I Redesign my CAs and CL

17inc

Unregistered

Tuesday, July 29th 2003, 6:56am

well i redesign my CAs and CL my CAS are faster now at 33Kts and have a 8.25 " guns in place of there 8" guns also my CL has 9 6" guns in place of 6 6" guns so hear they are

Juneen, Australia Light Crusers laid down 1933

Displacement:
7,736 t light; 7,999 t standard; 8,973 t normal; 9,716 t full load
Loading submergence 600 tons/feet

Dimensions:
572.55 ft x 59.11 ft x 18.90 ft (normal load)
174.51 m x 18.02 m x 5.76 m

Armament:
9 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns)
15 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
20 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 1,006 lbs / 456 kg
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 3.50" / 89 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 113 % of normal area
Main turrets 6.00" / 152 mm, AA gun shields 1.00" / 25 mm, Light gun shields 2.00" / 51 mm
Armour deck 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower 6.00" / 152 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 91,487 shp / 68,249 Kw = 33.05 kts
Range 13,500nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
460 - 599

Cost:
£3.543 million / $14.173 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 126 tons, 1.4 %
Armour: 1,447 tons, 16.1 %
Belts: 558 tons, 6.2 %, Armament: 445 tons, 5.0 %, Armour Deck: 389 tons, 4.3 %
Conning Tower: 56 tons, 0.6 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,666 tons, 29.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,497 tons, 39.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,237 tons, 13.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 2.5

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

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.05
Shellfire needed to sink: 9,201 lbs / 4,173 Kg = 85.2 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.3
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 74 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.33
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.491
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.43
'Natural speed' for length: 23.93 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim: 74
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 107.5 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 143.6 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 115 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.97
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 100 lbs / square foot or 487 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.33
(for 19.71 ft / 6.01 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 4.89 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Kent Ballarat class, uk Aust Cruiser laid down 1930

Displacement:
12,466 t light; 13,000 t standard; 14,443 t normal; 15,541 t full load
Loading submergence 1,001 tons/feet

Dimensions:
674.92 ft x 66.50 ft x 16.30 ft (normal load)
205.72 m x 20.27 m x 4.97 m

Armament:
9 - 8.25" / 210 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (4 2nd turrets x 2 guns)
20 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
25 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 2,936 lbs / 1,332 kg
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 4.00" / 102 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 115 % of normal area
Main turrets 4.00" / 102 mm
Armour deck 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 126,750 shp / 94,555 Kw = 33.05 kts
Range 8,400nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
658 - 856

Cost:
£5.362 million / $21.449 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 367 tons, 2.5 %
Armour: 2,018 tons, 14.0 %
Belts: 808 tons, 5.6 %, Armament: 510 tons, 3.5 %, Armour Deck: 648 tons, 4.5 %
Conning Tower: 51 tons, 0.4 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,841 tons, 26.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,240 tons, 43.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,977 tons, 13.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 2.9

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

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.04
Shellfire needed to sink: 17,454 lbs / 7,917 Kg = 62.2 x 8.3 " / 210 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.7
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 77 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.73
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.07

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.691
Sharpness coefficient: 0.39
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.48
'Natural speed' for length: 25.98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
Trim: 72
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 106.1 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 213.5 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 114 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.99
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 119 lbs / square foot or 583 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.13
(for 24.00 ft / 7.32 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 7.70 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

London class, UK Aust cruiser laid down 1929

Displacement:
12,459 t light; 13,000 t standard; 14,840 t normal; 16,253 t full load
Loading submergence 1,006 tons/feet

Dimensions:
697.95 ft x 68.00 ft x 17.10 ft (normal load)
212.74 m x 20.73 m x 5.21 m

Armament:
9 - 8.25" / 210 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns
15 - 1.56" / 40 mm AA guns
24 - 0.80" / 20 mm guns
Weight of broadside 2,926 lbs / 1,327 kg
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 4.00" / 102 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 115 % of normal area
Main turrets 4.00" / 102 mm
Armour deck 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 122,927 shp / 91,704 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 10,500nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
672 - 873

Cost:
£5.087 million / $20.350 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 366 tons, 2.5 %
Armour: 2,021 tons, 13.6 %
Belts: 844 tons, 5.7 %, Armament: 487 tons, 3.3 %, Armour Deck: 651 tons, 4.4 %
Conning Tower: 39 tons, 0.3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,775 tons, 25.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,297 tons, 42.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,381 tons, 16.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Metacentric height 3.1

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

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.05
Shellfire needed to sink: 18,262 lbs / 8,283 Kg = 65.0 x 8.3 " / 210 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.8
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 77 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.61
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.640
Sharpness coefficient: 0.37
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.69
'Natural speed' for length: 26.42 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim: 77
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 101.8 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 194.0 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 119 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.02
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 121 lbs / square foot or 591 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 0.99
(for 22.00 ft / 6.71 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 5.61 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Go to the top of the page

LordArpad

Professional

Posts: 1,032

2

Wednesday, July 30th 2003, 1:46am

nice designs for the 30s. how 'bout some for the 20s ?

cheers

Bernhard

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

3

Wednesday, August 6th 2003, 2:17pm

I'm back

Feeling like arguing;

This is a bit of a turnaround for the RAN. Previously speed had been sacrificed for armour now armour is sacrificed for speed. Is this necessary?

