WesWorld

Goal : The Belgians are trying to build a small navy to meet several goals
- become a more desirable ally
- provide protection to their own merchants- avoiding dependency on others.
- Some power projection, so that the Belgian nation can have an international presence.

Initially they went for slower support vessels that could guard SLOC, presumably working out of friendly ports. The heavy cruiser gave the navy a flagship, now they've been cranking out large destroyers, and would like a tender that can accompany said destroyers to foreign stations.

So..it's somewhat lavish for a tender, but can allow operations far from home, and survivability is a goal.

Groenendael, Belgium Destroyer Tender laid down 1941

Displacement:
9,775 t light; 10,577 t standard; 13,449 t normal; 15,746 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
544.47 ft / 524.93 ft x 68.90 ft (Bulges 75.46 ft) x 17.55 ft (normal load)
165.95 m / 160.00 m x 21.00 m (Bulges 23.00 m) x 5.35 m

Armament:
8 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns (4x2 guns), 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1936 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
48 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (24x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 12 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 490 lbs / 222 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 1,775

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 341.21 ft / 104.00 m 16.01 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
0.98" / 25 mm 341.21 ft / 104.00 m 16.21 ft / 4.94 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.46" / 37 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 0.98" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 0.98" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 28,853 shp / 21,524 Kw = 22.25 kts
Range 22,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,169 tons (25% coal)

Complement:
623 - 811

Cost:
£3.108 million / $12.431 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 61 tons, 0.5 %
Armour: 1,224 tons, 9.1 %
- Belts: 463 tons, 3.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 201 tons, 1.5 %
- Armament: 30 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 517 tons, 3.8 %
- Conning Tower: 12 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 780 tons, 5.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,560 tons, 26.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,674 tons, 27.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 4,150 tons, 30.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
23,834 lbs / 10,811 Kg = 459.1 x 4.7 " / 119 mm shells or 4.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.22
Metacentric height 4.1 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 15.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 77 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.05
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.54

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, raised quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.677
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.96 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.91 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 23.92 ft / 7.29 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 23.92 ft / 7.29 m (15.91 ft / 4.85 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 15.91 ft / 4.85 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 23.92 ft / 7.29 m (15.91 ft / 4.85 m before break)
- Stern: 23.92 ft / 7.29 m
- Average freeboard: 18.71 ft / 5.70 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 138.1 %
Waterplane Area: 28,396 Square feet or 2,638 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 181 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 88 lbs/sq ft or 430 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.06
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Designed to be a tender for the overseas deployment of the 1939 series of destroyers.

A 9-ship Destroyer Squadron will have a maximum bunkerage of 9x 445tons=4005 tons, and carry 12,600 rounds of 4.7" ammunition. The tender has sufficient stores to completely refuel and rearm the squadron leaving 1164 tons fuel and 200 shells/gun for itself.

3,012 tons are reserved for Quarters for 2/3rds of the Destroyer crews- a berth per man. 2t per enlisted, 4t per officer.
75 tons for a catapult and 2 aircraft
144 tons for 72 torpedoes (1 reload per DD)

50 ton diesel generator + fuel for emergency power.

250 tons are reserved for an infirmary
450 tons for machine shops

20 tons air conditioning.
80 tons electronics

69 tons spare

Interesting vessel.

I'm wondering what the theory for the armoured belt and the armoured deck is. The TDS makes sense to me, though I'm not sure I'd see it as necessary enough to follow the same design theory for myself...

The Belgian navy is dinky enough that any independent deployment, there is no 'rear area' to hide in.

I doubt anyone will attempt to use AP bombs or shells on a "merchant" type target, which means HE.

HE will either explode above decks, or be unable to penetrate the armor. This gives the below decks area- which has a great deal of fuel and ammo- some security. Likewise the TDS both gives some "flash" protection, and means the vessel is more likely to reach a port for repairs than to sink and strand her flock.

Neither will save the vessel from concerted attack by a heavy force, but both should enhance survivability against patrol bombers/lone subs/marauding raider etc. so she can try to run while the DDs fight.
Well that and I seem to have a fondness for armor plate.

I see several points of consideration - some dealing with the theory behind the design, others with the design itself.

