WesWorld

As part of the attempted audition process, I'm using this thread to show off some of my more successful designs from Navalism.

First up is the Maori 1916 model Escort Cruiser. Notable design traits typical of the Maori fleet there are the lower than average speed, the relatively heavy protection, and the choice to forgo torpedo armament (and the chance of same cooking off from a lucky hit) for non-destroyer warships, as well as cosmetic touches like the use of four linked optical fire-control directors, the fore-and-aft four-posted masts, and the obsessive fondness for the 'Q' turret position.




Displacement:
5,280 t light; 5,539 t standard; 6,837 t normal; 7,875 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
467.60 ft / 459.32 ft x 52.49 ft x 18.04 ft (normal load)
142.52 m / 140.00 m x 16.00 m x 5.50 m

Armament:
10 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (5x2 guns), 110.23lbs / 50.00kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,102 lbs / 500 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.94" / 100 mm 321.52 ft / 98.00 m 12.30 ft / 3.75 m
Ends: 0.98" / 25 mm 137.76 ft / 41.99 m 12.30 ft / 3.75 m
Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 3.94" / 100 mm 3.94" / 100 mm

- Armour deck: 1.18" / 30 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 33,356 shp / 24,883 Kw = 26.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,336 tons

Complement:
375 - 488

Cost:
£0.479 million / $1.916 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 129 tons, 1.9 %
Armour: 1,323 tons, 19.4 %
- Belts: 711 tons, 10.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 198 tons, 2.9 %
- Armour Deck: 368 tons, 5.4 %
- Conning Tower: 46 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 1,330 tons, 19.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,298 tons, 33.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,557 tons, 22.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 2.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
9,540 lbs / 4,327 Kg = 92.6 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 1.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.14
Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 14.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.47
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.17

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.75 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.43 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Stern: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 16.60 ft / 5.06 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 140.2 %
Waterplane Area: 16,827 Square feet or 1,563 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 131 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 87 lbs/sq ft or 423 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.45
- 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

100 tons cruiser fire control
75 tons damage control
25 tons long range wireless

Three ships:
Shadowed Rose
Night Speargrass
Black Colensoa

Very interesting....

I wonder how Q turret fairs stuck in between the engine and boiler rooms, but it certainly makes for a striking visual design. Never having played in N-verse, and coming to WW rather late, I have never quite understood the tactical concepts behind the Escort Cruiser, but she appears workmanlike and definitely reflecting a different culture.

Looking forward to seeing more of your handiwork.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Very interesting....

I wonder how Q turret fairs stuck in between the engine and boiler rooms, but it certainly makes for a striking visual design. Never having played in N-verse, and coming to WW rather late, I have never quite understood the tactical concepts behind the Escort Cruiser, but she appears workmanlike and definitely reflecting a different culture.

Looking forward to seeing more of your handiwork.

In fact, the intended practice for Maori non-destroyer designs was to have two separate complete powerplants. The forward engine compartments and the aft would both have their own boilers, turbines, and generators, whose combined output would be routed first to the main bus and then to the motors aft that actually drove the prop. That way, a hit to one of the compartments could never take out more than half of the ship's propulsion...

Of course, this arrangement would probably pay somewhat in efficiency, weight, and convenience for maintenance, but everything's a trade off.

Interesting take on the 'unit' arrangement.

I'm not a naval architect so I can't rightly comment on whether it would work in practice, but certainly it would cost somewhat in efficiency.

Next up is the 1915 model destroyer, the more visually striking of two functionally identical classes armed with 75mm guns; at start of play, I neglected to give the Maori a 'light gun' between that size and 150mm, and my earlier attempts at fitting more than one of the latter aboard a DD were, bluntly, total failures. 75mm was inadequate, but at least it was more effective than that until I could develop a 100mm gun. I planned to refit them to carry three of those as singles, but the game rebooted before it became possible.



