Maori New Cruisers (1911-1912)

[Valles]

CE 1912, Maori Escort Cruiser laid down 1912

Displacement:
   4,990 t light; 5,184 t standard; 5,851 t normal; 6,384 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   393.71 ft / 387.14 ft x 45.93 ft x 19.69 ft (normal load)
   120.00 m / 118.00 m x 14.00 m  x 6.00 m

Armament:
      5 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns in single mounts, 102.98lbs / 46.71kg shells, 1912 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline ends, majority aft, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      24 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1912 Model
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 824 lbs / 374 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   7.87" / 200 mm   232.28 ft / 70.80 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
   Ends:   3.94" / 100 mm   154.82 ft / 47.19 m   9.84 ft / 3.00 m
   Upper:   1.97" / 50 mm   265.75 ft / 81.00 m   13.12 ft / 4.00 m
     Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   2.36" / 60 mm   1.57" / 40 mm      1.57" / 40 mm
   2nd:   2.36" / 60 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.36" / 60 mm, Conning tower: 7.87" / 200 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 2 shafts, 16,876 shp / 12,589 Kw = 22.00 kts
   Range 12,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,199 tons

Complement:
   333 - 434

Cost:
   £0.355 million / $1.421 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 103 tons, 1.8 %
   Armour: 2,033 tons, 34.8 %
      - Belts: 1,286 tons, 22.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 132 tons, 2.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 560 tons, 9.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 55 tons, 0.9 %
   Machinery: 673 tons, 11.5 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,056 tons, 35.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 861 tons, 14.7 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 125 tons, 2.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     12,628 lbs / 5,728 Kg = 122.6 x 5.9 " / 150 mm shells or 2.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
   Metacentric height 1.9 ft / 0.6 m
   Roll period: 14.0 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 76 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.51
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.585
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.43 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.68 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 38
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 2.53 ft / 0.77 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      22.97 ft / 7.00 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Mid (50 %):      19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Quarterdeck (20 %):   19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Stern:      19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Average freeboard:   19.95 ft / 6.08 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 54.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 144.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 12,824 Square feet or 1,191 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 135 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 82 lbs/sq ft or 399 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 3.65
      - Overall: 1.13
   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
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Fire Control (cruiser): 100 tons
Wireless (long-range): 25 tons

ETA: Removed heavier design to increase clarity; stay tuned later in thread.

[miketr]

Too slow, at 22 knots a number of AC / BC type warships out there could run this ship down and cut it to bits.  I would suggest at least 25.5 knots if not 26 to 28 knots if you can get it.  For example all of my AC's are faster than this thing and well enough armored so that while you might turn their upper works in shambles with that heavy volumn of fire you couldn't hurt them in turn and they could use their 200mm and 250mm weapons to smash your ship to bits. 

Also I wonder at the heavy number of 75's if the foot print would support that many.  Perhaps more 150's?  I think its over armored too with that 200mm belt, 125mm or 5" should meet your needs I expect.  Very long range for such a small ship.

Here is my latest Cruiser design in this size range.
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=1039.msg12569#msg12569


Michael

[P3D]

The heavier design was a second-class battleship not cruiser.

[Valles]

Miketr, I think you're making a mistake in looking at them in terms of a 'class by class' comparison between navies, with ships also called 'cruisers', rather than in terms of what they're meant to do for their builders.

That goal, in brief, is to slaughter small fry that might otherwise threaten/distract ships of the line. Armored cruisers are not small fry. Independent operations are a fool's game not part of the Maori strategic playbook, and the type designation is very literal.

Besides, their guns are big enough to hurt 90% of the DKB's cruiser inventory.

In the end, though, I think that it comes down to the fact that, as fleet units, components of a whole, their purpose ties them to their battle-line and forces them to risk heavy gunfire. That being the case, the ability to run in other circumstances is a luxury.

A low-priority one.

For the room... partially complete image based off of my earlier Orca class ships.

[miketr]

For the role you describe they are still over armored, if the most you are worried about is in the 150mm, more likely 75mm to 105mm range, my suggestion of a 3 to 6" armor belt stands.

As long as they are within range of your battle lines guns then the lack of hard firepower and speed isn't too much of an issue.

As to the drawing still looks cramped, I wouldn't want to be on that ship if it started to burn... secondary explosions.

Question what type of fleet scout class will you have?

Michael

[Blooded]

Hello,

The # of secondaries is a bit over the top as can be seen in both drawings. The ships are only 400' long. The accomedations certainly would not warrant 'excellent'. Seems to be some problems with SS gun fitting, as noted in this and other posts.

