the 1930s. How many is enough?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Looks ok, but I'd probably increase size a bit, especially the beam comparing her to Swiftsure.

Then again, the UK has built over 40 light cruisers during the 1930s. How many is enough?

Over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAND!

[SIZE=1]sorry, especially as I started it....[/SIZE]

Yeah I know what you mean.

The last few C's are now AA cruisers and probably good until replacements are built in the late 1940s, the D's will be laid up soon, the two E's now refitted as AA types, the four Improved E's haven't much active life left and the F and G's are getting long in the tooth but will be extensively refitted.

I only have ten cruisers with 12 6in guns, most have 9 or 8. The Syclla was a cheap cruiser for Empire patrolling and to replace the Great War types. The Syclla II has grown a little. Building 25 cruisers since 1935 could be seen as meglomania I guess.

Sigh, I'll just twiddle my thumbs until my 6in auto is ready...

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Building 25 cruisers since 1935 could be seen as meglomania I guess.

Actually I think RN may need even more Cruisers that it has now.

RN is the dominant fleet in the world having numerous colonies with need protection. Large number of ships are needed.
Although You may have a problem with block obsoleteness (Is that a word???)

I think the word you want is 'obsolescence'. Close enough.

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Building 25 cruisers since 1935 could be seen as meglomania I guess.

Actually I think RN may need even more Cruisers that it has now.

RN is the dominant fleet in the world having numerous colonies with need protection. Large number of ships are needed.
Although You may have a problem with block obsoleteness (Is that a word???)

In @, a study was done which concluded the RN needed 70 cruisers to meet its' global commitments. When I was running the RN under Cleito, I tried more than a few weird and wonderful ways to boost numbers for colonial ways. If you just keep building the things (70 ships with a 20 year life means 3 or 4 a year) then you don't really have a block obsolescence problem.

Block obsolescence will still creep in as all the ships are basically the same design. When you start adding cool new bits of technology the costs rocket and you can't build as many.

Britain doesn't face the same world here as OTL; far less Empire to protect, far more friends, and vaguely similar threats.

I had an idea the other night and this is the result.

My idea was what if the different colonies had a couple of small gunboats of their "own" for local shore protection, fisheries rights, search-and-rescue, spotting etc?

Basically a small gunboat but with some torpedoes amidships and a layout probably very similar to a V&W Class DD.

What do you guys think? Is it worth it?


500 Ton Colonial Gunboat, Great Britain Gunboat laid down 1940

Displacement:
453 t light; 472 t standard; 497 t normal; 517 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
234.25 ft / 230.00 ft x 27.00 ft x 7.00 ft (normal load)
71.40 m / 70.10 m x 8.23 m x 2.13 m

Armament:
3 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 31.00lbs / 14.06kg shells, 1932 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount
4 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (1x4 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1922 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
4 - 0.66" / 16.8 mm guns (2x2 guns), 0.14lbs / 0.07kg shells, 1940 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 102 lbs / 46 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
3 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Conning tower: 0.50" / 13 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 9,000 shp / 6,714 Kw = 26.46 kts
Range 2,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 45 tons

Complement:
52 - 68

Cost:
£0.325 million / $1.302 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 13 tons, 2.6 %
Armour: 7 tons, 1.5 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 7 tons, 1.3 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 1 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 196 tons, 39.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 202 tons, 40.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 44 tons, 8.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 35 tons, 7.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
272 lbs / 123 Kg = 8.5 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.28
Metacentric height 1.1 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 10.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.37

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.400
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.52 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.17 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 67 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 37
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Mid (40 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m (10.00 ft / 3.05 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Stern: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 13.36 ft / 4.07 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 155.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 116.4 %
Waterplane Area: 3,823 Square feet or 355 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 79 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 25 lbs/sq ft or 122 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 4.63
- Overall: 0.62
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Class Names:
HMS

My opinions (with grain of salt)... Too little speed to be a successful torpedo boat; unnecessarily high speed to be patrol/gunboat. It falls between the stools, I think. It also needs more ammo.

Hows this for more Dakka? (What is Dakka anyway?)


