Thought this might be fun, so...
Background: Normally the Confederate Congress authorizes new ships with clauses in appropriation bills that say something to the effect of "Two such and such ships displacing no more than X tons (in the light condition) and having such and such other characterstics". These authorizations are made after lengthy committee hearings during which representatives of the administration and navy department detail future building plans, and where sometimes Congress itself defines a requirement that the Navy might not otherwise have had (the most recent example being the Enterprise class of armored cruisers).
In the case of this design, detailed hearings were held in closed session. The authorizing language that emerged in the 1917 Navy Bill reads simply: "Two ships which might be considered cruisers displacing no more than 16,500 tons (in the light condition), one to be built at Charleston Navy Yard, the other at San Diego." No other characteristics are included.
So fire up your Naval Intelligence services. Can you deduce what exactly the CSA is building? I believe that I've left enough clues in other places like semi-annual reports that a pretty good guess might be made. Even if not, I wonder if this might not produce some interesting SS designs.
And for those treaty partners who've already seen the design for this ship: sorry you can't play. ;)
Well, I could use my Secret Service/Intelligence tech and tell you to cough up the design. ;D
Quote from: Walter on May 14, 2009, 11:21:50 AM
Well, I could use my Secret Service/Intelligence tech and tell you to cough up the design. ;D
You could, but I could intentionally misinform you as well. I'll clarify by saying: what given the data that the CSA has made public would your analysts make of this ship? You can use your spies later to get some naval architect drunk and then have him give you the particulars.
well this is what the firjian naval intel people came up with as a result of some cigar paket canculations
Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1950 (Engine 1916)
Displacement:
16,462 t light; 17,100 t standard; 19,015 t normal; 20,548 t full load
Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
721.78 ft / 721.78 ft x 75.46 ft x 21.33 ft (normal load)
220.00 m / 220.00 m x 23.00 m x 6.50 m
Armament:
9 - 7.50" / 191 mm guns (2 mounts), 210.94lbs / 95.68kg shells, 1950 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, evenly spread, 3 raised guns
12 - 5.51" / 140 mm guns (6x2 guns), 83.72lbs / 37.98kg shells, 1950 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.50lbs / 0.23kg shells, 1950 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 2,907 lbs / 1,319 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
6 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 105 % of normal length
- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 2.95" / 75 mm 3.94" / 100 mm
2nd: 2.95" / 75 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
- Armour deck: 1.57" / 40 mm, Conning tower: 5.91" / 150 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 93,992 shp / 70,118 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 12,500nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,448 tons
Complement:
809 - 1,052
Cost:
£10.724 million / $42.896 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 363 tons, 1.9 %
Armour: 4,386 tons, 23.1 %
- Belts: 1,983 tons, 10.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 823 tons, 4.3 %
- Armament: 357 tons, 1.9 %
- Armour Deck: 1,132 tons, 6.0 %
- Conning Tower: 91 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 3,502 tons, 18.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,960 tons, 41.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,554 tons, 13.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 250 tons, 1.3 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
26,675 lbs / 12,100 Kg = 126.5 x 7.5 " / 191 mm shells or 4.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.22
Metacentric height 4.7 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 14.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 73 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.28
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.573
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.57 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.87 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
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: 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Stern: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 16.93 ft / 5.16 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 104.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 138.6 %
Waterplane Area: 38,840 Square feet or 3,608 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 131 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 148 lbs/sq ft or 722 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.29
- Longitudinal: 0.91
- Overall: 1.00
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
A few issues SGDN.
Build date. 1950 is a bit futuristic.
I'd like to see turrets with 4.5 guns each.
1" gunshield on manualy moving machine guns in the AA role. Poor guys that have to swing that around.
More likely 1x6 and 1x3. :)
Dammit, how did knowledge of the secret Confederate 6x7.5" mount get out.
Seriously though, not terribly warm...
a/ aviation cruisers, A.K.A. C(V)
b/ 8x9.2" or 6x13.5" with 30kts+ speed
If it's a fast airship cruiser, expect a bevy of Colombian copyright lawyers on the next boat to Key West.
i was thinking some thing like graf spee
about the cigar packet ship well
the 1950 laydown date does not seem to change any thing and it is onley a quick back of the cigar packet posabilty
the main battery should be 3x3 opps
and you are right about the amour on the aa mg's
Fast AC like that;
6x343 @ 30 or 32kts
;)
Nah, its a 10knot monitor with 15" armor and 15" guns...
