WesWorld

Despite the construction of sixteen destroyers and torpedo-boats in recent years, the Marina is not satisfied that it possesses an adequate number of light combatants. As funding is available over the next three years (due largely to Chinese purchases), a class of eight new destroyers will be laid down.

The Teniente Vasquez class is expected to be an effective light combattant capable of capital ship escort as well as detached duties such as minelaying. There is a significant margin for future growth, such as sensors; while radar is not so plentiful that Peru can immediately install sets on all warships, its eventual installation seems inevitable.

In a change from previous design practice, a light twin 120mm dual-purpose gun is being introduced instead of the 150mm LA guns employed on Valdes and Independencia classes. It is thought that anti-surface action will benefit from the smaller but more easily handled shells, to say nothing of the gains in anti-aircraft firepower.

Teniente Vasquez, Peruvian destroyer, laid down 1942

Displacement:
1,871 t light; 1,991 t standard; 2,237 t normal; 2,433 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
393.57 ft / 386.65 ft x 36.09 ft x 12.47 ft (normal load)
119.96 m / 117.85 m x 11.00 m x 3.80 m

Armament:
6 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (3x2 guns), 52.72lbs / 23.91kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (2x4 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 0.31" / 8.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.02lbs / 0.01kg shells, 1942 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 331 lbs / 150 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 400
10 - 21.0" / 533 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 50,000 shp / 37,300 Kw = 35.33 kts
Range 5,500nm at 15.00 kts (Bunkerage = 442 tons)

Complement:
162 - 211

Cost:
£1.611 million / $6.443 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 41 tons, 1.8 %
Armour: 23 tons, 1.0 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 16 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 7 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 1,092 tons, 48.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 589 tons, 26.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 366 tons, 16.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 125 tons, 5.6 %
-49 t: Weight reserve
-30 t: 60 x 450 kg mines + rails
-20 t: Torpedoes (no reloads)
-16 t: 48 DC + rails and throwers
-10 t: ASDIC


Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
520 lbs / 236 Kg = 9.9 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 1.5 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 12.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.44
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.71

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.450
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.71 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.46 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 68 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.67 ft / 6.30 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 17.72 ft / 5.40 m
- Mid (50 %): 17.72 ft / 5.40 m (9.84 ft / 3.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Stern: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Average freeboard: 14.02 ft / 4.27 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 180.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 74.3 %
Waterplane Area: 9,246 Square feet or 859 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 72 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 36 lbs/sq ft or 177 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.11
- Overall: 0.54
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

Design work on sloops has been underway for the better part of two years, as Peru grapples with the need to police its rich fisheries and patrol its lengthy shoreline without diverting its relatively small quantity of destroyers and torpedo-boats to such roles.

The Rio class sloops were to undertake this role for the Marina, and are instead expected to do so as the core of a new Coast Guard. The class is sufficiently armed to function as an escort along the coast, but also has boats and extra accommodation to allow for prolonged fisheries inspection duties.

Six units are projected over the next three years.

Rio, Peruvian sloop, laid down 1942

Displacement:
1,000 t light; 1,053 t standard; 1,228 t normal; 1,367 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
254.30 ft / 250.66 ft x 29.86 ft x 11.48 ft (normal load)
77.51 m / 76.40 m x 9.10 m x 3.50 m

Armament:
2 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (1x2 guns), 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline forward
2 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (1x2 guns), 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
4 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
6 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
4 - 0.51" / 13.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.07lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1942 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 149 lbs / 68 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
3rd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 12,236 shp / 9,128 Kw = 24.76 kts
Range 5,000nm at 15.00 kts (Bunkerage = 314 tons)

Complement:
103 - 134

Cost:
£0.607 million / $2.429 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 19 tons, 1.5 %
Armour: 15 tons, 1.2 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 15 tons, 1.2 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 320 tons, 26.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 536 tons, 43.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 228 tons, 18.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 110 tons, 9.0 %
-20 t: Accommodation for 10 fisheries officers or marines
-20 t: Two additional 5 t boats plus davits
-20 t: Boom for minesweeping/trawling/salvage
-16 t: 48 DC + rails and throwers
-14 t: Weight reserve
-10 t: ASDIC

