Another "TIN-CLAD"

[ledeper]

Duoqesne-clone, Esc Cruiser laid down 1920

Displacement:
   10.172 t light; 10.574 t standard; 11.794 t normal; 12.769 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   613,76 ft / 610,00 ft x 63,00 ft x 23,00 ft (normal load)
   187,07 m / 185,93 m x 19,20 m  x 7,01 m

Armament:
      9 - 7,87" / 200 mm guns (3x3 guns), 244,10lbs / 110,72kg shells, 1920 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      4 - 4,92" / 125 mm guns in single mounts, 59,59lbs / 27,03kg shells, 1920 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, all amidships
      4 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns in single mounts, 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1920 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 2.443 lbs / 1.108 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 120
   4 - 19,7" / 500 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   1,97" / 50 mm   442,91 ft / 135,00 m   9,51 ft / 2,90 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 112 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   3,94" / 100 mm   1,97" / 50 mm      3,94" / 100 mm
   2nd:   1,97" / 50 mm   0,79" / 20 mm            -

   - Armour deck: 1,97" / 50 mm, Conning tower: 5,91" / 150 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 4 shafts, 91.271 shp / 68.088 Kw = 32,00 kts
   Range 9.000nm at 14,00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2.196 tons

Complement:
   565 - 735

Cost:
   £2,504 million / $10,015 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 305 tons, 2,6 %
   Armour: 1.670 tons, 14,2 %
      - Belts: 340 tons, 2,9 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0,0 %
      - Armament: 358 tons, 3,0 %
      - Armour Deck: 906 tons, 7,7 %
      - Conning Tower: 66 tons, 0,6 %
   Machinery: 3.191 tons, 27,1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 4.555 tons, 38,6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1.622 tons, 13,8 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 450 tons, 3,8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     10.909 lbs / 4.948 Kg = 44,7 x 7,9 " / 200 mm shells or 1,4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,18
   Metacentric height 3,4 ft / 1,0 m
   Roll period: 14,4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 55 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,47
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,07

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0,467
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9,68 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 24,70 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10,00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      21,33 ft / 6,50 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   18,73 ft / 5,71 m
      - Mid (50 %):      18,73 ft / 5,71 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   18,73 ft / 5,71 m
      - Stern:      18,73 ft / 5,71 m
      - Average freeboard:   18,94 ft / 5,77 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 111,7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 147,1 %
   Waterplane Area: 24.866 Square feet or 2.310 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 108 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 114 lbs/sq ft or 555 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,97
      - Longitudinal: 1,36
      - Overall: 1,00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[Guinness]

It's been said here before: why are people so fixated on treaty cruisers? It doesn't seem to me that such ships would have been common if not for the Washington Treaty. Smaller ships may be better for some roles, and bigger ships for others. The latter case I believe is the source of the recent craze in light battlecruisers (a craze with which I personally participated enthusiastically).

As far as this ship is concerned, I think I'd give up 10mm of deck armor for more belt armor personally. The belt is very very short. At 32 knots I expect there will be significant exposure below it.

[TexanCowboy]

I think the main reason is that some cruisers are getting too big, and some are getting too small. Take the CSA for example.  Officially, we have 3 types of cruisers, but the 1st class cruisers besides the Davis class are battlecruisers. The modern second class cruiser I have is really a battlecruiser in the Swiss style. The third class cruisers are only 4,000 tons. This was bound to happen anyway, as people wondered what would happen if they put a 7.5'' gun instead of a 6'' gun on a cruiser.

[Tanthalas]

I think the main reason is that some cruisers are getting too big, and some are getting too small. Take the CSA for example.  Officially, we have 3 types of cruisers, but the 1st class cruisers besides the Davis class are battlecruisers. The modern second class cruiser I have is really a battlecruiser in the Swiss style. The third class cruisers are only 4,000 tons. This was bound to happen anyway, as people wondered what would happen if they put a 7.5'' gun instead of a 6'' gun on a cruiser.

The Key with Guns is usability.  a 7.5 isnt realy suitable for the jobs a 6" is used for.  the 7.5 also isnt big enough to take on the next group of cruisers (10-12") so as I see it swiss style BCs arnt all that usefull.

