WesWorld

Another insane idea. This submarine is designed with the single purpose of blasting the Panama Canal. Simmed in a surface condition.

Would Dynamite Guns have the range required to hit the canal locks from a safe distance?


Mexico Cruiser Submarine laid down 1934

Displacement:
2,621 t light; 2,709 t standard; 2,970 t normal; 3,178 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
350.00 ft / 350.00 ft x 30.00 ft x 22.00 ft (normal load)
106.68 m / 106.68 m x 9.14 m x 6.71 m

Armament:
2 - 8.00" / 203 mm guns (1x2 guns), 256.00lbs / 116.12kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mount
on centreline forward
2 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (1x2 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1934 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline amidships, all raised guns - superfiring
4 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (2x2 guns), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1934 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 514 lbs / 233 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 100
10 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Conning tower: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion generators,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 4,317 shp / 3,220 Kw = 17.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 469 tons

Complement:
200 - 261

Cost:
£0.800 million / $3.202 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 64 tons, 2.2 %
Armour: 11 tons, 0.4 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 6 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 4 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 124 tons, 4.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,723 tons, 58.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 349 tons, 11.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 700 tons, 23.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,983 lbs / 899 Kg = 7.7 x 8.0 " / 203 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
Metacentric height 0.9 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 11.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 3 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.21
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.03

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.500
Length to Beam Ratio: 12.96 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.71 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 32 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 5
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 7.00 ft / 2.13 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
- Mid (50 %): 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
- Stern: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
- Average freeboard: 5.16 ft / 1.57 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 101.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 33.3 %
Waterplane Area: 6,996 Square feet or 650 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 202 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 136 lbs/sq ft or 663 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 2.73
- Longitudinal: 2.91
- Overall: 2.75
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

Quoted

Would Dynamite Guns have the range required to hit the canal locks from a safe distance?

Not unless the locks are within about 5,000 yards of the firing ship..... See here for more details.

I'm sure there is a cheaper way of destroying the locks, if Mexico for some reason wanted to do that, like making itself almost universally hated and quickly getting onto the *%/£ list of its closest, largest neighbours.

Also;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite_gun

Hey theres always the Mexican canal!

This type certainly would be a deterent for those pesky Iberians should they try to push Mexico round.

Not sure about the practicality of this particular design but it has some potential.

Quoted

This type certainly would be a deterent for those pesky Iberians should they try to push Mexico round.

But why?

Its so big its easy to find and sink in the Carribean. If it destroys the locks then sure its bad for Iberia but its far worse for other countries like the USA who depend on the canal massively more for trade.

Quoted

Hey theres always the Mexican canal!

Which would likely suffer a similar fate extremely quickly.

Its alot easier to hide in the vast Pacific side of the canal.

The plan is simple. War between Mexico and Iberia would require the destructions of the Panama Locks. Otherwise Iberia would have a huge advantage in the Naval war. The Mexican canal would also be alot easier to defend due to its length and location.

Im looking for a weapon that is silent and has the range to target the locks. Now if there was a way to increase the dynamite gun's range to say 15 miles it would be perfect. Would any of these work? All use fin stabilisation. Base bleed, rocket boosted, or glider shells?

Here we have a country currently undergoing a serious internal crisis, and they are planning to attack a neighbour who hasn't even said "Boo" in their direction.

Did Hitler actually survive the "Pusch", and emmigrate to Mexico?

If Mexico were to launch an unprovoked attack on the Panama Canal, it would find itself in a VERY bad position internationally, and may be without help as Iberia, justifiably, exacts retribution from the Government of Mexico

Be sure of one thing, you may start this, but I WILL FINISH IT!

Reports of the Mexican "Cruiser Submarine" quickly vanish into the "rat's maze" (aka White Mice HQ)...

Quoted

Be sure of one thing, you may start this, but I WILL FINISH IT!

Yeah, let him feel the weight of your broadsides!!!

Quoted

Base bleed, rocket boosted, or glider shells?

