WesWorld

Submitted for expert scrutiny by the forum

Project 1940A - TBD Flotilla Cruiser laid down 1940

Displacement:
4,672 t light; 4,920 t standard; 5,295 t normal; 5,594 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
493.72 ft / 475.72 ft x 45.93 ft x 18.04 ft (normal load)
150.48 m / 145.00 m x 14.00 m x 5.50 m

Armament:
8 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (4x2 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1940 Model
Quick firing 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 / 0.89kg 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 841 lbs / 382 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300
6 - 21.7" / 550 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.57" / 40 mm 393.70 ft / 120.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 127 % of normal length

- 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, 52,815 shp / 39,400 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 4,800nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 674 tons

Complement:
309 - 403

Cost:
£2.697 million / $10.790 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 105 tons, 2.0 %
Armour: 593 tons, 11.2 %
- Belts: 326 tons, 6.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 40 tons, 0.8 %
- Armour Deck: 215 tons, 4.1 %
- Conning Tower: 13 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,412 tons, 26.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,462 tons, 46.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 622 tons, 11.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 1.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
6,006 lbs / 2,724 Kg = 58.3 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 1.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.06
Metacentric height 1.7 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 14.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 73 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.73
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.33

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.470
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.36 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.91 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
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: 31.17 ft / 9.50 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m (14.76 ft / 4.50 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Stern: 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Average freeboard: 19.59 ft / 5.97 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 105.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 133.5 %
Waterplane Area: 14,731 Square feet or 1,369 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 121 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 87 lbs/sq ft or 424 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 3.02
- Overall: 1.09
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

My initial thoughts are;

Armament is good but I think eight torpedoes might be better as a flotilla leader

The 40mm belt is a waste of weight IMHO but the 20mm splinter protection on the deck is probably a good idea.

32kts seems a tad slow but if you saved the belt weight you might get this a bit higher.

Trim the 1.09 hull strength to 1.00. You don't need more than 1.00 on a normal warship so the extra 0.9 is wasted weight. Trim the ship back via the block coefficent slider to 1.00 and you'll also find the hull is slimmer and you'll get a higher speed too.

Overall not a bad design, I've been building and studying similar ships for Argentina for years.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
My initial thoughts are;

Armament is good but I think eight torpedoes might be better as a flotilla leader

The 40mm belt is a waste of weight IMHO but the 20mm splinter protection on the deck is probably a good idea.

32kts seems a tad slow but if you saved the belt weight you might get this a bit higher.

Trim the 1.09 hull strength to 1.00. You don't need more than 1.00 on a normal warship so the extra 0.9 is wasted weight. Trim the ship back via the block coefficent slider to 1.00 and you'll also find the hull is slimmer and you'll get a higher speed too.

Overall not a bad design, I've been building and studying similar ships for Argentina for years.

I used the OTL Dutch Tromp as a concept and the WW French Volta as my guide. Thanks for the suggestions and I am certain that Rev B will be appearing soon for further scrutiny.

Suggestions made by Hood incorporated as noted. Any other thoughts gratefully accepted.

Project 1940B - Flotilla Cruiser laid down 1940

Displacement:
4,644 t light; 4,920 t standard; 5,295 t normal; 5,594 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
493.72 ft / 475.72 ft x 45.93 ft x 18.04 ft (normal load)
150.48 m / 145.00 m x 14.00 m x 5.50 m

Armament:
8 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (4x2 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1940 Model
Quick firing 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 841 lbs / 382 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 360
8 - 21.7" / 550 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 367.45 ft / 112.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 119 % of normal length

- 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, 59,750 shp / 44,574 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 4,800nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 674 tons

Complement:
309 - 403

Cost:
£2.847 million / $11.389 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 105 tons, 2.0 %
Armour: 459 tons, 8.7 %
- Belts: 192 tons, 3.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 40 tons, 0.8 %
- Armour Deck: 215 tons, 4.1 %
- Conning Tower: 13 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1,598 tons, 30.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,362 tons, 44.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 651 tons, 12.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 120 tons, 2.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
4,933 lbs / 2,238 Kg = 47.9 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 0.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 1.9 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 14.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 64 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.65
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.470
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.36 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.91 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
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: 31.17 ft / 9.50 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m (14.76 ft / 4.50 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Stern: 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Average freeboard: 19.59 ft / 5.97 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 117.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 122.3 %
Waterplane Area: 14,731 Square feet or 1,369 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 83 lbs/sq ft or 407 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.88
- Overall: 1.03
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

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

In fact, you can, on a ship this size, cut it down to .90. And if you can get the standard weight under 4,500 tons, you can get it to .75.

With that in mind, I would think that a Dual Purpose battery would be better, at least IMHO. With that in mind, I, at least, would drop the main battery to 130 mm, or 138 if you want to import French, or 140 if you want to import Canadian

All and all, not a bad start for this kind of ship. I'm thinking that it may be a bit narrow *Watches Hoo come to the rescue*, but it has the makings of a very good start.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
In fact, you can, on a ship this size, cut it down to .90. And if you can get the standard weight under 4,500 tons, you can get it to .75.

