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.
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.
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.
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.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Hrolf Hakonson" (Jun 13th 2010, 7:57pm)
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
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "TexanCowboy" (Jun 13th 2010, 7:22pm)
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).
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Hrolf Hakonson" (Jun 13th 2010, 7:56pm)
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.
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.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH