WesWorld

Wel guys, what do you think??

Ask (ash), Denmark Sloop laid down 1924

Displacement:
866 t light; 906 t standard; 1,060 t normal; 1,179 t full load
Loading submergence 155 tons/feet

Dimensions:
280.00 ft x 34.00 ft x 9.00 ft (normal load)
85.34 m x 10.36 m x 2.74 m

Armament:
3 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns
4 - 2.24" / 57 mm AA guns
8 - 0.79" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 226 lbs / 102 kg

Armour:
Main gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm, AA gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm, Light gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 8,955 shp / 6,681 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 7,000nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
92 - 120

Cost:
£0.295 million / $1.178 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 28 tons, 2.7 %
Armour: 4 tons, 0.4 %
Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Armament: 4 tons, 0.4 %, Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 295 tons, 27.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 479 tons, 45.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 194 tons, 18.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 60 tons, 5.7 %

Metacentric height 1.2

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.11
Shellfire needed to sink: 1,085 lbs / 492 Kg = 16.2 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 0.5
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 70 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.21
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.433
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.39
'Natural speed' for length: 16.73 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim: 70
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 117.0 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 128.2 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 121 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.93
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 53 lbs / square foot or 259 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.90
(for 11.40 ft / 3.47 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 1.73 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Class designed to be a convoy escort / patrol ship
Anti-Submarine weaponry as follows-
2 depth charge rails & 4 depth charge launchers - 80 depth charges carried

My gut tells me she might be a bit over-armed, and that a drawing might tell you if it's the case.

The other thought is that a slightly higher sea-keeping would be good if this ship is going to be out on the high seas.

Well, let me 'Ask' you a question:
You sure that 'Ask' is 'Ash' and not 'Ash'? Because I cannot determine with the dictionary I use wether 'Ask' is 'Ash' or 'Ash', but I get the impression that 'Ask' is 'Ash' and not 'Ash' what you think it is...
Could be wrong about it though.
Don't think it is too bad.
As for the seakeeping, Rock Doctor, perhaps the thought behind this ship was: "This is a ship of war, not a cruise ship!"

Walter

She's well armed, with enough misc. weight for a good number of depth charges. More than adequate range for convoy escort too.

I had wondered about the name, it's kind of difficult to work out the correct form of words from a dictionary.

The dictionary I have lists "Ask" as botanical, meaning the tree, and "Aske" as ashes, but seems to imply that the word "Trae" meaning tree, is prefixed by "e" if it follows a proper name,so would it be more likely that the correct Danish form of the name would be "Asketrae"(Ashtree) or "Ask Trae"(Ash Tree), because I was presuming that it might follow the English form (not having any foreign languages), "Ash" would be seperate from "Tree", the "Tree" part of the name normally not being used. Your thoughts please?

As for over-armed, I was thinking that everyone except myself seems to be playing with aircraft, hence the 4 X 57mm, and she may have to see off acttacking vessels up to DD size, so I thought that 3 X 130mm guns were about as few as I could get away with and still put up enough of a fight.

I think your reasoning in reguards to naming your tree class sloops is sound, it at least makes sence to me.

Having done the drawing, a few things emerged...
1/She needed more sea-keeping, just to look right!
2/There was a little more room than I thought, and some spare tonnage.
3/She had the same AA fit as Humelbi, which didn't seem right for a escort vessel, so I added a few!

Also changed the name! (Your thoughts Walter?)

Asketrae, Denmark Sloop laid down 1924

Displacement:
913 t light; 956 t standard; 1,190 t normal; 1,372 t full load
Loading submergence 155 tons/feet

Dimensions:
280.00 ft x 33.00 ft x 10.00 ft (normal load)
85.34 m x 10.06 m x 3.05 m

Armament:
3 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns
6 - 2.24" / 57 mm AA guns
12 - 0.79" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 238 lbs / 108 kg

Armour:
Main gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, AA gun shields 0.75" / 19 mm, Light gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 9,664 shp / 7,210 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
101 - 131

Cost:
£0.314 million / $1.255 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 30 tons, 2.5 %
Armour: 8 tons, 0.7 %
Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Armament: 8 tons, 0.7 %, Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 318 tons, 26.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 507 tons, 42.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 277 tons, 23.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 4.2 %

Metacentric height 1.3

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.19
Shellfire needed to sink: 1,374 lbs / 623 Kg = 20.5 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 0.6
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 70 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.24
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.451
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.07
'Natural speed' for length: 16.73 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim: 58
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 110.8 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 125.2 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 128 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.92
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 54 lbs / square foot or 261 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 2.13
(for 12.25 ft / 3.73 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 2.36 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Class designed to be a convoy escort / patrol ship
Anti-Submarine weaponry as follows-
2 depth charge rails & 4 depth charge launchers - 80 depth charges carried

Well, how does she look?

Instead of having the three twin 57mm AA guns in a row on the superstructure - where there center mount would have limited arcs of fire, I would have the 3 mounts in a triangluar arrangement - that would allow wider firing arcs for all the guns.
I would also try to put some of the 20mm's forward.
All of the AA weapons are in a 'clump' - and there isn't any rapid fire AA forward.

I agree, one good bomb or strafing by an aircraft and those AA are seriously diminished. She is a rather nice looking little ship though. She also has more twin light caliber guns than my Current CL's and new CA's laid down

Yeah, I agree, she´s really heavy on light AA for a ship of her class and age.

I also can´t help it but she looks very "DDish" and modern to me. Add 50ft with a second funnel amidship and amybe a forth gun aft and you get a good looking DD of 1930s-style.

Nice drawing...

HoOmAn

This more like it?

Quoted

Also changed the name! (Your thoughts Walter?)

...
...
...
Can't help but feel that this ship has some sinister secondary function...

Good looking ship nonetheless.

Walter

Quoted

...
Can't help but feel that this ship has some sinister secondary function...

Whatever do you mean sir?

As to the name, a freind of mine, Lena (who i had forgotten hails from southern Sweden and has a bit of Danish) told me that the normal type of address for tree names is just as in english...
Now I have to re-do the drawing again....I should have just left it as it was....DOOHHHH!!!!

The Final Draft.......I hope

I like the revisions.
In my navy days I served on a converted US destroyer escort. It was a little larger (306') than your design.
I try to imagine that armament on a hull that size or smaller.
If you get a chance, look at the 5" variants of the Buckley DE's. They had 2 - 5"/38 mounts and a number of twin/quad 40mm guns. There wasn't a lot of free space.
The fantail seems too uncluttered. There aren't many ships with spare deck space - unless it was intended for future add-ons
One issue on larger guns - even if they fit, the ammunition supply would be reduced. There isn't much room in a small hull. So logistics would be a significant issue in extended operations.
For Denmark, operating in local waters it might not be an issue though.

Of the Buckley variants I like the Rudderow class the best at least for looks, with their gearing like bridge and enclosed turrets they look quite nice.

Quoted

Whatever do you mean sir?

Well, you know, (this part of the text has been censored by the bakufu since it contained some gruesome descriptions about certain things that a normal human would not do).

Walter

no fair!!

Well, life isn't fair, is it?
What isn't fair anyway? The fact that the Bakufu censored part of my message or the fact that I accuse you of doing gruesome things?