WesWorld

[Germany is currently trying to decide what it's next large ship is going to be, this is one of the contenders, a step into the waters of capital ships, a way to regain experience with constructing large warship hulls. The lack of a heavier secondary weapon is keenly felt on this design, but it IS considered a cruiser, not a capital ship.]

Blucher, German Large Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
19,829 t light; 20,768 t standard; 22,374 t normal; 23,659 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
713.09 ft / 688.98 ft x 82.02 ft x 25.43 ft (normal load)
217.35 m / 210.00 m x 25.00 m x 7.75 m

Armament:
9 - 11.02" / 280 mm guns (3x3 guns), 727.53lbs / 330.00kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (6 mounts), 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
2 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (1x2 guns), 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (8x2 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 7,208 lbs / 3,270 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.27" / 210 mm 444.39 ft / 135.45 m 10.86 ft / 3.31 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 99 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.18" / 30 mm 444.39 ft / 135.45 m 23.26 ft / 7.09 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9.45" / 240 mm 5.51" / 140 mm 8.27" / 210 mm
3rd: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
4th: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
5th: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Armour deck: 3.54" / 90 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines plus diesel motors,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 104,146 shp / 77,693 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,891 tons

Complement:
914 - 1,189

Cost:
£7.996 million / $31.983 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 836 tons, 3.7 %
Armour: 6,388 tons, 28.6 %
- Belts: 1,694 tons, 7.6 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 452 tons, 2.0 %
- Armament: 1,463 tons, 6.5 %
- Armour Deck: 2,679 tons, 12.0 %
- Conning Tower: 101 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 3,114 tons, 13.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9,390 tons, 42.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,545 tons, 11.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
34,584 lbs / 15,687 Kg = 51.6 x 11.0 " / 280 mm shells or 4.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 4.4 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 16.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.73
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.545
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.40 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.22 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 36.09 ft / 11.00 m
- Forecastle (21 %): 27.89 ft / 8.50 m
- Mid (50 %): 21.98 ft / 6.70 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 21.98 ft / 6.70 m
- Stern: 21.98 ft / 6.70 m
- Average freeboard: 24.74 ft / 7.54 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98.9 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 198.7 %
Waterplane Area: 40,862 Square feet or 3,796 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 155 lbs/sq ft or 758 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.52
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

100 tons reserved for aircraft and growth.

Good survivability for her size, and the seakeeping will be nice for the North Sea. Firepower's good enough that just about any ship in WesWorld will have to pay attention to her

And she'll eat El Cid for lunch.

Interesting but I think that you need a larger ship to mount 9x280mm guns. Scharnhorst is about 30.000tons+ and 1047 for the Netherlands about 26.000-28.000tons. 1047 has very similar armour to your ship but is considerably larger. Maybe because its not wise to mount large triples on such a small hull?

Thanks. She's not intended to engage battleships, but other than that she might be useful. Hopefully the 28cm guns will convince any Admiral or over-eager Kapitan zur See that she should NOT engage BBs but instead should run away as fast as possible (or screen German BBs from hostile cruisers).

This ship is very impressive, and i think the reason for her construction is very much sensible for Germany

Quoted

Interesting but I think that you need a larger ship to mount 9x280mm guns. Scharnhorst is about 30.000tons+ and 1047 for the Netherlands about 26.000-28.000tons. 1047 has very similar armour to your ship but is considerably larger. Maybe because its not wise to mount large triples on such a small hull?

Von der Tann carried 8 28cm guns, 4 of them in en echelon wing turrets, on a hull that was only 21300 tons at maximum displacement, ie, 2000 tons less than this design. Scharnhorst was much more heavily armored than this design, she was a small BB, while this ship is a large cruiser. 1047 was (according to hazegrey) 3 knots faster and a little bit better armored. The panzerschiffe carried 2 triple 28cm turrets on hulls a good deal smaller than this ship, as well. I don't think the triple 28cm gun should be a problem, really, especially not given the panzerschiffe example and Von der Tann.

Quoted

This ship is very impressive, and i think the reason for her construction is very much sensible for Germany

Thanks.

Second one by Gravina.

These are never-were version of the Spanish super-washington cruiser. It was to be about 18.000tons or so with less armour than your design. It mounts only two triple 280mm turrets. I think that three turrets is not advisable.

