WesWorld

... again.

Phill over at the Warships1 boards has done an amazing drawing of his design.







I've resimmed it to use Filipino calibres (his were off slightly) but other than that no changes.


Taal, Filipino light cruiser laid down 1932

Displacement:
3,668 t light; 3,822 t standard; 4,200 t normal; 4,502 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
497.24 ft / 475.72 ft x 41.01 ft x 17.72 ft (normal load)
151.56 m / 145.00 m x 12.50 m x 5.40 m

Armament:
10 - 4.53" / 115 mm guns (5x2 guns), 48.50lbs / 22.00kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority aft, 3 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (6 mounts), 1.32lbs / 0.60kg shells, 1932 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 0.54" / 13.7 mm guns (4x3 guns), 0.11lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1932 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 508 lbs / 230 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 240
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 419.95 ft / 128.00 m 8.86 ft / 2.70 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 136 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 1.57" / 40 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 0.98" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 53,619 shp / 40,000 Kw = 32.35 kts
Range 8,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 681 tons

Complement:
260 - 339

Cost:
£1.819 million / $7.278 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 61 tons, 1.4 %
Armour: 580 tons, 13.8 %
- Belts: 288 tons, 6.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 58 tons, 1.4 %
- Armour Deck: 222 tons, 5.3 %
- Conning Tower: 11 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 1,578 tons, 37.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,400 tons, 33.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 532 tons, 12.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 1.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,284 lbs / 1,036 Kg = 49.2 x 4.5 " / 115 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20
Metacentric height 1.8 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 12.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.53
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.44

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.425
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.60 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.81 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 34.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 4.92 ft / 1.50 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 24.61 ft / 7.50 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 23.62 ft / 7.20 m (22.64 ft / 6.90 m aft of break)
- Mid (30 %): 22.64 ft / 6.90 m (15.09 ft / 4.60 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 15.09 ft / 4.60 m
- Stern: 15.09 ft / 4.60 m
- Average freeboard: 17.56 ft / 5.35 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 134.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 93.6 %
Waterplane Area: 12,209 Square feet or 1,134 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 98 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 56 lbs/sq ft or 272 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.69
- Longitudinal: 1.85
- Overall: 0.76
Caution: Hull subject to strain in open-sea
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Your L:B ratio is awfully high (over 12:1 overall), you'd gain some strength by adding a transom stern, and isn't she a little slow to be a destroyer leader?

I also think its kind of slow.
Its my understanding that DDL's are usualy ones of the fastest ships in the fleet.

I am aware of the L:B issue... and a transom is a possibility, but I wouldn't want to completely piss Hoo off.

Re the DL issue - point taken, but I didn't imagine these ships in the traditional DL role. That is, they won't be 'leading from the front'. I thought that they would usually be paired with capital ships and their destroyer screens to help coordinate and contribute to AA defence, and if necessary lead the screen against other light forces.

Even then, destroyers won't be cruising around at full speed (which is only a knot faster for the latest DD). When it's time for combat, the DL will lead from the rear.

Still, if you guys can convince me, I'll plop a transom on and see what kind of speed is possible.

HOo doesn't have a problem with transom's on lighter ships, and we're two years past the time limit on transoms anyway. The L:B is going to give him more heartburn than a transom, especially in typhoon country like the Phillipines.

....Is it nice to have so many people "pussy-footing" around you!!!

Must do the EGO a world of good!!

The L:B is 11.60:1, not over 12:1...so it's marginal, but I would try a transom and see what happens.

No, the overall length to beam is over 12:1, the waterline L:B is 11.6:1. The design has a fair amount of overhang on both ends, which drives up the overall length.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
No, the overall length to beam is over 12:1, the waterline L:B is 11.6:1. The design has a fair amount of overhang on both ends, which drives up the overall length.

Hmm...
I was under the impresion that we always count the waterline lenght.
Just like the drydocks and slips lenght or Alt_Naval calculations.

You're not the only one, Marek.

I'd think the notion is that 11:1 is already pushing it so going over just puts you at even higher risk of losing a ship via breaking its back.

For most things we do only count the waterline length. However, if you look at the ships that Hoo's had comments on in the past about their length:beam ratio, he'll usually be referencing their overall length.

IMHO if the waterline L:B ratio was say 10.9:1 then I could see the room for debate. I use the 11:1 ratio as the cutoff point. A point or two above or below could be considered reasonably acceptable, I would think, but as I said the higher the ration after than the more your running the risk.

Did I hear my name?! ;o)

Guys, 12:1 refers to the length that makes sense. Just answer the question: Why is a high length to beam ratio critical?

Easy answer: Because of the long arms from the ships center of gravity that allow smaller forces to have an even higher impact on the hull. Now think of heavy forces like when riding a storm with huge waves where half of the ship suddenly can be up in the air etc.

Now take a look at the ship again and tell us if the overhangs on both ends offer a surface forces can use as an "attacking" point. If you say yes, then overall length should be discussed. If no, then don´t bother and look at the waterline length.

And btw, dock length is overall length in this SIM. It always has been, IIRC, even though we knew back at the beginning that a ships bow may stick out of a dock in OTL.

Anyway, my personal point of view: This ships will have some serious cracks amiships once it rode a storm.

Have a good night,

HoOmAn

No heart attacks for Hoo! Not even a palpatation!

A good clairification on the subject mefinks, from the master himself.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
No heart attacks for Hoo! Not even a palpatation!

Where is the REAL HoOmAn and what have you done with him????

*puts his hands up*

I didn't do it!!

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
*puts his hands up*

I didn't do it!!

Not you, the guy who is posting as HoOmAn!

I would asume that that is the other HoOmAn...
Darth HoOmAn!!!

Damn those paparazzi !!!