Also SS comes up with crew size based on ship size, it is not armament related as far as I can tell. In looking at the MG DD you did, all the guns could not even be manned let alone space dug up for them to be properly sited. Unless every Maori is Rambo  ;D

There are good reasons that RL ships have the armament they do. SS is not infallible- hell its not even close honestly, I humbly suggest you design a bit more modestly. I know this isn't RL, but with these designs it appears your not being honest with yourself or maybe you haven't got a handle on SS limits yet. Please take what others say as contructive criticism. There is a lot to be learned here.

I am still learning how to design these things properly myself. Rebuilds have plagued me greatly. Sometimes you should just stand back and ask yourself "Is that truly plausible?"

Just my 2 cents.

[Valles]

Up until now, the Maori have operated their fleet as a response force, with enemy sighting happening via lighthouses, shore stations, and long-range airship patrols. Though the current airship design is comparable to vessels of equal advancement in other nations, the new type under development is intended to favor increased hull strength over increased speed - that is, they'll be slower, but better able to stay aloft in rough conditions and less prone to damage from being stressed, as well as having the payload capacity to carry a small wireless installation.

If that turns out not to be feasible in all weathers with current technology, they'll likely turn to a sort of destroyer-sized thing, capable of 27-28 knots for long periods with top-end seakeeping, but lacking real armament and having a very minimal crew - a literally expendable craft.

The rule of thumb I've been using for 'modern' Maori ships is that they're supposed to be relatively immune to their own guns - in practice, that means 50mm more than the gun bore.

There aren't any 'all machine gun' designs on the books - I take it that that was a reference to the 1911 design, whose eight Gatling guns are described for SS purposes at 8x3 deck mounts. One gun, three barrels, one gunner, one loader.

In terms of space I don't find the casement arrays questionable because they're more spaced and need far fewer crew than a muzzle-loading gun of similar weight, which were crammed quite effectively onto ships considerably smaller in, at this point, the not-too-distant past, especially for the Maori, who've been playing a bit of catch up since they were dispossessed by the DKB.

[The Rock Doctor]

If you intend to have your gun crews living in the same conditions as the old sailing warships, I guess that's not impossible - but I think crew performance would suffer as a result after more than a few days at sea.

So I'll agree with Mike and Blooded:  too many guns.

I do look forward to seeing what this fast scout might look like...

[Valles]

Would've been nice if people could have said something when I was proposing the Makos and Orcas, then...

Anyway. A short deployment range and endurance would be part and parcel with the Maori fleet's existing doctrine...

...which is, I admit, changing. The point about ammunition storage is also a telling one... and fits in to give me an excuse to do something about it.

[The Rock Doctor]

This is what I said about the Mako class in the Maori Fleet thread:

I know Springsharp may think you can get 42 medium caliber guns aboard a 6,000 t ship, but I doubt any historical ship of like size comes anywhere close to that...

Given that nobody else spoke to the issue, I didn't belabor the point at the time. 

Edit:  And yes, there are fewer guns on this design...but I still think it's overgunned.

[Blooded]

Hello,

I am pleased to see new players, I had noticed that when you arrived you did not give any background when asked and jumped right in. You seem to have a very good grip on the game mechanics overall and design with SS well especially considering the amount of time you have been here. You are certainly ahead of me in many respects  ;)  . The only flaw I see is that you have very strong opinions(which is fine  ;) ) but do not take others opinions or constructive criticisms well  ??? . You may have noticed that your threads generate huge responses, to me this shows a certain amount of controversy in your designs. My initial thoughts were and to a point still are "Uh oh, DesertFox is back"  ;D .

Not everyone has the time to pick apart every ship design that comes out. When you first arrived I wasn't able to do anything but glance about on occasion. You were also posting several ships per day, and comments WERE made about numbers of secondaries. With so many postings things invariably become lost in the pile  :( .

For what it is worth I like your designs, they are unique and add much flavor  :) . I just feel they are a bit overarmed.

As to the 1911 DD with 24 MGs(8x3), its design had suggested triple mg mounts, if you want gatlings just put 8 MGs(still far more than necessary IMO) and in the notes describe them. Maybe also post a gun section with some extra details(reminds me that I still need to post mine  ::) ). i think the gatling is a great idea for uniqueness  :) . I doubt that they could ever be lighter than 2 maxim guns but you would save weight on the mount. The lower(per barrel) weight of fire would certainly help them stay cool. With a massive water jacket they would rarely overheat. A lot of thought should go into how they could operate(mag vs. belt) and I would recommend more than 2 crewman per gun(especially if mag fed). To add realism give your weapons some flaws occasionally(ie hotchkiss). Much like Desertfox did, you shouldn't just cherrypick the best of the best.

Your tactical deployment ideas seem very good to me. A great defensive doctrine for a recluse nation.

Comparing modern guns to muzzle loaders is very 'apples to oranges'. Rate of fire, gun weights, mounts, projectiles and such are all completely different. If you use a gun deck gallery you could expect one single round to effectively take out all the guns in that section   :o  .