With that in mind, I would think that a Dual Purpose battery would be better, at least IMHO. With that in mind, I, at least, would drop the main battery to 130 mm, or 138 if you want to import French, or 140 if you want to import Canadian

All and all, not a bad start for this kind of ship. I'm thinking that it may be a bit narrow *Watches Hoo come to the rescue*, but it has the makings of a very good start.

What the rules of the sim permit me to do, and what makes for a good warship design, are two different things in my mind. While I have noted excellent historical warships simmed here with less than 1.00 strength, I prefer to keep the number above that value, if I can.

As to the calibre of the main armament, I did consider a 130mm DP, but went with the 150mm QF instead. My thoughts went back to the role of the ship.

I envision the flotilla cruiser as providing gun support to destroyers. Having adopted a 120mm DP gun for new destroyer construction, I felt that the 130mm did not give much additional shell weight; hence the 150mm. A 150mm DP gun I considered to be too complicated to build or maintain in my 1940 environment.

If these cruisers were intended to support larger vessels with AA fire, I agree that the 130mm would be the way to go. But that is now how I see it right now.

I am willing to be convinced.

Oh, I definatly agree with the 150 mm not being techincally possible in the 40's. I was thinking more of you importing 140 or 138 mm guns from France or Canada....would that be a sufficent margin for what you're thinking of?

I'm just thinking that you could use additional armour over the engines, to protect them from destroyer caliber gunfire. 2-3'' of belt should do that, and that would prevent the flotilla leader from being disabled by ships half, or even less, of its size.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
Oh, I definatly agree with the 150 mm not being techincally possible in the 40's. I was thinking more of you importing 140 or 138 mm guns from France or Canada....would that be a sufficent margin for what you're thinking of?

I'm just thinking that you could use additional armour over the engines, to protect them from destroyer caliber gunfire. 2-3'' of belt should do that, and that would prevent the flotilla leader from being disabled by ships half, or even less, of its size.

I started out with thicker belt armor, and found that it strained the design (i.e. strength down in the 0.6 range). The OTL Tromp, which was my concept vessel, only 5/8 inch armor. I acknowledge the design is an eggshell. She's meant to back up destroyers engaging other destroyers, not go toe-to-toe with larger cruisers.

She is, in effect, an oversize destroyer - not a small cruiser. She also reflects what a small country might be able to build.

If you're looking for a DD flotilla leader (which it sounds like you are), you might want to look at something along the lines of the WW German Lebrect Maas class. 32 knots will slow down your DDs, so I'd be concerned about that. Also, QF 150mm guns would be using very large and bulky cartridges, you'd probably want to use breechloaders here instead (so the propellant case and the projectile are loaded separately).

I'm thinking something like this:

Quoted

Erich Koellner, German Heavy Destroyer laid down 1938

Erich Koellner - laid down 1938


Displacement:
2,850 t light; 2,990 t standard; 3,288 t normal; 3,527 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
483.15 ft / 465.88 ft x 44.29 ft x 13.94 ft (normal load)
147.26 m / 142.00 m x 13.50 m x 4.25 m

Armament:
6 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (3x2 guns), 99.87lbs / 45.30kg shells, 1937 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
4 - 3.46" / 88.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 20.79lbs / 9.43kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on centreline, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1937 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
16 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1937 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 699 lbs / 317 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 180
8 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.76" / 70 mm 1.57" / 40 mm 2.76" / 70 mm
2nd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.79" / 20 mm -
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 57,418 shp / 42,834 Kw = 35.50 kts
Range 5,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 537 tons

Complement:
216 - 282

Cost:
£2.083 million / $8.331 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 90 tons, 2.7 %
Armour: 79 tons, 2.4 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 66 tons, 2.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 13 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 1,477 tons, 44.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,095 tons, 33.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 438 tons, 13.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 110 tons, 3.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,050 lbs / 476 Kg = 10.2 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 2.1 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 12.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.58
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.400
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.52 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.86 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
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: 27.07 ft / 8.25 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22.15 ft / 6.75 m
- Mid (40 %): 22.15 ft / 6.75 m (15.58 ft / 4.75 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15.58 ft / 4.75 m
- Stern: 15.58 ft / 4.75 m
- Average freeboard: 18.60 ft / 5.67 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 170.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 135.5 %
Waterplane Area: 13,182 Square feet or 1,225 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 80 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 45 lbs/sq ft or 220 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.56
- Overall: 0.56
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

10 tons reserved for depth charges and rails

20 tons reserved for radar

80 tons reserved for mines and growth

could be a good solution. The mines would come in handy for a multi-purpose rule, which is good for a small state.

EDIT: Hrolf beat me to it.

Just mind that in a few cases "multipurpose" sometimes means "does everything badly". So have a care what you make "multipurpose".

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
If you're looking for a DD flotilla leader (which it sounds like you are), you might want to look at something along the lines of the WW German Lebrect Maas class. 32 knots will slow down your DDs, so I'd be concerned about that. Also, WF 150mm guns would be using very large and bulky cartridges, you'd probably want to use breechloaders here instead (so the propellant case and the projectile are loaded separately).

