Large sloop

[The Rock Doctor]

Nobody's going to get rubber from Indonesia if they're at war with the Netherlands - the challenge will be to get it from Gran Colombia or elsewhere.

[miketr]

Nobody's going to get rubber from Indonesia if they're at war with the Netherlands - the challenge will be to get it from Gran Colombia or elsewhere.

By this point in time rubber should have spread all over the globe because of its high value.  The NEI's are great because SO MANY different things come from there, plant products, minerals, oil, etc...

Besides Indonesia other locations would be...

Brazil and Gran Columbia (would be lesser producers because of rubber blight), Tropical West Africa, Philippines, Ceylon (just about anyplace in SE asia) would be the obvious other locations.

Michael

[Korpen]

The Dutch fleet places operates on deterrence than actual sea control.

Well a natural effect of  having sea lanes that follows the costs or trough narrow seas of the most likely opponents. For example: trying to maintain sea control in the English channel in a fight with France or the central Atlantic vs. Iberia is simply not realistic.

My main concern is the same - only four large guns.

Yes, but I wonder how much that matters at "cruiser" ranges of only a bit over 10km at most?
If She gets outfitted with the "old" 820kg shells for her L/45 guns she will get a Mv. of over 790m/s, making any distance under 10km almost point-blank.

[Korpen]

By this point in time rubber should have spread all over the globe because of its high value. 

Not so certain of that, as there was a crash in the price of rubber due to over supply, so the places that do not have plantations by arbout 1910 are unlikly to get them as it is not economic viable.

The NEI's are great because SO MANY different things come from there, plant products, minerals, oil, etc...

Most of the worlds tin as well, thanks to Malaysia.

[P3D]

Some more. The ship would spend a lot of time chasing lighter slower ships. That means you need more than two guns forward which is not the best for spotting to say the least.

If the ship travels at 30* to unmask aft turret, its closing speed is reduced to 28.7kts (but gunnery is much less accurate head-on, anyways). My suggestion is a Dunkerque-like turret arrangement, B superfiring A for this reason. The ship should not really fight anything of his own weight class anyways, put some significant 120mm aft against the inevitable destroyers (if your ship is slowed down, or outmaneuvered by numerically superior adversary).

[miketr]

By this point in time rubber should have spread all over the globe because of its high value. 

Not so certain of that, as there was a crash in the price of rubber due to over supply, so the places that do not have plantations by arbout 1910 are unlikly to get them as it is not economic viable.

Demand did cause it to spread very far...  GC and Netherlands would be the most likely leading producers followed by Iberia and France I suspect the more I think about it...

Amazonas was the leading producer for some time it seams with Pará its own production too.  So I expect GC and Iberia have... a 2/3 to1/3 split or perhaps a 3/4 to 1/4 of the historic Brazil out put.  Sans whatever economic disruption the S-American war of the Eye caused...

Michael

Michael

[Korpen]

Some more. The ship would spend a lot of time chasing lighter slower ships. That means you need more than two guns forward which is not the best for spotting to say the least.

If the ship travels at 30* to unmask aft turret, its closing speed is reduced to 28.7kts (but gunnery is much less accurate head-on, anyways). My suggestion is a Dunkerque-like turret arrangement, B superfiring A for this reason. The ship should not really fight anything of his own weight class anyways, put some significant 120mm aft against the inevitable destroyers (if your ship is slowed down, or outmaneuvered by numerically superior adversary).

Ok, like this then (no top view yet).
All gun forward, she became a marginally worse seaboat (;)), and size increased  150 tons.


SL-15, Netherlands Sloop laid down 1916

Displacement:
   18 650 t light; 19 678 t standard; 21 389 t normal; 22 758 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   721,78 ft / 721,78 ft x 75,46 ft x 29,20 ft (normal load)
   220,00 m / 220,00 m x 23,00 m  x 8,90 m

Armament:
      4 - 14,96" / 380 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1 951,09lbs / 885,00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline, all forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      12 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns (6x2 guns), 61,73lbs / 28,00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all aft
      4 - 4,72" / 120 mm guns (2x2 guns), 61,73lbs / 28,00kg shells, 1916 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline, all aft, 1 raised mount - superfiring
   Weight of broadside 8 792 lbs / 3 988 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 120
   8 - 17,7" / 450 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   4,13" / 105 mm   542,09 ft / 165,23 m   16,40 ft / 5,00 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 116 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   8,66" / 220 mm   3,94" / 100 mm      7,09" / 180 mm
   2nd:   1,97" / 50 mm   0,39" / 10 mm      1,97" / 50 mm
   3rd:   1,97" / 50 mm   0,39" / 10 mm      1,97" / 50 mm

