WesWorld

Due to the shortage of destroyers, the CNDO was commissioned to design a destroyer.

Displacement:
2.000 t light; 2.178 t standard; 2.365 t normal; 2.514 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
374,27 ft / 364,99 ft x 37,57 ft x 15,09 ft (normal load)
114,08 m / 111,25 m x 11,45 m x 4,60 m

Armament:
8 - 5,00" / 127 mm guns (4x2 guns), 62,50lbs / 28,35kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
10 - 0,98" / 25,0 mm guns (5x2 guns), 0,48lbs / 0,22kg shells, 1938 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 513 lbs / 232 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 450
6 - 21,0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,97" / 50 mm 0,98" / 25 mm -
2nd: 0,79" / 20 mm 0,39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Conning tower: 0,98" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 44.060 shp / 32.869 Kw = 34,00 kts
Range 3.850nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 336 tons

Complement:
169 - 220

Cost:
£1,535 million / $6,141 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 64 tons, 2,7%
Armour: 41 tons, 1,8%
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 38 tons, 1,6%
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Conning Tower: 4 tons, 0,2%
Machinery: 1.061 tons, 44,9%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 784 tons, 33,1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 365 tons, 15,4%
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 2,1%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
688 lbs / 312 Kg = 11,0 x 5,0 " / 127 mm shells or 0,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,08
Metacentric height 1,3 ft / 0,4 m
Roll period: 13,6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,94
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,08

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0,400
Length to Beam Ratio: 9,72 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22,15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 67 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 65
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22,97 ft / 7,00 m
- Forecastle (20%): 22,31 ft / 6,80 m (21,33 ft / 6,50 m aft of break)
- Mid (50%): 20,67 ft / 6,30 m (13,12 ft / 4,00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (20%): 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Stern: 13,12 ft / 4,00 m
- Average freeboard: 17,38 ft / 5,30 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 171,9%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 117,7%
Waterplane Area: 8.759 Square feet or 814 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 78%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 43 lbs/sq ft or 208 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,50
- Longitudinal: 2,74
- Overall: 0,59
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

No comments ???

Sure...

If there is a shortage of destroyers, build a batch of two of a 1350ts or 1500ts design with 4 to 5 12cm guns. Will be more efficient than building large designs. Think British world war 2 standard destroyer.

Huh - that's odd, I've never seen this before.

Looks okay, stability a bit low for my tastes. Good firepower, average speed and range... not a bad design.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Sure...

If there is a shortage of destroyers, build a batch of two of a 1350ts or 1500ts design with 4 to 5 12cm guns. Will be more efficient than building large designs. Think British world war 2 standard destroyer.

Is true enough. I've been noticing particularly of late how many "large destroyers" we've acquired - eight guns or more, and often with increasingly large secondaries. A more realistic 4-6 gun DD would be a real breath of fresh air.

If you accept an even smaller main gun caliber you could even get something like this (the SAE may sell the design to their Chinese friend....):

DD38B, South African Destroyer laid down 1938

Displacement:
1.428 t light; 1.495 t standard; 1.731 t normal; 1.920 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
369,48 ft / 352,69 ft x 32,81 ft x 12,47 ft (normal load)
112,62 m / 107,50 m x 10,00 m x 3,80 m

Armament:
6 - 4,53" / 115 mm guns (3x2 guns), 46,40lbs / 21,05kg shells, 1938 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
4 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
4 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1938 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 287 lbs / 130 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
5 - 21,0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,18" / 30 mm 0,79" / 20 mm -
2nd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
3rd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 42.896 shp / 32.000 Kw = 35,19 kts
Range 6.000nm at 15,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 425 tons

Complement:
133 - 174

Cost:
£1,151 million / $4,604 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 36 tons, 2,1%
Armour: 17 tons, 1,0%
- Belts: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Armament: 17 tons, 1,0%
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0,0%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 886 tons, 51,2%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 478 tons, 27,6%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 303 tons, 17,5%
Miscellaneous weights: 10 tons, 0,6%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
405 lbs / 184 Kg = 8,7 x 4,5 " / 115 mm shells or 0,3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,34
Metacentric height 1,6 ft / 0,5 m
Roll period: 11,0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,21
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0,420
Length to Beam Ratio: 10,75 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21,53 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 69 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1,64 ft / 0,50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26,25 ft / 8,00 m
- Forecastle (40%): 18,70 ft / 5,70 m (10,66 ft / 3,25 m aft of break)
- Mid (50%): 10,66 ft / 3,25 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 10,66 ft / 3,25 m
- Stern: 10,66 ft / 3,25 m
- Average freeboard: 15,09 ft / 4,60 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 182,2%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 80,4%
Waterplane Area: 7.489 Square feet or 696 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 65%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 31 lbs/sq ft or 152 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,50
- Longitudinal: 2,07
- Overall: 0,58
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

That DD actually closely matches some of my own recent design studies.

China will be very happy to make a new business with their south african friends

So may be China build some big destroyers and some small one

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Is true enough. I've been noticing particularly of late how many "large destroyers" we've acquired - eight guns or more, and often with increasingly large secondaries. A more realistic 4-6 gun DD would be a real breath of fresh air.

It's possible to cram a lot of kit in using SS. Topweight would be the main problem with most of these designs I feel

My design is pretty much standard compared to historical british designs - I just traded 4 12cm single mounts for three doubles of smaller size.

But I agree, topweight always is an issue - as is seakeeping and the ability to absorb damage and flooding. A matter of scripting to me....

I have to agree, if China has a shortage of destoyers she should be looking at building smaller cheaper designs to fill the gap.

The design posted would make more sence if China was short on cruisers and wanted to fill that gap, though in that case I'm sure China would prefer a 6x5.9" armament and that would just push the tonnage up ect ect.