1930s Dutch Ships

[Delta Force]

I'm playing a 1930s nation simulation as the Netherlands and am trying to design ships capable of taking on the Imperial Japanese Navy. While the historical Dutch destroyers and cruisers aren't that bad, their capital ships are somewhat lacking. I'm trying to come up with some designs capable of being laid down in the late 1930s for the Dutch Navy. The designs will probably use British building techniques and armament and may even be built in British yards, although it is just as likely that they will be constructed in the Netherlands with required subcomponents being imported. The Dutch do have a strong shipbuilding industry, after all.

Feel free to comment on these designs and propose your own. I'm looking for aircraft carriers, fast battleships, heavy cruisers, light cruisers, and possibly cruiser killers. All the designs I have done for cruiser killers come out as large as treaty battleships anyways, so I might just build battleships instead.

[Delta Force]

Dutch East Indies Battleshipv3, Netherlands Fast Battleship laid down 1939

Displacement:
   42,000 t light; 44,278 t standard; 47,983 t normal; 50,948 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (868.57 ft / 860.00 ft) x 92.00 ft (Bulges 108.00 ft) x (32.00 / 33.85 ft)
   (264.74 m / 262.13 m) x 28.04 m (Bulges 32.92 m)  x (9.75 / 10.32 m)

Armament:
      9 - 15.00" / 381 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,940.00lbs / 879.97kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1939 Model
     3 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
      1 raised mount - superfiring
      16 - 5.25" / 133 mm 50.0 cal guns - 80.01lbs / 36.29kg shells, 400 per gun
     Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1939 Model
     8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
      32 - 1.58" / 40.0 mm 39.0 cal guns - 2.01lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1,800 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1939 Model
     4 x 2 row octuple mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 18,804 lbs / 8,529 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   14.0" / 356 mm   622.00 ft / 189.59 m   24.00 ft / 7.32 m
   Ends:   2.00" / 51 mm   238.00 ft / 72.54 m   24.00 ft / 7.32 m
     Main Belt covers 111 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
      1.50" / 38 mm   622.00 ft / 189.59 m   24.00 ft / 7.32 m
   Beam between torpedo bulkheads 54.00 ft / 16.46 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   14.0" / 356 mm   6.00" / 152 mm      14.0" / 356 mm
   2nd:   6.00" / 152 mm   3.00" / 76 mm      6.00" / 152 mm
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Box over machinery & magazines:
   6.00" / 152 mm
   Forecastle: 4.00" / 102 mm  Quarter deck: 4.00" / 102 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 180,000 shp / 134,280 Kw = 30.99 kts
   Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 6,670 tons

Complement:
   1,620 - 2,107

Cost:
   £21.599 million / $86.398 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2,887 tons, 6.0 %
      - Guns: 2,887 tons, 6.0 %
   Armour: 16,824 tons, 35.1 %
      - Belts: 8,941 tons, 18.6 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 829 tons, 1.7 %
      - Armament: 3,587 tons, 7.5 %
      - Armour Deck: 3,240 tons, 6.8 %
      - Conning Towers: 228 tons, 0.5 %
   Machinery: 4,870 tons, 10.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,418 tons, 36.3 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,984 tons, 12.5 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     72,933 lbs / 33,082 Kg = 43.2 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 10.9 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
   Metacentric height 5.9 ft / 1.8 m
   Roll period: 18.7 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 59 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.62
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.17

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.565 / 0.567
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.96 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 29.33 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 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 %,  32.00 ft / 9.75 m,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Average freeboard:      24.64 ft / 7.51 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 108.7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 158.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 56,002 Square feet or 5,203 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 209 lbs/sq ft or 1,021 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.99
      - Longitudinal: 1.07
      - Overall: 1.00
   Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Excellent accommodation and workspace room

[Nobody]

Have you considered their historical Scharnhost-style battlecruiser?

[KWorld]

Armament is solid, though the 5.25" guns were better at anti-surface work than they were at anti-aircraft, and the pom-poms were at about the end of their useful career in 1939.

Main belt armor is solid and very tall.  End armor is tool light to be useful, probably be better to either ditch it all together or strengthen it.  Deck armor is solid.  Torpedo bulkhead is perhaps a bit weak, given the scale of the rest of the armor.

Speed and range are both good.

The huge bulges are very unusual on a new-build ship, is this intended to be a tumble-home design? 

