Iberian Small Cruiser Idea's for 1909

[maddox]

Way better than what I can do.

[miketr]

Based upon the reports Iberia has gotten and doing repair work for the Pacific War some changes have been ordered to the 1909 Small Cruiser.  The threat of Torpedo Boats has required some reconsideration of the design.

OOC: I put some ammo on it as the previous design had none... Opps  Also I think the forward 150mm to match the drawing should count as a raised mount.  Ditto for the QF weapons.

IC: 

Number of QF weapons increased from 4 to 8
QF weapons changed from 50mm to 75mm
Armor belt increased from 105mm from 120mm
Torpedo's increased from 18" to 20" (new tech will be online by then)

To cover the above changes the following other changes occured
Lost 1,100 nm of range so is now 5,900 nm
Switched to all oil-fired boilers

To improve protection of vitals belt height increased from 2.57m to 3m


Link without the squeeze...
http://mysite.verizon.net/mtrohde/Iberia/Navy/PC-1909-150mm-5K-III.GIF

PC-1909, Iberia Protected Cruiser laid down 1909

Displacement:
   5,070 t light; 5,272 t standard; 5,676 t normal; 5,998 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   492.13 ft / 492.13 ft x 49.21 ft x 16.40 ft (normal load)
   150.00 m / 150.00 m x 15.00 m  x 5.00 m

Armament:
      2 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1909 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 1 raised mount
      6 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1909 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships
      8 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1909 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 927 lbs / 420 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   4 - 20.0" / 508 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   4.72" / 120 mm   352.69 ft / 107.50 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 110 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   1.97" / 50 mm         -               -
   2nd:   1.97" / 50 mm         -               -
   3rd:   0.98" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 1.57" / 40 mm, Conning tower: 3.94" / 100 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 3 shafts, 36,000 shp / 26,856 Kw = 27.72 kts
   Range 5,900nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 726 tons

Complement:
   326 - 425

Cost:
   £0.504 million / $2.015 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 116 tons, 2.0 %
   Armour: 1,236 tons, 21.8 %
      - Belts: 673 tons, 11.9 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 66 tons, 1.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 470 tons, 8.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 27 tons, 0.5 %
   Machinery: 1,636 tons, 28.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,053 tons, 36.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 606 tons, 10.7 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 29 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     5,737 lbs / 2,602 Kg = 55.7 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 1.0 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.23
   Metacentric height 2.5 ft / 0.8 m
   Roll period: 13.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.38
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.22

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.500
   Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22.18 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      23.59 ft / 7.19 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   14.99 ft / 4.57 m
      - Mid (50 %):      14.99 ft / 4.57 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   14.99 ft / 4.57 m
      - Stern:      14.99 ft / 4.57 m
      - Average freeboard:   15.68 ft / 4.78 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 110.3 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 126.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 16,136 Square feet or 1,499 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 80 lbs/sq ft or 391 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.98
      - Longitudinal: 1.22
      - 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
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Carthaginian]

I'd say take 20mm of the belt and throw the weight savings into range.
Other than that... she hits hard, runs pretty fast and looks nice.
I like her.

[Borys]

Quite nice. IMO no need for including raised mount, seeing that she is a flush decker.
Unless you demand her to be able to fire over the bow in lousy weather and at high speed.
Borys

[miketr]

I just checked and the forward raised cost me 100 nm range, I think to match the drawing it needs to be raised so I will keep it.

If I reduce the armor to 105mm it would get me range 7,300 nm and 100mm would be 7,700.  I have a far flung empire so the range would be nice but I am worried about the general increase in gun size for light ships.  Basicly I want to be able to ignore 5" (for the engine's at least) and lower gun fire.

Michael

[Borys]

Ahoj!
3 inches belt is enough to stop 5 inch shells (with 1940 shells) at 5200 yards.
Borys

[Carthaginian]

Basicly I want to be able to ignore 5" (for the engine's at least) and lower gun fire.

