CA design

Professional

Sunday, March 21st 2004, 8:40pm

Inigo Montoya, Iberia CA laid down 1923

Displacement:
12,461 t light; 13,098 t standard; 14,900 t normal; 16,282 t full load
Loading submergence 814 tons/feet

Dimensions:
672.57 ft x 67.26 ft x 22.97 ft (normal load)
205.00 m x 20.50 m x 7.00 m

Armament:
12 - 8.27" / 210 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 4 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
20 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns
12 - 2.24" / 57 mm AA guns
18 - 0.53" / 14 mm guns
Weight of broadside 4,070 lbs / 1,846 kg
16 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 3.94" / 100 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 94 % of normal area
Main turrets 4.72" / 120 mm, AA gun shields 1.18" / 30 mm
Armour deck 2.76" / 70 mm, Conning tower 3.15" / 80 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 90,669 shp / 67,639 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
674 - 876

Cost:
£3.746 million / $14.985 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 509 tons, 3.4 %
Armour: 2,754 tons, 18.5 %
Belts: 653 tons, 4.4 %, Armament: 607 tons, 4.1 %, Armour Deck: 1,453 tons, 9.8 %
Conning Tower: 41 tons, 0.3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,030 tons, 20.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,018 tons, 40.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,439 tons, 16.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 1.0 %

Metacentric height 3.3

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.10
Shellfire needed to sink: 17,465 lbs / 7,922 Kg = 61.8 x 8.3 " / 210 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.9
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 71 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.73
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.502
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.36
'Natural speed' for length: 25.93 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim: 59
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 93.8 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 111.9 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 114 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.98
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 129 lbs / square foot or 630 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.20
(for 20.08 ft / 6.12 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 3.68 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

2

Sunday, March 21st 2004, 9:17pm

There's something i just don't like about this design. i can't put my finger on it however. Its probably that measly 31knt speed.

Go to the top of the page

LordArpad

Professional

Posts: 1,032

3

Sunday, March 21st 2004, 10:48pm

well, she has range, give te oceanic needs of the Armada, so something had to give ;-)

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

4

Sunday, March 21st 2004, 11:21pm

Hmmm....

She´ll be the most heavily armed CA - most likely. Except for the quads she´s a neat and balanced design with many, many secondary guns.... I guess I know why she has 80mm of CT armor but why she has a 70mm deck I can´t say. I think it´s a waste of weight and material - looking at it in 1923...

Cheers,

HoOmAn

Go to the top of the page

LordArpad

Professional

Posts: 1,032

5

Monday, March 22nd 2004, 12:04am

just within cheating limits ...

Inigo Montoya, Iberia CA laid down 1923

Displacement:
12,955 t light; 13,647 t standard; 15,474 t normal; 16,874 t full load
Loading submergence 849 tons/feet

Dimensions:
688.98 ft x 68.90 ft x 22.97 ft (normal load)
210.00 m x 21.00 m x 7.00 m

Armament:
16 - 8.27" / 210 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 4 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
12 - 2.24" / 57 mm AA guns
18 - 0.53" / 14 mm guns
Weight of broadside 4,590 lbs / 2,082 kg
16 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 3.94" / 100 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 98 % of normal area
Main turrets 4.72" / 120 mm, AA gun shields 0.79" / 20 mm
Armour deck 1.97" / 50 mm, Conning tower 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 91,844 shp / 68,516 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
693 - 901

Cost:
£3.971 million / $15.886 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 574 tons, 3.7 %
Armour: 2,686 tons, 17.4 %
Belts: 705 tons, 4.6 %, Armament: 820 tons, 5.3 %, Armour Deck: 1,082 tons, 7.0 %
Conning Tower: 79 tons, 0.5 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,070 tons, 19.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,475 tons, 41.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,519 tons, 16.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 1.0 %

Metacentric height 3.1

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is adequate
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: 17,593 lbs / 7,980 Kg = 62.3 x 8.3 " / 210 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.0
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 71 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.79
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.18

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.497
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.46
'Natural speed' for length: 26.25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim: 60
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 94.3 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 115.8 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 114 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.98
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 134 lbs / square foot or 657 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.14
(for 20.08 ft / 6.12 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 3.55 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Go to the top of the page

AdmKuznetsov

Sage

Posts: 2,918

6

Monday, March 22nd 2004, 1:43am

Something for my Sviatoslavs to play with!

Tactical exercises between them will be fun! They will be entering service just about the time Inigo Montoya is laid down.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

7

Monday, March 22nd 2004, 4:35am

4 Quad turrets in 1923?!! Other then that the second design seems more correctly dated.

Go to the top of the page

LordArpad

Professional

Posts: 1,032

8

Monday, March 22nd 2004, 12:08pm

how 'bout this then?