[Delta Force]

Have you considered their historical Scharnhost-style battlecruiser?

The main issue with Design 1047 is that it is too high tonnage and too expensive for a ship intended to fight heavy cruisers. Not much point in having a 30,000 ton cruiser killer when a treaty battleship is only slightly larger. 30,000+ tons is the smallest you can get a cruiser killer with full protection. I'm just wondering how weak underwater protection can get and still provide adequate protection against torpedoes and other threats, as reducing the underwater protection and perhaps the belt armor seems to be the best way to lower tonnage.

Armament is solid, though the 5.25" guns were better at anti-surface work than they were at anti-aircraft, and the pom-poms were at about the end of their useful career in 1939.

Main belt armor is solid and very tall.  End armor is tool light to be useful, probably be better to either ditch it all together or strengthen it.  Deck armor is solid.  Torpedo bulkhead is perhaps a bit weak, given the scale of the rest of the armor.

Speed and range are both good.

The huge bulges are very unusual on a new-build ship, is this intended to be a tumble-home design?

It is based on the King George V, Lion, and Vanguard classes, so it has major British design influences. I think the weak anti-aircraft armament is actually rather accurate for the period, as my understanding is that the Royal Navy greatly underestimated the threat posed by aircraft until shortly before (or even only just after) the Task Force Z debacle. I think the belts are typical for period Royal Navy ships, the King George V had belts that were 24 feet tall (15 underwater) and also 2 inch belts across almost the entire ship (I guess the Royal Navy never fully adopted all or nothing).

The bulges are supposed to be normal bulges for a conventional ship (not tumblehome) and I think they are proper size for the ship, but I might have made them twice as large as they are supposed to be. Some British warships had very wide bulges though, so 8 feet on each side might actually be historical for the Royal Navy.

[KWorld]

Armament is solid, though the 5.25" guns were better at anti-surface work than they were at anti-aircraft, and the pom-poms were at about the end of their useful career in 1939.

Main belt armor is solid and very tall.  End armor is too light to be useful, probably be better to either ditch it all together or strengthen it.  Deck armor is solid.  Torpedo bulkhead is perhaps a bit weak, given the scale of the rest of the armor.

Speed and range are both good.

The huge bulges are very unusual on a new-build ship, is this intended to be a tumble-home design?

It is based on the King George V, Lion, and Vanguard classes, so it has major British design influences. I think the weak anti-aircraft armament is actually rather accurate for the period, as my understanding is that the Royal Navy greatly underestimated the threat posed by aircraft until shortly before (or even only just after) the Task Force Z debacle. I think the belts are typical for period Royal Navy ships, the King George V had belts that were 24 feet tall (15 underwater) and also 2 inch belts across almost the entire ship (I guess the Royal Navy never fully adopted all or nothing).

Not arguing, really, that the 5.25"/pom-pom combination isn't reasonable for the period, just pointing out that there will be issues in the near future.

The bulges are supposed to be normal bulges for a conventional ship (not tumblehome) and I think they are proper size for the ship, but I might have made them twice as large as they are supposed to be. Some British warships had very wide bulges though, so 8 feet on each side might actually be historical for the Royal Navy.

Large bulges, though, were ONLY on the old ships, not on the new-builds like King George V or Vanguard, and they were intended to improve protection found dangerously weak in WWI. 

[eltf177]

Large bulges, though, were ONLY on the old ships, not on the new-builds like King George V or Vanguard, and they were intended to improve protection found dangerously weak in WWI.

I think they also helped stability as large amounts of topweight (radars, AA guns, etc.) were being added.

[KWorld]

Large bulges, though, were ONLY on the old ships, not on the new-builds like King George V or Vanguard, and they were intended to improve protection found dangerously weak in WWI.

I think they also helped stability as large amounts of topweight (radars, AA guns, etc.) were being added.

True, but not why they were added in the first place.  The R-class were built with bulges, and the Queen Elizabeths were bulged in 1926-27.

[Nobody]

Hood was also build with bulges. And they were big, like 10 feet (3 meters) per side.
Some German ships between the wars had also bulges, but they were small. I believe they didn't want to expose the underwater hull to attacks from above.

[KWorld]

Hood was also build with bulges. And they were big, like 10 feet (3 meters) per side.
Some German ships between the wars had also bulges, but they were small. I believe they didn't want to expose the underwater hull to attacks from above.