(a) A vessel of such size, armed with eight main guns in what would look to be turrets fore and aft would appear to a scouting aircraft or patrolling submarine to be a cruiser - assuming that said aircraft or sub is not allowed to get close enough to discern the details. Hence an enemy might choose to use AP ammunition thinking that the target is a cruiser. The belt and deck won't defeat it if the enemy makes that mistake.

(b) As you indicated, the design is lavish - it does provide a lot of support to a destroyer flotilla but it is expensive. I was surprised that it had a mixed firing powerplant until I checked to discover that the 1939 class DDs are also mixed firing - which I do find very strange, but this is a strategic choice on Belgium's part. Germany has built coal-fired vessels but for deployment near home.

(c) The apparent lack of provision for refueling at sea equipment (and the inclusion of coal in the fuel load) will limit any resupply activities to sheltered anchorages - which calls into question the assumed lack of 'rear areas' previously cited for the heavy protection.

Several British tenders, like the submarine depot ships, in OTL had eight main guns with superfiring guns etc.
I think perhaps armour might be useful for limiting splinter damage etc, certainly its probably no limitation. If your building only one then you can afford to be lavish.

I expect 2 to be built, and 18 DDs over time.

(a) hadn't considered that, and it might be a good point.

Was figuring the profile would be one of a merchant man, regardless of the guns. 4 single mounts might be more appropriate.

(b) The mixed firing goes way back. The Belgian navy is a political creation. Politicians demanded that local coal be used for day to day operations, but allowed for oil usage at higher speeds. So while this might get parked off the coast of Oman...the majority of it's time will be spent in local waters at cruising speed, running off the coal-fired boilers.

(c) Well, to me, it has refueling gear as that's part of it's purpose. This comes back to how @# detailed we make our miscellaneous weight declarations. If necessary I can just stick 50 tons there. Coal can be transferred at sea as well, it's just messy. All such operations are nicer in a calm area and at anchor.

However, that triggered a concern of mine :
The SIM of South Dakota that comes with Springsharp has 54 tons of miscellaneous weight. Yet the vessel had multiple radars, heavy masts, was fitted as a flagship, had catapults and aircraft, and I believe synchronised tracking of the main battery. The SS of Algerie lacks weight for torpedoes, that of 1934 QE- aircraft. So this RL vessels that served as SS examples have lots of standard gear... None of which are "paid for" by our standard...which has been creeping towards more and more specific, yet not standardized.

Heck the early DD designs from RAM didn't have weight for ASDIC/SONAR or their own torpedoes.

I recognize the theory behind mixed firing. However, as to coaling at sea, I would refer you here

No one ever managed to get it to work well.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
However, that triggered a concern of mine :
The SIM of South Dakota that comes with Springsharp has 54 tons of miscellaneous weight. Yet the vessel had multiple radars, heavy masts, was fitted as a flagship, had catapults and aircraft, and I believe synchronised tracking of the main battery. The SS of Algerie lacks weight for torpedoes, that of 1934 QE- aircraft. So this RL vessels that served as SS examples have lots of standard gear... None of which are "paid for" by our standard...which has been creeping towards more and more specific, yet not standardized.

Heck the early DD designs from RAM didn't have weight for ASDIC/SONAR or their own torpedoes.

I would suggest that the sims that come with Springsharp are not to be trusted as an appropriate metric for our own use. I've done a lot of research on weights of radars and associated systems, and I can conclusively say that a SoDak, if realistically simmed, would not have just 56t of miscellaneous weight.

The standard interpretation for torpedoes is that miscellaneous weight accounts for reload torpedoes, while the torpedoes in the tubes are accounted for in the sim. Extra equipment like radar would always be accounted for by miscellaneous weight; if there's no miscellaneous weight, then the ship wouldn't have that sort of gear.

Good article Duncan, fits with my understanding.
Though I thought I recalled the Great White fleet had transfered coal at sea off ..Brazil.. eh been ~20years since I read about it, memory *could* be off.

