A CSA Heavy Cruiser

[Delta Force]

Here is a design for a CSA Heavy Cruiser. I'm not all that sure what kind of miscellaneous weight I should I have for things on the ship, so I left some margin for growth in the design. Comments on it would be greatly appreciated, especially as this is only my second ship in Springsharp.

CSA Heavy Cruiser, CSA Heavy Cruiser laid down 1920 (Engine 1916)

Displacement:
   14,565 t light; 15,273 t standard; 18,046 t normal; 20,265 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   673.56 ft / 673.56 ft x 70.87 ft (Bulges 76.77 ft) x 23.95 ft (normal load)
   205.30 m / 205.30 m x 21.60 m (Bulges 23.40 m)  x 7.30 m

Armament:
      9 - 9.20" / 234 mm guns (3x3 guns), 380.00lbs / 172.37kg shells, 1920 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      12 - 4.75" / 121 mm guns (6x2 guns), 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 1920 Model
     Quick firing guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on side ends, evenly spread
      4 - 1.58" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1920 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
   Weight of broadside 4,028 lbs / 1,827 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   6.00" / 152 mm   437.81 ft / 133.44 m   10.10 ft / 3.08 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
     Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

   - Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
      1.00" / 25 mm   437.81 ft / 133.44 m   21.29 ft / 6.49 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   6.00" / 152 mm   3.00" / 76 mm      3.00" / 76 mm
   2nd:   3.00" / 76 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      1.00" / 25 mm

   - Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 8.00" / 203 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 4 shafts, 91,276 shp / 68,092 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 4,992 tons

Complement:
   778 - 1,012

Cost:
   £3.361 million / $13.446 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 519 tons, 2.9 %
   Armour: 3,872 tons, 21.5 %
      - Belts: 1,110 tons, 6.1 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 345 tons, 1.9 %
      - Armament: 518 tons, 2.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,781 tons, 9.9 %
      - Conning Tower: 119 tons, 0.7 %
   Machinery: 3,401 tons, 18.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,770 tons, 37.5 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,481 tons, 19.3 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 3 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     21,764 lbs / 9,872 Kg = 55.9 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 3.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
   Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
   Roll period: 16.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 88 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.51
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.17

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.510
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.77 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 25.95 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 75
   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:      28.54 ft / 8.70 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   18.18 ft / 5.54 m
      - Mid (50 %):      18.18 ft / 5.54 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   18.18 ft / 5.54 m
      - Stern:      18.18 ft / 5.54 m
      - Average freeboard:   19.01 ft / 5.79 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 116.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 142.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 32,095 Square feet or 2,982 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 122 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 136 lbs/sq ft or 664 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.04
      - Longitudinal: 1.12
      - Overall: 1.05
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Kaiser Kirk]

Hmm well I'll try to be constructive and go step by step.  Like everyone I have my own opinons and biases.

Hull dimensions - reasonable. Some will dislike the 1.8 bulges, but since the OTL County class had em, and they are that big, I don't see an issue.

Main guns : fine.
Secondary - you probably want those to be mount & hoist.
Tertiary - fine.
Shells/gun : probably ok for an intermediate main gun size. For capital ships lower, for light cruisers higher - it's a ROF thing. 120 would have been ok probably as well.

Main belt : Reasonable.
Warning - the warning is one you need to pay attention too.  The internal hull space is to small for your critical systems to fit in the length of your average belt. This is a problem. Either widen the ship, increase BC, diminish guns/internal systems, eliminate the TDS, or make the belt longer. Most pick the last.

Torpedo defense system : While the ductile plates forming the partitions in later TDS systems were 0.75-1" in thickness, the holding bulkhead thickness is what is represented here. 25mm may stop a small torpedo, and will protect against sprung seams from near miss bombs, or mines. Indeed, the small bulges help a little with stand off distance.  However to stop major splinters, or hull members propelled into the ship by explosions, you need 40+mm.

That said, with a beam of 70feet, you're still a little thin to fit a TDS.  Think of an internal space 12-15feet on each side. Now your internal beam is 40-44feet. In that you're trying to fit triple 9.2" turrets and their support bracing.  Consider the OTL twin 8" cruisers had no real TDS and a beam in the mid 50s-low 60s. Lastly you have a low BC- 0.51 which means if you had a rectangle 205m L x 21.6m W, the ship would take up 51% of that block. Kinda bottle shaped, which means even less beam abreast of the end turrets.  They won't fit well as a result.

Getting rid of the TDS should fix your main belt warning as well.

Speed - decent to good.
Range - high actually.  Also, while I use more, most people seem to be using 12knts to allow better comparisons. I may eventually conform.