According to a quick check, Hood had 7.5' bulges as built.

[eltf177]

Hood was also build with bulges. And they were big, like 10 feet (3 meters) per side.
Some German ships between the wars had also bulges, but they were small. I believe they didn't want to expose the underwater hull to attacks from above.

According to a quick check, Hood had 7.5' bulges as built.

This is news to me, I'm going to check this out!

[Nobody]

Hood was also build with bulges. And they were big, like 10 feet (3 meters) per side.
Some German ships between the wars had also bulges, but they were small. I believe they didn't want to expose the underwater hull to attacks from above.

According to a quick check, Hood had 7.5' bulges as built.

I checked as well. My source says 3.05 meters (probably exactly 10 feet). And she was never properly modernized.

[KWorld]

Anyway, the point remains that no new construction UK designed battleship was built with bulges after HMS Hood, certainly none in the 1930s.

[Delta Force]

It looks like 1930s era battleships with all or nothing armor schemes were constructed more as armored fortresses mounted inside a ship's hull than as armored ships. With that in mind I've reduced the height of the armored belt (seeing as it is really an armored citadel) and deleted all armor from the bow of the ship. Now armor only covers the vital areas and systems required for ship propulsion/movement. I've also increased power to account for the ship losing about 10% of its power in the warmer climate of the Dutch East Indies. The 200,000 horsepower is what it can gain in Northern Europe (I'm assuming the Springsharp formula is for Northern climates).

Dutch East Indies Battleshipv4, Netherlands Fast Battleship laid down 1939

Displacement:
   42,074 t light; 44,360 t standard; 48,357 t normal; 51,554 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (870.72 ft / 860.00 ft) x 100.00 ft x (32.00 / 33.68 ft)
   (265.39 m / 262.13 m) x 30.48 m  x (9.75 / 10.27 m)

Armament:
      9 - 15.00" / 381 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1,940.00lbs / 879.97kg shells, 100 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1939 Model
     3 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
      1 raised mount - superfiring
      16 - 5.25" / 133 mm 50.0 cal guns - 80.01lbs / 36.29kg shells, 400 per gun
     Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1939 Model
     8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
      32 - 1.58" / 40.0 mm 39.0 cal guns - 2.01lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1,800 per gun
     Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1939 Model
     4 x 2 row octuple mounts on sides, evenly spread
      Weight of broadside 18,804 lbs / 8,529 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   14.0" / 356 mm   694.00 ft / 211.53 m   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 124 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
      1.50" / 38 mm   694.00 ft / 211.53 m   24.00 ft / 7.32 m
   Beam between torpedo bulkheads 54.00 ft / 16.46 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   14.0" / 356 mm   6.00" / 152 mm      14.0" / 356 mm
   2nd:   6.00" / 152 mm   3.00" / 76 mm      6.00" / 152 mm
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Box over machinery & magazines:
   6.00" / 152 mm
   Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm  Quarter deck: 4.00" / 102 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 200,000 shp / 149,200 Kw = 32.81 kts
   Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 7,194 tons

Complement:
   1,629 - 2,119

Cost:
   £22.055 million / $88.221 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2,889 tons, 6.0 %
      - Guns: 2,889 tons, 6.0 %
   Armour: 14,901 tons, 30.8 %
      - Belts: 6,323 tons, 13.1 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 924 tons, 1.9 %
      - Armament: 4,018 tons, 8.3 %
      - Armour Deck: 3,407 tons, 7.0 %
      - Conning Towers: 229 tons, 0.5 %
   Machinery: 5,411 tons, 11.2 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,873 tons, 39.0 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,283 tons, 13.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     75,709 lbs / 34,341 Kg = 44.9 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 10.1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
   Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
   Roll period: 17.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 54 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.87
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.09

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck,
     a normal bow and large transom stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.615 / 0.623
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.60 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 33.45 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 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 %,  40.00 ft / 12.19 m,  32.00 ft / 9.75 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  32.00 ft / 9.75 m,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m,  24.00 ft / 7.32 m
      - Average freeboard:      27.44 ft / 8.36 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 123.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 201.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 66,499 Square feet or 6,178 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 119 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 209 lbs/sq ft or 1,020 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.01
      - Longitudinal: 1.24
      - Overall: 1.03
   Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Excellent accommodation and workspace room

[KWorld]

On the 5.25" guns, are you sure you want them in turret on barbette mounts rather than mount and hoist?