Compared to the real-world Admiral Scheer (from http://www.german-navy.de), this design is:

31.35m longer overall
4.35m wider
0.4m deeper
2.5 knots faster
has 9,460 nm less range at 15 knots
7636 tons heavier at maximum load (ie, 47.7% heavier)


Compared to the real-world Von der Tann (same site), which was a 1909 coal-burner with cross-decking en echelon turrets, she is:

45.65m longer
1.6m narrower
1.16m shallower
3.6 knots faster
has approximately 4000 nm more range
is 2359 tons heavier at maximum load (ie, 11% heavier)

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I think that three turrets is not advisable.

I guess the spanish design was calculated with different machinery weight etc. So I´m not sure if I´d compare both designs. You also should keep in mind the designs transom stern. It helps a lot. Also accepting that SS defines our physics and the German design is not entirely unrealistic I think we should not rate three turrets as "not advisable"...

Thanks, Hoo. Considering that V d T fit 4 28cm turrets on a coal-burning design in 1909, it seems unlikely that 3 in 1931 would somehow be impossible.

It is probably possible to mount 3 triple 280mm turrets onto that hull but in my considered opinion I don't think it is wise. 4 duple 280mm turrets would maybe be a better bet.

With regard to the 105mm guns. Shouldn't there be 9 mounts? With 1 superfiring Caesar turret, 4 on each beam arranged like KGV?

I not entirely sure about the concept. It doesn't really fit in with anything else in the Deutschemarine.

4 twin 28cms would result in more top weight and require more hull length than 3 triples. The en echelon turrets are gone, never to return. (Not to mention that WW Germany prefers triples for 150mm+ mountings, not twins or quads.)

Ack. Correct, there should be 9 mounts for the 105mm guns, 4 per side, with another 1 aft superfiring over Caesar. The original design had only 7 105mm mounts total, but the 150mms had to go for weight reasons and I apparently forgot to update the number of turrets. Feh..... I'll fix that.

Conceptually, she can be looked at as an enlarged Admiral Hipper class cruiser. If Germany had been building heavy cruisers or carriers during the 20s, I'd skip this design and move straight on to BBs, but that annoying VT was in the way....

Also, I'd rather not build a singleton ship, one ship that's different than all others in the fleet, I'd prefer to build classes of at least 2 identical vessels (reasons of real-world economy and logistics, really, even though the WW rules don't care), so I'm trying to build a smaller ship that doesn't use too much of my capital ship tonnage under Germany's Cleito Treaty limits. This design could allow me to get 4 large BBs with the remaining tonnage, using up all the tonnage and hull slots available to Germany in the CT (6 ships, 200,000 tons standard).

I like her and i think she ties in quite well with German thinking.

I would prefer a heavier secondary battery (preferably split secondaries...) but that's my personal opinion. ;-)

Quoted

I would prefer a heavier secondary battery (preferably split secondaries...) but that's my personal opinion. ;-)

So would I, but so far I haven't managed it on this displacement. Now, that could be because the KM's requirements are a bit high (minimum of 6 barrels bearing on both sides during an engagement), or I want too much armor, but.... I'll try again, using an 88mm AA battery and 150mm secondaries, but I'm not real hopeful.

Swamphen,
Well then you need to start designing your new age predreadnoughts, or get on designing in Navalism.

how about 125 mm and 88 mm?

Quoted

Well then you need to start designing your new age predreadnoughts, or get on designing in Navalism.

Heh, no pre-dreadnoughts, but German capital ships are likely to retain 150mm secondaries for a while (ignoring ex post facto criticisms that they should have had a DP secondary similar to the 5"/3. This ship, considered a transitional design between cruiser and capital ship, would be a candidate for a DP secondary heavier than the 105mm, but Germany doesn't have one available in 1931 (because I've decided Germany is still working on it, basically).

Quoted

how about 125 mm and 88 mm?

While Germany doesn't have a 125mm gun in design, we do have a license production agreement for the Iberian 130mm (used on the Z-210 class DDs). However, the KM is not overly convinced that the 130mm offers much additional capability over the 105mm against cruisers. So so far it's been rejected for a role as a low-angle only secondary weapon.

Germany would have access to India's 125 mm gun designs, and is certainly welcome to check it out (and then reject it as inadequate too...)