Maori DE-1913

[Valles]

A significant change from the previous class(es) in... well, most respects. The guns are imported, Confederate 4.75"s relined for a metric nation. Drawing as soon as I get around to uploading it now.



Dawn Under Heaven, Maori Destroyer laid down 1912

Displacement:
   1,000 t light; 1,038 t standard; 1,230 t normal; 1,384 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   300.28 ft / 295.28 ft x 29.53 ft x 9.84 ft (normal load)
   91.52 m / 90.00 m x 9.00 m  x 3.00 m

Armament:
      3 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1912 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline, evenly spread
     Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
   Weight of broadside 158 lbs / 72 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   6 - 17.7" / 450 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.98" / 25 mm   0.12" / 3 mm      0.12" / 3 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 2 shafts, 18,345 shp / 13,685 Kw = 28.00 kts
   Range 4,000nm at 14.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 346 tons

Complement:
   103 - 135

Cost:
   £0.133 million / $0.531 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 20 tons, 1.6 %
   Armour: 4 tons, 0.4 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 4 tons, 0.4 %
      - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 580 tons, 47.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 347 tons, 28.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 230 tons, 18.7 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 4.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     401 lbs / 182 Kg = 7.6 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.26
   Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
   Roll period: 11.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 79 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.48
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.29

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.502
   Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 17.18 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   14.76 ft / 4.50 m
      - Mid (50 %):      13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Stern:      13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Average freeboard:   14.09 ft / 4.30 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 168.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 96.3 %
   Waterplane Area: 5,819 Square feet or 541 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 73 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 29 lbs/sq ft or 140 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 2.32
      - Overall: 0.58
   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

6 tons torpedoes
10 tons short-range wireless
9 tons miscellaneous weight
25 tons destroyer fire control

[Korpen]

Dawn Under Heaven, Maori Destroyer laid down 1912

I think her BC is very much on the high side for such as small ship, lowering that could save quite a bit of weight.
Cannot shake the feeling that the ship could be a bit more optimised, comparing it with my own 1912 design she got two guns less, almost two knots less and shorter range, and this is return for just ten tons of misc weigh and two torpedoes.
Always good to see a drawing of how things fit together :)

[Valles]

Destroyers aren't meant to do most of their killing with their guns anyway, otherwise the Maori would've stuck with their native 150s for all the problems of mounting them...

*shrug* Springsharp is determined to punish me for wanting a flush deck? Every 'slightly improved' version I came up with ended up ten to twenty tons over the weight limit. Also, note the cruising speed - at 12 knots she's good for... *checks* ...5,800nm. As it is, she's a good shooting platform and a decent seaboat and a knot faster than the last class.

And next tech level I'll take another crack at giving them armor, and won't that be fun? ^_^

[Korpen]

Destroyers aren't meant to do most of their killing with their guns anyway, otherwise the Maori would've stuck with their native 150s for all the problems of mounting them...

Difference in doctrine then. As I (and the Netherlands) see it, guns are the primary weapon of a destroyer, and it primary purpose is to destroy the enemy equals, and cripple enemy cruisers.

*shrug* Springsharp is determined to punish me for wanting a flush deck? Every 'slightly improved' version I came up with ended up ten to twenty tons over the weight limit.

Springsharp does not punish you for going flush deck. It punish you for going for a very fat hull for a destroyer, increas her length 9m and I suspect you would get a more capable ship.

Also, note the cruising speed - at 12 knots she's good for... *checks* ...5,800nm. As it is, she's a good shooting platform and a decent seaboat and a knot faster than the last class.

Did note the cruising speed, but as I knew the boat I compared her to (H-class) had a range of almost 42k nm at 15kts, I could see that she was shorter legged. :)
The H-class got a seakeeping of 1,26 at 28kts for the record ;)

And next tech level I'll take another crack at giving them armor, and won't that be fun? ^_^

Depends...

But i think my verdict on this class is either "decent" or "useless" (harsh i know) depending on what function doctrine gives her. As a battleline escort, picket ship and screening ship for capital ships she is decent (more guns would be nice for that role however), but I think she lacks the speed for effective use in offensive torpedo attacks, 30kts is minimum for that IMO.
Also not that high speed has another advantage, higher acceleration, a 30kts DD is likely to go from cursing speed (say 10kts) to 20kts in about 2/3rd the time of a 28kt ship.

But i agree that she is a big step forward in Maori DD design.

[Valles]

Difference in doctrine then. As I (and the Netherlands) see it, guns are the primary weapon of a destroyer, and it primary purpose is to destroy the enemy equals, and cripple enemy cruisers.

Fighting like with like can work, but I don't think it's a very effective use of resources. Better to match the enemies weaknesses to your own strengths...

Springsharp does not punish you for going flush deck. It punish you for going for a very fat hull for a destroyer, increas her length 9m and I suspect you would get a more capable ship.

