WesWorld

PRS Taput (CL-9) ex-SMS Niobe, laid down 1899, acq. 1927, to training ship 1929

Length, 345 ft x Beam, 40.3 ft x Depth, 18.1 ft
3229 tons normal displacement (2879 tons standard)

Main battery: 4 x 3.94-inch / 100mm
Secondary battery: 4 x 1.57-inch / 40mm
QF battery: 3 x 0.98-inch / 25mm
Light battery: 2 x 0.54-inch / 13.7mm

Weight of broadside: 132 lbs

Armor deck, average 35mm
C.T., 80mm

Battery armor:
Main, 30mm shields / secondary, 20mm shields
QF, 15mm shields

Maximum speed for 5356 ihp = 17.95 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 4700 nm / 10 kts

Typical complement: 214-278


Estimated cost, $931,000 (£233,000)

Remarks:

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Excellent seaboat; comfortable and able to fight her guns
in the heaviest weather.

Magazines and engineering spaces are cramped, with poor
watertight subdivision.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 16 tons = 1 pct
Armor, total ..................... 230 tons = 7 pct

Deck 208 tons = 6 pct
C.T. 15 tons = 0 pct
Armament 7 tons = 0 pct

Machinery ........................ 864 tons = 27 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 901 tons = 28 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 426 tons = 13 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 792 tons = 25 pct
-----
3229 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 1.4 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 2803 tons
Standard displacement: 2879 tons
Normal service: 3229 tons
Full load: 3497 tons

Loading submergence 233 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.04

Shellfire needed to sink: 2268 lbs = 74.2 x 3.9-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 0.7
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 71 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.06

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.70

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.45
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 7.14
'Natural speed' for length = 18.6 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 40 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 117 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 90 percent


Displacement factor: 112 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.95
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 60 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.79
(for 12.5 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +0.4 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.01

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

345.00 x 40.30 x 18.07; 12.48 -- Dimensions
0.45 -- Block coefficient
1898 -- Year laid down
17.95 / 4700 / 10.00; Reciprocating -- Speed / radius / cruise
792 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
4 x 3.94; 0 -- Main battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
4 x 1.57; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
3 x 0.98 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
2 x 0.54 -- Fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
0.00 -- No belt armor
1.38 / 3.15 -- Deck / CT
1.18 / 0.79 / 0.54 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does it really make sense to rebuild such an old hull?

The rules allow it and SS doesn´t tell you about material conditions etc. but I nontheless doubt it is realistic. Such an old ship should be assumed to be totally worn out. Maintenance costs would towering high and she´s in no way build for the environment you intend to use her in.

She may look okay on paper after trying SS on her but I won´t do it.

Maybe that is all he has to spare in terms of older ships that can be used for training purposes. She may never leave the harbor again for all we know.

Her old machinery will be torn completly out and replaced with diesels...tho at 1/2 the original horsepower rating for Treaty compliance.

Historically, Niobe was still operational in 1943, so she can't be in TOO terrible a shape.

[/famouslastwords]

Well, you forgot to mention that she was already taken out of frontline duties because of her limited capabilities and age as early as 5.9.1915 - right in the middle of WW1.

She was later disarmed and sold to Yugoslavia - a country not known for high maritim standards.

That she was used once again by the Italians and Germans had just one reason: the Axis badly needed anything that could at least float and steam with a few knots of speed.

I wouldn´t rate that as a reason to assume she was not in a sorrow state.

Well, she could be another ram/blam ship for the Great Scourge of the Pacific.

Out of curiousity, just how old are the ships everybody's using for training purposes? India's replacing ships that are on the wrong side of thirty. What about y'all?

Quoted

She was later disarmed and sold to Yugoslavia - a country not known for high maritim standards.

Wel...
... the same can be said about the Philippines.
:-)
*runs for cover*

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Out of curiousity, just how old are the ships everybody's using for training purposes? India's replacing ships that are on the wrong side of thirty. What about y'all?

The RSAN using units in front line service as well as special units to train the crews. In general ships in use are build in this century and thus not older than 20 years. Oldest ship of the ones listed in the encyclopedia(so no sailing ships) used for training is RSAN ARGENTINA (laid down 190 but she´ll be scraped soon.

The oldest steam ships to remain in service with the RSAN are three tenders laid down 1904, 05 and 06.

Quoted

RSAN ARGENTINA (laid down 190 but she´ll be scrapped soon

She's too beautiful a ship to scrap - perhaps you could make her a museum instead?