DE-1915, Maori Destroyer laid down 1915 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
1,000 t light; 1,029 t standard; 1,192 t normal; 1,322 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
334.55 ft / 328.08 ft x 29.53 ft x 9.84 ft (normal load)
101.97 m / 100.00 m x 9.00 m x 3.00 m

Armament:
2 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1914 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1914 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all forward
Weight of broadside 51 lbs / 23 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
6 - 20.7" / 525 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 21,507 shp / 16,044 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 293 tons

Complement:
100 - 131

Cost:
£0.167 million / $0.667 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 6 tons, 0.5 %
Armour: 2 tons, 0.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 2 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 647 tons, 54.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 305 tons, 25.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 191 tons, 16.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 40 tons, 3.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
302 lbs / 137 Kg = 23.5 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.26
Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 11.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 89 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.15
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.16

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.438
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.11 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 63 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 77
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m (8.20 ft / 2.50 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Stern: 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Average freeboard: 12.43 ft / 3.79 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 183.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 81.9 %
Waterplane Area: 6,118 Square feet or 568 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 58 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 26 lbs/sq ft or 128 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.29
- Overall: 0.55
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

Three ships:
Rise of Victory
Rise of Triumph
Rise of Morning

Hmm. Now this design is rather... odd.

I think that with such a lightweight gun a simple deck mount would have sufficed and saved some tonnage. And for such a ship I'd not be sold on electric drive - though this could reflect a cultural preference or a tech issue.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Hmm. Now this design is rather... odd.

I think that with such a lightweight gun a simple deck mount would have sufficed and saved some tonnage. And for such a ship I'd not be sold on electric drive - though this could reflect a cultural preference or a tech issue.

I went with mount-and-hoist to allow fully enclosed and weather protected gun mounts, both heated and air-conditioned at need. The electric drive's main 'push' in this case would be the extensive fleet-wide use in other applications - it was something that engineers, designers, and technicians knew backwards and forewards, but secondary advantages would be greater (ie, any) cruising efficiency and tightened turning radius due to reversibility.

The 1916 destroyers went back to dual separate funnels, but were otherwise a great improvement, IMHO - better choice of armament and more range.



DD-1916, Maori Destroyer laid down 1916 (Engine 1912)

Displacement:
1,000 t light; 1,036 t standard; 1,278 t normal; 1,471 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
334.84 ft / 328.08 ft x 29.53 ft x 9.84 ft (normal load)
102.06 m / 100.00 m x 9.00 m x 3.00 m

Armament:
4 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (2x2 guns), 33.07lbs / 15.00kg shells, 1916 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 132 lbs / 60 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
6 - 20.7" / 525 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 22,904 shp / 17,086 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 5,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 435 tons

Complement:
106 - 138

Cost:
£0.229 million / $0.918 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 15 tons, 1.2 %
Armour: 4 tons, 0.3 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 4 tons, 0.3 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 660 tons, 51.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 296 tons, 23.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 278 tons, 21.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 24 tons, 1.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
292 lbs / 132 Kg = 9.6 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 1.1 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 11.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 77 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.32
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.85

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.469
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.11 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 64 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 90
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Forecastle (10 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (33 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m (8.20 ft / 2.50 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (10 %): 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Stern: 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
- Average freeboard: 11.04 ft / 3.37 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 178.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 69.9 %
Waterplane Area: 6,280 Square feet or 583 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 65 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 27 lbs/sq ft or 133 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 0.86
- Overall: 0.53
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

6 tons ready torpedoes
6 tons reload torpedoes
10 tons wireless

Four ships:

Color and Surge
All Must Converge
Shade and Storm
Everything That Rises

Better in some respects, but I have to wonder about carrying the torpedo tubes so high. And all things being equal, the bridge as drawn looks too low - I think it would look better with at least another deck.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Better in some respects, but I have to wonder about carrying the torpedo tubes so high. And all things being equal, the bridge as drawn looks too low - I think it would look better with at least another deck.

I've wondered about the torpedoes myself, but they're really no higher than the deck-mounts on a cruiser, so it should be manageable. Something I tried to do throughout Maori design was keep the superstructure and turrets as low as I could while still preserving sightlines and firing arcs; I think that the effect is 'sleeker', if that's the word. Whether or not it'd be 'better' if carried in a more commanding position, it's consistent with Maori practice to have it there.

