Design Bureau Hong Kong

[Logi]

Version in 1922.

CL22, RRC Light Cruiser laid down 1922

Displacement:
   5,000 t light; 5,279 t standard; 5,776 t normal; 6,174 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   500.00 ft / 500.00 ft x 51.00 ft x 16.50 ft (normal load)
   152.40 m / 152.40 m x 15.54 m  x 5.03 m

Armament:
      24 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (6x4 guns), 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1922 Model
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts - superfiring
      4 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1922 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
   Weight of broadside 1,317 lbs / 597 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 220
   9 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   3.00" / 76 mm   500.00 ft / 152.40 m   10.64 ft / 3.24 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 154 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   3.00" / 76 mm   2.00" / 51 mm      3.00" / 76 mm
   2nd:   1.00" / 25 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 37,417 shp / 27,913 Kw = 28.00 kts
   Range 8,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 895 tons

Complement:
   330 - 430

Cost:
   £1.339 million / $5.356 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 165 tons, 2.8 %
   Armour: 1,048 tons, 18.1 %
      - Belts: 591 tons, 10.2 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 128 tons, 2.2 %
      - Armour Deck: 309 tons, 5.3 %
      - Conning Tower: 21 tons, 0.4 %
   Machinery: 1,269 tons, 22.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,325 tons, 40.3 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 776 tons, 13.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 193 tons, 3.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     6,879 lbs / 3,120 Kg = 130.5 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 1.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
   Metacentric height 2.1 ft / 0.7 m
   Roll period: 14.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.67
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.15

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.480
   Length to Beam Ratio: 9.80 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 22.36 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 61
   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:      20.00 ft / 6.10 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Mid (50 %):      15.00 ft / 4.57 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   14.00 ft / 4.27 m
      - Stern:      14.00 ft / 4.27 m
      - Average freeboard:   15.62 ft / 4.76 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 98.2 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 110.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 16,695 Square feet or 1,551 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 113 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 89 lbs/sq ft or 434 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.97
      - Longitudinal: 1.24
      - 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

[Sachmle]

Keep your 1,000t and develop a 13 or 14cm gun and use it instead of the 12...too light.

[Logi]

The thing was the 140mm (which I have) is too close to the 6" already. The 6" is getting a triple mount, so having a 140mm quadruple kind of defeats the purpose of either.

A 130mm quadruple is possible (and has a french historical equivalent), but I do not have the gun. It would cost more develop the new gun.

[P3D]

If you want quadruple 12cm mounts, they must be turrets on barbette.

[Logi]

I do believe the French 130mm and the British 6"/50 Quadruples were mount & hoists.

[P3D]

I do believe the French 130mm and the British 6"/50 Quadruples were mount & hoists.

I don't have images on the Edinburgh, but the Dunkerque had full turrets - i.e. with  revolving structures belowdecks besides the hoist. Damn the French taking off their ministry site with all those nice plans, so I have only this image:

http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Dunkerque/Draw/05.jpg

Garzke&Dulin says that the quads on the Dunkerque were turrets, the twin 130mms referred both as turrets and mounts.

The triple 6"/50s of the RN Town class was in turrets.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-50_mk23_pics.htm

So I'd be very surprised if the quads were not.

[Logi]

The triple 6"/50 Mark XXI-II were specially described as a mount & hoist assembly in navweapons. There is no doubt that triple can be done in mount&hoist style.

There is little information on the quadruple 6"/50 by the Britsih, but it designed with the same mount&hoist assembly as the triple, but later scrapped for a redesign as a French (merged-duals) turret.

Navyweaps describing the 6"/50:

The twin Mark XXI... The fore and aft turret groups had a single magazine, with each turret having its own handling room, which was part of the fixed structure..

The triple Mark XXII... These ships had a magazine for each turret with a shell room on the same level.  A handling room just below the turret was part of the fixed structure.  Dual electric powered endless chains delivered 32 charges per minute from the magazine to the handling room.  Charges were carried by hand to crewmen in "cordite pockets" attached to the revolving structure where they were passed by hand via hand-ups into the gunhouse.  Shells were delivered by dual hoists to the handling room at the rate of 32 rounds per minute.  Each gun had its own shell hoist attached to the revolving structure that delivered shells vertically to the gunhouse.

It also states that the lower areas were not armored (no armored Barbette).

[P3D]

The "turrets" clearly  below-deck parts, see the linked navweaps pictures show the Mark XXII turret trunk, "The triple Mark XXII was a short trunk design with similar features as the Mark XXI". So not a a simple mount&hoist design with a deck-mounted gunhouse, with only hoists belowdeck.

Unless your definition of "mount and hoists" allows extensive belowdeck features - mine does not.

On a sidenote, the rules clearly do not allow triple and quadruple mounts:

BB/AC Architecture - Main battery in turrets
...
1920: No restriction (high or low) on caliber of turreted guns


Light Cruiser Architecture - Main battery in deck mounts/casemates
...
1910 Cutting Edge (+5): twin gun mounts (require hoists); powered gun mounts; unrestricted weapon armor

[Logi]

There is no revolving structure below deck except for the central hoist. The handing room is not armored.

