Firenj Fleet

[hooper82]

The first Fleet Destroyer for the IFN.  The Angove class was designed to compliment the new Capital units.  Capable of fleet and independent operations, the Angove class provides diversity to the IFN.  The Firenj Design Department is interested to see how the flush decked design goes in Firenj home waters.

OOC: Named after Western Australian rivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_of_Australia#Western_Australia).  Provision for an additional 3 twin 40mm AA mountings (expected around 1930).  No provision for upgrading to 24" Torpedoes.

Angove class Destroyer, Firenj,  laid down 1917 (Engine 1916)

Displacement:
   998 t light; 1,046 t standard; 1,273 t normal; 1,454 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   332.86 ft / 328.08 ft x 32.81 ft x 10.89 ft (normal load)
   101.46 m / 100.00 m x 10.00 m  x 3.32 m

Armament:
     5 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns in single mounts, 52.91lbs / 24.00kg shells, 1917 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on centreline, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
     2 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (1x2 guns), 2.20lbs / 1.00kg shells, 1917 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
     on centreline, all raised guns
   Weight of broadside 269 lbs / 122 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   6 - 20.9" / 530 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
  - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.98" / 25 mm   0.39" / 10 mm            -
   2nd:   0.39" / 10 mm         -               -

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 2 shafts, 22,000 shp / 16,412 Kw = 30.01 kts
   Range 3,000nm at 18.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 408 tons

Complement:
   106 - 138

Cost:
   £0.265 million / $1.060 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 33 tons, 2.6 %
   Armour: 11 tons, 0.9 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 11 tons, 0.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
   Machinery: 590 tons, 46.4 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 305 tons, 23.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 275 tons, 21.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 59 tons, 4.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     340 lbs / 154 Kg = 6.4 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.43
   Metacentric height 1.8 ft / 0.5 m
   Roll period: 10.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.23
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has low quarterdeck
   Block coefficient: 0.380
   Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 18.11 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 62 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      13.12 ft / 4.00 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   11.48 ft / 3.50 m
      - Mid (50 %):      11.48 ft / 3.50 m
      - Quarterdeck (10 %):   11.48 ft / 3.50 m (11.81 ft / 3.60 m before break)
      - Stern:      11.48 ft / 3.50 m
      - Average freeboard:   11.68 ft / 3.56 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 174.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 84.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 6,563 Square feet or 610 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 64 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 27 lbs/sq ft or 134 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.47
      - Longitudinal: 1.02
      - Overall: 0.50
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

24 tons Torpedo Reloads (12x530mm")
10 tons Depth Charges (30) + Racks
25 tons Fire Control

Max Bunker = 408 tons
Range 7,800nm at 12.00 kts
Range 3,000nm at 18.00 kts
Range 850nm at 28.00 kts
Range 680nm at 30.00 kts

[Sachmle]

1) You'll need to have some reserve weight to add those 40mm twins later.
2) It really hard to reload torpedoes at sea on a DD, and that is an excessive number anyway
3) Your cross-sectional strength is only 0.47. The minimum is 0.50 for this.
4) Slightly over-gunned IMHO.

Other than these 4 points, not too bad actually.

[hooper82]

Hey Sam, thanks for your input!

1) You'll need to have some reserve weight to add those 40mm twins later.

Already checked this.  I built it with then guns the deleted.  I can Just squeeze them on.

2) It really hard to reload torpedoes at sea on a DD, and that is an excessive number anyway

Ok, I need a clarification here.  At the moment, I've got 6 tubes, I assumed (please correct me if I'm wrong), that the 2 tons per torp included the ones "in the tube".  Is this correct?  If thats the case, I've really only got 1 reload per tube.

3) Your cross-sectional strength is only 0.47. The minimum is 0.50 for this.

Bugger!  Ok, I was under the assumption that it was just the overall strength that had to be above 0.5.  Back to the drawing board.

4) Slightly over-gunned IMHO.

Heh, I kinda agree here, but if I can squeeze 5 guns on.....I thought about dropping back to one set of triple torp tubes, or keeping both sets and dropping one gun.  Which do people think would be best?

Other than these 4 points, not too bad actually.

