StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Artemis, Cascadian Large Cruiser laid down 1926

Displacement:
32,347 t light; 34,110 t standard; 38,813 t normal; 42,574 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(807.62 ft / 800.00 ft) x 99.00 ft x (32.00 / 34.32 ft)
(246.16 m / 243.84 m) x 30.18 m x (9.75 / 10.46 m)

Armament:
9 - 12.00" / 305 mm 50.0 cal guns - 999.99lbs / 453.59kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1926 Model
3 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 5.00" / 127 mm 43.0 cal guns - 61.05lbs / 27.69kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1926 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 1.87lbs / 0.85kg shells, 2,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
6 x 2 row quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
16 - 1.00" / 25.4 mm 50.0 cal guns - 0.53lbs / 0.24kg shells, 2,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1926 Model
8 x 2 row twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 10,030 lbs / 4,550 kg
Main Torpedoes
4 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m torpedoes - 1.070 t each, 4.281 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes
2nd Torpedoes
12 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m torpedoes - 1.070 t each, 12.844 t total
In 1 sets of deck mounted reloads

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 480.00 ft / 146.30 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 10.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
2.00" / 51 mm 480.00 ft / 146.30 m 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 80.00 ft / 24.38 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 9.00" / 229 mm 10.0" / 254 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm - 3.00" / 76 mm
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
4th: 0.10" / 3 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 5.00" / 127 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 2.00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 4 shafts, 189,311 shp / 141,226 Kw = 33.61 kts
Range 10,000nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 8,464 tons

Complement:
1,382 - 1,797

Cost:
£10.110 million / $40.440 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,250 tons, 5.8 %
- Guns: 2,225 tons, 5.7 %
- Weapons: 25 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 11,013 tons, 28.4 %
- Belts: 3,294 tons, 8.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,066 tons, 2.7 %
- Armament: 1,909 tons, 4.9 %
- Armour Deck: 4,375 tons, 11.3 %
- Conning Towers: 370 tons, 1.0 %
Machinery: 6,060 tons, 15.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 12,932 tons, 33.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,465 tons, 16.7 %
Miscellaneous weights: 92 tons, 0.2 %
- On freeboard deck: 92 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
53,632 lbs / 24,327 Kg = 62.1 x 12.0 " / 305 mm shells or 9.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.09
Metacentric height 5.8 ft / 1.8 m
Roll period: 17.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.53
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.536 / 0.548
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.08 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.70 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 67
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 5.00 ft / 1.52 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 25.00 ft / 7.62 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 25.00 ft / 7.62 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Aft deck: 30.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Quarter deck: 20.00 %, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 24.10 ft / 7.35 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 92.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 181.0 %
Waterplane Area: 56,777 Square feet or 5,275 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 120 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 173 lbs/sq ft or 846 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.29
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

3 scout aircraft included

Ma Deuce wrote:

Not disputing any of that. But for defending against destroyers a fast ship armed with numerous 6" quickfiring guns seems to me to be the better choice. Also, according to my doctrine their job is not to go up against other light cruisers, I have heavy or battlecruisers for that. Hence, quickfiring 6" guns.

I recognize the value of smaller quick-firing guns for destroyer-killing, hence why it's one of the roles of my so-called scout cruisers, along with scouting (naturally) and flotilla leading. My "Light Cruisers" are more intended for general cruiser work, including engaging other cruisers. Although I didn't have a huge number of SCs at the time, my 8" gunned light cruiser class was built with the knowledge that when they joined the fleet, there would already be a large number of older 5.5" gunned light cruisers already in service that are still quite effective against DDs, and by the time they retired, there would be enough new scout cruisers for anti-destroyer screening. My logic is that if you're going to build a cruiser for destroyer killing (that's not meant to take on other cruisers), it's better to have a smaller faster ship that can still decisively outgun your typical destroyer, than less-numerous big cruisers with a large number of QF guns each: Destroyers are plentiful, and one ship can only engage so many targets at once. It just so happened my scout cruisers did that job well enough that I figured it was better to simply build more of them then creating a specialized type.

