Cofederate 3rd Class Cruiser 1908

[Carthaginian]

Cruisers are something I have trouble with- hence my posting a lot of designs looking for feedback. :-[ This is (I hope) the last time I will do this for some game years... I think I have it figured out with this one. They are fast, well protected, and (looking at historical examples) fairly well armed. I'm planning to replace a large number of my cruiser force with this design if they are acceptable- anywhere from 12-18 ships over 2 years.

Please critique the hell outta it... :)



Murfreesboro, Confederate States of America 3rd Class Cruiser laid down 1908 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   3,500 t light; 3,642 t standard; 3,976 t normal; 4,244 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   375.00 ft / 375.00 ft x 38.00 ft x 18.50 ft (normal load)
   114.30 m / 114.30 m x 11.58 m  x 5.64 m

Armament:
      3 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns in single mounts, 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 1908 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline ends, majority aft, 1 raised mount aft
      6 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns in single mounts, 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 1908 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
      1 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 25.00lbs / 11.34kg shells, 1908 Model
     Quick firing gun in deck mount
     on centreline amidships, 1 raised gun
      8 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1908 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 479 lbs / 217 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 200
   4 - 19.5" / 495.3 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   3.00" / 76 mm   375.00 ft / 114.30 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 154 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   1.00" / 25 mm         -         3.00" / 76 mm
   2nd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -         3.00" / 76 mm
   3rd:   0.50" / 13 mm         -               -
   4th:   0.50" / 13 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 3 shafts, 30,000 shp / 22,380 Kw = 27.09 kts
   Range 6,000nm at 10.25 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 602 tons

Complement:
   249 - 325

Cost:
   £0.360 million / $1.441 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 56 tons, 1.4 %
   Armour: 724 tons, 18.2 %
      - Belts: 500 tons, 12.6 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 28 tons, 0.7 %
      - Armour Deck: 180 tons, 4.5 %
      - Conning Tower: 16 tons, 0.4 %
   Machinery: 1,364 tons, 34.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,307 tons, 32.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 476 tons, 12.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 1.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     2,884 lbs / 1,308 Kg = 63.3 x 4.5 " / 114 mm shells or 0.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
   Metacentric height 1.5 ft / 0.5 m
   Roll period: 12.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.57
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.38

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.528
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9.87 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.36 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
   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:      24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   21.00 ft / 6.40 m
      - Mid (50 %):      18.00 ft / 5.49 m (12.00 ft / 3.66 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
      - Stern:      14.00 ft / 4.27 m
      - Average freeboard:   16.44 ft / 5.01 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 124.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 96.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 9,741 Square feet or 905 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 65 lbs/sq ft or 317 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.89
      - Longitudinal: 2.98
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

[Korpen]

Cruisers are something I have trouble with- hence my posting a lot of designs looking for feedback. :-[ This is (I hope) the last time I will do this for some game years... I think I have it figured out with this one. They are fast, well protected, and (looking at historical examples) fairly well armed. I'm planning to replace a large number of my cruiser force with this design if they are acceptable- anywhere from 12-18 ships over 2 years.

Overall, not bad at all. If I compare it with my own cruiser (Groningen) se is faster, much better protected and 300ton smaller. On the other hand, she carries 250ton less cargo and equipment, she have only a fraction of the firepower (broadside of six 114mm guns vs. eight 15cm guns) and have only half the range.

I think she is excellent against enemy TBs and frigates, but might struggle against enemy cruisers that carries more weight of shell. Al in all, not a bad compromise.

And cruisers is the type of ship I also really struggle with, and never is happy with, so I think my present one might be the last one I build for quite some time.

And LOTS of credit for the nice drawing! :)
Just add the top view and it will be perfect! ;)

EDIT: Oh, and should it not be "majority aft " rather then "3 114 mm guns in single mounts,on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount"?

[P3D]

Undergunned. If it has 3" belt, it is supposed to stand against 6"-equipped cruisers. But then the fifty-pounders are inadequate. If it is to fight against TBs, then 1-1.5" armored belt should be enough. The Austrian design has almost the same effectiveness against TBs on 2/3rd the tonnage:

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=100.0

[The Rock Doctor]

I like the pic.

I don't have an issue with the armament; I recall that many German cruisermen were happier with the 10.5 cm than with the later 15 cm due to ease of shell handling and rate of fire.  Considering that there's a lot of unprotected space above the belt on most cruisers, I think this will do okay.