I can't believe no one yet has decided it's a blimp carrying submarine...
Oh, I see... so you are going for something like this...
(http://www.combatreform.com/Submarine_Aircraft_Carrier_1.jpg)
:D
I made a rough sim of it and posted it on the Wesworld board together with a pair of more serious carriers, hoping that the guys would think that I am really that crazy to build something like that. ;D
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?postid=81252#post81252
Walter: serious question because I'm curious: How do you guys handle subs over there? Is there just some standard misc weight to add to springsharps to do submarines?
I think the Maori will just have their Naval Attache in Richmond ask about the things.
Quote from: Valles on May 15, 2009, 11:14:15 AM
I think the Maori will just have their Naval Attache in Richmond ask about the things.
But what fun would that be?
Quote from: guinness on May 15, 2009, 10:30:15 AM
Walter: serious question because I'm curious: How do you guys handle subs over there? Is there just some standard misc weight to add to springsharps to do submarines?
Well, we generally stick to the springstyle rules for submarines ( I get the idea that most subs are between 1/5 and 1/6 of the normal displacement for the ballast). Considering that is a stability issue with a design if you add too much miscellaneous weight (and the more things you add, the more difficult it is), I have been using alternative weight-adding tricks to sim other aspects of the submarine like the torpedoes on my version of the German Biber. I used the weight of the torpedo bulkhead to sim the weight of those two torpedoes. For the latest models, I have been using the main belt to sim the weight of the torpedoes. I also simmed a 21" and a 24" torpedo. :) I used a negative value somewhere in the torpedo sims, but can't remember what exactly I did.
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?postid=11451#post11451
Nay.. this is what you REALLY want for a sub...
Michael
...Fun?
Seriously, though, I haven't got a clue. 'Could be called cruisers' is way too suspicious, and the weight isn't anything obvious.
Ok, another clue then:
Deep in the recesses of the converted hotel that now serves as the HQ of the CSN's Bureau of Ships in Richmond, one of the constructors is discussing this project with a naval officer counterpart:
"So have you looked at the updated timeline?" asked the constructor.
"Yes, the first issue is the armament. The Naval Ordnance Factory at Norfolk hasn't built guns of that caliber in some time." the officer notes.
"True, they say they have the necessary tooling on hand though, and claim that they can produce the necessary number of guns without delaying the ships' overall progress." said the constructor.
The officer: "Truthfully, I'm less worried about the guns and mounts, and more worried about getting them to San Diego. I wish they'd delay laying down that ship another six months. Transportation will be difficult. After all, when they planned the construction of the new heavy shore defense batteries there, they gave them an extra six months in the schedule compared to those being built at Norfolk."
Criuser with really big guns = http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/goryo_f.htm (http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/goryo_f.htm)
I think Im getting close, its either a Fisher Follie or some sort of gun testbed/monitor.
Love that page http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/goryo_f.htm ,
someday Ill build
http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/fuhrer_f.htm,
giggle :D ;) ;)
2x18" @30kts
;)
Quote from: Jefgte on May 15, 2009, 03:55:56 PM
2x18" @30kts
;)
The CSA never produced anything larger then 15" so far, and it says
QuoteThe Naval Ordnance Factory at Norfolk hasn't built guns of that caliber in some time.
So I doubt it's anything larger in caliber than 12", and is most likely a 9.2" as P3D stated earlier.
Don't forget that pre-dreadnought guns tended to be very big. 18" guns were not uncommon.
I just looked here:
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=751.0 (http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=751.0)
Rather this one:
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3136.0
By Guiness' clues, it would be 12" guns then, as 9.2"s (the other caliber not produced for some time) should hardly cause that much trouble during transportation. So 8x12" and high speed, minimal armor.
Quote from: P3D on May 15, 2009, 05:10:56 PM
Rather this one:
http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=3136.0
No, that's the "CURRENT" guns, I meant the Historic ones, i.e. not produced anymore. But I do agree on the 12" high speed little armor idea.
Using OTL figures:
RN 12"/50: Length ~ 51 feet, Weight ~ 150,000 pounds
RN 9.2"/50: Length ~ 31.5 feet, Weight ~ 62,000 pounds
Did the CSA develop any 12" guns after the 12"/35? There's none mentioned in those threads.