WesWorld

[IMG]<img src="http://img30.photobucket.com/albums/v91/CommodoreGreen/Hel2.gif">[/IMG]

So, what do you all think?

P.S. Sorry for doubting you about Paint, Wes!!

Hel, Denmark Heavy Cruiser laid down 1923

Displacement:
12,677 t light; 13,366 t standard; 14,870 t normal; 16,014 t full load
Loading submergence 918 tons/feet

Dimensions:
666.00 ft x 74.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
203.00 m x 22.56 m x 6.10 m

Armament:
12 - 8.27" / 210 mm guns (4 Main turrets x 3 guns, 2 superfiring turrets)
18 - 5.10" / 130 mm guns (6 2nd turrets x 3 guns)
8 - 3.00" / 76 mm AA guns
24 - 0.51" / 13 mm guns
Weight of broadside 4,697 lbs / 2,131 kg
10 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
Belt 3.00" / 76 mm, end belts 2.00" / 51 mm
Belts cover 92 % of normal area
Main turrets 3.00" / 76 mm, 2nd turrets 1.50" / 38 mm
Light gun shields 0.50" / 13 mm
Armour deck 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 82,272 shp / 61,375 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 13,500nm at 12.00 kts

Complement:
673 - 875

Cost:
£3.845 million / $15.382 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 587 tons, 3.9 %
Armour: 2,600 tons, 17.5 %
Belts: 675 tons, 4.5 %, Armament: 698 tons, 4.7 %, Armour Deck: 1,189 tons, 8.0 %
Conning Tower: 39 tons, 0.3 %, Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 2,750 tons, 18.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,640 tons, 44.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,193 tons, 14.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.7 %

Metacentric height 4.0

Remarks:
Hull space for machinery, storage & compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation & workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Relative margin of stability: 1.12
Shellfire needed to sink: 20,233 lbs / 9,178 Kg = 71.5 x 8.3 " / 210 mm shells
(Approx weight of penetrating shell hits needed to sink ship excluding critical hits)
Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.2
(Approx number of typical torpedo hits needed to sink ship)
Relative steadiness as gun platform: 71 %
(Average = 50 %)
Relative rocking effect from firing to beam: 0.68
Relative quality as seaboat: 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Block coefficient: 0.528
Sharpness coefficient: 0.35
Hull speed coefficient 'M': 8.28
'Natural speed' for length: 25.81 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim: 58
(Maximise stabilty/flotation = 0, Maximise steadiness/seakeeping = 100)

Estimated hull characteristics & strength:
Underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces: 91.5 %
Relative accommodation and working space: 172.1 %
(Average = 100%)
Displacement factor: 115 %
(Displacement relative to loading factors)
Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 0.97
(Structure weight / hull surface area: 135 lbs / square foot or 660 Kg / square metre)
Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.23
(for 22.00 ft / 6.71 m average freeboard, freeboard adjustment 5.61 ft)
Relative composite hull strength: 1.00

Very, very nice. Armour is a bit thin and speed a bit slow but thats a powerful main battery and secondaries.

The main turrets seem to have very sloped faceplates.

But very nice.

Apart from a rather flimsy looking tripod mast, the drawing looks very nice.

I do find the design a little heavy on secondary and light guns for the time, and some would consider 30kts on the low side; but overall, she's a nasty customer.

Food for thought: best to officially say she's exactly 13,000 t, otherwise she'd be considered a capital ship if you sign on to the treaty.

Nice work - I look forward to more,

J

I forgot to ask; What are you going to use her for?

Thanks guys!!

just a few questions though!

the turret fronts are vertical to about 6 feet than slope at about about 45 degrees for another 4 feet then merges with the turret roof. Is this ok?

The tripod mast is a 3 feet main tube with 2X2 feet stays, is this a bit small?

Armour, what would you suggest?

thanks again!

Principally as support for the Protectorates Patrols!

Just noticed I've hit the 100 posts mark!!! WooHoo!!

Quoted

Armour, what would you suggest?

75mm turret armour is a low, even for me. Still loads better than kent or mogami.

50mm armour deck is very good.

75-50mm is ok for light cruisers. I'd prefer 100mm-75mm belt but thats still only Bolzano style armour.

NB, Zara has 150mm belt 70mm deck. the italians actually wanted a 180mm belt but didn't want to cheat any more.

Theres nothing wrong with those turrets, they just look strange. Boxes seem to be more historically acturate. However my duple 130mm turret has 8 sides and loads of slopes.

Very impressive drawing CG, she quite a nasty looking brute. I have one question....that apears to be a door on the aft superstructure. If its an aircraft hangar it might be a bit on the small side. If its for mines you'll need to extend those rails on the deck to the end of the stern. The door may also be susseptable to blast dammage from those secondarys aft which as someone else stated may be abit too numerous for the time. Still though shes quite a looker!