Thing is, that was one of the things I tried. The first time it didn't work, but the second it did. Very strange...

But i think my verdict on this class is either "decent" or "useless" (harsh i know) depending on what function doctrine gives her. As a battleline escort, picket ship and screening ship for capital ships she is decent (more guns would be nice for that role however), but I think she lacks the speed for effective use in offensive torpedo attacks, 30kts is minimum for that IMO.

A typical battleship has a top speed of between 22 and 24 knots, right? 28 is enough to hunt that. Any capital vessel too quick to catch up to at this point in history is going to be in the 'glass-jawed boondoggle' category, and easy meat for real warships.

Besides, if I seriously wanted to build a small, fast ship, I'd pin down the weight and hp numbers for my aero-steam plants and start installing them in destroyers. The mods'd crucify me.


ETA: Whoops! Here's that new version I mentioned.

Dawn Under Heaven, Maori Destroyer laid down 1912

Displacement:
   1,000 t light; 1,038 t standard; 1,227 t normal; 1,379 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   333.09 ft / 328.08 ft x 29.53 ft x 9.84 ft (normal load)
   101.52 m / 100.00 m x 9.00 m  x 3.00 m

Armament:
      3 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52.72lbs / 23.91kg shells, 1912 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline, evenly spread
     Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
   Weight of broadside 158 lbs / 72 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   6 - 17.7" / 450 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.98" / 25 mm   0.12" / 3 mm      0.12" / 3 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 2 shafts, 16,565 shp / 12,357 Kw = 28.00 kts
   Range 4,000nm at 14.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 341 tons

Complement:
   103 - 134

Cost:
   £0.130 million / $0.519 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 20 tons, 1.6 %
   Armour: 4 tons, 0.4 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 4 tons, 0.4 %
      - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 558 tons, 45.5 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 367 tons, 29.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 227 tons, 18.5 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 50 tons, 4.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     427 lbs / 194 Kg = 8.1 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.24
   Metacentric height 1.2 ft / 0.4 m
   Roll period: 11.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.59
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.63

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.451
   Length to Beam Ratio: 11.11 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 18.11 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   14.76 ft / 4.50 m
      - Mid (50 %):      13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Stern:      13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Average freeboard:   14.09 ft / 4.30 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 163.8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 107.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 6,182 Square feet or 574 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 80 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 28 lbs/sq ft or 137 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 2.00
      - Overall: 0.57
   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
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

6 tons torpedoes
10 tons short-range wireless
9 tons miscellaneous weight
25 tons destroyer fire control

[Korpen]

Fighting like with like can work, but I don't think it's a very effective use of resources. Better to match the enemies weaknesses to your own strengths...

Really comes down to what one sees as ones strengths. Like matching ones strong destroyers against an enemy's weaker destroyers and cruisers. I think it is an effective use of recourses, at least compared to wasting on building cruisers for screening.

A typical battleship has a top speed of between 22 and 24 knots, right? 28 is enough to hunt that. Any capital vessel too quick to catch up to at this point in history is going to be in the 'glass-jawed boondoggle' category, and easy meat for real warships.

Would say that a DD cannot ever "hunt" a capital ship, "harass" seems to be a better word. ;)
But to rapidly close to an attack position, and survive, a ship needs all the speed one can get, as to do an successful attack the realistic range is at most 3km, much less if the ship in manoeuvring to avoid the attack.

Considering that the DKB seems to like to use capital ships single or in pairs, it seems likely that they will be able of independent manoeuvre in response to an torpedo attack.

[Valles]

Really comes down to what one sees as ones strengths. Like matching ones strong destroyers against an enemy's weaker destroyers and cruisers. I think it is an effective use of recourses, at least compared to wasting on building cruisers for screening.

Destroyers are innately fragile; "using" one is a weasel-word for "expending" it. Cruisers, on the other hand, can be built to swat them in droves and still preserve the resources spent on them for reuse later. Their relatively overpowering mass and firepower allows them to swat destroyers with relative ease, while their armor renders them immune to light guns and their hulls are small and agile enough to be poor torpedo targets.

Would say that a DD cannot ever "hunt" a capital ship, "harass" seems to be a better word.

Then what are we developing torpedoes for? ^_^

But to rapidly close to an attack position, and survive, a ship needs all the speed one can get, as to do an successful attack the realistic range is at most 3km, much less if the ship in manoeuvring to avoid the attack.

A boat without armor isn't a ship, it's a weapon. Expendable by definition. That being given, the question becomes cost effectiveness and circumstances of application. High speed costs, in design compromises and in either engine mass or purchase price. 28 knots isn't great, I admit freely. But it's stormproof and not too expensive to be spent, so it should be good enough.

Considering that the DKB seems to like to use capital ships single or in pairs, it seems likely that they will be able of independent manoeuvre in response to an torpedo attack.