Quoted

Of course vessels had always transferred, persons, stores and, since mechanisation, coal while at sea, but these transfers were dependent on clam weather, carried out at very slow speeds and very limited in scale. In August 1870, for instance, the Royal Navy’s Channel Squadron transferred fifty tons of coal using ships’ boats to the ill-fated HMS Captain at the rate of five tons per hour.[17] Attempts were made to lash vessels together for coaling, but this too required calm weather and slow speeds if severe damage was not to be inflicted on both vessels. Coaling was not viable with swells “sufficient to cause a roll of more than three or four degrees, or especially to make the vessels rise and fall in the sea more than one or two feet.”[18]

Quoted

However in July 1898, The Times reported that a French collier using a Temperly Transporter, an equipment developed to increase the speed of coaling in port, had transferred 200 tons of coal to two warships while steaming at six knots, the procedure only halting when the collier was damaged in a collision with one of the warships.

The article goes on about various ways tried etc. I was rather expecting one of the cranes would extend and lower bushels of coal to the deck rather than use ships boats, and the ships would preferably be at anchor. Sounds like low speed is preferable.

This may be one of those "deliberate error" points- this will work fine in practice in a Belgian harbor, and the navy using domestic coal is a politically popular idea. In practice- should they ever deploy, the vessels might wind up using the oil-fired boilers primarily.


actually Brock, that's my point. SoDak obviously didn't provide misc weight for those things, so I rather presume the designer felt those things fell under the "Hull, fittings & equipment:" category.

We've chosen to start providing for such things, but it's been an evolving trend over the course of the sim. Things that were assumed earlier now yield demands for specificity.

ed : Noticed the article provided a weight for the 1906 metcalf system- 12 tons. Presume oil at the same and that's 24t.

As for torps... I've never noticed any weights that are attached to torp tubes, they simply seem to be volumetric in how SS treats them. As for the weight being for reloads only...not as I remember a prior discussion over providing for torps back in the early/mid1930s- in game .

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Extra equipment like radar would always be accounted for by miscellaneous weight; if there's no miscellaneous weight, then the ship wouldn't have that sort of gear.

Perhaps we should devise a committee to generate a list of acceptable weight ranges for certain items, like Radar, ASDIC, Torp reloads, DCs, mines, planes, etc for our sims. If that is to open to infighting then perhaps the mods should just decree that X weights between Y and Z tons. That way there is commonality and an 'accepted' norm.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
actually Brock, that's my point. SoDak obviously didn't provide misc weight for those things, so I rather presume the designer felt those things fell under the "Hull, fittings & equipment:" category.

We've chosen to start providing for such things, but it's been an evolving trend over the course of the sim. Things that were assumed earlier now yield demands for specificity.

While I acknowledge that such specificity might not have been standard earlier in the game, it's really rather required now in order to establish the facts without a tool as imprecise as saying "Well, I assumed..." Going back to many older designs in my own navies, there is often no explanation for what the miscellaneous weight is for. Should I assume it's depth charges? Aircraft? The captain's rum stock? What I assume the miscellaneous weight is used for may be dramatically different from what you assume the miscellaneous weight is for. That's why we've had to get specific.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
As for torps... I've never noticed any weights that are attached to torp tubes, they simply seem to be volumetric in how SS treats them. As for the weight being for reloads only...not as I remember a prior discussion over providing for torps back in the early/mid1930s- in game .

It might have been different earlier in the game, but its been the standard and official interpretation for a number of years now since I asked about it when I joined.

Brock : I think in the earlier days it was simply assumed the ship had what it needed to function. A DD would have hydrophones and sonar and depth charges and stock it's torpedo tubes. Certainly that was my impression very early on.

In this case it's a tender with an overly large fuel storage specifically noted for refueling. Thus to be told that it can't refuel because there's no specific misc weight assigned to that apparatus I find... well exasperating.

I personally think it's reasonable that the "Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,560 tons" would cover the 24-50 tons of standard fittings for this type of vessel.

It's minor, the vessel was built for it, therefore the vessel has it.

I'd also be willing to presume that 50 tons of radar gear on SoDak are somehow included as 0.3% of the "Hull, fittings & equipment: 15,885 tons", but I'll concede the trend here has been screaming away from lumping and towards specifying such tings.

Which does bring us to Sachmle's idea, which might be a worthy one. While I've specified Sonars/Radars for some time, folks do seem to have some variety in how they handle it, if they just do "radar" or "air search, sea search" etc.

I hadn't realized the torps had gone back the other way again. That means I've been providing reloads for ship that I didn't need too ! 8p
...hmm means my subs have more torps than I thought...