Your right about the doors, but a was thinking of aircraft with folding wings, so they fit in and have the wings opened out on the deck before loading onto the catapult (assuming that I can buy the tech off the Germans!!)

how many guns might be more correct?

Quite a punch on the main battery (equal to the Sviatoslav class). Downright scary secondary armament, and a load of torpedos. I'd hate to be the Armed Merchant Cruiser that runs across this while out raiding.

Well losing two secondary turrets would bring that armament to a more realistic level, and it would also give you more room on deck. I still think the door looks small compaired to the turrets but its definately an interesting hangar arrangement.....something for Atlantis to keep in mind with its future capital ships.

thoughts:

1) cool ship, excellent drawing!
2) this is more an AC than a CA ie a sub-capital ship.
3) definitely not well enough armoured for that role. I'd lose a pair of secondaries and up the armour
4) she is a bit slow, but well
5) 1923? folding wings? *cough* sounds unlikely

:-)

Bernhard

Hi,

my comments in no order:

1.) Nice drawing.
2.) I don´t like her masts
3.) Flag too large.
4.) I like the idea with the hangar aft.
5.) Hangar doors way too small. I had a similar problem some time ago and while browsing my books and the net I found out no historical floatplane or small flaying boat is smaller than 3,8m high, most are above 4,2m Now include the rails and a some equipement under the hangars roof and you´ll need a hangar of at least 4,5m high (for the smallest aircrafts) and a similarily high door.
6.) She´s more like an AC than an CA and I really like that. My first cruiser category A will follow the same principles. The CT limit of 13kts allows a design family that sticks much closer to the original ACs than what was possible under the WT.
7.) She could need another knot of speed but it doesn´t look necessary.
8.) Her armor is rather heavy for 1923 when comparing her to historical designs but in WesWorld - were everybody is boosting armor - she´s rather thinly armored for her size and intended role.
9.) 5-tube-TTs are totally unrealistic for 1923. Make it 1943 and it´ll be okay.
10.) Her secondary armament really looks too heavy - having historical designs in mind. But once again this is WesWorld.....but still..... Turreted secondaries (triples!) on a CA in 1923 looks like she´s ahead of her time by several years.
11.) To be honest - her overall appearance (hull form, bows, superstructure) make her look like a 1940er design.
12.) Too many bulleys too close together.
13.) Crane for the boats looks too small - they could be long enough to lift and lower boats but have you measured it?
14.) How to get planes on the catapult or up on deck once alongside?

That should be enough...more to come later. :o)

Cheers,

HoOmAn

The drawing is a piece of art...man the ship looks awesome!.


The cruiser itself is VERY similar to the "Provincien" class of Heavy Cruiser I have already designed to be built by Netherlands ,but with more secondaries (my desing has 12 in four triple mounts),a bit less armor and slightly smaller range.

all in all a very good job!!!.

Quoted

9.) 5-tube-TTs are totally unrealistic for 1923. Make it 1943 and it´ll be okay.

How many historical ship classes used a 5-tube TT installation? I know that the Shimakaze had 3 of them aboard but I am unfamiliar with any other ships using a quintuple mount.

Quoted

14.) How to get planes on the catapult or up on deck once alongside?

I agree. You should have a crane there. Makes the job much easier.

Quoted

Still loads better than kent or mogami.

Don't have a Kent, but do have a Mogami, and yes it does have the turrets with the 1 inch armor on it.

Walter

Quoted

The cruiser itself is VERY similar to the "Provincien" class of Heavy Cruiser I have already designed to be built by Netherlands ,but with more secondaries (my desing has 12 in four triple mounts),a bit less armor and slightly smaller range.

Darn it, I was hoping you'd go for CAs with seven guns as well.

J

http://www.milhist.dk/weapons/systemer/f…brandenburg.htm

This is the aircraft that I was going to put on Hel....as you can see, she is only 3 meters high, and denmark actually had 10 of them in the 20's and into the 30's....hows that for historical accuaracy!!

What's a bulley?

Forgot the crane....DOH!

Flag is for looks only, other it would be the original "Red Rag to a Bull!!"

I don't mind reducing the secondaries to twins but I was thinking along thje lines that the Danish designers thought " why don't we use the turrets of the 'Bornholm' for the secondaries?". Alternately, would 4X triples be ok, and if so, would grouping them forward be alright??
Votes please!!!!

TT's reduced to quads!

1 knot added!

Thanks folks!

I'd axe the forward pair of secondaries, as they seem to cramp your superstructure.

Personally, I like the big pennant; reminds me that I need to draw out the "Leaping Tiger" (the Indian battle-flag) for my own drawings.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
What's a bulley?

Uh, make that porthole.... Don´t know why I wrote what I wrote.... ?!?!?