Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 4 of 5  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
JSB
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 29th, 2014, 6:05 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
Im no expert and sorry if I sound like I'm picking bad points but.

1) not sure about
Quote:
Coles/Ericsson turret
in 37 ?

2)
Quote:
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
In the north Atlantic/ North Pacific where is Canada going to use them ? Would you want to load 6inch guns in such a small boat in any seastate (and 2 will not give any useful salvos, may be better to have more 4.7s )?

3) Not sure but I question
Quote:
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces
why not just cover the mags? and is this ship to small for a Torpedo Bulkhead to be worth it ?
Quote:
'Natural speed' for length: 23.17 kts
is this to slow due to hull shape ?

My personal thought would be to redo with a single set of main gun (DP 4.5/4.7/5.25 I would go light to up rate of fire and hit probability, not sure that 15cm guns such as the KM used worked well in what is really a large destroyer) and more torpedoes to compensate ? I would drop the TDS and use unit Machinery etc to survive one hit, and maybe limit the belt to the mags +(maybe add some ASW asdic + DC's ).
Something like this ? (disclaimer this is only a 5mins cut and paste by eye so not accurate at all)
[ img ]


Hope this is not negative, as I like the idea of this convoy escort.
JSB


Last edited by JSB on March 29th, 2014, 11:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 29th, 2014, 6:25 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania
Quote:
Im no expert and sorry if I sound like I'm picking bad points but.

1) not sure about
Quote:
Coles/Ericsson turret
in 37 ?
Yeah I'd say they were going out of date by the 1880's. A turret and hoist would be best in this situaton
Quote:
Quote:
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather
In the north Atlantic/ North Pacific where is Canada going to use them ? Would you want to load 6inch guns in such a small boat in any seastate (and 2 will not give any useful salvos, may be better to have more 4.7s )?
6" shells are heavy so JSB is very right in saying the 4.7" would be better. In twin turrets it could be very handy
Quote:
3) Not sure but I question
Quote:
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces
why not just cover the mags? and is this ship to small for a Torpedo Bulkhead to be worth it ?
Quote:
'Natural speed' for length: 23.17 kts
is this to slow due to hull shape ?
This is due mainly to waterline length IIRC, the longer the vessel the higher the natural speed

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charwhick
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 31st, 2014, 12:18 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 1:28 am
OK, I'll revise her a lot. Still, with as much armour as a proper light cruiser and 8 4.7" guns; she'd be nothing to scoff at.

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 31st, 2014, 12:21 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania
Essentially I'm seeing this as a modern and Canadian version of my Cape Class down to the 4.7"'s and light cruiser armour but it'll be interesting to see what turns out!

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charwhick
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 31st, 2014, 12:58 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 1:28 am
Rodondo wrote:
Essentially I'm seeing this as a modern and Canadian version of my Cape Class down to the 4.7"'s and light cruiser armour but it'll be interesting to see what turns out!
Well, in order spice things up, maybe I'll play around with mid- and post-war modernization schemes!

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 31st, 2014, 1:21 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania
Yeah, mind you, my Cape Class would be 20 years old by the time yours appear on the scene but I'm looking forwards to seeing it

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 31st, 2014, 2:48 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
The bridge and the armament (particularly the heavy torpedo armament) makes me wonder if there might be topweight issues.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charwhick
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 31st, 2014, 3:08 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 1:28 am
HMCS Superior, Canada DD / CL laid down 1937

Displacement:
2,860 t light; 2,959 t standard; 3,157 t normal; 3,315 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
418.04 ft / 410.00 ft x 35.00 ft x 14.00 ft (normal load)
127.42 m / 124.97 m x 10.67 m x 4.27 m

Armament:
8 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns (4x2 guns), 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1937 Model
Quick firing guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1937 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 431 lbs / 195 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2.50" / 64 mm 320.00 ft / 97.54 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 120 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.50" / 38 mm 270.00 ft / 82.30 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm - 2.00" / 51 mm

- Conning tower: 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 54,528 shp / 40,678 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 5,400nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 356 tons

Complement:
209 - 273

Cost:
£1.847 million / $7.390 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 54 tons, 1.7 %
Armour: 577 tons, 18.3 %
- Belts: 322 tons, 10.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 150 tons, 4.7 %
- Armament: 97 tons, 3.1 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 9 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 1,381 tons, 43.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 847 tons, 26.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 297 tons, 9.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,029 lbs / 467 Kg = 19.8 x 4.7 " / 119 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.12
Metacentric height 1.3 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 12.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 74 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.85
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.71 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.72 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 67 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -2.00 ft / -0.61 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forecastle (16 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Mid (50 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m (15.00 ft / 4.57 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (13 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Stern: 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Average freeboard: 19.45 ft / 5.93 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 360.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 144.6 %
Waterplane Area: 10,426 Square feet or 969 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 78 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 35 lbs/sq ft or 169 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.45
- Longitudinal: 2.18
- Overall: 0.53
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is extremely poor
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily


[deprecated] http://i.imgur.com/g9Utla4.png [/deprecated]

4.7" guns in fully enclosed turrets never actually was a thing in real life as far as I can tell, so these are custom turrets. Green is torpedo bulkhead, orange is belt. Underwater stern borrowed from Hood's excellent Daring class.

edit: playing around with it, I found everything fit better (and seakeeping was better!) if I stretched the ship some 30 feet

second edit: last update for the night, going to bed

[ img ]

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: March 31st, 2014, 10:21 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
I don't see the point of the all the armoure/TDS as I don't think it will not realy protect you
Quote:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 1,029 lbs / 467 Kg = 19.8 x 4.7 " / 119 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
so the ship will sink anyway even if the vitals survive ? and is your TDS going to be so wide (and still fail as it will not be battleship wide, did CL's have TDS ?) that it just forms a undamaged wing tank on the wrong side to capsize you ?