I am also using the terminology because the German Navy did differentiate between light (kleine) and heavy (Große) Kreuzer even back then. Of course, you might argue that small and big does not equal light and heavy cruisers, but this is close enough for my taste.

I thought that "Große Kreuzer" was the Kaiserliche Marine's designation for what everyone else called a battlecruiser? In a similar vein, I also seem recall them designating their battleships as "Linienschiff". However as an aside, I'll note the later Kriegsmarine apparently switched to to more conventional "Schlachtschiff" and "Schlachtkreuzer".

Thanas wrote:As for large cruisers, you all are aware that you are well within battlecruiser territory now, right?

Very badly designed battlecruisers, that is. My Derfflinger class has a tonnage of 2/3 your ships and could probably sink any of them.

Thanas wrote:Okay. Let's say one of those commerce raiders roughly meet my Ersatz Blücher in battle. Those ships will have comparable armament. Let us also say that both ships are heavily damaged or destroyed. Which means you just sacrificed a 35kt ship for destroying a 20kt ship - of which there are far more left. That is why I do not think having such large cruisers for the purpose of commerce raiding/defence is economically worthwhile.

Thanas wrote:And then the 35kt ship has failed in its mission because the commerce raider can continue on. As the 20kt ship still has 31 knots max speed, nobody will get a hit except at close ranges anyway.

Thanas wrote:Other players are not already spending money on this and as I am not allowed to retroactively change my build queue, I'd rather not change my strategy now.

Anyway, you got a PM.

Steve wrote:but her guns were intentionally kept small enough that not only could they have her lighter with a nice armament but that it would remove any temptation of admirals to put her into a line of battle.

Thanas wrote:That much certainly is true, however most of the scout cruisers presented here have less armamament than my large destroyer.

Ma Deuce wrote: Which is a totally unnecessary consideration because battlecruisers were never historically employed in the battleline against battleships, unless you count Hood, which was arguably a fast battleship, being as well protected as any BB in Royal Navy Service at the time she was built (although in dire need of updating when she was sunk), and the German BCs' "death ride" toward the end of Jutland, all the participants of which survived (and it's worth noting that German BCs were designed from the start to withstand combat in the battleline, to counter their numerical inferiority with the Royal Navy)

You need to go take a look at Jutland again; most of the run to the south saw German battlecruiser pitted against both British battlecruisers and the Queen Elizabeth class fast battleships.

Furthermore the battlecruiser Lutzow did not survive the damage taken on the death ride, and Seydlitz would have certainly sunk had she not been a mere 150 miles from a friendly base, allowing high capacity pumping steamers sail out to meet her and aid her voyage home

You can also find quite a few examples of battlecruisers going up against battleships in WW2, with differing results. Renown was actually single-handedly beating Scharnhorst and Gneisenau for a while until they ran away; though those are the worst battleships of WW2 (I like them anyway). On the other hand Kirishima was completely shot to pieces Washington. And while that was very short ranged action, Washington also had armor only intended to resist 14in shells anyway. Still it was enough to give a wide margin of superiority as the only confirmed 14in hit on her was solidly rejected by the barbette.

Ma Deuce wrote:
I must admit the 5th BS slipped my mind, however weren't they too far back to provide more than limited support, and only scored a handful of hits on the German BCs?

I thought Lutzow bugged out before the Death Ride, by virtue of already haven taken too much damage from earlier engagements (mainly from the 3rd BCS, which as I recall is what actually doomed her) to keep up with the other battlecruisers?

I was actually referring of instances where battlecruisers were intentionally sent out to be pitted against battleships: I'm pretty sure poor Kiri was not expecting to face anything bigger than a heavy cruiser on her last night.

As an aside, that skirmish at Narvik does remind me how British apparently regarded the Twins as battlecruisers even if the Germans officially designated them battleships. As I recall, a similar difference in opinion existed with the Dunkerques as well.