Quoted

... the same can be said about the Philippines.
:-)
*runs for cover*

*throws epaulette grenade*

;-)

Chile was using turn of the century cruisers historically for training into the 1930s and 40s along with a sailing vessel built in the 1920s or 30s. I'm using the older sailing steam sloop at the moment and an old destroyer, but will probably shift some of my older cruisers into training duty (gunnery, navigation, and torpedo training) by the early 1930s.

I originally intended to keep my oldest AC but actually I think turning her into razor blades is more reasonable.

Ithekro, Chile might operate old stuff into the 30s and 40s but the RSAN surely won´t if I can avoid it!

Surely as you are a much larger power. However the only ships that I have, that are not brand new, are turn of the century or older vessels, save for the Dreadnoughts and the Nordmark-built light cruisers and the destroyer leaders from Nordmark and England, which are pretty much front line units for Chile until I can complete a larger number of first generation Chilean warships and the new American and Atlantean ships are complete.

(Pity about the reception Chile got in Asian waters...they might have had another customer and a potential ally to cover the other side of the Pacific....)

Quoted

(Pity about the reception Chile got in Asian waters...they might have had another customer and a potential ally to cover the other side of the Pacific....)

I can't speak for my allies, but India has nothing on the other side of the Pacific that would require covering.

On the original topic of training ships, I've kind of assumed that India's using Babur for some training purposes. That leaves the question of what to do with the old training ships as they are replaced. The answer will come in Q4. And no, it doesn't involved being blown up by a Filipino ship.

(Sorry, Swampy, but, "When in Rome...")

Quoted

And no, it doesn't involved being blown up by a Filipino ship.

But perhaps they will be the ones dispensing the BLAM? :-)

----

I got to thinking - if I scrap Taput instead of rebuilding, I have 1829 tons of material available...so maybe I should build this instead...

(quick SpringStyle as that's all I've got on this 'puter - SpringSharp to come later)

TC29, Filipino Training Cruiser laid down 1929

Length, 338 ft x Beam, 38.0 ft x Depth, 11.0 ft
2220 tons normal displacement (1805 tons standard)

Main battery: 6 x 5.12-inch / 130mm (2 x 3)
Secondary battery: 4 x 2.95-inch / 75mm (2 x 2; 2 superfiring)
AA battery: 8 x 1.57-inch / 40mm
Light battery: 6 x 0.98-inch / 25mm

Weight of broadside: 472 lbs

Hull unarmored

Battery armor:
Main, 50mm / secondary, 30mm
AA, 20mm shields / light guns, 15mm shields

Maximum speed for 12509 shp = 23.46 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 7500 nm / 15 kts

Typical complement: 162-210


Estimated cost, $2.618 million (£654,000)

Remarks:

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 59 tons = 3 pct
Armor, total ..................... 92 tons = 4 pct

Armament 92 tons = 4 pct

Machinery ........................ 384 tons = 17 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 986 tons = 44 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 499 tons = 22 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 200 tons = 9 pct
-----
2220 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 1.4 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 1721 tons
Standard displacement: 1805 tons
Normal service: 2220 tons
Full load: 2543 tons

Loading submergence 246 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.09

Shellfire needed to sink: 3544 lbs = 276.1 x 3.0-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.0
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 70 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.68

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.45

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.55
Sharpness coefficient: 0.36
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 7.92
'Natural speed' for length = 18.4 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 56 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 87 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 152 percent


Displacement factor: 144 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.93
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 69 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.97
(for 15.0 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +3.8 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

338.00 x 38.00 x 11.00; 15.00 -- Dimensions
0.55 -- Block coefficient
1929 -- Year laid down
23.46 / 7500 / 15.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
200 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
4 x 2.95; 2; 2 -- Main battery; turrets; superfiring
:
6 x 5.12; 2 -- Secondary battery; turrets
:
8 x 1.57 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
6 x 0.98 -- Fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
0.00 -- No belt armor
0.00 / 0.00 -- Deck / CT
1.18 / 1.97 / 0.79 / 0.59 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, that's an option too. What're you doing with the pre-dreads that the Samals will be replacing?

Quoted

What're you doing with the pre-dreads that the Samals will be replacing?

Samal will "replace" Luzon, which has already been handed over to the Japanese 'for scrapping' as payment for Balabac.

Bohol will replace Manila, which was announced awhile back as being intended for rebuild as a training ship. I have a storyline in mind, however, which will see her damaged and a decision made to scrap her instead. Watch these spaces.

Just tell me she's not going to French Indochina.

But why in the world would you think I would do such a thing?

^_^

Precedent.