I'm (very) slowly learning =)

[Sachmle]

Didn't realize you were using 2t torps. If so, then 1 set of reloads isn't too big a deal. They'll still be a BITCH to reload, but meh.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Only one country bothered with putting reloads on their destroyers - Japan.
And it took a LONG time to reload all tubes - quarter of an hour? Half an hour? With all special reails etc.
All other navies decided that it is not worth the bother. I believe that the Japnese used this feature ONCE.

OK - now, after ranting on how useless this is ... :)
I believe that a weight penalty for the relads should be included - that a reload, due to the need for hoists, rails, aircompresors etc. should weigth as much as a LOADED tube.

Now, whether the 2t torpedos are tube+fish, or the fish only, I don't remember. As I consider torpedos in Navalism to be underweighted ruleswise, I count a 20" Tube+Filling as 3 tonnes, and - on cruisers - the torpedos as 2 tonnes.
........................
That should teach me something about throwing rocks out of glass houses ... :D
OK - will adjust the misc. weight allocation ...


Borys

[hooper82]

Hey, if I had long lance torpedoes, I'd carry reloads too.

I'd argue that the reloads are for after the battle, rather than during.  Especially useful if operating away from friendly ports, or away from a port with torpedo reloads.

[maddox]

if you want to reload after a battle, why not have a larger combattant or a tender carry the spare torpedo's for the DD's.
That weight has better used .

[Walter]

Hey, if I had long lance torpedoes, I'd carry reloads too.

Long Lance torpedoes are IJN exclusive weapons. If you want to use them, you will need to pay a fee to Japan + various additional costs and taxes. :D

[Borys]

OOC - let's add a double time tech - "1928 - reliable oxygen torpedos"

[Walter]

More likely to be in the mid 1930s.

[Borys]

Can be 1932 - remember, it's double time ...

[Walter]

My bad. I thought they were later, but looking at Wiki, the Type 93 torpedoes are from 1933 and the design period is 1928-1933, so your date of 1928 look quite reasonable.

[Guinness]

Ahoj!
Only one country bothered with putting reloads on their destroyers - Japan.
And it took a LONG time to reload all tubes - quarter of an hour? Half an hour? With all special reails etc.
All other navies decided that it is not worth the bother. I believe that the Japnese used this feature ONCE.

Not true. Most of the interwar US DDs also carried reloads. The Japanese ships had provision for rapid reloading. The extra fish were stored in devices which when the tubes were aligned correctly allowed the torpedoes to be rolled into the empty tubes very quickly. American reloads, on the other hand, were stored in racks amidships and required use of a boom and block and tackle, etc. These were not expected to be used while in battle, but rather were a way of extending combat effectiveness on expected long western pacific deployments. Some US ships eschewed the reload system and instead shipped 6 or more tubes on each beam.

OK - now, after ranting on how useless this is ... :)
I believe that a weight penalty for the relads should be included - that a reload, due to the need for hoists, rails, aircompresors etc. should weigth as much as a LOADED tube.

Now, whether the 2t torpedos are tube+fish, or the fish only, I don't remember. As I consider torpedos in Navalism to be underweighted ruleswise, I count a 20" Tube+Filling as 3 tonnes, and - on cruisers - the torpedos as 2 tonnes.

The one or two ton weights are per torpedo, whether in a tube or a reload. In other words, Borys is correct, no matter if a fish gets it's own tube to sit in all the time or not, the weight is the same.

[hooper82]

if you want to reload after a battle, why not have a larger combattant or a tender carry the spare torpedo's for the DD's.
That weight has better used .

It would complicate logistics, having to send dedicated tenders or match up destroyers with specific larger combattants who carry spare torps.  Having dedicated tenders is a Good Idea (tm), but this gives me some operational flexibility, especially for short or emergency deployments.

Re: Long Lances...they a superweapon IMO, until radar is reliable anyway.  I'll pay Walter if I can get my sticky little hands on em!


So, thoughts re: armament?
A) 4x4.7" guns and 6x21" torps
B) 5x4.7" guns and 3x21" torps

Which do you prefer?

[Walter]

If you call it "Long Pointy Stick Torpedoes", then Japan will look the other way. :D