You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

1

Wednesday, April 5th 2006, 7:48pm

Proposed British Ship for 1931

Not sure if I've posted this before, but I figure I'd best mention it as a looming project. The first unit will be laid down in Q1/1931, with the last unit of 4 laying down a year later.

It is not conceived as a battleline unit, but rather as a ship in the mould of pre-war Armoured Cruisers, to be able to act as a flagship unit in secondary theatres and to operate with aircraft carriers. It is intended to engage Class A cruisers in wartime, with protection against guns in the 8" range.

An alternate design concept with six 12" guns was explored, but it was felt that this would be too prone to being risked in the battleline, whilst also being marginal for gunlaying.

HMS Saint Vincent, Royal Navy Large Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
19,114 t light; 20,269 t standard; 22,991 t normal; 25,169 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
717.38 ft / 711.00 ft x 75.00 ft (Bulges 86.00 ft) x 28.00 ft (normal load)
218.66 m / 216.71 m x 22.86 m (Bulges 26.21 m) x 8.53 m

Armament:
12 - 9.20" / 234 mm guns (4x3 guns), 450.00lbs / 204.12kg shells, 1931 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns (8x2 guns), 62.00lbs / 28.12kg shells, 1931 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
48 - 1.59" / 40.5 mm guns (6x8 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1931 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
16 - 0.55" / 14.0 mm guns (1x16 guns), 0.08lbs / 0.04kg shells, 1931 Model
Machine guns in deck mount
on side
Weight of broadside 6,489 lbs / 2,943 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 185

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 520.00 ft / 158.50 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 113 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
3rd: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
4th: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 6.00" / 152 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 110,002 shp / 82,061 Kw = 31.70 kts
Range 12,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,900 tons

Complement:
933 - 1,213

Cost:
£7.495 million / $29.981 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 700 tons, 3.0 %
Armour: 5,971 tons, 26.0 %
- Belts: 1,704 tons, 7.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 1,501 tons, 6.5 %
- Armour Deck: 2,660 tons, 11.6 %
- Conning Tower: 105 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 3,290 tons, 14.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9,004 tons, 39.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,877 tons, 16.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 150 tons, 0.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
32,333 lbs / 14,666 Kg = 83.0 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 3.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.07
Metacentric height 3.7 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 18.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.61
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.470
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.27 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31.03 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 12.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Mid (67 %): 21.00 ft / 6.40 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Stern: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 22.75 ft / 6.93 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 72.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 160.4 %
Waterplane Area: 35,949 Square feet or 3,340 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 126 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 154 lbs/sq ft or 752 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.44
- 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

IZ 6-28 kyards vs UK 8"/50
IZ 13-30 kyards vs Italian 203mm APC

2

Wednesday, April 5th 2006, 7:54pm

Too big, too expensive and too specialised for purpose. The fact that it cannot be used in a battleline engagement is a con, not a pro. You want options and global fluidity to respond to differing threats around the world.


1940 Cruiser Projects

3

Wednesday, April 5th 2006, 8:11pm

I'll disagree with RA on this one. With the relatively large numbers of potential hostile nations out there, most equipped with cruisers, the RN is not badly served by ships intended to deal with cruisers but not capable of serving in the line of battle.

The 40mm battery is, perhaps, a little large for the period, but that's partially a consequence of the octuple mounting.

Armor is sufficient to deal with the intended adversary, giving the ship protection at ranges where it's weapons can hurt it's intended foes.

4

Wednesday, April 5th 2006, 8:34pm

If anybody's in a position to build such vessels, it's the RN. Should they? Dunno.

I think the block coefficient, at 0.47, is somewhat low for a ship of this size.

Will the RN designate these as "armored cruisers" or what?

5

Wednesday, April 5th 2006, 8:59pm

This is a true waste of hulls!!

These ships could be built in a short length of time compared to the major capital ship units the RN requires in order to secure it's trade routes.
They might be ok now, but they are going to be little more than glorified cruisers in a capital ship short RN in 4 years time.

6

Wednesday, April 5th 2006, 10:04pm

And how many battleships were truely a waste of materials once the War started? The cruisers were probably more useful during a war anyway.

7

Wednesday, April 5th 2006, 10:11pm

Another comment on the design: with 110,000 SHP, you'll probably want 3-4 shafts, 55,000 on each shaft is probably a bit much.

I'd also question whether 185 rounds per gun are necessary, unless the idea is to be able to patrol and fight well away from resupply. Certainly the historical ships that carried guns of this size did not carry this many rounds.

Myself, I'd be a little concerned about the stability: 1.07 is, to me, a little bit low. I've been trying to keep stability at 1.10 or higher. But that might be just me.