Give her a 'main belt' of 120mm that stretches over the engine spaces, and 'armored ends' of 100mm that cover the rest of the waterline.  Would that get the results that you are looking for?

[miketr]

Sorta but the problem is that trashes the sea keeping, not exactly but it pushes it below 1.2 and I am trying to avoid a total redesign.  So I am limited to a main belt if I want to keep the stability and seakeeping on the base design.  I would like to have the entire waterline armored to avoid speed loss due to flooding but thats not in the cards.  I will settle for a usefull belt to protect the mags and engines.

Basicly I want to make sure no GTB/DD can disable the ship with <=5" gun fire.  If 100mm will do it I might go that route.  Maybe put even more guns on.... ;)  Something to think about.  Other ideas are welcome...

Michael

[Tanthalas]

Rofl same place i get my pics lol, wasnt going to put it out there though now i got to make sure i dont use the same ones someone else is using =P, oh wait i cut them to hell and back anyway so dosnt realy matter

[miketr]

I can't remember which HSF small cruiser I used for that pic from www.german-navy.de but yah I took one of them and used it as a base...  It was a 3 stacker and made some changes.  Same for my 750t TB pic, I think I used a GTB-1911 design for the base.

[Korpen]

I just checked and the forward raised cost me 100 nm range, I think to match the drawing it needs to be raised so I will keep it.

If I reduce the armor to 105mm it would get me range 7,300 nm and 100mm would be 7,700.  I have a far flung empire so the range would be nice but I am worried about the general increase in gun size for light ships.  Basicly I want to be able to ignore 5" (for the engine's at least) and lower gun fire.

Michael

You know, I think I should take the honour for that one .;)

But when it come to armour, all is about what kind of ranges we are talking about, pretty much everything over 8cm is adequate against 12cm+ guns, as those hardly ever are true AP rounds, and if they are, their payload is almost non-existent.
12cm of armour should be able to stop a 15cm AP shell at least 450hm, so it is more then adequate to protect the ship.
So if you are worried about small ships, I would recommend more guns on the cruiser, it can never hurt a ships to have plenty of  firepower. :)

If you chose to increase the range, keep an eye on the difference between the normal and full loading, as you do not want to risk having the belts almost submerged when at full load.

[The Rock Doctor]

Remind me where your oil source is, Mike?  I understand all oil-firing provides a better design, but I'm thinking mix bunkerage provides more operational flexibility.  Especially if you're not actually producing any oil domestically.

[Ithekro]

Most warships of this time period (and in fact most time periods) can't fire out to 450hm.  (That is about 27 miles I think)  It his time period firing out to 24,000 yards would be considered amazing (something around 230hm) with combat ranges extending out to maybe 140hm even with fire control.  The night action that started at 8,000 yards would be about 75hm during a full moon.

So while combat at 9 miles out in daylight is possible, hitting during these days of little to no real fire control, or rather primative fire control makes things rather difficult.  I imagine within the decade out fleets might be able to engage out to 14 miles or even farther away with spotting aircraft, but right now we are limited to the horizon at best.  This is one reason the Mark has started using the tall cagemasts on their battleships, to get a higher perspective over the water and extend the horizon out just a little bit more.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Iberia has to import oil or coal - no difference. There was a mine ot two in the Asturias, or in N-verse Philippines coal (not so well surveyed even today) could be exploited. Some good bituminous (sp?) fields are availabe. As to the source of oil - see Paging Persia thread.
I agree on flexibility. I will use oil for vessels operating in the Med - those ranging futrther afield will be mixed or coal only.
Borys

[miketr]

From what I have read on the Asturias it meet most of Spains energy needs but the fields are played out by the the real life here and now.  Also Brazil has coal, not sure if thats the part I own, its southern provinces and Portugal isn't much.

As to my source of oil...  See the paging Persia thread... I have none so thats why I am looking for a source.

Michael