And finally, the one that those as followed Navalism 3 have probably been waiting for...

Image not inlined for the sake of smaller screens

Cross Mirage (AON), Maoria Battleship laid down 1912

Displacement:
34,352 t light; 37,010 t standard; 40,911 t normal; 44,032 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
614.89 ft / 606.96 ft x 101.71 ft x 32.81 ft (normal load)
187.42 m / 185.00 m x 31.00 m x 10.00 m

Armament:
10 - 15.00" / 381 mm guns (5x2 guns), 2,000.00lbs / 907.18kg shells, 1912 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
16 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (8x2 guns), 110.23lbs / 50.00kg shells, 1912 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread
4 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns in single mounts, 1.32lbs / 0.60kg shells, 1912 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 21,769 lbs / 9,874 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 15.0" / 380 mm 424.87 ft / 129.50 m 18.86 ft / 5.75 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 108 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.95" / 75 mm 424.87 ft / 129.50 m 31.79 ft / 9.69 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 15.0" / 380 mm 11.8" / 300 mm 15.0" / 380 mm
2nd: 5.91" / 150 mm 3.94" / 100 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.98" / 25 mm

- Armour deck: 4.72" / 120 mm, Conning tower: 14.96" / 380 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 36,111 shp / 26,939 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,022 tons

Complement:
1,437 - 1,869

Cost:
£3.349 million / $13.397 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,316 tons, 5.7 %
Armour: 15,617 tons, 38.2 %
- Belts: 5,235 tons, 12.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,476 tons, 3.6 %
- Armament: 4,172 tons, 10.2 %
- Armour Deck: 4,352 tons, 10.6 %
- Conning Tower: 383 tons, 0.9 %
Machinery: 1,440 tons, 3.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,980 tons, 31.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,559 tons, 16.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 2,000 tons, 4.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
54,106 lbs / 24,542 Kg = 32.1 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 10.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 6.1 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 17.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 53 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.64
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.26

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.707
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.97 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.64 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 42
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 4.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Forecastle (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Stern: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 16.60 ft / 5.06 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 77.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 108.3 %
Waterplane Area: 49,788 Square feet or 4,625 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 105 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 197 lbs/sq ft or 963 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.38
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

900 tons barbette reinforcement
250 tons battleship fire control
125 tons damage control
100 tons 10-bed hospital
75 tons flagship appointments
50 tons climate control

500 tons design reserve

Main belt is +10% quality and sloped 15 degrees.

3x 25mm torpedo bulkheads, each inboard of a 1.5m fluid void and a 1.5m air void and one layer inboard of the other

Including special guest star, the protection diagram!

I believe that Cross Mirage was, in absolute terms, the best-protected ship ever built in N3; certainly she was so on a ton-for-ton basis, since the competition was French and the N3 French tended to excess. Considering that their builders were one of the world leaders in fire control technology, I would wager that there was no single ship in the world capable of defeating her in an even fight or dissuading her from where she wished to go. The extensive 'wasted' tonnage was intended to represent reinforcement and so forth to allow the installation of at least up to 40cm/L50 main guns in place of the imported 15" guns she was launched with.

Unfortunately, I could only ever afford one of her. Ah, well.

From a cultural perspective, I can understand that design element. It distinguishes a nation's warships - sort of like the pagoda masts on Japanese warships.

As for the torpedo tubes I recall that DDs of that period all carried their tubes on the deck, and only in the 1930 and 40s US designs did they move to the engine trunks - and they were significantly larger vessels. Combined with the L:B ratio, I think that they might have contributed to the stability issues.

I'm afraid that I have some problems with the battleship design. It looks as though she'd snap in the middle from all the weight fore and aft. The covered boat locations would, I think, be a weak point. The massing of the secondary armament contributes to the visual effect of too much missing from the middle of the ship.

That said, she's a powerful design.

Quoted

Originally posted by Valles
Escapees from another world...

Where the Kongos do roam~

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
I'm afraid that I have some problems with the battleship design. It looks as though she'd snap in the middle from all the weight fore and aft. The covered boat locations would, I think, be a weak point. The massing of the secondary armament contributes to the visual effect of too much missing from the middle of the ship.