Inigo Montoya, Iberia CA laid down 1923

Displacement:
12,976 t light; 13,645 t standard; 15,480 t normal; 16,887 t full load
Loading submergence 849 tons/feet

Dimensions:
688.98 ft x 68.90 ft x 22.97 ft (normal load)
210.00 m x 21.00 m x 7.00 m

Armament:
15 - 8.27" / 210 mm guns (5 Main turrets x 3 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
12 - 2.24" / 57 mm AA guns
12 - 0.53" / 14 mm guns
Weight of broadside 4,307 lbs / 1,954 kg
16 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 4.72" / 120 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 97 % of normal area
Main turrets 4.72" / 120 mm, AA gun shields 0.79" / 20 mm
Armour deck 1.57" / 40 mm, Conning tower 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 97,843 shp / 72,991 Kw = 31.50 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
693 - 902

Cost:
£3.969 million / $15.875 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 538 tons, 3.5 %
Armour: 2,718 tons, 17.6 %
Belts: 836 tons, 5.4 %, Armament: 938 tons, 6.1 %, Armour Deck: 866 tons, 5.6 %
Conning Tower: 79 tons, 0.5 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 3,270 tons, 21.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,299 tons, 40.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,504 tons, 16.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 1.0 %

Metacentric height 3.1

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is adequate
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: 17,144 lbs / 7,776 Kg = 60.7 x 8.3 " / 210 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.9
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 70 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.74
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.14

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.497
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.46
'Natural speed' for length: 26.25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim: 61
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 96.7 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 115.8 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 113 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.98
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 131 lbs / square foot or 639 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.10
(for 20.08 ft / 6.12 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 3.55 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Turrets: A - Bs - Q - Xs - Y

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

9

Monday, March 22nd 2004, 1:18pm

Still...

A good one.... A bit heavy but nevertheless a really dangerous opponent.

Isn´t it possible to downsize her to 13kts? She seems to have enough freeboard to free up some hull strength and her armor, especially her CT, is quite heavy - comparing her to historical designs of that era. Reducing her poweroutput to 70.000 kW should also add some hull strength without giving away too much speed.

It doesn´t seem necessary to cheat at all.

Just my thoughts...

HoOmAn

Go to the top of the page

17inc

Unregistered

10

Wednesday, March 24th 2004, 7:51am

UP DATE design for Kent Ballarate class CA

Kent Ballarat class, uk Aust Cruiser laid down 1930

Displacement:
12,383 t light; 13,000 t standard; 15,086 t normal; 16,695 t full load
Loading submergence 685 tons/feet

Dimensions:
688.92 ft x 66.50 ft x 30.30 ft (normal load)
209.98 m x 20.27 m x 9.24 m

Armament:
12 - 8.25" / 210 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 4 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 3,778 lbs / 1,714 kg
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 4.50" / 114 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 100 % of normal area
Main turrets 4.50" / 114 mm
Armour deck 1.89" / 48 mm, Conning tower 5.00" / 127 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 97,918 shp / 73,047 Kw = 31.96 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts

Complement:
680 - 884

Cost:
£5.208 million / $20.834 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 472 tons, 3.1 %
Armour: 2,322 tons, 15.4 %
Belts: 805 tons, 5.3 %, Armament: 613 tons, 4.1 %, Armour Deck: 838 tons, 5.6 %
Conning Tower: 66 tons, 0.4 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,967 tons, 19.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,621 tons, 43.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,703 tons, 17.9 %
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
Excellent seaboat, comfortable and able to fight her guns in the heaviest weather

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.06
Shellfire needed to sink: 18,377 lbs / 8,336 Kg = 65.5 x 8.3 " / 210 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.1
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 85 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.97
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.76

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.380
Sharpness coefficient: 0.29
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.53
'Natural speed' for length: 26.25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
Trim: 48
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 88.4 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 141.8 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 125 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.93
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 135 lbs / square foot or 659 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 2.01
(for 24.00 ft / 7.32 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 7.56 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

11

Wednesday, March 24th 2004, 9:22am

Comment

Sorry, 17inc, but I don´t think that´s a good design.

Reasons:

a) The length to beam ratio of 10+:1 is unrealistic for such a vessel.

b) With 9,24m your designs hull goes deeper than most if not all capital units of that era.

c) You´re using a bc of 0,38 !!!

d) Freeboard of 7,32m?! For what? A seakeeping of 1,76?!

e) No misc weight at all?

