WesWorld

Bornholm, Denmark CL laid down 1921

Displacement:
7,204 t light; 7,462 t standard; 8,508 t normal; 9,310 t full load
Loading submergence 545 tons/feet

Dimensions:
500.00 ft x 60.00 ft x 19.50 ft (normal load)
152.40 m x 18.29 m x 5.94 m

Armament:
9 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns (3 Main turrets x 3 guns, 1 superfiring turret)
6 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
12 - 0.50" / 13 mm guns
Weight of broadside 1,054 lbs / 478 kg
16 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 1.50" / 38 mm, upper belt 0.75" / 19 mm, ends unarmoured
Belts cover 125 % of normal area
Main turrets 1.25" / 32 mm, AA gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm, Light gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm
Armour deck 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower 1.50" / 38 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 85,374 shp / 63,689 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 13,500nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
442 - 575

Cost:
£1.971 million / $7.884 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 132 tons, 1.5 %
Armour: 815 tons, 9.6 %
Belts: 339 tons, 4.0 %, Armament: 110 tons, 1.3 %, Armour Deck: 353 tons, 4.1 %
Conning Tower: 13 tons, 0.2 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,940 tons, 34.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,268 tons, 38.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,304 tons, 15.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 0.6 %

Metacentric height 3.3

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.22
Shellfire needed to sink: 7,463 lbs / 3,385 Kg = 69.1 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.1
(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: 0.33
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.509
Sharpness coefficient: 0.36
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 7.49
'Natural speed' for length: 22.36 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 63 %
Trim: 58
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 124.7 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 138.1 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 109 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.92
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 99 lbs / square foot or 483 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 2.18
(for 23.00 ft / 7.01 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 8.34 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

The "Island" class cruisers are the to be commissioned into the KDM in 1923.
The first 2 ships of the class, "Bornholm" and "Falster" have been selected
to trial the "Hunin" system in advance of future deployment on other vessels.

[IMG]<img src="http://img30.photobucket.com/albums/v91/CommodoreGreen/K.gif">[/IMG]

Triples seem abit early for 1921 and seeing as shes a CL you'll likely need a more simple superstructure, it seems to large. Most importantly your freeboard is more like that of a BB! I would suggest a design with a 20 foot freeboard. She also outranges the British Kent class by about 4000 KM and shes around 3000 tons lighter.

Seems early to me, too, but half of us are already operating such designs anyway.

I agree with Wes, though - if you can accept a lower freeboard, you'll get the strength to add stuff. Depends on what the ship's to be used for - if it's the North Atlantic, that might be fine.

Acctually the fad right now is 8" cruisers with many triple turrets. I think rocky and I are the few nations that still have 8000 ton cruisers with single guns in sheilds as our top of the line cruiser! I can't speak for India but Atlantis is working on its own 13000 ton cruiser design that is shall we say a little more balanced and in tune with the Cleito treatys good spirits.

Quoted

I think rocky and I are the few nations that still have 8000 ton cruisers with single guns in sheilds as our top of the line cruiser!

Russia is too, almost. The Sviatoslavs are several months away from completion, alas... Until then, its the Admiral Lazarevs with a dual 150mm turret fore and aft, and 4 150mm in casemates on each beam. Then you have the Palladias, laid down in 1897...

But wait 'till next year! The General Admiral Apraxin class shows up towards the end of the year!

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov

Quoted

I think rocky and I are the few nations that still have 8000 ton cruisers with single guns in sheilds as our top of the line cruiser!

Russia is too, almost.

Actually, it´s true for the RSAN too. The CL19-class (Yaoundé-class) has her 15cm guns in single shields. The following CL21-class also features open shields but here two guns were put in a craddle (resulting in blast interference - but that´s a different topic). The latest CL22-class, currently building in several yards, is the first class featuring twin turrets (enclosed mounts).
As for CAs... The RSAN has three old ACs rated as such and not a single ship laid down so there aren´t any CAs with twins or triples all over.

Regards,

HoOmAn

India's contemplating 13,000 ton ships as well as 9,600 t ships (which would allow for five vessels rather than four). These will be armed with multi-gun mounts, but I won't say when they're being laid down.

My first CL with multi-gun turrets, Trincomalee, has just been laid down, though the arrangement...

3-1s-1-1s-3

...is fairly peculiar and won't likely be repeated in the next class. Think of a big Fletcher DD with triples in A and Y positions, and you've got the idea.

Although they perhaps don't compare well with some of the existing Wesworld designs, I think they're consistent with historical designs of the time.

Some times I do wonder if 13,000 t wasn't excessive for cruisers...

Quoted

Some times I do wonder if 13,000 t wasn't excessive for cruisers...

I so do not think so!

I love the fact that this size allows us to build ACs rather than CAs - which I always thought were an abomination.

Quoted

I love the fact that this size allows us to build ACs rather than CAs - which I always thought were an abomination

I don't know that any were necessarily abominations; some, like the US ships, were pretty lightly protected, yet as I recall (poorly, since all my references remain in boxes) most of those were lost in night actions to heavy torpedoes.

The answer to that, I think, is not "build an even bigger target with more top-weight", but to either build a larger unit with good compartmentalization, or build the smallest ship that gets the job done, and put as many as possible in the water.

The other problem I have with 13 kt is that I think the maximum caliber allowed, 8.2", is on the low side for that displacement. So everybody's producing 13,000 t ships with 12 guns. If we'd set a cap of 9.45", we'd probably be seeing a more diversified mix of 8.2, 9.2 and 9.45" designs on 13,000 t.

But so be it...

I agree with you there rocky, 9.45 would have been a nice caliber cap for a 13,000 ton cruiser. As for the american cruisers they took quite alot of punishment and kept going untill they recieved those long lance hits which would ruin a capital ships day so I think it speaks volumes about america's "tin cans". For example look at the Atlanta, she took 19x8" rounds and a torpedo before going down, the torpedo doing the fatal damage. Not bad for a 7000 ton cruiser with a 3.75" belt and splinter protection for everything else.

hmm - 24 cm. Now why does that sound familiar?

Well in contrast those Japanese cruisers made themselves floating A-bombs with all those high explosive torpedo's on board, one well placed bomb from an aircraft could really ruin their day.

The problem with the long lance torpedoes was the oxygen storage; fairly easy to pierce and then if there isn't a fire around, there would be one soon. Then those large warheads go off in the middle of the ship.

240mm gun limit, nah. 254mm would be more probable considering the US and Italian use of this calibre.

Not everybody is going to be producing 13,000t ships with 12 guns. Zara as historical seems fairly good at 11,600t. She has armour, armament and speed so i don't really need to make her any bigger.
Bolzano is even smaller than Zara yet her protection is nearly equal to that of KDM Hel. Her speed is much better however.

Quoted

If we'd set a cap of 9.45", we'd probably be seeing a more diversified mix of 8.2, 9.2 and 9.45" designs on 13,000 t

Hey, I <tried> to hold out for 23.4cm!

Quoted

Not everybody is going to be producing 13,000t ships with 12 guns.

Indeed, France is going for 6x 10,000t cruisers with 8-9 guns, to have a Cruiser Division of 2 for each of France's main fleets.