I'm not sure how likely that is to matter. Even if the DKB favors dispersed operations, I don't. A single battleship coping with an entire opposing battleline and its own weight in destroyers is in for a bad day no matter what its tactical options, and in a fleet action they'll be more constrained.

[Ithekro]

The likelihood of the DKB operating two "raiding" capital ships against your Battleline is remote, as is the likelihood of your Battleline plus destroyers finding two such targets, so the combat doctrine is not really viable.

You won't risk your entire Fleet to catch two "raiders" (since this won't be 'Sink the Bismark' time) and thus leave the continent vulnerable to the "rest" of the Brandenburg Fleet.  Also Brandenburg would not challenge your Fleet with only two capital ships if they are aware of your "group" defense tactics.  Thus they will be able to conduct raids on shipping without worry of your Battleline and your Battleline will not be sent out in one wave to leave Maoria "defenseless" when the rest of the Brandeburg Navy arrives.

Since the likely DKB raiders will be the Battlecrusiers, you'll have to deal with their speed edge over the rest of the battleships, and their rather heavy amount of anti-torpedo boat/destroyer gun batteries.  This combination kept the Swiss (and Middle Kingdom) torpedo boats from closing on just a single Battlecruiser in 1907.

[Valles]

We are in complete agreement about the DKB's likely intended tactics; that was sort of my point.

The presumption that 'raiding' will even be possible in a militarily-useful way strikes me as questionable, however. The same principles that prohibit the scattering of military assets apply to that which they guard - In wartime, unconvoyed trade is a blithering idiocy the Maori are not inclined to commit. That the DKB twins dictate relatively large convoys to allow the efficient use of their protectors is a tactical factor, but ultimately irrelevant to logistics or strategy.

As for the application of the battle line, let's look at it this way...

Option 1.) Both fleets stay home. There's some fencing, landing forces get chopped up whenever they come into reach, and the entire mess ends up pissing away lives and treasure without producing any kind of decision.

Option 2.) One fleet goes to the other's homeland and there's a decisive battle leaving one side crippled or destroyed. With mastery of the sea, the victor can then apply their full strength to an invasion, likely ultimately leading to an unconditional surrender. Outcome depends on which fleet wins, but probably has relatively low losses. Since I wouldn't start a war unless I was confident of fleet superiority, this is a 'good' ending for me.

Option 3.) Both fleets go to the others' homelands, shelling coastline industries and supporting invasion fleets. I have a slightly greater population, more and more defensible core ports, and considerably more defensive depth. This is expensive enough to be avoided if possible, but likely a win for me.

Option 4.) Allied nations get involved. Obnoxiously complicated and unpredictable.

[Ithekro]

Option 5.) Jutland-like battle.  Both sides engage in a major fleet action, neither side wins and it ends up a relative draw with few ship losses on both sides.  One side will claim a tactical victory while the other will claim a strategic victory.  Post-battle all nations will rethink their naval design theories.

[Valles]

Option 5.) Jutland-like battle.  Both sides engage in a major fleet action, neither side wins and it ends up a relative draw with few ship losses on both sides.  One side will claim a tactical victory while the other will claim a strategic victory.  Post-battle all nations will rethink their naval design theories.

The purpose of battle is decision. '5' is innately a transient state of affairs on the way to one of the other, previously described scenarios.

Jutland itself, I think, was a 'worst case 1', which lead to the 'clash of armies' seen in 3 without the combined arms assumption. Since Maoria and DKB are more distant from each other than Britain and Germany, and lack a convenient land battlefield to clash on outside their homelands, an equivalent situation is unlikely.

Anyway. I got to experimenting with possible results of the 'throw-away destroyer' logic I mentioned. Take a look...

For Every Name, Maori Destroyer laid down 1912

Displacement:
   500 t light; 520 t standard; 574 t normal; 617 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   233.97 ft / 229.66 ft x 22.97 ft x 8.20 ft (normal load)
   71.31 m / 70.00 m x 7.00 m  x 2.50 m

Armament:
      2 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1912 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 105 lbs / 48 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   3 - 17.7" / 450 mm above water torpedoes

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 1 shaft, 12,786 shp / 9,538 Kw = 28.00 kts
   Range 2,500nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 97 tons

Complement:
   58 - 76

Cost:
   £0.068 million / $0.270 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 13 tons, 2.3 %
   Machinery: 279 tons, 48.6 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 193 tons, 33.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 74 tons, 13.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 15 tons, 2.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     184 lbs / 84 Kg = 3.5 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.22
   Metacentric height 0.8 ft / 0.2 m
   Roll period: 10.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.37
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.23