The RAN will probably be fighting a defensive war against either RSAN or IJN forces. Speed means that your cruisers can run away from a threat and live to fight another day. However you can only give so much ground and when the cruisers must fight they are likely to be destroyed due to the poor armour. With slower, more heavily armed cruisers the RAN can probably win the first battle and it won't have to run away.

Hypothetically, Your Kent vs. my Zara.
Kent is bigger(over 1000t) she mounts 9 guns instead of 8, and she is 1.5knts faster.
Zara is smaller, has 8 guns, superior armour but is 1.5knts slower.
In a battle Zara will 'probably' defeat her larger opponent. Of course Kent does not have to give battle and can escape using her higher speed. However 1.5knts really isn't a large advantage. SoDak did 27knts and KGV 28.5knts but speed is never an issue between them.

This said, 33knts isn't fast enough to escape from aircraft of the IJN.

Your CL is a very good design i think. I managed to jam in another triple 6" turret on 8,000t but speed is 1knt slower. Range is also good on all designs.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

4

Wednesday, August 6th 2003, 3:19pm

Don´t agree

I don´t think armor is an issue here.

Please name me a naval battle were armor thickness alone saved or doomed a cruiser against a similar opponent. I can´t think of any occasion where a cruiser hit another cruiser with a shell, penetrating all armor to cause a fatal hit (mag explosion for example). Whereever cruisers were lost or nearly sunk it was due to being surprised and overwhelmed and/or due to overwhelming firepower that the other side could bring to bear in general......or due to torpedos of course and here armor can only make it worse (adding topweight).

Also compare 17inc´s designs of 1930 to historical ones of the same era. Honestly, I think his designs are well enough armored for most tasks - including to go one-on-one with other nations cruisers. Most CLs and CAs early in the 30s were still paper tigers with little more than splinter protection. Compared to that a 102mm belt is definitively an improvement.

Finally, I think those designs are good but they´re of the 30s and we´re in 1921 which is all that matters right now.

Regards,

HoOmAn

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

5

Wednesday, August 6th 2003, 5:41pm

The reason we see a lot of 1930 designs for Australia would probably be due to the limited number of slips and docks Australia has:

9 type V slips and 4 type V drydocks.

My guess would be that most (maybe all) of the points produced by the Australian factories will be used for factories, slips and docks, before Australia begins with its warship projects. To be honest, I have been looking at this option as well: building factories, slips and docks until the 1930s and then start constructing ships using materials from all my factories...
I wonder why I scrapped that plan...

As to Red Admiral's point on speed (welcome back by the way), I agree that 1.5 knots isn't much of a difference, especially if your opponent has a superior range compared to your vessel. That speed advantage is useless if you have no fuel left.
However, If your ship were to have the superior range, then that 1.5 knots could mean the difference between getting away or getting sunk.

Walter

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

6

Wednesday, August 6th 2003, 6:01pm

I think you might have abandoned the plan because it would leave you with an aging navy in the late twenties. You'd be stuck with WW1 and pre-war vintage warships that were slower and less heavily armed than 1920's vintage ships. Probably coal-fired as well.

If somebody with a more modern fleet decided to take a run at you in the late twenties, you might have a problem. Remember, there's no guarantee that WW2 will break out on schedule in September '39.

From a realism standpoint, another potential problem with this plan is a loss of "corporate knowledge". Ten or fifteen years go by without building major combat units and there's a good chance that many of your design and construction people will retire/transfer/die in that time. The first large hulls to come along will be learning experiences for a lot of new people - the end products may suffer as a result.

J

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

7

Wednesday, August 6th 2003, 6:26pm

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

From a realism standpoint, another potential problem with this plan is a loss of "corporate knowledge". Ten or fifteen years go by without building major combat units and there's a good chance that many of your design and construction people will retire/transfer/die in that time. The first large hulls to come along will be learning experiences for a lot of new people - the end products may suffer as a result.

Indeed, a fact the British were very aware of for example. The decrease of industrial capacity on such fields like armor and guns cause many problems in the 1920s and early 30s. So a building holiday either dictated by contract or by free will has its influence on what you will be able to build afterwards - if you keep realism in mind.

Go to the top of the page

WesWorld