Confederate Ship Designs: 1919 and Beyond...

[Guinness]

Or with a 20mm...

There is today a GAU-19 .50 cal Gatling gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-19

In the context of 1 or 3 pounders, I think the Gatling type design buys you a few things, including RoF. The difficulty the 3 pounder, 5 barelled gun had (for instance) was that it was loaded by hand with individual rounds, not how fast you could crank it. With 5 barrels, 60 rpm is just one revolution per second, after all. That's not too hard to crank, but if you have to load one round per second in the top of the thing, then you are working.

Also, I found what I didn't know until tonight: 400 grams was the limit below which rounds couldn't explode according to the 1868 St. Petersburg declaration. This translates to .88 pounds or so. Not sure if we have a limit like that in nverse international law. I'd have to look.

[Carthaginian]

The CSA never actually signed those articles of the treaty, anyway. ;)

[Carthaginian]

Though the Wheeler class cruisers were deemed to be an excellent step forward in cruiser design for the CSN, they have several major problems- most notably, they lack any form of immune zone when facing a ship of similar speed or tonnage with similar or larger guns. The Admiralty is now beginning to take submissions for a follow-on to be of equal or lesser tonnage which trades a small amount of speed for much greater armor protection.

The first of the submissions is currently going by the working name Forrest.

Forrest, Confederate States ofAmerica 2nd Class Cruiser laid down 1919 (Engine 1916)

Displacement:
   16,254 t light; 16,961 t standard; 18,902 t normal; 20,454 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   720.00 ft / 710.00 ft x 72.00 ft x 26.25 ft (normal load)
   219.46 m / 216.41 m x 21.95 m  x 8.00 m

Armament:
      8 - 9.20" / 234 mm guns (4x2 guns), 400.00lbs / 181.44kg shells, 1919 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      12 - 4.75" / 121 mm guns (6x2 guns), 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 1919 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      2 - 1.58" / 40.1 mm guns in single mounts, 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1919 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      12 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns (6x2 guns), 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1919 Model
     Machine guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 3,810 lbs / 1,728 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   12 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   400.00 ft / 121.92 m   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 87 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   4.00" / 102 mm      6.00" / 152 mm
   2nd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -         2.00" / 51 mm

   - Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 10.00" / 254 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 4 shafts, 100,020 shp / 74,615 Kw = 30.80 kts
   Range 8,000nm at 15.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,493 tons

Complement:
   805 - 1,047

Cost:
   £3.243 million / $12.971 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 471 tons, 2.5 %
   Armour: 4,870 tons, 25.8 %
      - Belts: 2,727 tons, 14.4 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 737 tons, 3.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,252 tons, 6.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 153 tons, 0.8 %
   Machinery: 3,727 tons, 19.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,822 tons, 36.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,648 tons, 14.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 365 tons, 1.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     21,854 lbs / 9,913 Kg = 56.1 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 2.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.19
   Metacentric height 4.2 ft / 1.3 m
   Roll period: 14.7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.38
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.03

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak
   Block coefficient: 0.493
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9.86 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26.65 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 49
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 21.04 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      26.00 ft / 7.92 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Mid (60 %):      18.00 ft / 5.49 m (10.00 ft / 3.05 m aft of break)
      - Quarterdeck (20 %):   11.00 ft / 3.35 m
      - Stern:      12.00 ft / 3.66 m
      - Average freeboard:   16.48 ft / 5.02 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 85.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 108.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 33,845 Square feet or 3,144 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 115 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 134 lbs/sq ft or 654 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.07
      - Longitudinal: 0.97
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate

[Sachmle]

Run Forrest, run!!

[miketr]

Over armored, way over armored.  If you are worried about ships with bigger guns you need to up gun yourself.  I really don't think the loss of 2 knots of speed was worth the protection.  10" of armor is nice, don't get me wrong but what is it going to buying you in a fight?  Does the CSA have a heavier gun?  Over all I would think about going to a 7 or maybe an 8" belt and see what type of additional firepower you could get. 

The 32 knots gave you lots of tactical options as it is know you are just one more 30 knot cruiser. 