   - Armour deck: 1,18" / 30 mm, Conning tower: 9,84" / 250 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 4 shafts, 140 096 shp / 104 511 Kw = 33,00 kts
   Range 10 385nm at 12,00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3 080 tons

Complement:
   883 - 1 149

Cost:
   £3,560 million / $14,238 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 943 tons, 4,4 %
   Armour: 3 082 tons, 14,4 %
      - Belts: 1 499 tons, 7,0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
      - Armament: 647 tons, 3,0 %
      - Armour Deck: 773 tons, 3,6 %
      - Conning Tower: 163 tons, 0,8 %
   Machinery: 5 220 tons, 24,4 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 9 057 tons, 42,3 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2 739 tons, 12,8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 349 tons, 1,6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     15 871 lbs / 7 199 Kg = 9,5 x 15,0 " / 380 mm shells or 1,7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,12
   Metacentric height 4,1 ft / 1,2 m
   Roll period: 15,7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,86
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 0,96

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has raised forecastle, rise aft of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0,471
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9,57 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26,87 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
   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:      18,04 ft / 5,50 m
      - Forecastle (18 %):   15,58 ft / 4,75 m (12,30 ft / 3,75 m aft of break)
      - Mid (38 %):      12,30 ft / 3,75 m (20,51 ft / 6,25 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   20,51 ft / 6,25 m
      - Stern:      21,98 ft / 6,70 m
      - Average freeboard:   18,27 ft / 5,57 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 114,7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 127,8 %
   Waterplane Area: 35 355 Square feet or 3 285 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 165 lbs/sq ft or 804 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,96
      - Longitudinal: 1,35
      - Overall: 1,00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

[P3D]

That's it.  Although the ship is a serious contender for the title 'the ugliest non-French warship'.  :P

[Guinness]

SS2 question:

If you wanted to sim the Dunkerques or Richelieus, would you sim them as 8 guns in 2 mounts, all forward, or maybe as 4 guns in one mount forward, and 4 guns in one mount amidships, but superfiring? The second mounts in those ships were pretty close to midships, really.

I guess it probably doesn't matter too much...

[Korpen]

SS2 question:

If you wanted to sim the Dunkerques or Richelieus, would you sim them as 8 guns in 2 mounts, all forward, or maybe as 4 guns in one mount forward, and 4 guns in one mount amidships, but superfiring? The second mounts in those ships were pretty close to midships, really.

I guess it probably doesn't matter too much...

Matter quite allot, as a "midship" mount use the avarage freeboard of for and aft, but "all forward" only use the height of the freeboard forward (of midbreak) for barbarette weight calculation. So in the case of the french it should be "all forward" as they are all in front of the midbreak.

[P3D]

This ship illustrates well  SS2 cannot sim ships with large machinery properly. It assumes all the machinery is BWL, but realistically such a plant would occupy significant space AWL (like Lexington). IMO this ship should be similar, with a armored deck placed high to have enough space.

I noticed, however, the very low freeboard forward, which should be a big concern. At 33kts or in any seeway you would definitely get water above the bow, and a lot of it. The ship being bow-heavy does not help either.

[Guinness]

I'd say both classes of French ships were flush deckers, so I suspect that given that the freeboard at the after part of the forcastle and at the midbreak is pretty much the same, the barbette weights would come out close to the same too.

Of course, one advantage of this main battery arrangement, weather both mounts are forward or amidships could be shortening the armor belt length.

All that aside, though I still think 3 light cruisers would be more valuable on the same tonnage, the 9x240mm ship is a fine ship, and I suspect would have more overall value in most situations than the 4x380mm ship.

[Desertfox]

Ugliest non-French ship? You're wrong my friend, that is a beauty... all she needs is a clipper bow.

How about using triple 12", and putting the weight savings into making the ship smaller?

[maddox]

The tripple 12" idea ain't bad.
Another option is a tripple 13.5" and a raised twin superfiring.
Or quad 10,83"?

[Kaiser Kirk]

I'm just thinking that it would be hard to manage to fire rapidly enough to provide appropriate adjustment data at range, while the belt is inadequate against an armored cruiser. The advantage of speed is there, presuming visibility allows, and steam is up to exploit it...and that a HE shell blowing a hole in the bows doesn't cause a sudden reduction in speed.