500 Ton Colonial Gunboat, Great Britain Gunboat laid down 1940

Displacement:
441 t light; 466 t standard; 497 t normal; 521 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
234.25 ft / 230.00 ft x 27.00 ft x 7.00 ft (normal load)
71.40 m / 70.10 m x 8.23 m x 2.13 m

Armament:
3 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 31.00lbs / 14.06kg shells, 1932 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount
4 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (1x4 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1922 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
8 - 0.66" / 16.8 mm guns in single mounts, 0.14lbs / 0.06kg shells, 1940 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 102 lbs / 46 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Conning tower: 0.50" / 13 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 7,250 shp / 5,409 Kw = 25.14 kts
Range 2,500nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 55 tons

Complement:
52 - 68

Cost:
£0.309 million / $1.235 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 13 tons, 2.6 %
Armour: 7 tons, 1.5 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 7 tons, 1.4 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 1 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 179 tons, 36.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 197 tons, 39.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 56 tons, 11.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 45 tons, 9.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
303 lbs / 137 Kg = 9.5 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.30
Metacentric height 1.1 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 10.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.58

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.400
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.52 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.17 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 64 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 32
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Mid (40 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m (10.00 ft / 3.05 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Stern: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 13.36 ft / 4.07 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 147.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 174.5 %
Waterplane Area: 3,823 Square feet or 355 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 91 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 24 lbs/sq ft or 119 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 4.52
- Overall: 0.62
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Class Names:
HMS

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Hows this for more Dakka? (What is Dakka anyway?)

Dakka is a WH40K term for rapid-fire. An Ork toting a BFG minigun is Dakka. A platoon of Orks double-wielding triple-mounted miniguns with bottomless magazines is Moar Dakka. As the saying goes: "Need moar Dakka. No exceptions." When I say "Needs more dakka", I generally mean either "the ammo supply is insufficient for how fast I intend to shoot" or "This weapon is insufficiently small for my needs."

The fix looks better.

Linguistic aside...

I don't know is this ship all that useful. It isn't even a speed bump for a destroyer.

Its fast big and powerful for a gunboat.

If it for shooting the Indigenous, which I'm assume what gunboats of a world spanning empire do, then the guns too small.

They don't seem too bad apart from the armament. I'd reduce it to a single 4" and a twin 40mm. I doubt you'll be able to get much more on the hull. Space is more valuable than the armament.

I'd build to a lot higher hull strength as well.

Great article, James.

I wonder how British admirals rate foreign AA cruiser designs.

On the Scylla II - it´s the kind of cruiser I like a lot. A true workhorse. The RSAN has something similar around, the AJAX-class of 1931. And here is where I wonder if the RN should really build the Scylla II. The AJAX is nine years older but carriers more armor while everything else is pretty similar. Of course it is difficult to tell how much impact more modern radio gear etc. will have.

On number of hulls - I am not fully aware of all theatres the RN might be challanged in but the SAE entered the ABS war with 48 cruisers. Plenty, right? Well, the Argies and Brazilians managed to sink a few and damaged some more. At the end of the war the RSAN had quite some trouble keeping up a decent blockade and managing offensive operations. Had the war run for a longer time OR had the Brazilians been more aggressive and better equiped (a matter of not having a player for some time) the RSAN would have really faced the problem of running out of light cruisers. Also, compared to the RN the RSAN had relatively short suplly lines and ships could be shifted quite easily. This is not the case for the RN.

To sum it up, I think 40 is not enough for the RN.

Thanks for the explanation Brock. Now I know!

Here is another revised and smaller design with more space and less toys since the crews will be British officers with local crews. Any better?


500 Ton Colonial Gunboat, Great Britain Gunboat laid down 1940

Displacement:
438 t light; 458 t standard; 488 t normal; 512 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
234.25 ft / 230.00 ft x 27.00 ft x 7.00 ft (normal load)
71.40 m / 70.10 m x 8.23 m x 2.13 m

Armament:
2 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 31.00lbs / 14.06kg shells, 1932 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (1x2 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1922 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
8 - 0.66" / 16.8 mm guns in single mounts, 0.14lbs / 0.06kg shells, 1940 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 67 lbs / 30 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 0.50" / 13 mm, Conning tower: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 1,750 shp / 1,306 Kw = 17.72 kts
Range 2,500nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 54 tons

Complement:
51 - 67

Cost:
£0.175 million / $0.699 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 9 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 41 tons, 8.5 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 5 tons, 1.0 %
- Armour Deck: 35 tons, 7.2 %
- Conning Tower: 1 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 47 tons, 9.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 297 tons, 60.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 50 tons, 10.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 45 tons, 9.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,816 lbs / 824 Kg = 56.7 x 4.0 " / 102 mm shells or 1.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 0.8 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 12.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.18
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.393
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.52 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.17 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 45 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 25
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m (10.00 ft / 3.05 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Stern: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 14.16 ft / 4.32 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 56.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 194.7 %
Waterplane Area: 3,808 Square feet or 354 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 196 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 35 lbs/sq ft or 169 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.79
- Longitudinal: 8.36
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Class Names:
HMS