WesWorld

Very rough draft of an "Alaska-lite"...Hmm?

Filipino Eldad-class heavy cruiser, laid down 1941

Displacement:
15,422 t light; 16,306 t standard; 18,542 t normal; 20,331 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
755.70 ft / 738.19 ft x 73.82 ft x 23.82 ft (normal load)
230.34 m / 225.00 m x 22.50 m x 7.26 m

Armament:
12 - 9.45" / 240 mm guns (4x3 guns), 450.00lbs / 204.12kg shells, 1941 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (4x2 guns), 72.00lbs / 32.66kg shells, 1941 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
12 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (4x3 guns), 0.57lbs / 0.26kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 0.54" / 13.7 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.11lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1941 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring

Weight of broadside 6,016 lbs / 2,729 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

4 - 24.0" / 610 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 371.06 ft / 113.10 m 10.17 ft / 3.10 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 77 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 6.69" / 170 mm 3.94" / 100 mm 5.91" / 150 mm
2nd: 3.15" / 80 mm 1.57" / 40 mm 2.95" / 75 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
4th: 0.59" / 15 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.56" / 65 mm, Conning tower: 2.56" / 65 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 100,324 shp / 74,842 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 13,800nm at 15.00 kts (Bunkerage = 4,024 tons)

Complement:
793 - 1,032

Cost:
£9.289 million / $37.157 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 704 tons, 3.8 %
Armour: 3,869 tons, 20.9 %
- Belts: 967 tons, 5.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 1,075 tons, 5.8 %
- Armour Deck: 1,787 tons, 9.6 %
- Conning Tower: 39 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 2,651 tons, 14.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8,073 tons, 43.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,120 tons, 16.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 125 tons, 0.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
26,705 lbs / 12,113 Kg = 63.3 x 9.4 " / 240 mm shells or 2.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
Metacentric height 3.5 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 16.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.91
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.21

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.500
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.01 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.51 ft / 9.30 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 22.80 ft / 6.95 m
- Mid (50 %): 19.52 ft / 5.95 m
- Quarterdeck (25 %): 19.52 ft / 5.95 m
- Stern: 19.52 ft / 5.95 m
- Average freeboard: 21.52 ft / 6.56 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 77.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 172.3 %
Waterplane Area: 37,756 Square feet or 3,508 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 124 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 143 lbs/sq ft or 697 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.17
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Its a complete waste of money and resources. The cost of large cruisers is exorbitant. USS Alaska cost over 10% than KGV. There were a few cruiser designs of about 21,000tons done in 1940 featuring 9.2" guns, 33knt speed and armoured and 8" guns. But when the cost is either 2xVanguard or 3xarmoured cruiser, you'd always pick Vanguard.

The other problem with such ships is their comedy TDS. If Alaska ever got torpedoed she'd have been in real trouble. You simply fire a few torpedoes into the hull and bang. No point in mounting above 8" guns on a cruiser, as they can penetrate this sort of armour anyway. Interesting counter against Pocket Battleships, but again far too expensive and limited.

Sure she can take on any cruiser and win, but cruiser battles aren't likely to be one-on-one and she has no chance against any larger ship.

unless it wants to be caught.

In 1943, she'll be able to catch Sviatoslavs (laid down 191 and Lazarevs (laid down 1913) after a long chase, with a closing speed of 1 knot. Unless a lucky 210mm or 152mm hit at the waterline on her unarmored bow slows her down.

And that's about it.

As it is, 15 years before she's laid down, a number of cruisers have a design speed of 33-34 knots.

If you beef up the AA battery, she might have possibilities as a carrier escort. She's got enough speed, and a good range.

But that mission can be done on less tonnage.

Originally the U.S. was to build 6 Alaska class, even before the nameship was completed it was more or less concluded that the Baltimore class Cruiser was the way to go, the steel shortage just sealed the fate of the last three.

I suspect that if the Philippines could even find the money in the buget for this type of ship she'd likely be a one of.

The Atlantian Vengeance class BC's could deal with the Eldad in their current 1919 guise, nevermind after the inevitable rebuild they will recieve, and as RA pointed out she wouldn't likely be facing enemy cruisers in a 1 on 1 encounter.

I was playing around with the Basilan design, and wanted to see how far I could stretch it.

I suppose I stretched it too far... :-)

Heh-heh

What no cruiser to compete with the Tylor and the Oyamas?

Of course they are not treaty buster heavy cruisers, but armored cruisers.