Quoted

I personally think it's reasonable that the "Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,560 tons" would cover the 24-50 tons of standard fittings for this type of vessel.

It's minor, the vessel was built for it, therefore the vessel has it.

Actually, I disagree with that. The way I interpret the "Hull, fittings & equipment" is that that covers the basic equipment that is common on all types of ship throughout the SS years (anchors, lifeboats, funnels, etc) and not mission specific equipment limited to specific types of ships like depth charges, mines, sonar, hydrophones, torpedoes, radar,etc.

Considering the size of the tender, it should be easy to free up 24-50 tons for refueling equipment, or perhaps it's covered by the 69 tons you got left.

Quoted

...hmm means my subs have more torps than I thought...

Not necessarily. It could also mean that you have a bigger ballast tank than you thought.

I have seen a few SS sub sims that have enough miscellaneous weight for the ballast but nothing else (and I think I saw a sub somewhere that did not even have enough miscellaneous weights for the ballast).

Quoted

Perhaps we should devise a committee to generate a list of acceptable weight ranges for certain items, like Radar, ASDIC, Torp reloads, DCs, mines, planes, etc for our sims.

Planes is already fixed by the spring style rules. I would say that torpedoes (not just the reloads) depend on the weight of the torpedoes your navy uses. I use 1.75 tons per 21" torpedo and 2.66 tons per 24" torpedo.

I had a few things fixed with the resimming of the Hiyo which I was planning to apply from now on. Are they realistic? I don't know and perhaps a minimum is required for each aspect like with the planes, but at least it looks like something.

- spare parts: 4 tons per operational aircraft
- repair shop: 3 tons per operational aircraft, 1 ton per spare aircraft
- deck integrated hydraulic catapult: 20 tons per catapult
- flight operations center: 2 tons per operational aircraft
- briefing room: 1 ton per operational aircraft
- damage control and fire suppression systems: 1 ton per 100 tons light displacement
- emergency diesel generators: 1 ton per 400 tons light displacement
- air condition system: 1 ton per 100 tons light displacement
- degauss coiling: 1 ton per 5 feet of length (oa)

There are also some other things that were already fixed or we fixed like:
- # of planes greater than 25: square root of miscellaneous weight
- # of planes 25 or less:" miscellaneous weight/25
- submarine ballast tank: 1/4 to 1/6 of the ship's normal displacement.
- catapult + crane = 25 tons
- spare planes: 25 tons per aircraft

Roo has some good points.
To me, he's talking Hull, fittings only while I kinda think the equipment should have* covered various equipment common to the ship type for when it's built. Which is why I'm balking at doing so even though I already have spare misc weight.

*past tense used because we've already gone to specifying, now the question is how detailed we're going.

I'd agree that we already have some Misc weights fixed, SS provides the formula for carrier AC, we've long had the 25 ton for AC crane/25 per ac for scouts etc.

Pretty sure we had once talked about the right weight for DC & throwers, perhaps even mines & rails.

I have long wondered about things like Carrier elevators and catapults, but so far they've been absorbed in the SS formula. However that..to me...goes for stuff like briefing rooms, damage control, etc. Only when the carrier has "extra" compared to standard do I then specify additional weight for that purpose- to me, that's a enhanced or secondary system.

Torpedoes :
Base ship :
Displacement:
39 t light; 39 t standard; 39 t normal; 39 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
100.00 ft / 100.00 ft x 10.00 ft x 2.50 ft (normal load)

Hull strength (Relative):
- Overall: 1.00
Hull, fittings & equipment: 26 tons, 64.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 13 tons, 33.1 %


With no weapons :
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1 tons, 2.0 %

With 10,000 torpedo tubes :
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1 tons, 2.0 %

Conclusion... no, SS does not presume you have torpedoes in the tubes, the tubes appear to be featherweight and have no penalty for a director either.


Other topic : My subs have ballast tanks already Torpedo weights use Roo's suggestion of an armor belt. So far I've been sticking with building my O-8 class to avoid learning the new spreadsheet.

With subs, there is a limit what you can do with the miscellaneous weight since you're not allowed to change the slider to compensate for the loss of stability and SS assumes the location of the miscellaneous weight to be all outside the submarine. Therefore I have been playing around with the various armor positions to to sim certain sub aspects which, in my eyes, seemed to be a good alternative to use. Why? Well, I played with the the subsim program and didn't like it, so I will be sticking to the sim's standard which is Spring Sharp, even if it means "bending" it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
So I will be sticking to the sim's standard which is Spring Sharp, even if it means "bending" it.