Numbers of crew would still effect your serviceability. Your ROF and such will decline greatly unless you add more crew in the way of misc weight(troop transport seems to start around 1 or 2 tons per man- see liners and think of the space considerations). So if you want 2x the guns(as compared to a similar RL ship) I would suggest at least 50% more total crew(guestimate- I have no idea what percentage of gun crew to others would be). Unless you want all the gunmen to run to the other side of the ship if your fleet turns   ;D .

As to the DKB dispossesion (I must have missed that bit of history). Starting out an 'unknown' nation with a nemesis has many drawbacks, but that is up to you.

The Maori was a temptation I declined and I am glad you seem to be having a great time with it. Starting with a clean slate is alot of work but it must be a treat!  ;D

Wow, way too many smileys- oh well, my bad.

[Valles]

Given that nobody else spoke to the issue, I didn't belabor the point at the time. 

The Makos 'as built' have 36 guns, 32 75mm and 4 150mm. I took your point as referring to the amount of deck space required by the original number of larger guns and scaled them down accordingly.

Evidently I didn't think deeply enough. ^_^;;

I am pleased to see new players, I had noticed that when you arrived you did not give any background when asked and jumped right in.

...I was asked for background? What, when? I missed that... o.o;

The only flaw I see is that you have very strong opinions (which is fine) but do not take others opinions or constructive criticisms well.

I find this rather dismaying because, at least in my own mind, I make the effort to try and listen to and at least consider viewpoints that don't agree with my own, and to respond politely regardless of whether I find myself in agreement. I'll admit that I don't react particularly well to being given peremptory orders or advice that's phrased like them, especially when the person giving them isn't a mod with the authority to do so, but I think that that's a different (though, admittedly, related) issue.

Numbers of crew would still effect your serviceability. Your ROF and such will decline greatly unless you add more crew in the way of misc weight(troop transport seems to start around 1 or 2 tons per man- see liners and think of the space considerations). So if you want 2x the guns(as compared to a similar RL ship) I would suggest at least 50% more total crew(guestimate- I have no idea what percentage of gun crew to others would be).

My understanding - which I'll admit is more intuitive than learned - is that much, even most, of a warship's crew is more concerned with damage control than manning the actual weapons or engine spaces. From the perspective of a fleet concerned with swatting enemies who come too close rather than projecting power, emphasizing the strike rather than recovery makes sense, I think. Much of the defensive emphasis I've tried to put in their designs might make sense in that context as a way of compensating for that known weakness.

It only now occurs to me that I never thought to consider whether or SS assumes water or air cooled weapons when it thinks about 'machine guns'. I'd assumed air-cooled, and thus that three such would be a very close match for an air-cooled three-barreled gatling... but that may have been naive.

[Desertfox]

My initial thoughts were and to a point still are "Uh oh, DesertFox is back"

Considering that I once wanted to develop a 3", 6 barrel, gatling gun, and my ships where pretty unbalanced (in a diferent way),  that thought is very accurate! ;D

All Valles has to do now is start a war, and he seems to be hard at work on that too!  

[Valles]

All Valles has to do now is start a war, and he seems to be hard at work on that too! 

Not until I'm sure I'll win. ^_^

[Blooded]

Hello,

Good point on the attack vs. defense. Strike first, strike hard definately has a good points for it. Hopefully someone with better info on crew composition could enlighten us further. If a majority are used waiting to fix damage, that would free up alot of potential gunners(if they are trained as such- loaders and ammo runners if not). The downside would be bad if you do get hit, but if the opponent is down before he can respond, it would certainly validate your point.

Air cooled vs water cooled makes no difference to SS, I think it is only based on calibre and time period. As to the weight factor, 50 or 100 lbs probably wont make a difference to SS(in SS3 you do get to have individual ammo loadouts for each set of weapons-very nice).

In RL any gatling will weigh more just because you have to have multiple barrels(though they can be a little thinner) and then a larger frame to fit it all on. Plus some sort of revolving system. All that adds up, that is why they fell out of favour. On a ship(or in forts, tanks or trucks) where man portability is more of a non issue, the weight can certainly be discounted locally. The only thing to overcome is the rotating system(and gravity feed), in RL it didn't really become viable until electric motors, gears and such brought them back. Its a fun idea stick with it.

As to the background its a non issue. Borys had just asked that you tell a bit about yourself while waiting. Enthusiasim is good, hopefully contagious.

As to opinions, I was trying to bring out what seemed to be a general trend. I could easily be wrong (sticking my foot in my mouth seems to be a fav pasttime of mine  ;D ).

More than 20 secondaries on a heavy vessel is what makes me wonder. Why did they not do it in RL there must be a reason? I don't know if they even had MGs on a BB, but I'm putting 2 to 4 on each of mine(in the notes if I run out of slots).

BTW, anyone know how many Marines would be on board as crew in this time period( I am sure it varies quite a bit)?