It is a mount&hoist. A turret&Barbette means that the handling room revolves with the turret, is armored.

Neither is present in the triple 6"/50.

And then we must remember the historical guns are DP mounts. This is not. There COULD be a Barbette to support the gun, but it is not needed.

[P3D]

Then what are those thingies below that box with the guns sticking out of it? The truncated cone and the 5m-diameter two-story high cylinder, solidly attached to the former (therefore revolving structure), inside the roller path. Definitely not the "deck mount", however you try to make it.
The lower lever suspiciously looks like the place where you would load the shells themselves on the turret hoists.
The extent or existence of any barbette armor here is secondary.

There is no revolving structure below deck except for the central hoist. The handing room is not armored.

It is a mount&hoist. A turret&Barbette means that the handling room revolves with the turret, is armored.

Neither is present in the triple 6"/50.

[Valles]

I think that there's considerably more room for interpretation errors in the visual images than in a quotation that specifically and explictly uses the exact terminology that defines our rule structure.

The fact that this produces a range of possible results counter to your preconceptions, P3D, is frankly irrelevant. Even in the event that triple hoist mounts did not exist, you have done nothing to demonstrate that the could not have or that they should not in our game.

Logi is making no attempt to stuff your actions into a box that suits his ideas rather than yours. Kindly extend the same courtesy in return.

[TexanCowboy]

Half-heartly agree with both sides her.

Logi, P3D is right about the Turret and Barbette on the 6'' guns. It's possible, but it would have a very slow rate of fire. The below deck structure turned with the ship, with the armoured protection not mattering.

However, there is no reason to state that the 4x5'' could not exist on a mount and hoist. It should weigh the same as a 2x6'' mount, which was done in a mount and hoist, as in the Omaha's. The rate of fire, however, will be a lot slower then a 2x5'' mount.

My recommendation? Keep 6 twin mounts on the centerline. Remove two of the pairs of torpedoes, and place another 5'' mount there. Also, put a mount on each side....much better ROF, that would make up for the 6 missing guns.

[P3D]

The interpretations of the visual images is fairly straightforward, as they are more or less primary sources unlike the quotations from navweaps, which are tertiary sources at best. They are only a poor substitute for a drawing, and there is only one present, for the XXIII mount (which is a turret on barbette), not the Mark XXII.

The "exact terminology" navweaps use is rather confusing, the same weapons installations referred as mounts and as turrets on the same page (e.g. the British 8"/50 gun). The same with SpringSharp, it does not have clear definitions on the different mount categories.

What you call my "preconceptions" was the result of putting N2verse rules into N3verse, with an eye on to prohibit players from hindsight designs and to exploit SS2 peculiarities - like too little weight given to "deck mount with hoist" mounts, compared to turrets on barbettes, while allowing existing design fit in the rules with the least contradiction. I planned to overhaul the rules when the sim reaches some later stage, like define the difference of the mounts (heavier mount - higher ROF), but that did not happen.

Also the rules are there as a guidelines, on what was possible technologically in the era. It reduces workload on the mods significantly so they won't have to go over each nontraditional design choices and assign performance penalties to a given design based on mod discretion. Which would be viewed as arbitrary and unjustified, leading to players complaining about mods assigning undue penalties to stifle creativity. I.e. a navy won't build a complex quadruple 5.1" mount (on deck-mounted gunhouse with hoists) as the rate of fire would be only marginally higher than that of a twin mount due to limited hoist facilities and cramped gunhouses.

I'd quielty note that the only example of largeish caliber guns in triple deck-mounted gunhouses (vs. gunhouses on barbettes) that I am aware of is the triple gunhouse of the early USN treaty cruisers. A practice which was not followed in later designs - common crade, low ROF.

I think that there's considerably more room for interpretation errors in the visual images than in a quotation that specifically and explictly uses the exact terminology that defines our rule structure.

The fact that this produces a range of possible results counter to your preconceptions, P3D, is frankly irrelevant. Even in the event that triple hoist mounts did not exist, you have done nothing to demonstrate that the could not have or that they should not in our game.

Logi is making no attempt to stuff your actions into a box that suits his ideas rather than yours. Kindly extend the same courtesy in return.

[Valles]

And if you'd said that in the first place - "That's not likely, and here are the details on why" - I'd have no issue, even if Logi did. I'm perfectly aware that my grasp of the technical details of our topic isn't the best here, and am always interested in improving it.

But what I read was "No, you can't do that, it's wrong," an approach that gets my back up something fierce.

[maddox]

[ur=http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=340.0l]Rule 1, Play the game, not the rules.[/url]

1910 Cutting Edge (+5): twin gun mounts (require hoists); powered gun mounts; unrestricted weapon armor

Secondaries are 4-7" guns. 8-10" medium-caliber guns are not secondaries, but medium-caliber main guns

Even if not specific in the rules. Tripples and quads are normaly turret and barbette, and twins over 8" too. 

Of course, if penalties are accepted, everybody is welcome to make the same mistakes as the  tripples on Repulse and Renown.

"The triple mountings were always extremely difficult to train, and the general procedure when moving through a large arc was for the two trainers at the 'normal' and 'director' training wheels to be assisted by the remainder of the crew pushing on the breeches or muzzles."