You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.


Monday, June 7th 2004, 10:42pm

K.D.M. Humelbi

Ok guys what do you think?
I'm not sure which stern layout to use.
Votes Please!!!!


Monday, June 7th 2004, 10:44pm

And the official stats!

Humelbi(b), Denmark Mine Warfare Vessel laid down 1923

760 t light; 789 t standard; 910 t normal; 1,003 t full load
Loading submergence 116 tons/feet

240.00 ft x 28.00 ft x 10.00 ft (normal load)
73.15 m x 8.53 m x 3.05 m

2 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns
4 - 2.24" / 57 mm AA guns
8 - 0.51" / 13 mm guns
Weight of broadside 129 lbs / 58 kg

Main gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, AA gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm, Light gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm
Conning tower 0.50" / 13 mm

Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 8,922 shp / 6,656 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 6,000nm at 12.00 kts

82 - 107

£0.238 million / $0.952 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 16 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 5 tons, 0.6 %
Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Armament: 4 tons, 0.5 %, Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Conning Tower: 1 tons, 0.1 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 298 tons, 32.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 341 tons, 37.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 150 tons, 16.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 11.0 %

Metacentric height 0.8

Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation & workspaces is adequate

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.02
Shellfire needed to sink: 638 lbs / 289 Kg = 12.1 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 0.4
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 69 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.24
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.474
Sharpness coefficient: 0.34
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.57
'Natural speed' for length: 15.49 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 64 %
Trim: 68
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 131.7 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 105.1 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 110 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.91
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 46 lbs / square foot or 223 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 2.32
(for 11.10 ft / 3.38 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 1.72 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

K.D.M. Humelbi is the first vessel of the "Insect" class of mine warfare vessels, capabale of placing and clearing minefields.


Monday, June 7th 2004, 11:55pm

From a strictly aesthetic point of view, I prefer the stern on the left. I don't know which is more practical, though.

Seems like she's a little crowded - you might be trying to get a bit too much out of her.

But nice drawing, regardless.


Tuesday, June 8th 2004, 12:45am

I am kind of leaning to stern A myself,
As for a bit crowded, I don't think so, but then again I do prefer aircraft to ships!!


Tuesday, June 8th 2004, 12:48am

Id say stern "A" looks beter allthough you might find it dificult to get two small hoists on the emediate end of the stern. She also seems a bit heavy in the AA department but then again most of the ships in the SIm are too. Is 100 tons Mich. weight enough for mines?

I can't remember what we figured the weight of an individual mine would be, anyone recall?

She is a rather nice looking ship.


Tuesday, June 8th 2004, 1:10am

The mines Denmark had available at the start of WW2 according to "Naval Weapons of WW2" by Conway weigh in at 740Kg and 960Kg, so I reckon it might work for about 70 to 80 mines, but she would be doing 1 job or the other!


Tuesday, June 8th 2004, 7:55am

I'll also vote for stern A :-)


Tuesday, June 8th 2004, 10:00am

If she is doing minesweeping, Stern A is better. There are 2 winches, one for each 'thing'. However only having 1 rail to launch mines from is a disability when minelaying.

Her freeboard seems huge BTW.


Tuesday, June 8th 2004, 10:12am

I agree on the freeboard, but I carefully counted out the pixels!


Tuesday, June 8th 2004, 11:32pm

Perhaps more flare on the stern will get you the nessesary space needed for two Paravane hoists AND two mine rails.


Wednesday, June 9th 2004, 12:34am

Sorry, naval ignorance kicking in......Flare??


Wednesday, June 9th 2004, 12:43am

The hull at deck height would be significantly wider then at the waterline, in the collins dictionary it means "becoming wider at the hem", but in this case it would be "becoming wider at the main deck" ;-)

*No pants were harmed in the process of this post.*


Wednesday, June 9th 2004, 10:08am…anguard-46j.htm

Best example of a flared hull is HMS Vanguard. Look at her hull forward and notice that it sharply rises.

On this ship, she has flare both fore and aft. Flare increases seakeeping qualities.


Wednesday, June 9th 2004, 10:19am

Got it, knew what it looked like, didn't know the term.
Thanks guys!


Thursday, June 10th 2004, 10:39pm

Stern Mk.2

How does this look???


Friday, June 11th 2004, 10:01am

Very good.


Friday, June 11th 2004, 2:42pm

me like


Friday, June 11th 2004, 7:34pm

Thanks guys!!


Friday, June 11th 2004, 7:46pm

and in her final form!!


Friday, June 11th 2004, 7:47pm

and in her final form!!