8

Wednesday, April 5th 2006, 10:42pm

It is good that the UK is building something, but I'm not sure this is the right choice. There hasn't been a capital ship design since G3.

9

Thursday, April 6th 2006, 12:33am

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Another comment on the design: with 110,000 SHP, you'll probably want 3-4 shafts, 55,000 on each shaft is probably a bit much.


Stupid boy, Pike! That wasn't meant to happen - it's supposed to be a 4-shaft plant.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson I'd also question whether 185 rounds per gun are necessary, unless the idea is to be able to patrol and fight well away from resupply. Certainly the historical ships that carried guns of this size did not carry this many rounds.


That's the envisaged role, but probably overkill. I basically enlarged the magazines to use excess strength.

The historical ships, though, were also from an era when ships carried fewer rounds all told than in the 1930s.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson Myself, I'd be a little concerned about the stability: 1.07 is, to me, a little bit low. I've been trying to keep stability at 1.10 or higher. But that might be just me.


Concur, stability could be better; a reworded design is on the cards, so I'll look to enhance it.

RLBH

10

Thursday, April 6th 2006, 7:34am

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
And how many battleships were truely a waste of materials once the War started? The cruisers were probably more useful during a war anyway.


Yes but we know that now using hindsight, in the 30's however its still a "big gun" mentality.

I'm have mixed feelings about these "armored cruisers", they surely can outmatch CA's but are more expensive and don't have as much punch as BC's.

I tend to sit on Hrolfs side of the fence on this one...

I agree though, the BC seems low and in addition I think the bulges are not really nessasary.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

11

Thursday, April 6th 2006, 9:24am

So this is the UKs second attempt to introduce the BC concept to the world? She really looks like a second INVINCIBLE....

I can only second what others already said. She´s too larger and weak for her role, too weak as a capital unit, in fact a waste of limited hull numbers for cappital ships, the UL needs modern BBs in a world full ot 35-40kts warships that can have a QE for lunch, the bc of the ship seems relatively low, the range probably a little bit excessive and the number of main gun shells quite high.

If you want to hunt CAs you need more speed and/or more armor. Otherwise your design might loose a duel against a better armored, well-balanced 13kts treaty CA.

12

Thursday, April 6th 2006, 2:22pm

I can't see many CAs winning a fight against this ship, barring a lucky torpedo hit or two. Certainly Admiral Hipper wants nothing to do with a battle against a ship like this: it has better armor than Hipper, a heavier and more numerous main battery, and it's about 50% larger. 8" armor on the belt will not be easy for a 8-8.2" gun to hole, whereas the 9.2" will be less bothered by 4.7"-6" belt armor.

Is it a capital ship? Not really, it is, like El Cid, Capitan Tylor or the proposed Blucher, a large cruiser. It's not like the RN is lacking in either capital tonnage or ship slots, and the way the CT system works, such a ship will use up slots while releasing more tonnage for other ships. Ie, the RN could, after a future building program, use up both all it's ship slots AND all it's tonnage.

13

Thursday, April 6th 2006, 4:22pm

Actually I like her. Only I think she is too big. I have a similar design. My ships is a bit smaller (4,0000tons less) a bit less armor (7" belt) and has the main armament (12x9.2") in the style of my heavy cruiser (A,B,Q,Y)

14

Thursday, April 6th 2006, 8:11pm

Honestly shes a ship I wouldn't build, I could expend a similar amount of tonnage on two 10-11,000 ton CA's that don't nessassarily have to operate together.

If they did operate together they could quite likely take on 1 of these ships and sink her with the loss of one ship and another limping home to be repaired.

That being said if a navy has the resources to build these ships its an awefully tempting project.

15

Thursday, April 6th 2006, 9:16pm

Well it depends on how you look at it. You can build 2x30,000tons or 1x40,000 tons and this one. Seeing that WW cruisers are bigger than historical and GB's extended LOC that are vulnerable to surface raiders, I think this ship would be a good investment. Especially if GB builds nice big 40,000 ton battleships.

