You are not logged in.


Sunday, October 29th 2006, 6:34pm

Civilian Cruiser

The way things are going Sir Rupert Murdoch might just build this ship and have it fly a flag of convinience, as an escort for his Carriers. The 1.10 hull strength is due to it being built to merchant standards.


RAMS Lonestar, Australia Civilian Cruiser laid down 1934

4,897 t light; 5,174 t standard; 8,061 t normal; 10,371 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
559.33 ft / 550.00 ft x 57.00 ft x 20.00 ft (normal load)
170.48 m / 167.64 m x 17.37 m x 6.10 m

5 - 7.50" / 191 mm guns in single mounts, 210.94lbs / 95.68kg shells, 1934 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
8 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns (4x2 guns), 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1934 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
4 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (1x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1934 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline, all raised guns
10 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1934 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1,319 lbs / 598 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2.40" / 61 mm 350.00 ft / 106.68 m 9.00 ft / 2.74 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 98 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.40" / 61 mm 1.20" / 30 mm 1.20" / 30 mm
2nd: 1.20" / 30 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.20" / 30 mm

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 21,915 shp / 16,349 Kw = 24.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,197 tons

424 - 552

£1.955 million / $7.819 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 165 tons, 2.0 %
Armour: 847 tons, 10.5 %
- Belts: 316 tons, 3.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 70 tons, 0.9 %
- Armour Deck: 461 tons, 5.7 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 630 tons, 7.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,055 tons, 37.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,164 tons, 39.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 2.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
22,574 lbs / 10,239 Kg = 107.0 x 7.5 " / 191 mm shells or 3.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.45
Metacentric height 4.1 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 11.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.26
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.56

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.450
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.65 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.01 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 41 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Mid (50 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Quarterdeck (20 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Stern: 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Average freeboard: 15.60 ft / 4.75 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 45.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 140.0 %
Waterplane Area: 20,772 Square feet or 1,930 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 222 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 97 lbs/sq ft or 472 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.08
- Longitudinal: 1.32
- Overall: 1.10
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
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather


Sunday, October 29th 2006, 6:43pm

I seriously doubt any treaty member or civilized country would accept that as anything but a warship. If it isn't listed as Australian or part of some other navy, than it would be classified as a pirate ship like Deathshadow.


Sunday, October 29th 2006, 6:52pm

Course its a warship, and it would be listed under a flag of convinience probably Peru, Chile, or Siam.
Or New Zealand...

Pirate ship? What if it is not attacking anybody? Would that still make it a pirate?


Sunday, October 29th 2006, 7:17pm

Perhaps. Or at least a rogue ship, not operating under anyones navy and thus supect by all.


Sunday, October 29th 2006, 7:47pm

Ony one man would dare give me the rasberry...

I would think that Peru and Chile are too far of. Perhaps some agreement with Siam...


Sunday, October 29th 2006, 8:02pm

It might be classified as a class A cruiser toward Australian's limits still by treaty, depending on how the other treaty member react and the method of it being flagged by another nation.


Sunday, October 29th 2006, 8:08pm

Still it is a 1934 design and a lot can happen in the time between 'now' (August 1932) and when they are laid down (1934).


Sunday, October 29th 2006, 8:26pm

I would advise the Australians that, as of this date, Lloyds do not have classification rules for heavy cruisers. I cannot speak for the American Bureau of Shipping, Det Norske Veritas, Bureau Veritas, NKK, Registro Italiano Navale or Germanische Lloyd (assuming they all exist at this date in WesWorld), but I severely doubt that they do, either. Without compliance to classification society rules, insurance might be an issue.

There again, I suppose it isn't really an issue anyway, for a ship of this nature. Not after the Hood gives her a couple of broadsides when she's doing acceptance trials for Mr. Murdoch.

