WesWorld

Alvama was quite kind and drew an excellent image of Chile's next light cruiser, the Magellanes-class. Some of you have seen this design before.

I'm going to tinker with the angle of the bow because it doesn't yet fit my mental image of the ship - I'll update when I get home from work. Otherwise, I love Alvama's splendid drawing and hope y'all do too!

The design evolved in part from seeing the Atlantean Acestus class and the French Algerie and Senegal-class cruisers. Chile was also inspired in part by the perceived success of the SAE's Arion-class in the fighting Pony Express, and so I required a high speed from the get-go... but Chile refuses to ditch armour for speed, insisting upon complete balance. And no, I don't want more guns. As I've said before, Chile believes 4x3 is the ideal configuration for a six-inch gunned light cruiser, and believes adding more guns will unbalance the design and won't substantially increase the ship's fighting power.



[SIZE=3]Magellanes-class, Chilean Light Cruiser laid down 1939[/SIZE]

Displacement:
10,750 t light; 11,231 t standard; 13,349 t normal; 15,043 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
651.11 ft / 639.76 ft x 59.06 ft (Bulges 63.98 ft) x 23.79 ft (normal load)
198.46 m / 195.00 m x 18.00 m (Bulges 19.50 m) x 7.25 m

Armament:
12 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (4x3 guns), 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1939 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
12 - 4.33" / 110 mm guns (6x2 guns), 40.61lbs / 18.42kg shells, 1939 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x3 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1939 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
16 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1939 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (2x4 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1939 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,776 lbs / 805 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
12 - 23.6" / 600 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 393.70 ft / 120.00 m 10.66 ft / 3.25 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 95 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 3.94" / 100 mm 4.72" / 120 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -

- Armour deck: 2.17" / 55 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 107,082 shp / 79,883 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 16,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,812 tons

Complement:
620 - 807

Cost:
£5.634 million / $22.536 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 222 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 2,649 tons, 19.8 %
- Belts: 1,032 tons, 7.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 517 tons, 3.9 %
- Armour Deck: 1,029 tons, 7.7 %
- Conning Tower: 72 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 2,897 tons, 21.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,812 tons, 36.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,599 tons, 19.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 170 tons, 1.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
16,754 lbs / 7,599 Kg = 162.7 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 2.7 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 16.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 63 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.40
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.08

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.480
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.93 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31.17 ft / 9.50 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 20.67 ft / 6.30 m
- Mid (50 %): 19.36 ft / 5.90 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Stern: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Average freeboard: 20.60 ft / 6.28 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 118.7 %
Waterplane Area: 25,698 Square feet or 2,387 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 128 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 109 lbs/sq ft or 533 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.37
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate

Breakdown of Miscellaneous Weights:
Air search radar - 20 tons
Surface search radar - 20 tons
Radar-assisted fire control - 30 tons
2 Seaplanes - 50 tons
Catapult - 35 tons
Air conditioning/Heating - 10 tons
Crew Comforts, movie theatre, ice cream machines - 5 tons
Total extra weight - 170 tons

Ships in Class
- Magellanes (CL-14) - 1939
- Valdivia (CL-15) - 1940
- Torres del Paine (CL-16) - 1940
- Aisén (CL-17) - 1941

What can i say ?!?! Nothing !!! F**** great drawing. Nice light cruiser !!!

Only one question. There is the little rangefinder on the bridge in front of the big one. I think he could turn around without collision, also the rear one between the rear big r.f. and the rear mast. Not enough space in my eyes.

BUT the drawing is great !!!! As usual with Alex drawing's

Wow, she looks simply awesome!

Personally, I'd raise the foremast to be equal with the mainmast, or even higher.

Hmmm, I tend to agree. My only quibble is the prop guard aft isn't over the prop. Other than that she's a damn sexy ship!

Brock what kind of bow did you invision?

Can´t help but think she´s too fat, probably top heavy. Also, she is twice the size of an ARION-class CL. So she also is very expensive and a toy the navy surely is not willing to loose. Not sure if that fits the mission profile for such a vessel...

Otherwise, a very nice and deailed drawing. Thanks for sharing.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Can´t help but think she´s too fat, probably top heavy.