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,432 lbs / 650 Kg = 40.5 x 4.1 " / 105 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 1.0 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 12.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.44
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.24

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.500
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.40 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 15.83 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 40
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.67 ft / 6.30 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 17.72 ft / 5.40 m
- Mid (50 %): 17.72 ft / 5.40 m (9.84 ft / 3.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Stern: 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Average freeboard: 14.02 ft / 4.27 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 107.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 124.3 %
Waterplane Area: 4,986 Square feet or 463 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 134 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 51 lbs/sq ft or 249 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.85
- Longitudinal: 5.48
- Overall: 1.02
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

As a heads-up to Chinese and Mexican buyers, the Peruvian ships will likely be available for purchase around 1965. It's not too soon to place a reserve bid...

I don't know, the Guppys and Fletchers will probably be hitting the market about the same time... might not have enough cash.

Design priorities are in the eye of the beholder, but several facets of this design would concern me. I think too much has been sacrificed for speed - they are wet, poor seaboats, and probably carry at bit too much miscellaneous weight. The composite hull strength is less than I would be happy with, but it is within the rules.

That said, I think the armament outfit is appropriate to the mission, though I find retention of 8mm machineguns on a fleet unit rather odd.

The machine guns are there to provide some basic anti-personnel/small craft defence while at anchor, or in boarding situations. I suppose a heavy machine gun could be installed.

I agree that the destroyers are wet and poor seaboats; this is how I understand destroyers to historically turn out. I imagine at 33 or 34 knots, the ship's characteristics are somewhat improved.

Won't really disagree about the miscellaneous weight, but as Peru will probably be using these guys for a while, I'd rather have too much than too little.

Chile highly approves of these Peruvian destroyers. They have all the qualities we wanted to see.

Clearly we have some different ideas about destroyer design. Oh well...

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
while radar is not so plentiful that Peru can immediately install sets on all warships, its eventual installation seems inevitable.

Simple air-search sets are commercially available to most nations from Phillips Electronics, and older (to the Dutch) Air/Sea search would be available to AEGIS/SAER/SANTA members. So planning for it seems wise, even if the Peruvians don't choose to buy any.

Good to know. Perhaps I'll talk to the Dutch about buying some.

(...and doesn't that feel strange to type...)

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
while radar is not so plentiful that Peru can immediately install sets on all warships, its eventual installation seems inevitable.

Simple air-search sets are commercially available to most nations from Phillips Electronics, and older (to the Dutch) Air/Sea search would be available to AEGIS/SAER/SANTA members. So planning for it seems wise, even if the Peruvians don't choose to buy any.

Quoted

Miscellaneous weights: 125 tons, 5.6 %
-49 t: Weight reserve
-30 t: 60 x 450 kg mines + rails
-20 t: Torpedoes (no reloads)
-16 t: 48 DC + rails and throwers
-10 t: ASDIC

The Dutch find the provision for minelaying interesting.
In another thread the question of specifying Misc weight came up, and somebody indicated we didn't need to reserve weight for Torpedoes anymore.

Which means we've gone from not doing it, to doing it, to not doing it, and I'm confused.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Good to know. Perhaps I'll talk to the Dutch about buying some.

(...and doesn't that feel strange to type...)

It's a bit strange to read too

Ed.: I decided to have Phillips make the commercial offering just so countries like Peru- small, lacking a domestic industry- wouldn't be left too far behind in what becomes a critical area. I think that was as of 1940.

Peru happens to be AEGIS, so gets access to more, and Philips has the industrial capacity.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Clearly we have some different ideas about destroyer design. Oh well...