I have spring styled my design response with a few bits added,
1) Changed hull a bit (wider/lower BC)
2) 8 torps (will need all you can get to give a chance to hurt a big raider) + loads of ASW depth charge racks + Depth charge throwers with 30 reloads
3) added Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 6.8 %
- Hull below water: 50 tons Asdic / unit machinery ?
- On freeboard deck: 50 tons Boats then light AA later on
- Above deck: 100 tons rangerfinders + radar + more light AA
4) short 2in belt /box over mags only
5) a (tiny) bit cheaper/smaller

Design 1, CL- 3kt laid down 1937

Displacement:
2,640 t light; 2,751 t standard; 2,952 t normal; 3,113 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(418.04 ft / 410.00 ft) x 40.00 ft x (14.00 / 14.53 ft)
(127.42 m / 124.97 m) x 12.19 m x (4.27 / 4.43 m)

Armament:
8 - 4.70" / 119 mm 45.0 cal guns - 51.92lbs / 23.55kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1937 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 raised mounts
8 - 1.57" / 39.9 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1937 Model
2 x Quad mounts on sides amidships
2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 431 lbs / 195 kg
Main Torpedoes
8 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 21.00 ft / 6.40 m torpedoes - 1.430 t each, 11.440 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted centre rotating tubes
Main DC/AS Mortars
2 - 190.00 lbs / 86.18 kg Depth Charges + 60 reloads - 5.259 t total
in Stern depth charge racks
2nd DC/AS Mortars
4 - 190.00 lbs / 86.18 kg Depth Charges + 30 reloads - 2.884 t total
in Depth charge throwers

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 50.00 ft / 15.24 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 19 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 0.50" / 13 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - 0.50" / 13 mm

- Box over magazines:
2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 53,405 shp / 39,840 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 5,400nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 362 tons

Complement:
199 - 260

Cost:
£1.766 million / $7.062 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 135 tons, 4.6 %
- Guns: 101 tons, 3.4 %
- Weapons: 34 tons, 1.1 %
Armour: 121 tons, 4.1 %
- Belts: 65 tons, 2.2 %
- Armament: 22 tons, 0.8 %
- Armour Deck: 34 tons, 1.2 %
Machinery: 1,352 tons, 45.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 842 tons, 28.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 312 tons, 10.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 6.8 %
- Hull below water: 50 tons
- On freeboard deck: 50 tons
- Above deck: 100 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
950 lbs / 431 Kg = 18.3 x 4.7 " / 119 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 1.5 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 13.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.79
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.49

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.450 / 0.457
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.78 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -2.00 ft / -0.61 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 16.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Forward deck: 50.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Aft deck: 21.00 %, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Quarter deck: 13.00 %, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m, 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Average freeboard: 20.73 ft / 6.32 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 163.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 175.6 %
Waterplane Area: 10,704 Square feet or 994 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 80 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 37 lbs/sq ft or 180 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.43
- Longitudinal: 2.98
- Overall: 0.52
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

thanks JSB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charwhick
Post subject: Re: British Columbian "Naval" ShipsPosted: April 1st, 2014, 12:15 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 1:28 am
I agree the torpedo bulkhead is probably restricting internal space to no huge benefits; although it was more there for small caliber shells hitting below the waterline than for proper torpedo protection. I'll remove it. However, I disagree on a few points. The original intention of this ship was to counter the large destroyers being developed or built overseas. As such they would be better considered "destroyer killers" than anything else. Depth charge spam wouldn't be a high priority, but armour useful against destroyer-caliber weapons would be.

So I've made the following changes to the design: I've increased the armour from 2.5 to 3 inches on the belt, removed the torpedo bulkhead, increased beam by a foot, and added the 200 tons of misc things. Removing the bulkheads allowed weight to be used for more useful things; such as the 200 tons of boats / radars / etc, more armour, and a bigger vanity sink for the admiral. Ship was also stretched by 10 feet.

HMCS Superior, Canada DD / CL laid down 1937

Displacement:
3,084 t light; 3,189 t standard; 3,395 t normal; 3,560 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
418.04 ft / 410.00 ft x 36.00 ft x 14.00 ft (normal load)
127.42 m / 124.97 m x 10.97 m x 4.27 m

Armament:
8 - 4.70" / 119 mm guns (4x2 guns), 51.91lbs / 23.55kg shells, 1937 Model
Quick firing guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1937 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 431 lbs / 195 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 320.00 ft / 97.536 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 120 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm - 2.00" / 51 mm

- Conning tower: 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 58,071 shp / 43,321 Kw = 34.00 kts
Range 5,400nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 371 tons

Complement:
222 - 289

Cost:
£1.972 million / $7.888 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 54 tons, 1.6 %
Armour: 483 tons, 14.2 %
- Belts: 376 tons, 11.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 97 tons, 2.8 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 10 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 1,488 tons, 43.8 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 859 tons, 25.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 311 tons, 9.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 5.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
992 lbs / 450 Kg = 19.1 x 4.7 " / 119 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 13.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.85
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.25

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.575
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.39 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.71 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 68 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: -2.00 ft / -0.61 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Forecastle (16 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Mid (55 %): 23.00 ft / 7.01 m (15.00 ft / 4.57 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (13 %): 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Stern: 15.00 ft / 4.57 m
- Average freeboard: 19.85 ft / 6.05 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 160.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 148.7 %
Waterplane Area: 10,985 Square feet or 1,021 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 78 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 34 lbs/sq ft or 167 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.44
- Longitudinal: 2.46
- Overall: 0.52
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 4 of 5  [ 43 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]