[Carthaginian]

Meh... 'one more 30 knot cruiser' is exactly what I want, since that is what it will be competing with. The CSA isn't a 'run and dun' force- they've always favored a solid- 'goal-line' kind of defense where every ship is slow, armored and tough... intended to sell itself and its place in the line as dearly as possible.

If I want a 'battle line scout' I could easily build another Enterprise; if I wanted something truly speedy, I'd build an evolution of the Hatchitigbee class. I didn't want either... I wanted a solid cruiser that could fight another solid cruiser and win.

[TexanCowboy]

31 knots...1 knot won't matter in a situation with equal sized ships. Maybe 2, but not 1.

[maddox]

The CSA has, currently, acces to the superbe French single and tripple 1907 275mm L50 turrets with 300 kg shells.

Unfortunatly, the barrellife is messured at the feeble 130 rounds at full power before losing coherence in patern and power.

[Guinness]

Bah! 275mm is too big...

If one were to ask those who drafted the requirements for Wheeler, they'd tell you that 32.5 knots (originally specified as 33 knots) was required so that Wheeler could outrun a modern Dutch Frigate if required. In fact, these ships, operating in pairs, were seen as an antidote to the fast Dutch monsters. They'd have sufficient speed and range to continually shadow one of those while staying out of range of their much larger guns, effectively neutralizing them, or guiding a larger, better gunned force to intercept and kill them.

If the concern is building a version of that ship that is better armored, another option is waiting until engine improvements arrive at the shipyards, and using weight saved that way for more armor.

As an aside, as a primary proponent of the "light battlecruiser" type, to me it's useless if it can't outrun a real battlecruiser. Otherwise it's just lunch. The idea was to get two ships on the same displacement as one modern fast real BC.

[miketr]

Another possible solution within that range is to up size the wheelers, keep gun power the same and add another 1,000 tons of light displacement to get more armor but keep speed the same.

[Carthaginian]

Bah! 275mm is too big...

If one were to ask those who drafted the requirements for Wheeler, they'd tell you that 32.5 knots (originally specified as 33 knots) was required so that Wheeler could outrun a modern Dutch Frigate if required. In fact, these ships, operating in pairs, were seen as an antidote to the fast Dutch monsters. They'd have sufficient speed and range to continually shadow one of those while staying out of range of their much larger guns, effectively neutralizing them, or guiding a larger, better gunned force to intercept and kill them.

If the concern is building a version of that ship that is better armored, another option is waiting until engine improvements arrive at the shipyards, and using weight saved that way for more armor.

As an aside, as a primary proponent of the "light battlecruiser" type, to me it's useless if it can't outrun a real battlecruiser. Otherwise it's just lunch. The idea was to get two ships on the same displacement as one modern fast real BC.

The problem with such ships, Guinness, is that they now face ships designed to kill cruisers designed to shadow battle cruisers without being killed. ;) Other cruisers are entering service or are being planned which possess the speed to bring the Wheelers to battle while having a great advantage in firepower and armor over them. In fact, against their nearest opponents in tonnage and firepower, the Wheelers have a negative immune zone and a precarious speed advantage.

The CSA sees building 20,000t light cruisers as a folly. Better to concentrate on lighter scouting vessels if they are needed to be 'outrun/outlast' types- ships that will enable me to get 3-4 vessels on a similar tonnage to the BC they are meant to evade. To build a cruiser the size of some battleships in service does not make sense.

[TexanCowboy]

Would you build one for a price? Or if I built ships for you? For Romania, of course.

[Carthaginian]

If constructing such a ship does not interfere with domestic building, then it would be possible to export such a ship... but the CSA has no interest.

[Guinness]

I'm curious, as I think I may have missed a ship here or there, but who's designed a ship capable of 32.5 knots + with sufficient armament to dent a Wheeler? Wouldn't such a ship be a "Battlecruiser" anyway?

At any rate, I wonder: would a ship of similar speed, using the next engine tech, but *smaller* and therefore less armored be worth it? The original design size was driven by range and speed, not armament. Maybe a ship more like an OTL treaty cruiser with 7.5" guns but same speed and range would work?

[Carthaginian]

Point #1 - You're looking in too narrow a field. Try something with <14" guns and 30 knots. There are ships in that range.

Point #2 - Exactly what I'm working on for then.