Iberian Navy

[Logi]

A design for a newer destroyer for the Iberian Navy in 1900.

Hull-015, Iberia Destroyer laid down 1900

Displacement:
   500 t light; 514 t standard; 612 t normal; 690 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (230.00 ft / 230.00 ft) x 20.00 ft x (9.50 / 10.40 ft)
   (70.10 m / 70.10 m) x 6.10 m  x (2.90 / 3.17 m)

Armament:
      3 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 50.0 cal guns - 14.29lbs / 6.48kg shells, 80 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1900 Model
     3 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 43 lbs / 19 kg
      Main Torpedoes
      4 - 17.7" / 450 mm, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m torpedoes - 0.579 t each, 2.318 t total
   In 4 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.15" / 4 mm         -               -

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 9,595 ihp / 7,158 Kw = 26.00 kts
   Trial Speed = 29.00 kts
   Range 3,750nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 176 tons (100% coal)
     Caution: Delicate, lightweight machinery

Complement:
   60 - 79

Cost:
   £0.072 million / $0.286 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 10 tons, 1.6 %
      - Guns: 7 tons, 1.1 %
      - Weapons: 3 tons, 0.5 %
   Armour: 1 tons, 0.2 %
      - Armament: 1 tons, 0.2 %
   Machinery: 369 tons, 60.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 119 tons, 19.4 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 112 tons, 18.3 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 2 tons, 0.4 %
      - Above deck: 2 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     115 lbs / 52 Kg = 8.5 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.44
   Metacentric height 0.8 ft / 0.3 m
   Roll period: 9.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.14
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.490 / 0.505
   Length to Beam Ratio: 11.50 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 15.17 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  13.00 ft / 3.96 m,  10.00 ft / 3.05 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  10.00 ft / 3.05 m,  8.50 ft / 2.59 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  8.00 ft / 2.44 m,  8.00 ft / 2.44 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  8.00 ft / 2.44 m,  8.50 ft / 2.59 m
      - Average freeboard:      9.05 ft / 2.76 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 198.0 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 80.1 %
   Waterplane Area: 3,038 Square feet or 282 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 20 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 19 lbs/sq ft or 91 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 1.51
      - Overall: 0.55
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[snip]

Im a little leery of the freeboard at 8ft, would it be possible to get another foot out of her?  No light guns is an interesting choice.

[KWorld]

I'm puzzled by the shape: it's JUST too long to fit into a Type 0, so why the relatviely fat Cb?  But it's also got a very high L:b ratio.

[Logi]

Im a little leery of the freeboard at 8ft, would it be possible to get another foot out of her?  No light guns is an interesting choice.

I'm not sure but I can try.

I'm puzzled by the shape: it's JUST too long to fit into a Type 0, so why the relatviely fat Cb?  But it's also got a very high L:b ratio.

No... it is long enough to fit a Type 0. The Hull-014 and Hull-015 were specifically designed that way. I use the imperial system so the max length allowed in a Type 0 is 230 ft. The metric measurements are pointless in this case. We settled this issue quite some time ago.

Type 0, Dry-dock 70 meters/230 feet, cost $4

[eltf177]

Hull-015, Iberia Destroyer laid down 1900
Armament:
      3 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 50.0 cal guns - 14.29lbs / 6.48kg shells, 80 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1900 Model
     3 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread

Singles or twins?

[Logi]

Not sure why it says twins, but it's supposed to be singles. In any case, this version has the mounting fixed and the freeboard raised to 8.5' (a full feet requires the guns lose their splinter shield which I prefer to keep).

Hull-015, Iberia Destroyer laid down 1900

Displacement:
   500 t light; 514 t standard; 612 t normal; 690 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (230.00 ft / 230.00 ft) x 20.00 ft x (9.50 / 10.40 ft)
   (70.10 m / 70.10 m) x 6.10 m  x (2.90 / 3.17 m)

Armament:
      3 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 50.0 cal guns - 14.29lbs / 6.48kg shells, 80 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1900 Model
     3 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 43 lbs / 19 kg
      Main Torpedoes
      4 - 17.7" / 450 mm, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m torpedoes - 0.579 t each, 2.318 t total
   In 4 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   0.10" / 3 mm         -               -

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 9,593 ihp / 7,156 Kw = 26.00 kts
   Range 3,750nm at 10.00 kts
   Trial Speed = 29.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 176 tons (100% coal)
     Caution: Delicate, lightweight machinery