I'm sure someone will say (and probably has) that they are a waste of resources...but they are not being built in the 1940s....oh no. They are being built in the late 1920s and 1930s. Tylor is an uncreadiblily over-gunned armored cruiser (8 inch guns...16 of them in twin mounts) But the Oyamas are more like the Large Cruiser...but armored to stand against an 8 inch gun cruisers...at least for a little while. With 8.5 inches of belt armor and 4 inches of deck armor...they are more like light battleships or battlecruisers (with 10 inch guns..12 of them in 4 triple turrets). And with the large numbers of cruisers in the world after the capital ship limitations treaties...it seems...reasonable, to have a ship type that can get ride of an unwanted scouting party. They might not be as fast as the heavy cruisers or light cruisers, but the idea is to get the enemy ships to leave the area, or face destruction....besides, we'll have airplanes by then to hunt them down if the Heavy Armored Cruisers can't catch them.

Perhaps the 8 inch gun has not much effect on the armor of the Oyama's, but I am fairly sure a couple of Long Lances will have some effect on the Oyama's.

On armour;

For cruisers, the armour tends to cover the vitals and thats about it really. The later US cruisers had magazines underwater which gave protection from shellfire, but were still covered by armour plate. Very little of the ship itself was protected. By way of comparison, Zara differed hugely in the coverage of her armour. This protected lots of buoyancy, and the vital spaces.

If you look at WWII actions, how many cruisers were taken out by magazine penetrations? I can't think of any off-hand. Compare this to the amount of cruisers that sunk after being riddled by shells in unprotected areas. The number is far greater.

As for Tylor and Oyama, you simply build a small battlecruiser similar to Invincible mounting 305mm guns. But that would start another building race. For a scouting party, use either lots of cruisers with torpedoes, or a battlecruiser. Oyama can beat neither. Look at the saga of Tarrantry, Sans Souci survived a while, but eventually succumbed to torpedoes.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Look at the saga of Tarrantry, Sans Souci survived a while, but eventually succumbed to torpedoes.

Is that a technical argument? ;o)

*sorry, couldn´t resist*

I tend to agree with you in general.

I concur - most cruisers lost in surface actions succumbed to a combination of shell and torpedo damage. Could I ask for an elaboration on Zara's armor, though? As simmed, at least, there seems to be nothing special about her protection (apart from its thickness).

One doesn't need a battlecruiser to deal with Tylor. She's too slow to pursue any modern cruiser, and even a number of battleships are fast enough to match speed with her.

My question about the Filipino cruiser would be: "What's the mission, and can something cheaper do it better?" I'm still undecided on the virtue of heavy cruisers at all, let alone post-treaty super-heavies.

Sorry I meant historical Zara. I'll refer to mine in future as the Fíume Class instead.

Fair enough - nonetheless, my sources on Italian vessels are limited. Could you talk a bit about historical Zara?

And to perhaps twist the thread discussion a bit, is there any merit in giving a cruiser splinter protection on the ends or upper belt areas?

I'll post a few things of interest, originally by Tiornu;

Quoted

The Italians appear to have been the only ones to have grasped the significance of scaling effects as they pertain to face thickness. Most of us probably know that British face-hardened armor was exceptional, much better than, say, American. But that's only half true. British armor is great against battleships shells, but against cruiser shells US armor is actually better. The difference is that the British used a thin face layer while the Americans used a really thick face layer. You can say there's an inverse relationship between the sixe of a shell and the face thickness of the armor that can best defeat the shell. The Italians realized this and used thin faces (c30%) for their battleship armor and thick faces (c50%--give or take, I don't remember the exact numbers) for their Zara armor.

Quoted

The German competition is the Hipper class which, for all the battleship-like appearance, was not all that well armored. The deck armor was very thin, and the sloped portion was exposed to direct hits from shells entering above the belt. Turret armor was good though.
In contrast, the Japanese used only the thinnest plating to protect barbettes and turrets. Their best feature was the inclined belt armor. This was probably not as effective as it might have been because it was all (I think) NVNC armor. The Japanese never used face-hardened armor on their heavy cruisers.
Comparisons with French, American, and British designs are more difficult because the underlying theories were so different. Just as a general rule, the Allies used their armor more for protecting the vitals and less for protecting buoyancy.
Algerie is the only French class that can challenge Zara. And while Algerie was a well-rounded design, she cannot match the thickness or coverage of Zara's armor. In addition, there's a gap of sorts near her aft turrets that makes me kind of nervous.
Unfortunately for ship-lovers, the British stopped building heavy cruisers after their truncated Cathedral class. The ammo spaces had very good deck protection, but the portion of protected hull volume was not great, and the main battery relied on 1in of protective plating.
The Americans also limited the volume enclosed within their armor, but if you look at Baltimore, you'll see that the thicknesses are impressive. And American cruiser armor, both homogenous and face-hardened, is very high in quality.
In my view, the best-protected heavy cruiser would have to be either Zara or Baltimore. The choice may be a matter of taste. Baltimore's main battery and vitals are well protected, but Zara has more protected buoyancy.