Base bleed hasn't been invented yet, not to mention that it wouldn't work anyway on this type of projectile. For gliding shells to work, the projectile would have to get high enough to glide, not to mention that without guidance you're as likely to hit yourself as you are to hit the enemy when the fins deploy in an unpredictable fashion. A rocket-boosted round is possible, but would be terribly inaccurate, noisy, and would have a smoke trail that would point to your general area.

Giving her both freeboard and a non-50% trim means you've not simmed her as a proper submarine.

Conceptually, I don't think long range guns will help, since you'll have trouble spotting fall of shot from such a low-lying platform as a submarine. Construction will also be a problem - Mexico will lack the technology to do so for some time, and the Cleito powers can't build one that big while under treaty.

If you're really determined to have the means to hit the canal, maybe you should be considering the kind of things historically mentioned - aircraft, blockships, and so forth.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Hey theres always the Mexican canal!

Which would likely suffer a similar fate extremely quickly.

..and you think the Americans would be agitated if the Panama Canal was seriously damaged.....now Iberia seeks revenge attempts the same with the Mexican canal and drags the AANM, FAR, Mexico and the U.S. into a war, a three front war for the AANM.

All this hubub over a plan not even leaked out IC!

Looks like I'll have to bomb Iberia because they have a plan to seal the straights of Gibralter.....

I'll start to be concerned when those "Panama" plans are made public, which they haven't been.

You don't need a sub, you need an army.

As freightening as it sounds its alot easier than that.

That being said the political ramifications would be equally freightening and as as such would make such a plan reserved for an extreme situation.

Quoted

Looks like I'll have to bomb Iberia because they have a plan to seal the straights of Gibralter.....

And the Red Sea too...

Wouldn't it be easier to blow something up in the locks? I do not know what kinds of procedures the Canal has, having not been on a ship passing through them yet. However a frieghter on a suicide mission to wreck the locks would be about as costly (save in lifes) as the submarine...

However the idea of using that particular submarine design has been passed around before. Chile considered it briefly, but has decided to invest if cruisers and destroyers rather than cruiser-subs....though I can imagine one of these in say...Harlock's hands.

All this talk on this Mexican canal. I think an optimistic estimate for it's completion would be 1960, it'd probably take far longer. A canal is/has/currently planned through Nicaragura. Estimated time to complete is 12 years with current technology. It is also massively helped by having the majority of its course through a lake and river and only having 50m altitude to descend/ascend. The proposed Mexican canal is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is far longer, follows no large watercourse, rises to a far greater altitude, is being built in 1930. 1960 is a very optimistic estimate.

Quoted

a three front war for the AANM.

Shouldn't it be everyone vs. Mexico?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
All this talk on this Mexican canal. I think an optimistic estimate for it's completion would be 1960, it'd probably take far longer. A canal is/has/currently planned through Nicaragura. Estimated time to complete is 12 years with current technology. It is also massively helped by having the majority of its course through a lake and river and only having 50m altitude to descend/ascend. The proposed Mexican canal is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is far longer, follows no large watercourse, rises to a far greater altitude, is being built in 1930. 1960 is a very optimistic estimate.

Now use that technology to build the Giza pyramids, its amazing what slave labour can acomplish vs. money and technology....now all we need is a flotilla of Adua class subs to protect the locks....

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

a three front war for the AANM.

Shouldn't it be everyone vs. Mexico?

With a vested interest in Mexico do you seriously think America and Atlantis would let its old advisary Iberia just walk right in and trash the place? Mexico IIRC is also part of NARC which means the U.S. would be the first nation to likely intervein in any event involving Mexico.

I fail to see at this point what the fuss is about, is Iberia going to attack Mexico because its rumored to be building a sub with big guns?..because at this point thats all it is.

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
Wouldn't it be easier to blow something up in the locks? I do not know what kinds of procedures the Canal has, having not been on a ship passing through them yet. However a frieghter on a suicide mission to wreck the locks would be about as costly (save in lifes) as the submarine...

If you want to put Panama out of commission, blow the Gatun Dam and drain Gatun Lake. To get the canal back into service, the dam would need rebuilding - it took five years to build in the first place - and as much as a year to refill the lake, depending on how thoroughly it is drained.

Of course, you could take the locks out, too, just to be sure.