I'm not sure I see the need for the one set of guns to be superfiring, unless you intend to have them shooting forward over the foremost beam mounts.

[Borys]

2x6 inch + 4/6x4,5" could be a nice contemporary armament.

The 105mm gunned German cruisers were massacred by the British with their 2x6"+4x4" guns armament.

The ship looks good for its environment.

Borys

[Desertfox]

Armament IMO is way too light. My planned cruisers have heavier armament, same speed, lighter armor, and much better range. I would put at least a couple of 6" guns in her. Armor is quite heavy for her but she looks good.

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1082.0

[Ithekro]

I'd give the Confederate vessel  better odds of winning an engagement due to the larger number of the same battery verses two 6" guns and some 4" guns.  While with one you have two chances to hit and straddle, with the other you have a better chance to do damage when you straddle.  Armor penetration  4.5" verses 6" is not all the much difference (depending on the era of the 6" gun).  The best 6" guns I've seen have "D" or even"C" penetration, most have "E".  The 4.5" will have "F" or maybe "E" penetration of the Jane's systems.  A 3" belt will probably give you "d" protection in that area.

[swamphen]

I like it. I agree with Rocky that the side "towered" 4.5" should probably be dropped to deck level, and the 4" anti-airship gun should probably be alone on its mount - but otherwise no complaints.

I'm fortunate in that I can use historical German cruisers (and the drawings from the german-navy.de site  :P ). Although I do fiddle with the armament a bit.  ;) The next class of German cruiser is going to have 3x150 and 6x105 (vs 2x150/8x105 for the current one), after that it will be all 150 for the KKs.* It does, however, have the historical very shallow belt of the Strassburg type...

* - Assuming, of course, that the colonial versions don't start mounting 170s on their ends.  :D



Ithekro - you wouldn't happen to have something that explains that Jane's war-game notation business, would you?

[P3D]

6" guns have ~3" penetration at 7ky, and 4" at 4-5ky.
4" have ~2" penetration at 5ky.

[Carthaginian]

Undergunned. If it has 3" belt, it is supposed to stand against 6"-equipped cruisers. But then the fifty-pounders are inadequate. If it is to fight against TBs, then 1-1.5" armored belt should be enough.

She isn't meant to slug it out against the 6" cruisers... just to live to fight another day. The armor is meant to make them live through the fights they are not supposed to get into in the first place. Also, similar 4.7" guns (closest I have to compare this to) with 50 pound shells had 2.5" penetration at 6500 yards... so I'm not too far off the 6" penetration.

Also, since she's oil-fired rather than coal/mixed firing, she can maintain a high speed for more than short periods of time. With 30 minutes notice, this ship could steam from one end of the Gulf to the other at 27 knots without slacking up. The coal/mixed ships that she would face couldn't manage that. By the end of an engagement, she'd be running rings around the competition, and her larger number of smaller mounts would mean a larger chance of an intact gun.

I like the pic.

I'm not sure I see the need for the one set of guns to be superfiring, unless you intend to have them shooting forward over the foremost beam mounts.

Thanks for the complements on the pic.
And the superfiring guns are intended to give the ship greater fore/aft firepower. Since she's going to be either running to catch something lighter or running away from something heavier, I figured that a setup like that made sense.

Armament IMO is way too light. My planned cruisers have heavier armament, same speed, lighter armor, and much better range. I would put at least a couple of 6" guns in her. Armor is quite heavy for her but she looks good.

Since I use oil-firing and not coal, I have to have an armored belt. I can't get away with just deck armor anymore. I also have 9 gun mounts to your 5 mounts. After taking a pounding from each other, all your guns will have been exposed to my fire; I, OTOH, will (theoretically) have at least 3 fresh gun crews and intact guns. That could make a difference in a long fight.

And LOTS of credit for the nice drawing! :)
Just add the top view and it will be perfect! ;)

EDIT: Oh, and should it not be "majority aft " rather then "3 114 mm guns in single mounts,on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount"?

LOL... not likely to get a top view anytime soon... I'm no good at those.
I'm just getting the hang of the beam views.

And I fixed the readout, the gun placement is correct now.

I like it. I agree with Rocky that the side "towered" 4.5" should probably be dropped to deck level, and the 4" anti-airship gun should probably be alone on its mount - but otherwise no complaints.