Sorry, I don't see it. The cruisers of the Brooklyn and Cleveland classes have the same beam and a bit higher superstructures. Now, if ShinRa hadn't talked me out of the Northampton-style tripod masts, then I'd see your point, but I rather removed those a few months ago.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Also, she is twice the size of an ARION-class CL. So she also is very expensive and a toy the navy surely is not willing to loose. Not sure if that fits the mission profile for such a vessel...

She's not intended to run the Pony Express missions. That's the job of the Proyecto-E class cruisers, which are about 2/5ths this size. (You see a very close kinsman to the future Proyecto-E ships in the French Volta-class, which I designed.) I believe in the RN's high-low cruiser mix with smaller CLs and very big CLs to back them up. The Chilean Navy has also, I note, shown a willingness to risk even larger units right on the doorstep of the enemy, as proven in the Pisco and Pucusana Raids.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Brock what kind of bow did you invision?

This.

I'm not sure about the bulges. what's the reasoning there?

It's worth noting that the bulges do not appear on the graphic, regardless. My mast height comment stands, as well.

The bulges are included to enhance stability, just as the bulges on the later versions of the Town-class cruisers (for instance Belfast). Even then, they're very small.

Of course in SS they also help to reduce spread of deck armor and hence weight distributed to deck armor..... ;o)

Given Brocks comment reguarding the Town class's mini bulges I doubt he was trying to reduce the deck armour spread.

I kinda like the first bow more.

I don't think it's the right ship for Chile. Very similar to Cleveland, only with even more topweight which'll seriously overburden the ship. You'll have very little design stretch for the future, and that's probably more useful to Chile than getting _the_ best possible design now.

At the same time, what's with all the radars? You seem to have two each air search and surface search radars ("warning" radar is probably a better description than "search") but no evident gunnery radar.

Not sure on the triple 40mm mountings either.

Brooklyn bow and stern, mod the masts



radars are just like other US and UK cruisers ect.
there are gunnery stuff two above the bridge, and aft. Air waring and search on the mast and funnel
and a few smaller ones for extra.... so what do you mean ''other gun stuff We she don't have?''
could you guve a few exaples

what's wrong with the 40mm then

The air/surface warning radars are duplicated, with two on each mast. Probably not very useful and adds expense to the design. Building radar sets in numbers is rather difficult as well, especially for a country like Chile.

I can see gunnery directors, but no real evidence of radar on them. No Yagi antennas for example. I don't think they're be enough support for the ones each side of the funnel. They probably weigh in the order to 10tons a piece.

The issue with triple 40mm guns is more about loading the central weapon than the picture.

Loading a triple 40mm wouldn't be a problem, really, since the middle guns in the quad 40mms didn't have a problem. The only issue is the mounting: historically, the quad 40mm was 2 twin mountings installed side by side, with the left hand guns loaded from the left and the right hand guns loaded from the right. A purpose-built triple, with all guns mounted close together, shouldn't be a problem.

Great drawings ALVI, go on...!

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Loading a triple 40mm wouldn't be a problem, really, since the middle guns in the quad 40mms didn't have a problem. The only issue is the mounting: historically, the quad 40mm was 2 twin mountings installed side by side, with the left hand guns loaded from the left and the right hand guns loaded from the right. A purpose-built triple, with all guns mounted close together, shouldn't be a problem.

Yeah, it should be doable given the size of the gun. Maybe mount the centre gun a bit further back so you can stand to one side and load rather than reaching forwards.

2x target indication
2x aerial search
5x Misc radars
1x surface search
1x firecontrol
2x heigh finder
1x HA director
1x LA director
2x cruiser DCT
2x yago antenne
1x aircraft warning

whatever what about the camo I've make with hours work

Nice looking ship, I can see nothing wrong in a high-low mix. In fact its the best way than compromising all your cruisers or wasting too much tonnage on all your cruisers and you can tailor missions around them.

Triple 40mm is odd and not done much OTL but I can't see any technical difficulties.

Radar, as ever, is a sticky point in WW. I guess Chile would use Atlantean radar systems and by the time the ships complete many ships will be fitted with all sorts of radars.