I agree with you on the question of QF versus BL; it is a change I think I'll adopt which should not have much impact on the overall design.

The speed differential between the Rev B (33 knots) and the destroyers she'd be working with (34 knots) is not that much. If I could figure a way to make them equal, so much the better.

The most significant shortcoming of the KM heavy destroyer designs is their lack of strength. 0.56 might be acceptable to the sim; it is less than I've accepted for my Project 39 destroyers and far less than I would want for a cruiser. Also, the Project 40 can take nearly five times the gun damage than the Erich Koellner before sinking - something to consider.

I realize that four Koellners could be had for the cost of three Project 40s, with enough left over to nearly fund a fifth. However, as some smaller nations would never have that amount of tonnage available, it is a rather moot point for me.

Like a "Jack of All trades, master of none" approach?

Heh, Koellner is the latest version of the Maas type. Another version, optimized for smoother seas, is used by Peru, the Independencia class, which did good service during the latest conflict involving Peru.

As far as damage absorbing goes, no DD does that well: they're really designed on the theory of "don't get hit".

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
If you're looking for a DD flotilla leader (which it sounds like you are), you might want to look at something along the lines of the WW German Lebrect Maas class. 32 knots will slow down your DDs, so I'd be concerned about that. Also, WF 150mm guns would be using very large and bulky cartridges, you'd probably want to use breechloaders here instead (so the propellant case and the projectile are loaded separately).

I agree with you on the question of QF versus BL; it is a change I think I'll adopt which should not have much impact on the overall design.

The speed differential between the Rev B (33 knots) and the destroyers she'd be working with (34 knots) is not that much. If I could figure a way to make them equal, so much the better.

The most significant shortcoming of the KM heavy destroyer designs is their lack of strength. 0.56 might be acceptable to the sim; it is less than I've accepted for my Project 39 destroyers and far less than I would want for a cruiser. Also, the Project 40 can take nearly five times the gun damage than the Erich Koellner before sinking - something to consider.

I realize that four Koellners could be had for the cost of three Project 40s, with enough left over to nearly fund a fifth. However, as some smaller nations would never have that amount of tonnage available, it is a rather moot point for me.

Actually, for the cost of 2 1940Bs, you can get 3 Koellners, which would have more guns, more torpedoes, and be faster. Not as tough, granted, though.

I've considered the numerous positive comments you have all provided, and I thank you for them all. Revision C is starting to look pretty good, and I've gone for a DP armament of moderately lighter broadside weight. So please, keep the comments coming.

I also think it´s a good design to go ahead but I still think there is room for improvement.

She is similar, very similar to the RSAN Fasold class - except that the Fasolds are 9 years older, 900 tons lighter. For these tons and years you bought your vessel two more guns and a 25mm belt of questionable value.

Compared to the RSAN Port Shepstone class cruiser of 1913 vintage (rebuild 1927/28) I´d rate your design as clearly inferior even though those old CLs are 450 tons lighter.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I also think it´s a good design to go ahead but I still think there is room for improvement.

She is similar, very similar to the RSAN Fasold class - except that the Fasolds are 9 years older, 900 tons lighter. For these tons and years you bought your vessel two more guns and a 25mm belt of questionable value.

Compared to the RSAN Port Shepstone class cruiser of 1913 vintage (rebuild 1927/2 I´d rate your design as clearly inferior even though those old CLs are 450 tons lighter.

Characteristics designers rate as important will vary and even then the characteristics will vary in their priority. I would respectfully disagree with the comparison with the Port Shepstones.

First, if I read the data correctly, their speed is significantly less, meaning that they could not keep pace with the destroyers the Project 40 is designed to support. Second, the composite strength of the design is much less - far less than I am willing to contemplate, even if such a sim is within the rules of the game.

The value of the belt is debateable, to that I will admit. However, I am not willing to sacrifice other characteristics just for a heavier belt.

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.

My mistake - I had intended to post this and became distracted

Project 1940C Flotilla Cruiser laid down 1940

Displacement:
4,521 t light; 4,749 t standard; 5,117 t normal; 5,411 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
493.72 ft / 475.72 ft x 44.39 ft x 18.04 ft (normal load)
150.48 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: 0.98" / 25 mm 390.42 ft / 119.00 m 10.66 ft / 3.25 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 126 % of normal length

- 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 4,800nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 662 tons

Complement:
302 - 393

Cost:
£2.819 million / $11.278 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 77 tons, 1.5 %
Armour: 420 tons, 8.2 %
- Belts: 164 tons, 3.2 %
- 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: 2,201 tons, 43.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 596 tons, 11.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 60 tons, 1.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
4,214 lbs / 1,911 Kg = 56.1 x 5.3 " / 135 mm shells or 0.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 1.9 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 13.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 63 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.52
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22

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: 31.17 ft / 9.50 m
- Forecastle (22 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m (14.76 ft / 4.50 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Stern: 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Average freeboard: 19.59 ft / 5.97 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 126.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 119.4 %
Waterplane Area: 14,236 Square feet or 1,323 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 111 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 78 lbs/sq ft or 380 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 2.92
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

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