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.465
   Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 15.15 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 70 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 57
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 3.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      19.69 ft / 6.00 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   16.40 ft / 5.00 m
      - Mid (50 %):      16.40 ft / 5.00 m (8.20 ft / 2.50 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Stern:      8.20 ft / 2.50 m
      - Average freeboard:   12.57 ft / 3.83 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 177.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 92.3 %
   Waterplane Area: 3,253 Square feet or 302 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 50 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 23 lbs/sq ft or 115 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 4.50
      - Overall: 0.62
   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

5 tons visual range wireless
6 tons torpedoes
4 tons misc weight

[Korpen]

Destroyers are innately fragile; "using" one is a weasel-word for "expending" it. Cruisers, on the other hand, can be built to swat them in droves and still preserve the resources spent on them for reuse later. Their relatively overpowering mass and firepower allows them to swat destroyers with relative ease, while their armor renders them immune to light guns and their hulls are small and agile enough to be poor torpedo targets.

Well, at the typical engagement range for destroyers, the 12cm guns are able to penetrate most cruisers armour with SAP shells in return (penetration of around 10cm at about 5km and 75mm at around 7km). This put the cruiser in the nice position of being a slower, larger and more expensive ship without much gains in combat value (if any, as it is slower). :)

Would say that a DD cannot ever "hunt" a capital ship, "harass" seems to be a better word.

Then what are we developing torpedoes for? ^_^

Well, to harass heavier ships!
But my point is that unless one got plenty of speed to rapidly get into a good attack position, the time spent under fire will make any massed toped attack against manoeuvring ship a sure one-way trip, if one seeks to hit with the torpedoes.

A boat without armor isn't a ship, it's a weapon. Expendable by definition. That being given, the question becomes cost effectiveness and circumstances of application. High speed costs, in design compromises and in either engine mass or purchase price. 28 knots isn't great, I admit freely. But it's stormproof and not too expensive to be spent, so it should be good enough.

Well i disagree there, armour that is not enough to give good protection against the likely shells is just a liability.

But really, the problem with the ship as I see it is that it is not very good for either role. At 28knots she will have increasingly hard to close with modern capital ships, and she does lack the firepower to overcome opposing equals.
Sure speed costs, there is no free lunch, but in a ship intended for offensive attacks, high closing speed makes the attack more likely to succeed, and allows the ship more chance to get away, so making the ship more survivable.

I'm not sure how likely that is to matter. Even if the DKB favors dispersed operations, I don't. A single battleship coping with an entire opposing battleline and its own weight in destroyers is in for a bad day no matter what its tactical options, and in a fleet action they'll be more constrained.

Not if they got the speed to avoid combat, and then jump on stragglers... At least that is one tactical option, and could be used to attempt to pin a larger enemy formation in place.

[P3D]

28kts should be compared to the 23+ kts speed of DKB dreadnoughts. I.e. not enough.

[Valles]

'Faster, faster!' ...feh.

Y'all're really trying to encourage me to get creative, aren't you?

Okay. Going on the theory that multiple motors can feed the same electric generator, and that engines meant for airborne use weigh about four pounds per hp, and that outriggers give seakeeping and stability as would a hull of their total width, we get...

Nor Iron Bars, Maori Destroyer laid down 1912

Displacement:
   267 t light; 283 t standard; 333 t normal; 373 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   201.48 ft / 196.85 ft x 16.40 ft x 6.56 ft (normal load)
   61.41 m / 60.00 m x 5.00 m  x 2.00 m

Armament:
      2 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1912 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 105 lbs / 48 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   4 - 17.7" / 450 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.98" / 25 mm   0.12" / 3 mm            -

Machinery:
   No fuel, Internal combustion motors,
   Electric motors, 2 shafts, 13,780 shp / 10,280 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 5,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 91 tons

Complement:
   38 - 50

Cost:
   £0.020 million / $0.082 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 13 tons, 4.0 %
   Armour: 3 tons, 0.9 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 3 tons, 0.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 156 tons, 46.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 66 tons, 19.8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 95 tons, 28.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     161 lbs / 73 Kg = 3.1 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.35
   Metacentric height 2.9 ft / 0.9 m
   Roll period: 12.1 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.05
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.51

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.550
   Length to Beam Ratio: 12.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 14.03 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 76 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      15.42 ft / 4.70 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   9.81 ft / 2.99 m
      - Mid (50 %):      9.81 ft / 2.99 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   9.81 ft / 2.99 m
      - Stern:      9.81 ft / 2.99 m
      - Average freeboard:   10.26 ft / 3.13 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 62.2 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 114.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 2,254 Square feet or 209 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 164 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 25 lbs/sq ft or 124 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 6.46
      - Overall: 0.65
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
   Ship has a slow,easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

30 tons 14,000 hp aero engines
25 tons destroyer fire control
10 tons port ama
10 tons starboard ama
10 tons short-range wireless
4 tons torpedoes
6 tons misc weight

[The Rock Doctor]

I have no idea what to say about that...