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.


Thursday, November 16th 2006, 7:27pm

Saint C Class Cruisers

Incrociatori di Ordine (Command Cruiser)

Exercises throughout the late 20s highlighted the problems in combined operations between naval and air units. These vessels hope to remedy the situation somewhat. 4 vessels are planned to be in service by 1935. Typically, one vessel will be attached to each SAG.

The most prominent feature on the vessel is the large mast amidships. In this case, height really is everything, with longer ranges being possible the higher the aerial is positioned. As it is, the mast, and other parts of the vessel, are festooned in aerials all transmitting and receiving a range of frequencies. These are linked into the fighter direction station. In this room is a plot of the position and situation of air units in the area. It will be useful in receiving reconnaissance reports, coordinating attacks, and most importantly, maintaining an overview of the battlefield.

Elsewhere in the ship there are extensive flag facilities. It is intended to have these vessels as the flagships of SAGs because of the reasons stated above. Information in readily available to the commander and he has the ability to quickly transmit directions to various units.

Armament: Uses the standard LA 135/45 gun. Consideration was given to mounting 152/53 guns but this would have put too much strain on the hull, or required a larger ship. Automatic shell handling is used for the first time in the 135mm mount, at a weight penalty to the turret, which has increased the rate of fire possible. It should prove particularly useful against destroyers. No heavy AA guns are carried on grounds of space and weight. Instead a large battery of 47mm guns are carried instead. 6x325mm torpedo tubes are included for reasons of praticality. It might be needed to quickly despatch a slowly sinking vessel.

Armour is reasonable for a cruiser-sized vessel and extremely expansive in an effort to cover the various rooms inside.

Speed and Range are fairly standard.

2 vessels laid down mid 1932

San Calepodio
San Calimero

Italian Light Cruiser laid down 1932

6,711 t light; 7,081 t standard; 8,751 t normal; 10,086 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
579.02 ft / 557.74 ft x 58.73 ft x 18.70 ft (normal load)
176.48 m / 170.00 m x 17.90 m x 5.70 m

8 - 5.31" / 135 mm guns (4x2 guns), 79.37lbs / 36.00kg shells, 1932 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
24 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 3.86lbs / 1.75kg shells, 1932 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, 5 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 728 lbs / 330 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 450
6 - 12.8" / 325 mm above water torpedoes

- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2.76" / 70 mm 360.89 ft / 110.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 1.18" / 30 mm 229.66 ft / 70.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
2nd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Armour deck: 1.57" / 40 mm, Conning tower: 5.31" / 135 mm

Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 62,000 shp / 46,252 Kw = 31.11 kts
Range 4,500nm at 25.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,006 tons

452 - 588

£2.555 million / $10.221 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 85 tons, 1.0 %
Armour: 1,423 tons, 16.3 %
- Belts: 647 tons, 7.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 66 tons, 0.8 %
- Armour Deck: 661 tons, 7.6 %
- Conning Tower: 49 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 1,830 tons, 20.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,973 tons, 34.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,039 tons, 23.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 4.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
12,301 lbs / 5,580 Kg = 163.9 x 5.3 " / 135 mm shells or 1.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 3.0 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 14.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 73 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.19
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.06

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.500
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.06 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31.17 ft / 9.50 m
- Forecastle (24 %): 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Mid (40 %): 21.33 ft / 6.50 m (13.12 ft / 4.00 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Stern: 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Average freeboard: 17.35 ft / 5.29 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 141.8 %
Waterplane Area: 22,695 Square feet or 2,108 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 142 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 87 lbs/sq ft or 427 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- 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

90t = 6x quadruple 47mm mounts
80t = 20t per 135/45 mounting
10t = sonar D2bis
100tons fighter direction station


Thursday, November 16th 2006, 7:31pm

...Since I'm sure someone'll try and bring this up eventually, might as well get it out of the way;



An aircraft carrier is defined as a surface vessel of war with a

standard displacement greater than 600 tons (610 metric tons)

designed for the specific purpose of carrying aircraft. It must

be so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and

landed thereon, and not designed and constructed for carrying a

more powerful armament than that allowed to it under Part 3,

Chapter B, Article VII below. Any vessel with a standard

displacement exceeding 600 tons (610 metric tons) and so

constructed or reconstructed that aircraft can be landed thereon,

shall be considered an aircraft-carrier, for the purposes of this


I think we discussed this at cowes, and that Autogyros count as 'aircraft'


Thursday, November 16th 2006, 7:37pm

Its just there for illustrative purposes.


Thursday, November 16th 2006, 7:40pm

So long there isn't any obvious deck markings or handling equipment on the quarterdeck I guess it doesn't matter, but I figured playing devil's advocate wouldn't hurt.


Thursday, November 16th 2006, 7:42pm

I'd be reasonably sure you could land one on jsut about any ship over 6,000tons or so.


Thursday, November 16th 2006, 7:51pm

Actually that's easily solved:
[SIZE=4]Ban the Autogyros!![/SIZE]



Thursday, November 16th 2006, 9:25pm

A dedicated command ship is a real leap forward.
Most navies were able to function using the capabilities of modified versions of existing designs.

