WesWorld

Since they caused such a ruckus, here's what all the fuss was about;




[SIZE=1]EDIT: Wes' version. I wanted to see the two next to each other. :B[/SIZE]

HMCS Argyll, Canadian (Ex-Atlantean) Light cruiser laid down 1915

Displacement:
7,150 t light; 7,479 t standard; 8,015 t normal; 8,444 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
578.88 ft / 575.00 ft x 56.00 ft x 18.00 ft (normal load)
176.44 m / 175.26 m x 17.07 m x 5.49 m

Armament:
10 - 5.50" / 140 mm guns (5x2 guns), 83.72lbs / 37.97kg shells, 1933 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
8 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns (4x2 guns), 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1933 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
16 - 1.57" / 39.9 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.93lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
12 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
4 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1933 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1,127 lbs / 511 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.15" / 80 mm 430.00 ft / 131.06 m 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Ends: 1.57" / 40 mm 140.00 ft / 42.67 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
5.00 ft / 1.52 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 0.79" / 20 mm 200.00 ft / 60.96 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 115 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 1.18" / 30 mm, Conning tower: 3.15" / 80 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 62,806 shp / 46,854 Kw = 30.75 kts
Range 5,600nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 965 tons

Complement:
423 - 550

Cost:
£1.020 million / $4.079 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 140 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 1,325 tons, 16.5 %
- Belts: 784 tons, 9.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 52 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 462 tons, 5.8 %
- Conning Tower: 27 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 2,379 tons, 29.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,205 tons, 40.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 865 tons, 10.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 1.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
7,959 lbs / 3,610 Kg = 95.7 x 5.5 " / 140 mm shells or 1.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 3.0 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 13.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.33
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.10

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.484
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.27 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 64
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Mid (65 %): 20.00 ft / 6.10 m (10.00 ft / 3.05 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Stern: 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
- Average freeboard: 16.66 ft / 5.08 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 112.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 133.6 %
Waterplane Area: 21,147 Square feet or 1,965 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 98 lbs/sq ft or 477 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.07
- Longitudinal: 1.15
- Overall: 1.08
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Interesting twist on the Argyle class Shin, shes not far off what I envisioned her likely refit to be though I do have a few nitpicks.

I think the superstructure is a wee bit heavy for the old girl, particularily forward. I also think with the layout drawn she should have 3 raised mounts, 2 of which are aft. A Fletcher style layout aft would cut down top weight.

You've also used my 6" SA directors fore and aft with only one of my DP seconday director's fore. IMO she needs 2 DP directors (fore and aft) and 2-3 AA directors (also fore and aft).

I was working on a drawing already so I'll tweak it to look more like what you have here with my suggestions drawn in to see what you think.

I disagree on her being heavy forward. I think her new bridge is fine. However, I´d used the chance to alter her bow a bit, make it flair out, move A mount a tid bit further aft and add a bow knuckle (hey, new word learnt!) in front.

I also agree she should be simed with 3 superfiring mounts, majority aft.

Aren´t the 40mm quads a bit small? They look more like twins....

Quoted

I disagree on her being heavy forward. I think her new bridge is fine.

Are you sure Hoo? Maybe its just me...

IIRC this is a 25% refit? At least thats what I have them down for...

Those 40mm quads are acctually 20mm quads ripped from my recent CL design so yeah they are abit small.

I assume the directors and other equipment besides the 5.5" DP guns are from Canada?

It looks okay for me. There probably are some details missing - windows and doors - but otherwise her new bridge doesn´t seem to be too large.

Her aft superstructure on the other hand could be reduced. There is no need to store those boats amidship a deck higher. Cut the deck down and place them on the weatherdeck like on the original drawing.

Quoted

IIRC this is a 25% refit? At least thats what I have them down for...

The new superstructure may be cause for it to be a 50% refit, other than that it appears to be a 25% refit.

Not bad, though you might want to code the 4" guns as dual-purpose or anti-aircraft as well.

Hrolf I thought the same thing myself, modifications to my Medusa and Pioneer class CA's to CL's led to the bridge structures being enlarged to a less drastic degree.

IIRC the bow alterations Hoo suggested would require a 50% refit as well. At either rate I'll likely tackle the drawing and see if I can add my own touch to it once Shin irons out the post suggestion bugs.

5600 nm at 12kts isn't going to be enough if she winds up operating in the Pacific. And its not like you don't have spare hull strength for more fuel.

You might also want to up the deck armor.

Of course, if you want a 25% refit, then these items are off the menu.

Another nice cruiser. Along with the "Atlantean" cruiser, that makes two already this week.

Just thinking out loud;

Since the new main armament appears to be in enclosed mounts, you may want to lose the old blast shields. Also, and I am not sure if this is possible but, how about replacing the four 4" mountings with another pair of twin 5.5s? I am wondering if the 4-inchers are really needed to augment the 5.5" dual-purpose guns and, if uniformity of gun calibre and ammo might be a better idea both for logistic purposes and to simplify the fire control arrangements.

According to the refit/rebuild rules, 'minor' changes to superstructure are within the 25% cost; The forward bridge looks a lot bigger, but it's just been lengthened, with the actual bridge expanded a bit over the conning tower, and lengthened aft. It hasn't been made any wider, so I'd consider it 'minor'. The only other change is a deckhouse aft that's primarily been added to support the 3rd 5.5" mount, which I'd again think of as 'minor', as opposed to the 50" rules that state "superstructure replacement. Nothing's been replaced, just added, and I'd think that rule is more intended for larger scale removing of older complicated superstructure, and replacing it with modern stuff, ie QE and Renown historical refits.