That deals with the specifics about armour. Is there anything you'd like to especially know about Zara?

That's an intriguing little discussion.

My question would, I guess, be: how would this extra buoyancy protection be simmed? And have you done this with your version of Zara?

As for the face-hardening, that's outside Springstyle's capabilities, so it's more a role-playing issue at this point.

How do you sim it? Add end belts and upper belts as you see fit, or increase the coverage of the main belt. However with SS this doesn't work. Most cruisers had no belt armour as such as SS sims it as having. E.g. The counties had 4" box protection around the magazines. How do you sim that? a 4" armour belt?

I haven't done this with my version of Zara because of the large weight problem. SS does not differentiate between a 2 shaft or 4 shaft powerplant. Going with only two shafts was the secret to Zaras success and saved lots of weight. What I'd really like to do would be to have Bolzanos 150,000shp plant and Zaras protection. However this is impossible with SS. The speed/power curve isn't far off when I simmed Bolzano's hullform, but SS way overestimates the weight of the machinery, I think by over 50%! Thus its impossible.

I may redesign my Zara anyway, i'm still not sure about those 130mm guns..

Well, for my CAs they have a "proper" belt (Zara-type). For the CLs...I'll have to think about that.

Quoted

The counties had 4" box protection around the magazines. How do you sim that? a 4" armour belt?

One way would be to sim the ship with armament but no engine. Give her a 4" armored belt of the indicated length, and add her beam to the length of the belt. This should simulate an armored box for the magazine, topped with deck armor.

Then add propulsion.

Quoted

The Rock Doctor

One doesn't need a battlecruiser to deal with Tylor. She's too slow to pursue any modern cruiser, and even a number of battleships are fast enough to match speed with her.

Tylor....she is slow compared to modern cruisers, yet her design is more like a 1910 model armored cruiser. I have yet to figure out how to increase torpedo protection on a vessel in SS, or what the system is basing it's torpedo resistance on, so that I might adjust numbers accordingly.

Quoted

Red Admiral

As for Tylor and Oyama, you simply build a small battlecruiser similar to Invincible mounting 305mm guns. But that would start another building race. For a scouting party, use either lots of cruisers with torpedoes, or a battlecruiser. Oyama can beat neither. Look at the saga of Tarrantry, Sans Souci survived a while, but eventually succumbed to torpedoes.

Why would building a modern Invincible in Chile cause another arms race (aside from locally I mean) .

We shall see.....Oyama is not set in stone yet...at it has not been ordered (for sometime between 1929-1931). It could turn radically different (I doubt it, but I might change my thoughts on what Chile wants in the way of heavy units).

I really don't like the concept of the battlecruiser....at least the original one. Increase speed and firepower but loose protection to the point a cruiser can sink you quite easily if it gets in range, or a battleship could sink you with a single salvo (properly placed). The guns almost make the ship seem too heavy for its job....scouting and killing cruisers. They are not meant to deal with battleships directly. Unfortunantly, their captains seemed to think they could.

The Tylor and Oyama at this point are ships that took the other route. More Armor with increased firepower and speed. They are nowhere near as fast as the more modern heavy cruisers or light cruisers, and they aren't as heavily armed as a battlecruiser....but these are not scouts. They are more of a light battleline type vessel...designed to take on any ship short of a dreadnought in the hands of other South American powers. And given the armor of the other ABC battleships...a 10 inch gun from Oyama is likely enough to hurt them while they focus on the Chilean dreadnoughts.

Interesing thought...what would "Cruisers" be like without any naval limitaton treaties?

Both the "light" and "heavy" cruisers were artificial creations of the Washington and London Treaties. Without them...

Light Cruisers - king-size DDs, 4.5-5.5" guns

Cruisers - a la Hawkins; 7.1"-8" guns

Armoured Cruisers - 9.2"/9.4" guns

Fast Battleships - 14" to 18" guns

??

My preferances:

Fast Battleships - 10" to 16" guns 35,000 tons +

Armoured Cruisers - 8.2"/9.5" guns up to 15,000 tons

Cruisers - 7.1"-8" guns 8,000/10,000 tons

Light Cruisers - king-size DDs, 4.5"-6" guns, up to 8,000 tons