Well, I couldn't think where else to put the other 25mm's.
I figure that 25mm wouldn't be used against a zep, so only one type of AA gun would be fired at one time... leaving plenty of room.

[Korpen]

She isn't meant to slug it out against the 6" cruisers... just to live to fight another day. The armor is meant to make them live through the fights they are not supposed to get into in the first place. Also, similar 4.7" guns (closest I have to compare this to) with 50 pound shells had 2.5" penetration at 6500 yards... so I'm not too far off the 6" penetration.

But that penetration assumes a perpendicular impact, it will most likely be far less then that under combat conditions.

Also, since she's oil-fired rather than coal/mixed firing, she can maintain a high speed for more than short periods of time. With 30 minutes notice, this ship could steam from one end of the Gulf to the other at 27 knots without slacking up. The coal/mixed ships that she would face couldn't manage that. By the end of an engagement, she'd be running rings around the competition, and her larger number of smaller mounts would mean a larger chance of an intact gun.

But that is not true when it comes to more modern ships; you are after all not the only one building oil fired ships. Your ship can maintain full speed for something like 17h from full bunkers, and while good, her fairly short legs can hurt if she is forced to run at high speed for extended periods of time.

And the superfiring guns are intended to give the ship greater fore/aft firepower. Since she's going to be either running to catch something lighter or running away from something heavier, I figured that a setup like that made sense.

But a ships should be able to fight its equals...

Since I use oil-firing and not coal, I have to have an armored belt. I can't get away with just deck armor anymore. I also have 9 gun mounts to your 5 mounts. After taking a pounding from each other, all your guns will have been exposed to my fire; I, OTOH, will (theoretically) have at least 3 fresh gun crews and intact guns. That could make a difference in a long fight.

There a ships with just as many 15cm guns (ok, I tend to like and put lots of guns on my ships here) as you have 11,4cm guns, and I think that trend might very well spread.

[Carthaginian]

But that penetration assumes a perpendicular impact, it will most likely be far less then that under combat conditions.

Then the 6" gun's performance should be degraded along the same lines.

But that is not true when it comes to more modern ships; you are after all not the only one building oil fired ships. Your ship can maintain full speed for something like 17h from full bunkers, and while good, her fairly short legs can hurt if she is forced to run at high speed for extended periods of time.

I know that I'm not the only one building them, but I know that they are still not plentiful. In North America, I probably have the most developed oil industry. The majority of cruisers at sea in my area of operations, now and for at least the next 5-8 years, will be coal fired. It's not a great advantage, but it is one that will make a difference for a few years to come.

But a ships should be able to fight its equals...

'Fighting' is a very subjective term.
My ship can 'fight' using hit and run techniques against other ships that outgun it, and will eventually begin to outrun coal-fired ships that are 'faster' on paper as their stokers tire out. Also, having 6 guns that can fire aft will give her an advantage in a tail chase... most cruisers now can only fire 1 or 2 guns over their bows. She's made with this fact in mind.

There a ships with just as many 15cm guns (ok, I tend to like and put lots of guns on my ships here) as you have 11,4cm guns, and i think that treand migh very well spread.

It doubtless will... that's the way designs develop.
I just can't afford to build a ship with that many guns of that caliber (either monetarily or dock space wise) and thus I designed the best ship I could under the circumstances.

[Korpen]

Then the 6" gun's performance should be degraded along the same lines.

True, to some degree, but from a much higher level. Also most penetration numbers for 15cm quoted here take angle of fall into effect.

I know that I'm not the only one building them, but I know that they are still not plentiful. In North America, I probably have the most developed oil industry. The majority of cruisers at sea in my area of operations, now and for at least the next 5-8 years, will be coal fired. It's not a great advantage, but it is one that will make a difference for a few years to come.

That is true I guess.

It doubtless will... that's the way designs develop.
I just can't afford to build a ship with that many guns of that caliber (either monetarily or dock space wise) and thus I designed the best ship I could under the circumstances.

Hu?  My ships do not use a larger slip or dock then the cruiser you got here.

[Ithekro]

Well this is s a third class cruiser not a second class cruiser.  Most third class cruisers don't have 6" guns but 4 or 5" guns, or only a few 6" guns.  This is a light cruiser at best.  A good sized one, but still light in the old 4.1" gun armed German cruiser type light cruiser era.

[P3D]

You could get 5x6" guns on a slightly larger displacement. Or cut belt armor to 2".