I was going to go for a Fletcher style layout, but there wasn't enough room amidships to give it decent firing arcs without totally moving the stacks, which I was pretty sure would've resulted in a more costly refit.

As for the raised mount question, I was thinking about that last night, but as I see it, wouldn't it count as two raised mounts, and one (on the quarterdeck) being below the freeboard, due to the hull break? The mid aft turret looks raised due to the lower quarterdeck, but it's at the same level as the deck-level mount on the bow. I'm wondering if that's a quirk with springsharp and non-flush decked ships we haven't really addressed.

My original idea for the refit was going to have 4 twins, and 4 5.5" singles to replace the 4" singles. I'd prefer more twins, but since this is supposed to be a somewhat cheap rebuild, and given the actual age of the ships, I didn't put on as many twins as I would've preferred. I'm not too attached to the 4" twins, and if there's a consensus that they can be replaced with more 5.5" guns, that would be my preference.

And yeah, I used Wes' new CL to borrow the directors and light AA from, since I'm not that good with those kind of details. I'd put the two DP directors where I have the larger directors sited now, with one of the AA directors atop the bridge as well, and the other two alongside the stacks I think.

In general though, most of the actual new 'equipment' (ie, guns, directors) is going to be furbished in Canada, and shipped to Atlantis for installation, so as to maintain uniform logistics within the fleet. Canada would be doing the refits themselves, but lack sufficient large docks at the moment.

Quoted

As for the raised mount question, I was thinking about that last night, but as I see it, wouldn't it count as two raised mounts, and one (on the quarterdeck) being below the freeboard, due to the hull break? The mid aft turret looks raised due to the lower quarterdeck, but it's at the same level as the deck-level mount on the bow. I'm wondering if that's a quirk with springsharp and non-flush decked ships we haven't really addressed.

Problem is that your midbreak is at 65%. That means it is roughly located where the aft mast is (in the second picture). Therefore you have a total of three raised mounts. The aftmost gun is at freeboard level (which is 10 feet at that point).
If you put the midbreak at 80%, then it would only be two raised mounts.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

As for the raised mount question, I was thinking about that last night, but as I see it, wouldn't it count as two raised mounts, and one (on the quarterdeck) being below the freeboard, due to the hull break? The mid aft turret looks raised due to the lower quarterdeck, but it's at the same level as the deck-level mount on the bow. I'm wondering if that's a quirk with springsharp and non-flush decked ships we haven't really addressed.

Problem is that your midbreak is at 65%. That means it is roughly located where the aft mast is (in the second picture). Therefore you have a total of three raised mounts. The aftmost gun is at freeboard level (which is 10 feet at that point).
If you put the midbreak at 80%, then it would only be two raised mounts.

To my mind, the midbreak is in fact slightly forward of the after mast. The structure on deck abaft that athwartships bulkhead ought to be considered a deckhouse, to my mind. Which means that the ship does indeed have three mounts above freeboard level, and none below.

Quoted

To my mind, the midbreak is in fact slightly forward of the after mast.

It is. I calculated the 65% point (as given in the SS sim: 0.65*470 pixels = 306 pixels) using MS Paint which got me to a position near that mast (to be more exact, it's about the middle of the aft TTs). The point where it should be is 61.489% (using the topview: (289 pixels / 470 pixels)*100).

I think there's more than sufficient structural strength to adjust the sim accordingly, the question becomes what else to change while we're at it.

I think there's a general consensus that my original idea in dispensing the 4" guns in favor of more 5.5" is sound, the question is how many to try fitting without becoming excessive.

I think 4 twins on the centerline, with additional mounts on the waist positions is the most efficient, rather than trying to move the stacks to make room for any centerline midships mounts. There's not enough room forward without extensive rebuilding to go for an Atlanta layout.

I think there's just enough strength to go for 4 waist guns with a little fiddling, but since Wes is the one with the sim, I'll wait to hear his verdict on it. I'm not sure if going for that many guns is too excessive or not (though it would make for a pretty formidable ship, I think, and I'm always a fan of more guns. :B), so a more likely layout would be two waist turrets on either side of the center stack, with maybe some of the octuple 40mm to make up the difference.

There´s one think you need to keep in mind when talking about mounts amidship - space for the ammp supply. Those 4" deck mounts have their ammo hoists elsewhere and shells are brought to the gun by hand. Things will be different with mounts including hoists. There simply is no space for magazins and hoists below amidship because of the cruisers machinery. So you either have to skip the idea, rebuild her midship sections and machinery or install horizontal ammo trains from forward and aft magazins either above or below deck. The latter will definitively slow ROF and could end in your cruiser making a BLÜCHER (think Doggerbank).

I´d probably go with the standard 4" single mounts.

Even if you're siting the new twin mounts where the old single 5.5" mounts are already located? I would think the aft pair are far enough aft to have some room for magazine access, possibly the forward pair too.

The old 5.5" mounts were deck mounts, so they didn't have an integral hoist.

I wasn't trying to imply they did, I'm just saying I think they're far enough away from the machinery in those sites, rather than where the 4" are

I don't think there's enough deckspace for twin waist 5.5" mountings. If you have or can develop a single 5.5" HA/DP mount that might work, but the turrets are too large IMHO; I'd stick with the twin 4".

So would I, not least because the 5.5" isn't going to be a particularly good AA weapon.