That said, she's a powerful design.

I don't really think so. The existing art somewhat understates just how bricklike her hull form is, as you can see feeding her particulars into this boards 'Ship Drawing' flash thingie - her sides are essentially parallel along something like 95% the length of her main belt, so the carrying flotation for her forward and aft batteries would be mostly right there under them. If you laid out the engine rooms right, the distribution of weight should be more or less 'even'.

Now, granted, the boat bays could still be relatively weaker, but by carrying the deck girders through the roof and having reinforced 'posts' before and aft each one, I think that that'd be minimized.

Hi Valles,

thanks for sharing your designs.

I have to check in more detail for more detailed comments but what I´ve learned from your drawings is that you seem to prefer very short bows. That`s a design trait I do not like that much for seakeeping reasons. Is there a special reason why you opted for it?

Then - your smaller designs show lots more deckspace than one can see on OTL designs. And like stated before, I find it risky at best to put the TTs on top of those deck houses. SS does not sim it correctly, so there is no issue with stability, but there would be an issue, I´m sure.

Regards,

HoOmAn

If you're referring to keeping the foredeck the same length as the quarterdeck, then there really isn't any particular reason for that beyond symmetry. The visual profile of the bows, however, are not only IMHO more attractive than something more... pointy... but more importantly are all completely in keeping with general practice at the time these ships were built - the nineteen-teens. What I'll do with wherever I end up here will depend on the existing practice of that navy.

The deckspace issue is kind of ironic, given that the usual problem we faced re: destroyer plausibility in N3 was people skimping a little on the speed to cram on many more guns than were used OTL - which is also basically an explanation of what happened with mine, since I was skimping on speed to try and preserve seakeeping, and frankly didn't have the weight allowance to futz around with more equipment than they already show.

If the TTs didn't work out in that position, then I guess they didn't work out - not every ship is perfect, after all. Depending on the physical constraints of the engines, they might end up lowered on a refit.

Not sure on the viablilty of enclosed twins on a 1912 destroyer design. The only comment I'll make on the torpedo tubes is that they are high, a torpedo has to land in the water and will hit with some force from that height. That isn't good for the gyros and delicate equipment in them. Accuracy is likely to be downgraded.

The battleship looks very Germanic. Overall its ok. I'm not so fond of the secondary layout, seems a bit cramped and those back-to-back turrets hamper each others firing arcs. Broadside fire is good but fore and aft secondary fire is only four barrels. Saying that superfiring guns would cause problems. It's a flaw but not a serious one. (That said we could pick flaws in most real designs of that era too.)

Overall interesting stuff.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Not sure on the viablilty of enclosed twins on a 1912 destroyer design. The only comment I'll make on the torpedo tubes is that they are high, a torpedo has to land in the water and will hit with some force from that height. That isn't good for the gyros and delicate equipment in them. Accuracy is likely to be downgraded.

The battleship looks very Germanic. Overall its ok. I'm not so fond of the secondary layout, seems a bit cramped and those back-to-back turrets hamper each others firing arcs. Broadside fire is good but fore and aft secondary fire is only four barrels. Saying that superfiring guns would cause problems. It's a flaw but not a serious one. (That said we could pick flaws in most real designs of that era too.)

Overall interesting stuff.

The 'doctrine' I'd written for the Maori's use of torpedoes was 'launch inside 1000 meters or don't bother', so I'm uncertain that the accuracy penalty would have been significantly cumulative. A certain loss of efficiency from the use of twins vs singles was understood and accepted, but I figured it'd be better than cutting another hoist through the deck.

Cross Mirage, as she worked out, was a fairly 'cramped' design. Between her short length and the need to maximize the arcs of the main battery, the secondaries ended up basically shoehorned in place. The followup class, if it had been built, probably would've been notably longer, to give more room to work with (and, coincidentally, decrease the brick coefficient of the hull) - the thousand tons or so saved with the extant 'stubby' hull wasn't worth it, ultimately. I was also planning on stepping the quarterdeck and after main battery turrets down a deck to try and save weight, in keeping with my intention that every Maori BB class would have a slightly different layout.