Complement:
   60 - 79

Cost:
   £0.072 million / $0.286 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 11 tons, 1.8 %
      - Guns: 8 tons, 1.3 %
      - Weapons: 3 tons, 0.5 %
   Armour: 1 tons, 0.1 %
      - Armament: 1 tons, 0.1 %
   Machinery: 369 tons, 60.3 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 117 tons, 19.2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 112 tons, 18.3 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 2 tons, 0.4 %
      - Above deck: 2 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     115 lbs / 52 Kg = 8.5 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.43
   Metacentric height 0.8 ft / 0.3 m
   Roll period: 9.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.14
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.490 / 0.505
   Length to Beam Ratio: 11.50 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 15.17 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 66 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  13.00 ft / 3.96 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  8.50 ft / 2.59 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  8.50 ft / 2.59 m,  8.50 ft / 2.59 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  8.50 ft / 2.59 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Average freeboard:      9.03 ft / 2.75 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 198.0 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 80.4 %
   Waterplane Area: 3,037 Square feet or 282 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 20 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 19 lbs/sq ft or 92 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.50
      - Longitudinal: 1.50
      - Overall: 0.55
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

[snip]

Looks good to me. I cant help but wonder if adding a bit of beam would help add a bit more strength to the design.

[Jefgte]

Range 3,750nm at 10.00 kts

Colonial work ?

[Logi]

Range 3,750nm at 10.00 kts

Colonial work ?

The DD is meant, as it's predecessor was, to operate as a general destroyer for the fleet. In other words, it should be able to travel the same ranges as it's fleet. Unfortunately I had to reduce the cruise range from 4000 nm at 10 kts to 3750 nm but I think it should still be fine for operating with the fleet at most ranges.

I'll make special shorter range DDs later.

[Tanthalas]

*Mental note*
Dont ride on Iberian DDs, they are gona be wet and miserable in any kind of moderate seas...

[Logi]

Looks good to me. I cant help but wonder if adding a bit of beam would help add a bit more strength to the design.

It does not. Beam and draught have negative correlation with regard to cross-sectional strength. As beam goes increase draught must decrease to maintain the same cross-sectional strength. In a similar vein, beam has a negative impact on seakeeping whilst draught has a positive impact (again draught from the beam:draught relationship).

Beam is necessary in general for ship stability and lowering recoil effect on the ship. Neither of these are an issue this design. However, seakeeping is and that is why I have chosen more draught over more beam.

td:dr I have already tried this as well and it yields negative benefits.

*Mental note*
Dont ride on Iberian DDs, they are gona be wet and miserable in any kind of moderate seas...

That has nothing to do with the Iberian navy Tan, Italy is just the new France. Everyone else's DDs (UK, France, etc.) have seakeeping and freeboard similar to mine. Italy is just the odd one out with its lavishly comfortable destroyers.

Edit: I'll have to retract that statement. Everyone but Italy and Japan.

[Tanthalas]

but mine are fast to (actualy faster than your specimen here but with shorter legs)... no IDK why it worked out that way it just did

[Logi]

but mine are fast to (actualy faster than your specimen here but with shorter legs)... no IDK why it worked out that way it just did

Two reasons:
1) You have a longer overall ship length (yours being 20 ft longer than my design or an 8.7% increase in length). Having such increases the natural speed of the ship and thus reduces the power necessary to attain similar speeds. IE: You can have lighter machinery propel your ship to 1 kt faster than mine. You save 25 tons on machinery.

2) You have half the range of my destroyer (your range double is 3800nm which is only 50 nm away from my design's range). The difference manifests itself in the bunker weight (90 on yours, 176 on mine). This difference of 86 tons.

In total this is a weight savings of 111 tons, which is 22.2% the weight of the ship. This is a pretty significant chunk of weight and structural strength that you can devote to seakeeping and freeboard. This manifests itself in the lavishly comfortable state of your destroyers in comparison to mine.

tl;dr I exchanged comfort for utility in range and possible build locations.

[snip]

Strength does not necessarily mean composite.

[Tanthalas]

Not gona get into it with you logi, if you cant accept a joke in the good humor it was meant in, well thats your loss.  I realised EXACTLY why my DDs ride so much better than everyone elses, however they are built to my needs not anyone elses (seriously think about it whats the farthest my ships are likley to go without coaling... Tranto to Alexandria?)