That's quite clear, yes.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Miscellaneous weights: 125 tons, 5.6 %
-49 t: Weight reserve
-30 t: 60 x 450 kg mines + rails
-20 t: Torpedoes (no reloads)
-16 t: 48 DC + rails and throwers
-10 t: ASDIC

The Dutch find the provision for minelaying interesting.
In another thread the question of specifying Misc weight came up, and somebody indicated we didn't need to reserve weight for Torpedoes anymore.

Which means we've gone from not doing it, to doing it, to not doing it, and I'm confused.

Last I was informed, our interpretation was that, if you have torpedo tubes aboard, they're loaded; if you want reloads, then you add it with miscellaneous weight.

From my perspective, that's the best way of doing things, as some older designs haven't any miscellaneous weight for torpedoes (or too little to account for torpedoes), but still have tubes aboard. Seems a bit punkish to me to say that just because there's no miscellaneous weight for torps, the ships with tubes can't carry any. Just my two cents, though.

As a side note, I don't think we made the same interpretation for depth charges, because pretty much everyone actually did use miscellaneous weight, and enough of it, to account for that aspect of things.

I've obviously overlooked that ruling on torpedoes, then. Good to know. Perhaps I will tweak the design a bit more, then.

Quoted

In another thread the question of specifying Misc weight came up, and somebody indicated we didn't need to reserve weight for Torpedoes anymore.

Which means we've gone from not doing it, to doing it, to not doing it, and I'm confused.

I disagree with whoever said that. When you enter a number of torpedo tubes with SS2, no weight is added (unlike with SS3). On a big ship it's not a big deal, but the smaller the ship the bigger the impact of the weight of torpedoes is going to be so as far as I am concerned, weight always needs to be added for torpedoes. If you do not, the ship will have no torpedoes aboard. To me, everything that is not standard on a 1850-1950 ship needs weights assigned. If it is standard on a 1950 ship but not an 1850 ship, weight needs to be added. So we're talking about mining equipment, DCs, torpedoes, radars, sonars, ballast tanks, flight deck, etc. Even additional ammunition for the secondary and lighter guns need to have weight.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

In another thread the question of specifying Misc weight came up, and somebody indicated we didn't need to reserve weight for Torpedoes anymore.

Which means we've gone from not doing it, to doing it, to not doing it, and I'm confused.

I disagree with whoever said that. When you enter a number of torpedo tubes with SS2, no weight is added (unlike with SS3). On a big ship it's not a big deal, but the smaller the ship the bigger the impact of the weight of torpedoes is going to be so as far as I am concerned, weight always needs to be added for torpedoes. If you do not, the ship will have no torpedoes aboard. To me, everything that is not standard on a 1850-1950 ship needs weights assigned. If it is standard on a 1950 ship but not an 1850 ship, weight needs to be added. So we're talking about mining equipment, DCs, torpedoes, radars, sonars, ballast tanks, flight deck, etc. Even additional ammunition for the secondary and lighter guns need to have weight.

You are welcome to hold that position, but it is not the official interpretation.

I tend to agree with Brock, why have tubes without torps? Adding weight for reloads, which usually are added by most, in my mind solves that issue. We all know small ships are not simmed properly anyway, we can't sim historical DD's at their historical speeds without serious stability issues. Some like Brock simply assume a 2-3 knot increase on the SS files stated speed for DD's reguardless of country.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I tend to agree with Brock, why have tubes without torps? Adding weight for reloads, which usually are added by most, in my mind solves that issue. We all know small ships are not simmed properly anyway, we can't sim historical DD's at their historical speeds without serious stability issues. Some like Brock simply assume a 2-3 knot increase on the SS files stated speed for DD's reguardless of country.

We had a standard formula for such a thing in Navalism - is there a standard here?

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
We had a standard formula for such a thing in Navalism - is there a standard here?

No standard that I'm aware of. I glanced at the Navalism setup once, but it just looked funky. (Note, I don't remember why it looked funky or even what the formula was, I just remember I thought it wasn't right.)

Cool. So I can knock out 20 t for torpedoes and assume she's three knots faster, or I can leave the weight in and assume she's 35.33 knots...