I advise you to please remember to discuss such "bending" with the forum at large to ensure that alternative methods are within the rules. (I'm not chastising, I just want to make sure everyone's all on the same page rules-wise.)

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
I have long wondered about things like Carrier elevators and catapults, but so far they've been absorbed in the SS formula. However that..to me...goes for stuff like briefing rooms, damage control, etc. Only when the carrier has "extra" compared to standard do I then specify additional weight for that purpose- to me, that's a enhanced or secondary system.

In this particular case, I agree with that assessment.

Quoted

I advise you to please remember to discuss such "bending" with the forum at large to ensure that alternative methods are within the rules. (I'm not chastising, I just want to make sure everyone's all on the same page rules-wise.)

It's there whenever I post a design on the board for everyone to see and you are free to comment it or critisize it or demand that I change it to follow the rules...

... unless...

... unless you're telling me that you do not check out my designs whenever I post them! Oh! Poor me! Why do I even bother simming ships!

Well when its posted in the ship design board its fairly hard to miss, where as editing the design into its appropriate encyclopedia heading tends to get missed.

This is the slightly revised tender.

Per Duncan's observation, the DP mounts are no longer enclosed, merely shielded and with splinter protection for the hoists.
There is now 50ts specified for refueling. I decided to take it out of infirmary space.

Groenendael, Belgium Destroyer Tender laid down 1941

Displacement:
9,775 t light; 10,536 t standard; 13,449 t normal; 15,779 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
544.47 ft / 524.93 ft x 68.90 ft (Bulges 75.46 ft) x 17.55 ft (normal load)
165.95 m / 160.00 m x 21.00 m (Bulges 23.00 m) x 5.35 m

Armament:
8 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns (4x2 guns), 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1936 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
32 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (16x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 8 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 465 lbs / 211 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 1,775

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 341.21 ft / 104.00 m 16.01 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
0.98" / 25 mm 341.21 ft / 104.00 m 16.21 ft / 4.94 m

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

- Armour deck: 0.98" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 0.98" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Coal and oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 28,853 shp / 21,524 Kw = 22.25 kts
Range 22,320nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,243 tons (25% coal)

Complement:
623 - 811

Cost:
£3.092 million / $12.368 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 58 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 1,205 tons, 9.0 %
- Belts: 463 tons, 3.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 201 tons, 1.5 %
- Armament: 11 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 517 tons, 3.8 %
- Conning Tower: 12 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 780 tons, 5.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,562 tons, 26.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,674 tons, 27.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 4,170 tons, 31.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
23,930 lbs / 10,854 Kg = 461.0 x 4.7 " / 119 mm shells or 4.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.22
Metacentric height 4.1 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 15.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 77 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.05
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.54

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, raised quarterdeck
Block coefficient: 0.677
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.96 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.91 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 23.92 ft / 7.29 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 23.92 ft / 7.29 m (15.91 ft / 4.85 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 15.91 ft / 4.85 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 23.92 ft / 7.29 m (15.91 ft / 4.85 m before break)
- Stern: 23.92 ft / 7.29 m
- Average freeboard: 18.71 ft / 5.70 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 138.1 %
Waterplane Area: 28,396 Square feet or 2,638 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 182 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 88 lbs/sq ft or 430 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.06
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Designed to be a tender for the overseas deployment of the 1939 series of destroyers.

A 9-ship Destroyer Squadron will have a maximum bunkerage of 9x 445tons=4005 tons, and carry 12,600 rounds of 4.7" ammunition. The tender has sufficient stores to completely refuel and rearm the squadron leaving 1484 tons fuel and 200 shells/gun for itself.

3,012 tons are reserved for Quarters for 2/3rds of the Destroyer crews- a berth per man. 2t per enlisted, 4t per officer.
75 tons for a catapult and 2 aircraft
144 tons for 72 torpedoes (1 reload per DD)

50 ton diesel generator + fuel for emergency power.

250 tons are reserved for an infirmary
450 tons for machine shops

20 tons air conditioning.
80 tons electronics

89 tons spare