[TexanCowboy]

I was referring to the Wheelers, with their 32 knots and 9.2'' guns.

[Tanthalas]

I was referring to the Wheelers, with their 32 knots and 9.2'' guns.

I consider the whealers to be a part of the 10-12" CA type ships.  Basicly ships like the OTL german Pships, Hell Alaska was just an overgrown CA...

[Kaiser Kirk]

It's been said here before: why are people so fixated on treaty cruisers? It doesn't seem to me that such ships would have been common if not for the Washington Treaty. Smaller ships may be better for some roles, and bigger ships for others. The latter case I believe is the source of the recent craze in light battlecruisers (a craze with which I personally participated enthusiastically).

As far as this ship is concerned, I think I'd give up 10mm of deck armor for more belt armor personally. The belt is very very short. At 32 knots I expect there will be significant exposure below it.

I am a little suprised to see them, but I think the light battlecruisers are why.

My theory:
There is a sustained need for a small cruiser with 5-6" guns, capable of long range independent operation or serving as part of the anti-TB/DD screen of the battlefleets. These are usually fast enough to avoid BBs/BCs, and so can serve as a light scout screen. Also useful for hunting AMCs. These only need to be 5-7,000 tons and have enough guns to rapidly kill DDs.

Then there were the ships to back the scouts, or pierce the screens, the old Armored cruisers. These grew historically through one-upmanship to be larger than some old PD's. Then BC's came, and the race started over. The result is this upper end is now fairly expensive to get into and those ships are now ones that might want screens. So BCs are really a bit of an expensive waste against the CLs.

So..what do you use to kill a 6000 ton CL in your way... a 20,000 ton BC or a 9,000 ton CA?  The OTL Hawkins was the answer- a big cruiser.  The Treaty then split categories in two, Hawkins by dint of it's 7.5" magically became a heavy cruiser when it's intended role was occupied by CLs.  These ships we are seeing are just skipping the Hawkins phase but seem aimed at that role.

[Tanthalas]

While I dont totaly agree with your theory KK I dont totaly disagree either.  I would love to have a nice 8X10" CA However I cant figure out a way to Justify it when Rohan is already so commited to the 12/50...

[ledeper]

admittedly this is a a way  to explore the possibility to build a heavily armed cruiser with the speed as a Dd,that is the only point in this "paper exercise",but apart from that the Esc sorely need some form of "panzershiff"as a mean to protect its widespread overseas possession,the idea is to have a heavily armed "flagship" to deter any attacker and force an eventual attacker to commit at least a Bb or a Bc to attain its goal

[Borys]

Ahoj!
For the tiome being I've abandoned the 6".
I'm using the 7,5" to kill the 6" cruisers, I simply couldn't design a ship I liked on 7K tonnes.

Borys

[Tanthalas]

Ahoj!
For the tiome being I've abandoned the 6".
I'm using the 7,5" to kill the 6" cruisers, I simply couldn't design a ship I liked on 7K tonnes.

Borys

Im using 6" on y CLs for anti TB/DD work.  although that will be changing shortly (Unified CL/DD/secondary)

[Borys]

Im using 6" on y CLs for anti TB/DD work.  although that will be changing shortly (Unified CL/DD/secondary)

I tried that route, by "designing" the "light 6-incher" with 100lbs shells.
But I decided against unification - the fiftypounder for destroyers and the seventyfivepounder for small cruisers. Either can be used for secondaries.

Borys

[Kaiser Kirk]

While I dont totaly agree with your theory KK I dont totaly disagree either.  I would love to have a nice 8X10" CA However I cant figure out a way to Justify it when Rohan is already so commited to the 12/50...

I have a fondness for 10" guns for some reason, and several iterations of potential ships, but don't quite have the tech, and still lack a reason.

My attempt at a cruiser/dd killer within my current limits is the Luitpolds, though they would do quite decently against some of these tin clads.

[The Rock Doctor]

To my thinking, this is a good station ship - she can function as a command ship, and can generally outshoot everything she can't outrun.  She'll also be useful in trade defence, as I think somebody pointed out.