Thinking about it, they might be considered somewhat akin to salvage tugs. Most shipowners won't have a salvage tug, and just rely on hiring one as and when necessary (Lloyds Open Form contracts and such). Likewise, no civilian shipowner has operated armed merchant ships for the last few centuries, preferring to rely on the navy of the nation whose flag they fly under for protection. This way, though, you know that you're at the top of the priorities for the cruiser/salvage tug.


Sunday, October 29th 2006, 8:57pm

Heres a question, if this ship is attacked and boarded by say the American navy what would be the responce of the Australian government? Would they then attack the U.S. for attacking a civilian owned vessel that is clearly capable of waging war?


Sunday, October 29th 2006, 9:15pm

I doubt the United Kingdom will allow a commonwealth nations to build such a vessel, and it looks like Lloyds will not insure it, so it will not be classified as civilian operated with its stated arms. At least thats what it seems Lloyds of London is saying.


Monday, October 30th 2006, 5:58am

Loyd's wont insure? Oh no!

But its just a whaler. You see there's these Giant Armored Narwhales and we need those big harpoons. No you cant have a closer look. Its classified state of the art technology. Haven't you read 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? Hey get away from there!


Well I figure if the US attacked a Siamese Flagged ship they would meet the Dancing Elephants.


Monday, October 30th 2006, 6:38am

...Who's stealing the Canuck's schtick!?



Monday, October 30th 2006, 6:53am

It is the opinion of the United States that civilian ships not be armed except in times of war or extreme emergency. If there is a high risk of pirate attack, then it is the responsibility of local military and law enforcement forces to provide sufficient protection and attempt to apprehend the pirates. If privately owned warships are permitted we will have chaos and they could easily trigger conflicts.


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Monday, October 30th 2006, 10:29am

I second CanisD.

It´s a funny idea and good for some news items but if you´re going to make this reality in WesWorld I think we´ll have an issue - both IC and OC.


Monday, October 30th 2006, 4:53pm

It's an amusing notion, and one I've played about with a few times myself, but not one that's worth taking seriously. If you do want to do it, the only way for me to not object is:
(a) Build something smaller, more like a sloop in size, with guns that can be unbolted and hidden. This one gets you into all sorts of problems when someone else finds out about it and I can't stop pretending not to know.
(b) Build a full-on battleship, so that I don't dare try sinking the thing in case someone notices. But, I rather suspect most of the world would gang up on whoever tries that one...


Monday, October 30th 2006, 5:13pm

Its pretty much a design excercise into a privateer type ship. But with the way the Treaty is going I doubt Australia will remain making this ship a purely academic excercise.


(b) Build a full-on battleship, so that I don't dare try sinking the thing in case someone notices. But, I rather suspect most of the world would gang up on whoever tries that one...
Hmmm... thats an idea. Build it without "guns and armor" and call it a liner. Perhaps that will solve the Carrier vs Liner dilema.


Monday, October 30th 2006, 5:18pm


Originally posted by Desertfox


(b) Build a full-on battleship, so that I don't dare try sinking the thing in case someone notices. But, I rather suspect most of the world would gang up on whoever tries that one...
Hmmm... thats an idea. Build it without "guns and armor" and call it a liner. Perhaps that will solve the Carrier vs Liner dilema.

Funny you should mention that; one of my liner designs did in fact feature provision for several major-calibre guns...


Monday, October 30th 2006, 8:18pm

Given the massive risks in WW from pirates and other cut-throats surely the time will come when commerical companies begin arming their ships with small guns (12pdrs etc) to offer some self-protection?

I think a full-on cruiser is both unlikely and not needed. I wouldn't trust any businessman than wanted one. In any case Intrepida would soon dispatch this cruiser...


Monday, October 30th 2006, 11:13pm


I wouldn't trust any businessman than wanted one.

Hmm. Would you trust a Siamese?


Tuesday, October 31st 2006, 12:55am

If you please.


Hmm. Would you trust a Siamese?

I have two, so I would not.