Is it worth it?

[Carthaginian]

I have two old armored cruisers that are up for a refit in the next couple of years... the problem is, they are too crappy to continue in service as-is in the current environment. My question is, would it be better to try and rebuild them and get some more service out of them, or just scrap them and get what I can out of them to make better ships?

Here is the original version (Ashby is about halfway through the post):
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=160.msg1605#msg1605

And here is the proposed refit. I dropped the 7.5" guns for lighter, quicker-firing 6" guns, and increased the 12-pounders to 25-pounders. I left the torpedo tubes and one set of reloads, and added a Marconi. My intent is to use them in the Gulf for at least 10 more years as heavy patrol cruisers, with one covering the Florida Straits and one the Yucatan Channel. They'd basically be flagships for cruiser groups, and the new speed profile fits in well with my middle-age protected cruisers. This is about as much as I could accomplish without making it a reconstruction rather than a refit.

CSS Ashby, Confederate States of America 1st Class Cruiser laid down 1894 (Engine 1907)

Displacement:
   10,129 t light; 10,686 t standard; 11,968 t normal; 12,994 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   498.00 ft / 498.00 ft x 68.00 ft x 21.00 ft (normal load)
   151.79 m / 151.79 m x 20.73 m  x 6.40 m

Armament:
      2 - 9.20" / 234 mm guns in single mounts, 380.00lbs / 172.37kg shells, 1898 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread
      14 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 100.00lbs / 45.36kg shells, 1900 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
     8 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
      12 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 25.00lbs / 11.34kg shells, 1894 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread
     4 guns in hull casemates - Limited use in all but light seas
      10 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns in one mount, 6.00lbs / 2.72kg shells, 1894 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mount
     on side, 6 raised guns
   Weight of broadside 2,520 lbs / 1,143 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 200
   6 - 19.5" / 495.3 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   7.00" / 178 mm   405.00 ft / 123.44 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Ends:   5.00" / 127 mm     93.00 ft / 28.35 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
   Upper:   5.00" / 127 mm   405.00 ft / 123.44 m   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 125 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   8.00" / 203 mm   5.00" / 127 mm      7.00" / 178 mm
   2nd:   3.00" / 76 mm         -               -
   3rd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -
   4th:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 7.00" / 178 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 24,608 ihp / 18,358 Kw = 22.00 kts
   Range 12,800nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,308 tons

Complement:
   571 - 743

Cost:
   £0.989 million / $3.957 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 341 tons, 2.9 %
   Armour: 3,785 tons, 31.6 %
      - Belts: 1,974 tons, 16.5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 372 tons, 3.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,361 tons, 11.4 %
      - Conning Tower: 79 tons, 0.7 %
   Machinery: 2,486 tons, 20.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 3,481 tons, 29.1 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,839 tons, 15.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 37 tons, 0.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     13,326 lbs / 6,045 Kg = 34.2 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 1.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.45
   Metacentric height 5.3 ft / 1.6 m
   Roll period: 12.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.16
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.30

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.589
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.32 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22.32 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
   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:      16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Mid (50 %):      16.00 ft / 4.88 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   8.00 ft / 2.44 m
      - Stern:      8.00 ft / 2.44 m
      - Average freeboard:   13.40 ft / 4.08 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 97.7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 113.2 %
   Waterplane Area: 24,515 Square feet or 2,277 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 103 lbs/sq ft or 504 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 1.00
      - Longitudinal: 1.03
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Rebuild Time & Prices
9.56 months
5.0645 BP
$4.945

[The Rock Doctor]

I'm on the fence on this one, leaning towards no.  The continued use of reciprocating engines will mean she's slow and unlikely to maintain her top speed for very long, making her vulnerable to battlecruisers.  On the other hand, you might be able to find missions where battlecruisers aren't considered likely opponents - watching the Mesoamericans, for instance.

I have to admit I don't care for the low freeboard aft - eight feet's pretty low to be mounting a gun of that size...

[Carthaginian]

I'm on the fence on this one, leaning towards no.  The continued use of reciprocating engines will mean she's slow and unlikely to maintain her top speed for very long, making her vulnerable to battlecruisers.  On the other hand, you might be able to find missions where battlecruisers aren't considered likely opponents - watching the Mesoamericans, for instance.

I have to admit I don't care for the low freeboard aft - eight feet's pretty low to be mounting a gun of that size...

OK, well, that's about all I intended to keep them for.
Still that's a vote for NO.

[P3D]

2.5BP for making it two knots faster doesn't worth rebuild, make it a simple refit. 7.5" guns go to the coastal artillery, replaced by 6" ones, but ship range should remain the same. Against small vessels the 6"-4" combo is better than the 7.5"-3" one.

[Desertfox]

I would keep them, not as Armored Cruisers but as Colonial Battleships. They do mount a respectable battery. And forgot a rebuild, not worth it.

[Ithekro]

You have to have colonies to have a use for "Colonial Battleships".  :P

[Carthaginian]

2.5BP for making it two knots faster doesn't worth rebuild, make it a simple refit. 7.5" guns go to the coastal artillery, replaced by 6" ones, but ship range should remain the same. Against small vessels the 6"-4" combo is better than the 7.5"-3" one.

Thanks for the advice, guys.

If I could put turbines in them, I could make it worthwhile, but that's not an option. The 7.5's going to coastal artillery is a great thought ;I haven't quite gotten to thinking that miserly yet. In fact, it makes me wonder if scrapping them both whole and making two 'stone frigates' out of them to help guard my most important bases might be the best use for them.

I would keep them, not as Armored Cruisers but as Colonial Battleships. They do mount a respectable battery. And forgot a rebuild, not worth it.

LOL... I don't have any colonial possessions to guard. :D
I might try and sell them, if any lesser powers are interested... but I don't think that anyone  (even NPCs) are that 'lesser.'

[Desertfox]

Get some! :D :P

I would have bought them if they had had 6" secondaries. Im pretty sure New Zion could use those ships...

[Carthaginian]

Well, I could get colonies... but that would spread me thin.
The aspirations of the Confederate States of America are more domestic in nature. :)

[Ithekro]

"Who needs colonies if you can have Mesos?  Heck I can walk to our far off lands without any guff given by any old country."

[Carthaginian]

"Who needs colonies if you can have Mesos?  Heck I can walk to our far off lands without any guff given by any old country."

My sentiments exactly. ;) Those pirates are what's gonna get my new ships trained up. :D

[maddox]

I would scrap them.   To big to be put in jeopardy easely. To clumsy for chirurgical work. To expensive for coasty guard duty.
550-750 men are not something I will trow away. Nor 10Ktons in the budget, worth 5 Ktons in modern power.

[Carthaginian]

They'll definitely be scrapped, or sold if the opportunity comes up.

[Borys]

scrap'em

[khymerion]

Maybe its the collector of anacronistic warships in me and the idea of the endless refit (50+ year old ships... bring them on!)... but try to see how far you can push the thing.  It may be inefficient but hey, the old girls probably still have some kick in them...  they are only 10 years old and got a pretty hefty weight to them so there is some room to wiggle around in.  *looks around nerviously*  Sorry... had to be the devil's advocate...