WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Well, I do not know your Revision C as only B is posted above, but working from there the speed advantage of your newer, heavier ships is only 0,9 knots. Hardly a difference I would call "significantly less". The old CL also has a heavier broadside, more guns, more armor and longer legs. Only in seakeeping and, for what it is worth, hull strength your Revision B is in the lead.

Of course this is only one example and it is unlikely your ship will once meet the former (now sold) RSAN units. However, it makes me question the concept and doctrine behind your design. It seems to be build for a very small niche - and I wonder if a small power can affort such speciallized ship.

It is my belief that a small nation has to build its ships for a 'niche' - that is, what it sees as its tactical doctrine. A small nation does not have the luxury of building ships capable of world-wide employment and power projection abroad.

I dare to disagree.

Especially those powers with limited resources have to design and build (or buy) vessels that can be used in multiple roles, e.g. either for mine sweeping or escort duties, or for offensive mine laying, leading destroyers, scouting, trade protection and usual patrol service.

The bigger the hull, the more money has to be spend, the more a small power cannot affort to build "niche designs", IMHO.

I think you're disagreeing but saying pretty much the same thing.





Tho a 25mm belt, to me, strikes me as the "not enough to bother with" category.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I think you're disagreeing but saying pretty the same thing. :P

?!

He says "small nations need to build niche designs".

I say "small nations cannot affort to build vessels limited to one role/niche".

How could this be "pretty the same thing"?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I think you're disagreeing but saying pretty the same thing.

?!

He says "small nations need to build niche designs".

Au contraire, mon ami! That was not the entirety of what he stated:

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
It is my belief that a small nation has to build its ships for a 'niche' - that is, what it sees as its tactical doctrine.

(Emphasis mine.)

Not building niche ships, but building ships for the roles of a small navy's niche.

Now you have me completely confused....

What kind of "niche" should that be? How has a small nation a niche to fill (in general)?

What´s the niche here? And how does a fast, lightly armored but heavily armed destroyer leader fill such niche for Yugoslavia?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
What kind of "niche" should that be? How has a small nation a niche to fill (in general)?

One example would be the real-life Finnish Navy: they have created a very nice little naval force, integrated with land-based coastal defenses, marine infantry, and aircraft. They have developed their forces to meet their coast-defense niche, with minelayers, missile boats, landing craft, and ships like that. They've designed ships that will specialize in the job the Finnish Navy needs to do. They won't be so great at patrolling the mid-Pacific.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
What´s the niche here? And how does a fast, lightly armored but heavily armed destroyer leader fill such niche for Yugoslavia?

I'm going to decline answering that one as I'm not Yugoslavia.

The dual-purpose main battery is not a bad idea, at all, for a ship designed for the Adriatic.

The 25mm belt I have doubts about: I'm not sure enough that it will be strong enough to shatter nose-fused HE rounds that I've doubts that it will be of any real value other than splinter protection. Good sea-keeping is probably not that important in the Adriatic, I would trade the freeboard used to get that here for either more armor, more speed, or smaller size.

Where I feel the flaw in your "toughness" argument lies is the following: yes, this design can take more damage than a similar but less strong design (like the Bulgarian super-destroyers, the German heavy destroyers, or the French contre-torpilleurs), but all of these designs will be crippled by a hit or two in the engine/boiler rooms or sunk by a single torpedo hit. Once any of these ships is crippled, it will be easy to sink it, either by gunfire, torpedoes, or bombs.

Well, yes, the Finnish Navy surely specialized on a niche. But that again is a single example. Your interpretation of his original statement

Quoted

Not building niche ships, but building ships for the roles of a small navy's niche.

seems to indicate a small navy always has a niche to fill. And I wonder if a small navy has to fill a niche in general.

To me there seem to be three points here:

First, the statement that small navies have to build "niche designs", i.e. something special - at least that is my interpretation of the original statement - where I think this is not a theory to push forward because the special always is more expensive and hence a "no go" for small navies.

Second, your interpreation of said statement, indicating every small navy has (to find and) to fill it´s niche in general where I wonder if there always is a niche to fill.

Third, what do you consider "a niche"? Just building to a nations requirements is not "filling a niche" first place. To me a niche is something unique (worldwide).

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Well, yes, the Finnish Navy surely specialized on a niche. But that again is a single example. Your interpretation of his original statement

Quoted

Not building niche ships, but building ships for the roles of a small navy's niche.

seems to indicate a small navy always has a niche to fill.

Always? Eh... yes and no. Let me address your points in reverse order as that is more understandable:

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Third, what do you consider "a niche"? Just building to a nations requirements is not "filling a niche" first place. To me a niche is something unique (worldwide).

Per Dictionary.com:

Quoted

A place or position suitable or appropriate for a person or thing.

So no, I don't see a 'niche' as being unique; I see it as the logical result of self-evaluation of needs and requirements. In many cases we'll see a niche overlap somewhat; for instance, I'm designing the Bulgarian Navy as a force meant to operate in constrained seas. Many of the principles of my "niche" - the naval equivalent of knife-fighting - will hold true for other constrained seas aside from the Black Sea - for instance, the Adriatic, the Baltic, the Red, the Aegean, or the Caribbean.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Second, your interpreation of said statement, indicating every small navy has (to find and) to fill it´s niche in general where I wonder if there always is a niche to fill.