Misc weight. You need to look at Rules/Ship Design guidelines - just the Fire Control on this vessel runs 250 tons. Coincidentally your TDS is costing you 345 and will pay for it AND your long range wireless.

Trim - somewhere it came down that trims over 67 get looked at and may suffer MODWRATH(tm) in combat.

Overall, pretty decent. Though I admit it's 1am and I've had some scotch so I may have missed something.

Basically, I'd ditch the TDS.

[miketr]

My only suggestion is for you to look at what ships that Gran Columbia and to a lesser extent Iberia and the NUS have.  In particular in terms of threats and targets for such a design.  In navalism battle cruiser types are very popular, most call them Armored Cruisers.  A number of them are much bigger, nastier and as fast or faster than that design.

Welcome aboard!

Michael

[TexanCowboy]

One of the mods move this to the new ships board?

I'd look at the Aquero class to see what would happen to such a ship. It's slower, weaker armarment, and more easily penetrated, for 2,000 tons less? Not really worth it, IMHO.

[Guinness]

One of the mods move this to the new ships board?

Done.

FWIW: I consider this ship inferior to Wheeler in almost every regard, save the fact this ship is a little bit smaller, and therefore cheaper.

Wheeler was born originally based almost entirely on a requirement of long range and high speed. So I think a follow on cruiser of this sort would likely have similar range and similar speed. That means 18,000 nm at 12 knots, and 32 knots top speed.

Also, the CSN had gone over to All or Nothing protection schemes since the Enterprise class BCs. One of the tenants of that philosophy, which is essentially the same as the USN in our timeline, is a main belt two decks tall (I used 16.5 feet), and long enough such that it covers at least 2/3 of the waterline length.

The small bulges aren't in style in the Nverse, but are not prohibited either. It's possible to use bulges to limit the width of the armored deck, and carried to extremes such a practice could run afoul of the mods, but I don't see a problem here. The bulges themselves, without an anti-torpedo bulkhead, will afford increased torpedo hit resistance, since they should be extensively subdivided, so you may be able to dispense with the TDS, which might help solve some of the other issues on this ship.

[Delta Force]

Here is a revision of the design. Draught increased and the armor thickness decreased by an inch, but covers a larger area. I managed to add three more 9.2 inch guns and four more 4.75 inch guns, as well as eight 0.50 caliber machine guns.

CSA Heavy Cruiser, CSA Heavy Cruiser laid down 1920 (Engine 1916)

Displacement:
   15,323 t light; 16,161 t standard; 18,788 t normal; 20,889 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   673.56 ft / 673.56 ft x 70.87 ft (Bulges 76.77 ft) x 24.93 ft (normal load)
   205.30 m / 205.30 m x 21.60 m (Bulges 23.40 m)  x 7.60 m

Armament:
      12 - 9.20" / 234 mm guns (4x3 guns), 380.00lbs / 172.37kg shells, 1920 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      16 - 4.75" / 121 mm guns (8x2 guns), 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 1920 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side ends, evenly spread
      4 - 1.58" / 40.0 mm guns in single mounts, 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1920 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
      8 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1920 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 5,368 lbs / 2,435 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   5.00" / 127 mm   400.00 ft / 121.92 m   16.50 ft / 5.03 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 91 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   5.00" / 127 mm   2.50" / 64 mm      2.50" / 64 mm
   2nd:   3.00" / 76 mm   1.50" / 38 mm      1.50" / 38 mm

   - Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 8.00" / 203 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Geared drive, 4 shafts, 93,482 shp / 69,738 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 18,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 4,729 tons

Complement:
   802 - 1,043

Cost:
   £3.795 million / $15.178 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 692 tons, 3.7 %
   Armour: 3,876 tons, 20.6 %
      - Belts: 1,401 tons, 7.5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 572 tons, 3.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,781 tons, 9.5 %
      - Conning Tower: 122 tons, 0.6 %
   Machinery: 3,483 tons, 18.5 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 6,897 tons, 36.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,465 tons, 18.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 375 tons, 2.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     20,318 lbs / 9,216 Kg = 52.2 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 2.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 3.5 ft / 1.1 m
   Roll period: 17.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 77 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.64
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.15

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.510
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.77 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 25.95 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 67
   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:      28.54 ft / 8.70 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   18.18 ft / 5.54 m
      - Mid (50 %):      18.18 ft / 5.54 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   18.18 ft / 5.54 m
      - Stern:      18.18 ft / 5.54 m
      - Average freeboard:   19.01 ft / 5.79 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 91.1 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 138.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 32,095 Square feet or 2,982 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 112 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 137 lbs/sq ft or 670 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.15
      - Overall: 1.01
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[Logi]

That's a rather thick deck for a cruiser that has a 5" MB. I'm surprised no one noticed the battleship-thick deck.