Granted by the end of the war the advances in electronics (radar, CIC's, communications) made more command & control space mandatory.

I wonder if the state of the art in the 1930's would justify this type of ship.

I wonder what fleet operations/developments lead to the development of a requirement for this design. Have the Italians made any advances in radar for example?


Thursday, November 16th 2006, 11:24pm

Someone's been on the modernity pills again.

Gentlemen, I have a proposal for fighting the Italians. Contaminate their aviation fuel and destroy their electrical supplies.


Friday, November 17th 2006, 12:37am


A dedicated command ship is a real leap forward.

Shes pretty useful for fighting off hordes of destroyers as well.

Hmmm, Italy is actually following historical development for aircraft - unlike everyone else.


Friday, November 17th 2006, 1:15am

*starts stocking up water bottles and EMP weapons...*

I dont know abot fighting of hordes of destroyers. My next batch will probably have a bigger broadside than her.

Do you even need a dedicated fighter direction ship? Its not like aircraft are that advanced, and in the Mediterrean you can find plenty of islands.

Australia will begin deck trials of landing Autogyros on light cruiser very soon, just to stir things up!


Friday, November 17th 2006, 9:56am


Originally posted by Red Admiral

Hmmm, Italy is actually following historical development for aircraft - unlike everyone else.

Which is incidentially one of the few areas Italy isn't following historical developement.......


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Friday, November 17th 2006, 10:13am


I like the way you´re converting the modern concept of combined battle/carrier groups and task forces into the 30s. A dedicated command ship probably is a bit too much a leap forward given 1930s technology and doctrines but it fits perfectly into your overall fleet concept and ship designs.

So long as you don´t insist on your ships having the same capabilities or efficiency like modern TICONDEROGAs or something I see no reason to object.


Friday, November 17th 2006, 10:57am

I'm basically moving towards a small surface action group comprising 2-3 ACRs and a couple of large destroyers. Carriers if Italy had enough. There isn't really enough space on the ACRs given their other constraints for the fighter direction station/command room etc. so its probably worth investing in a more specialised vessel. Even so, it doesn't have to operate as part of that SAG, easy enough to fit them in elsewhere as needed. They'd make reasonable convoy escorts where you can keep dibs on all the ships in the convoy.


Its not like aircraft are that advanced

It'll be useful in coordinating a strike on the Greeks/French. Shadow and remain in distant contact with their vessels whilst vectoring in a SM.79 strike.


My next batch will probably have a bigger broadside than her.

I'd also guess that they'd suffer massively from topweight, have nowhere near as much ammunition, FC systems, powered turrets. Nowhere near as stable a gun platform. That is unless your next destroyers are 3000tons+.


Friday, November 17th 2006, 11:29am

The "automatic shell handling" part of things catches my eye. What are we talking about here, powered rammers and so on, or is this an automatic loading system?


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Friday, November 17th 2006, 12:03pm

In case of these guns I have to correct my upper statement somehow. A shift in doctrine, trying to do things different etc. is probably a bit unrealistic but I like it. Large radio masts and lots of room for staff is hardly unrealistic from a technical point of view. Neither is directing fighters or nearby units if you invest enough manpower (no computers available) and material. If you build a 7kts units only for this purpose - fine with me.

However, what you wrote about those guns sounds a bit as if they are close to fully automatic weapons of said caliber - and that would be too advanced in 1933, methinks. Just one step short of a modern OTO-Melara ...


Friday, November 17th 2006, 2:34pm

Power assisted like Vanguards 5.25"/50 Mk II RP10 mountings. Not fully automatic, though that would technically be possible. quite manpower and machinery intensive so its not really worth it.


Friday, November 17th 2006, 2:42pm

So "only" 10-12 years in advance of state of the art, then?


Friday, November 17th 2006, 2:43pm

Not when similar mountings are being used by the US in the 5"/38 mounts and have been used by the Greeks and others for the past 5 years. These are not high angle mounts.


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Friday, November 17th 2006, 3:09pm

The US used 5" guns with automatic ammo handling during the past 5 years? Must have missed it....?! Could you please point me to this little piece of information= Thanks.

There is another question that springs to mind. If I understand you correctly the ship is meant to lead other fleet units and CAP. Wouldn´t it be logical to use high angle guns then? The ship can´t handle real surface threats anyway and is too fragile and expensive to risk her in such an engagement - even against destoyers. Add the Italians obvious opinion that airborne threats are to be countered in the future - otherwise no such design - I´d say heavy AA guns are a MUST HAVE for her.

Is my logic flawed?


Friday, November 17th 2006, 3:27pm

There isn't any automatic ammo handling on the 5"/38, though the (OTL 1934) 5"/38 does have power ramming. The rounds are manually loaded, but power rammed, which is useful for high-angle fire. I'm not sure it's necessary, though, on a low-angle gun, looking at the similar (if slightly larger) French 138.6mm M1929 and M1934 guns: the 1929 had automatic ramming, and achieved a practical rate of fire of 7 rpm, while the M1934 had powered ramming of projectiles but manual ramming of cartridges and acheived a rate of fire of between 6 and 7.5 rpm.