As I don't see a niche role as being particularly unique, yes, I do think most navies have a niche (or more likely a set of niches) they need to fill.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
To me there seem to be three points here:

First, the statement that small navies have to build "niche designs", i.e. something special - at least that is my interpretation of the original statement - where I think this is not a theory to push forward because the special always is more expensive and hence a "no go" for small navies.

And we come back again to the definition we use.

I will hold in abeyance comment on differing naval doctrines. However, I have heard the concerns raised regarding the usefulness of a 25mm armor belt. Hrolf's suggestions regarding trading freeboard for a thicker belt appears to have merit, which the appended Revision D seems to bear out. Buy juggling the design characteristics I was able to double the belt thickness without compromising too many of the other characteristics.

One particular question I do not recall being raised was the relative value of the 20mm armored deck. The weight of the deck armor is a significant value; what is gained by it?

In any event, I do appreciate your comments as they help me to better understand how Springsharp functions.

----------
Project 1940D Flotilla Cruiser laid down 1940

Displacement:
4,549 t light; 4,778 t standard; 5,117 t normal; 5,388 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
492.77 ft / 475.72 ft x 44.39 ft x 18.04 ft (normal load)
150.20 m / 145.00 m x 13.53 m x 5.50 m

Armament:
8 - 5.31" / 135 mm guns (4x2 guns), 75.07lbs / 34.05kg shells, 1940 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1936 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1930 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 618 lbs / 280 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 360
8 - 21.7" / 550 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 390.42 ft / 119.00 m 10.17 ft / 3.10 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 126 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.57" / 40 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0.59" / 15 mm - -

- Armour deck: 0.79" / 20 mm, Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 65,925 shp / 49,180 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 4,400nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 610 tons

Complement:
302 - 393

Cost:
£2.825 million / $11.302 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 77 tons, 1.5 %
Armour: 568 tons, 11.1 %
- Belts: 313 tons, 6.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 36 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 207 tons, 4.1 %
- Conning Tower: 13 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,763 tons, 34.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,061 tons, 40.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 568 tons, 11.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 80 tons, 1.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
4,030 lbs / 1,828 Kg = 53.7 x 5.3 " / 135 mm shells or 0.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 2.0 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 13.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 54 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.43
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.04

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.470
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.72 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.85 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 63 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.53 ft / 9.00 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Mid (50 %): 21.33 ft / 6.50 m (13.12 ft / 4.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Stern: 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Average freeboard: 17.95 ft / 5.47 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 126.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 108.8 %
Waterplane Area: 14,236 Square feet or 1,323 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 107 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 78 lbs/sq ft or 379 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.24
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate

Rev B Change - Reduced belt to 25mm vice original 40mm
Rev B Change - Increase torpedo armament to eight tubes
Rev B Change - Increase speed to 33 knots
Rev B Change - Adjusted armor belt to cover minumum machinery and magazine
Rev B Change - Adjusted trim to attain stability of 1.10
Rev B Change - Increased magazine capacity to 360 S/MG
Rev B Change - Increased miscellaneous weight to 120 tons
Rev C Change - Change LB Ratio
Rev C Change - Revise armament fit to 135mm Dual Purpose
Rev C Change - Increase max speed to 34 knots
Rev C Change - Reduce miscellaneous weight to 60 tons
Rev C Change - Adjusted armor belt to revised minimum length
Rev C Change - Reduced the height of armor belt to 3.25m vice 4m
Rev D Change - Reduce freeboard by 0.5 metres
Rev D Change - Increase armor belt to 50mm
Rev D Change - Reduced the height or armor belt to 3.1m vice 4m
Rev D Change - Reduce radius of action to 4,400 miles
Rev D Change - Increase miscellaneous weight to 80 tons

Quoted

Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

Might want to fix that.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy

Quoted

Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

Might want to fix that.

That is a most interesting result. The final change, increasing the miscellaneous weight from 60 tons to 80 tons drove the minimum length of the armor belt up a fraction of a metre. I've noted that correction for a Rev E, which may need to wait for other commentary.

But what I do not understand is the reason behind the cause of the change in minimum belt length occasioned by a change in miscellaneous weight.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
But what I do not understand is the reason behind the cause of the change in minimum belt length occasioned by a change in miscellaneous weight.

Misc weight takes up internal volume, increasing the amount of protected area needed.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
But what I do not understand is the reason behind the cause of the change in minimum belt length occasioned by a change in miscellaneous weight.

Misc weight takes up internal volume, increasing the amount of protected area needed.

Thank you, that makes perfect sense. I will have to keep that in mind for the future.

The 20mm deck armor was commented on very early. It's light for use against long-range shell fire, but it will be useful in preventing splinters or aircraft guns from penetrating the armor deck.

A 50mm belt is much more practical than a 25mm belt, good improvement there.

How are the 40mm mountings mounted? Ie, where are they on the centerline?