You used the old, old trick (long/large hull, very low bc) to gain more hull strength and make a superior design but you failed. The outcome is just not reasonable, I think, nor is it superior to normal 13kts designs like LAs.

Just my 0,02€...

HoOmAn

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

12

Wednesday, March 24th 2004, 10:09am

I do tend to agree with Hooman for once, this design could be a lot, lot better. A smaller hull would suit better as there is less area to armour. A BC of ~0.48 and a shorter hull will take loads of belt armour off.
Zara for example, when i simmed her has a displacement of 11,600t standard. She is laid down a year earlier, has better armour, she is a little bit faster, the only thing your design gains over her is mounting 12x8" guns instead of 8. Now on a 13,000t vessel, i know that i can put 16x8" in 4 turrets if i wanted and still have speed and armour, just by upscaling Zara's design.

Now, simming Bolzano was a bit harder. To get that speed up to 34knts i needed a BC of 0.435 which is a little low. However she is still only 11,300t standard.

BTW, the RN 4.5" gun was actually 4.45" in bore. That should save you a few tons.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

13

Wednesday, March 24th 2004, 6:20pm

Quoted

b) With 9,24m your designs hull goes deeper than most if not all capital units of that era.

Not all of them. Here are the ships (that I could find) that have a bigger draught than his CA:
Philipe II (Iberia): 10m
Melampus (Atlantis): 9.75m
Izmail (Russian Federation): 9.6m
Francesco Caracciolo (Italy): 9.50m
Nagato (Japan): 9.45m.
Dante Alighieri (Italy): 9.3m

Not sure though, but I think that's all of them.
... Anyone has a ship that needs to be added to the list?
... Perhaps we should make some ship rankings... Longest ships, ships with the greatest beam, etc.

Quoted

d) Freeboard of 7,32m?! For what? A seakeeping of 1,76?!

Not at all. With all those tall Australian sailors demanding enough room for their heads, he'll need all those 16.56 meters for the four decks of his cruiser.

Walter

Go to the top of the page

Red Admiral

Italian Stallion

Posts: 7,019

14

Wednesday, March 24th 2004, 7:33pm

Walter you missed MM Sicilia (Italy) with a hull depth of 9.5m. I can't actually remember posting stats for her however. I think they are hanging around somewhere.

And HMS Hood, G3 and Lexington.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

15

Wednesday, March 24th 2004, 8:47pm

I can't remember any data on the MM Silicia, but it was not in your list on the infrastructure list, so that's why it is not mentioned.
I'm not sure what Hood's draught is, but the average given in the Warship1 database is 28.5 feet (=8.69 meters) and the sim made of the Hood in the Springsharp Database uses the same draught. If that is incorrect, do you have any idea what the draught at normal displacement was?
G3s are not there because they still haven't been laid down... *looks at G3 sim* wait a sec... they have been laid down. My mistake.

;;
Forgot about Lexington as well.

Warships with the greatest draught at normal displacement:
1) Philipe II (Iberia): 10.00m
2) Melampus (Atlantis): 9.75m
3) Invincible (Great Britain): 9.69m
4) Izmail (Russian Federation): 9.60m
4) Lexington (United States): 9.60m
6) Francesco Caracciolo (Italy): 9.50m
6) Silicia (Italy): 9.50m

Nagato (Japan): 9.45m.
9) Dante Alighieri (Italy): 9.30m
10) Kent Ballarat (Australia): 9.24

Congratulations LordArpad! Your ship is the number 1 vessel when it comes to greatest draught! You have just won the blueprints of the Philipe II class which has been signed by all members of its design team!!
:-)

Walter

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

16

Wednesday, March 24th 2004, 10:13pm

Damn 2nd just means first loser! Whats my prize walter?

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

17

Thursday, March 25th 2004, 9:04am

That list....

Noticed that there is not even a single RSAN class mentioned?

(I wonder if there ever will be if Walter continues with those Top10 - my designs don´t have outstanding size nor are they proposing outstanding performance.)

Further noticed that all of those ships are capital units while 17incs design represents a cruiser category A ? ;o)

Regards,

HoOmAn

Go to the top of the page

LordArpad

Professional

Posts: 1,032

18

Thursday, March 25th 2004, 1:38pm

10 highest and 10 lowest BCs would be interesting ...

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

19

Thursday, March 25th 2004, 2:02pm

That´s an idea!

Among the Top10 Highest BC one of my designs could be. Except for the BC Hertog-class all my capital units use a bc of 0,6+...

Example:

BB Mauritius-class: 0,66 bc

Cheers,

HoOmAn