16

Friday, April 7th 2006, 12:25am

Its a good ship and a usefull one at that,well we dont know how you planing to use your fleet,but from what i gatherd you are going for strong counter raiding force
As of your battleline sell the Revenge class You already have a buyer :D

17

Friday, April 7th 2006, 3:28am

You can get much the same capability

on much less tonnage. Here's something I have in mind for a bit later, and they'll certainly get built if the Treaty collapses:

Admiral Makarov class, Russian Cruiser Killer laid down 1933

Displacement:
14,266 t light; 15,030 t standard; 17,727 t normal; 19,885 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
743.65 ft / 721.78 ft x 59.06 ft (Bulges 72.18 ft) x 23.82 ft (normal load)
226.66 m / 220.00 m x 18.00 m (Bulges 22.00 m) x 7.26 m

Armament:
8 - 9.21" / 234 mm guns (4x2 guns), 440.92lbs / 200.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
6 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (2x3 guns), 79.37lbs / 36.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
8 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (4x2 guns), 79.37lbs / 36.00kg shells, 1933 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 4,676 lbs / 2,121 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7.09" / 180 mm 421.59 ft / 128.50 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: 1.18" / 30 mm 300.20 ft / 91.50 m 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.09" / 180 mm 2.76" / 70 mm 5.51" / 140 mm
2nd: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -
3rd: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -
4th: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -

- Armour deck: 2.36" / 60 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 123,807 shp / 92,360 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 10,800nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,854 tons

Complement:
767 - 998

Cost:
£6.784 million / $27.138 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 513 tons, 2.9 %
Armour: 3,343 tons, 18.9 %
- Belts: 1,306 tons, 7.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 660 tons, 3.7 %
- Armour Deck: 1,291 tons, 7.3 %
- Conning Tower: 87 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 3,607 tons, 20.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,702 tons, 37.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,461 tons, 19.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
20,133 lbs / 9,132 Kg = 51.5 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 2.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 3.0 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 17.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.58
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.12

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: 30.66 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 62
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.81 ft / 10.00 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 17.06 ft / 5.20 m
- Stern: 18.70 ft / 5.70 m
- Average freeboard: 20.78 ft / 6.33 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 139.0 %
Waterplane Area: 29,534 Square feet or 2,744 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 120 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 129 lbs/sq ft or 629 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.13
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform


18

Friday, April 7th 2006, 4:13am

The Australian version

Note: This is an old version, an updated version will probably be slower and slightly different.

HMAS Sydney, Australia Cruiser Killer laid down 1935

Displacement:
15,648 t light; 16,416 t standard; 18,364 t normal; 19,922 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
697.57 ft / 690.00 ft x 69.00 ft x 25.00 ft (normal load)
212.62 m / 210.31 m x 21.03 m x 7.62 m

Armament:
12 - 9.20" / 234 mm guns (4x3 guns), 389.34lbs / 176.60kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount - superfiring
20 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns (10x2 guns), 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1935 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (3x8 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1935 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread, all raised mounts
20 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1935 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 5,762 lbs / 2,614 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 120
12 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7.00" / 178 mm 401.00 ft / 122.22 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 89 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.00" / 178 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 7.00" / 178 mm

- Armour deck: 2.90" / 74 mm, Conning tower: 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 116,360 shp / 86,804 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 11,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,506 tons

Complement:
788 - 1,025

Cost:
£8.224 million / $32.897 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 720 tons, 3.9 %
Armour: 4,179 tons, 22.8 %
- Belts: 1,191 tons, 6.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 1,090 tons, 5.9 %
- Armour Deck: 1,838 tons, 10.0 %
- Conning Tower: 60 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 3,306 tons, 18.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,343 tons, 40.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,716 tons, 14.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
23,532 lbs / 10,674 Kg = 60.4 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 2.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 3.5 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 15.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.85
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.07

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.540
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.84 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 9.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.50 ft / 0.76 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Forecastle (17 %): 21.90 ft / 6.68 m
- Mid (50 %): 21.90 ft / 6.68 m
- Quarterdeck (19 %): 21.90 ft / 6.68 m
- Stern: 21.90 ft / 6.68 m
- Average freeboard: 22.59 ft / 6.88 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.2 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 149.9 %
Waterplane Area: 34,262 Square feet or 3,183 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 137 lbs/sq ft or 667 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.36
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

19

Friday, April 7th 2006, 4:38am

12 Dreadnoughts vs 6 Nevadas + 6 Bluchers. Who wins?

On the original design I think the 12 guns is over kill. From my own analysis it seems that a 20,000ton ship is overgunned at 12" and under gunned at 8" but 9.2" or 10" should be OK. 4 twins or 3 triples rather than the 4 triples.

Cheers,

20

Friday, April 7th 2006, 5:05am

I wonder why some of us have a fasination with the 14,000 - 24,000 ton range and others find it a total waste of time and resources?

I can see it as a waste of hulls in the limited by treaty sense, but without that restriction, or for a power that wants to invest in the as least materially cheaper vessels for hulls, why not build large cruisers and heavy armored cruisers?

Its not like we'll have anyone fighting another Jutland or anything....right?