So for a ship that is newer than the Wheeler but 1 kton less in tonnage, it has 4 more 9.2" guns, but less armor, less coverage on the armor. And a slower speed such that it can't even catch the Arquero or Wheeler.

Your ship's best point is it's number of guns and it's thick deck. However that thick deck won't even work well at the ranges you'll be fighting at with those 9.2" guns.


-- Also why 77% steadiness? And

Overall: 1.01

You have space for more stuff.

[Sachmle]

I think you should probably cut the deck armor to around 1.5-1.75". These things are built to sink ships with <11" guns and at the ranges you would fight that is sufficient deck armor to protect from the type of shells you should be seeing. Things with bigger guns should be run from, so I think you need to get up to 32 knots. It will probably cost you a size increase to get there though, even with the decrease in deck armor. You may want to keep the belt height, but try to get that inch back in thickness and get a little more length out of it. This will once again cost you size.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I didn't mention the Deck thickness because it's not unreasonable if the OPFOR is similar ships - ACs.  It's about 1" to much if fighting CLs, but works vs. the intermediate guns.

As of 1918 people are researching fire control out to 24k yards. Those guns fire 380lb shells, which will penetrate a substantial amount of armor.
Looking around at 8" guns on Navweaps, the US 8"/55 with a 335lb shell was expected to penetrate 3" at 23,800 yards.

So this gives a very good "own gun" IZ starting near the max range.

But on the other hand the US 8" would punch through that 5" belt starting at 24,400yards.  Decreasing marginal belts not good.
I would not have decreased that.

[Logi]

My point was that even if the deck could not be penetrated, that belt can be penetrated at nearly any range.

And considering the last simulation of the Arquero vs. Wheeler, they didn't fight nearly at the ranges where a 3" deck would really be useful.

[Jefgte]

127mm for the belt - 1400t
76mm for the deck - 1781t

Too much for the deck, You could divide by 2 the thickness of the deck.


Jef  ;)

[P3D]

Updated Wheelers" are better idea if you want to catch light cruisers (judging from the armament).

The small bulges aren't in style in the Nverse, but are not prohibited either. It's possible to use bulges to limit the width of the armored deck, and carried to extremes such a practice could run afoul of the mods, but I don't see a problem here. The bulges themselves, without an anti-torpedo bulkhead, will afford increased torpedo hit resistance, since they should be extensively subdivided, so you may be able to dispense with the TDS, which might help solve some of the other issues on this ship.

Unfortunately, SS2 assumes that the 'vital spaces' fill out the space between the torpedo bulkheads, or the whole underwater beam if no TDS is present. Of course, in practice the fuel tanks would be on the sides.
The default "bulge does not add any extra subdivision without putting extra steel into the design, it only means that the ship has wider beam under the water than above. If you want to have any extra subdivision, the extra weight must be represented by a torpedo bulkhead.

[Guinness]

Unfortunately, SS2 assumes that the 'vital spaces' fill out the space between the torpedo bulkheads, or the whole underwater beam if no TDS is present. Of course, in practice the fuel tanks would be on the sides.
The default "bulge does not add any extra subdivision without putting extra steel into the design, it only means that the ship has wider beam under the water than above. If you want to have any extra subdivision, the extra weight must be represented by a torpedo bulkhead.

I'd forgotten that SS2 assumes the vital spaces extend the entire width of the bulges. I think to properly simulate an unarmored anti-torpedo bulge, we'd really only need to include the minimal thickness and height TDS that SS2 will allow. Wouldn't you agree?

[Nobody]

Unfortunately, SS2 assumes that the 'vital spaces' fill out the space between the torpedo bulkheads, or the whole underwater beam if no TDS is present. Of course, in practice the fuel tanks would be on the sides.
The default "bulge does not add any extra subdivision without putting extra steel into the design, it only means that the ship has wider beam under the water than above. If you want to have any extra subdivision, the extra weight must be represented by a torpedo bulkhead.

I'd forgotten that SS2 assumes the vital spaces extend the entire width of the bulges. I think to properly simulate an unarmored anti-torpedo bulge, we'd really only need to include the minimal thickness and height TDS that SS2 will allow. Wouldn't you agree?

I think that lead to another problem. As far as I know SS2 doesn't care how thick or high a torpedo bulkhead is. It's either yes or no regarding the required belt etc. length. And the weight is just 2*length*height*thickness*density.
In SS3 however a bulkhead sometimes has the strange effect of reducing the hull/structural weight.

[Delta Force]

The problem is that the CSA can't make true battlecruisers because the largest slips are only level 3. Large heavy cruisers are kind of the only choice, and given that they are short and have to work hard to get a high speed a reduction in engine weight is pretty much required.