Shipbucket

PROTECTED CRUISER - BAY CLASS 1903


Displacement: 7,819 t standard; 8,637 t normal; 9,293 t full load
Length: 424' OA/421' WL
Beam: 68'
Draught: 22'
Propulsion: Coal-fired Boilers, Triple expansion engines, 2 shafts, 20722 ihp
Speed: 22 knots
Range: 6500NM @ 10 knots
Complement: 480
Armament:
4 x 8"/45 (2 x 2)
8 x 6"/45 (8 x 1)
4 x 3"40(4 x 1)
4 x 18" TT (4 x 1 fixed)

Ships in Class
---------------
1903
Hammersley Bay
Moultrie Bay
1904
Hoods Bay
Temple Inlet

By the early 1900's the line between armoured cruisers and protected cruisers had begun to become blurred. In 1900 the Admiralty determined that new built cruisers would be placed in their classifications depending on the amount of armour protection they had, the more heavily armoured being the AC's and lighter units being the PC's. The Bay class, having the lighter amount (4" max belts and main turret) they were placed in the PC classification.

The Bay class, while well armed, ended up slower than anticipated, reaching only 22 knots. A top speed of 25 knots had been requested and planned for, but space for the engines was insufficient at the designed dimensions and specifications so smaller engines had to be settled for. Even so, the actual top speed of 22 knots was adequate for fleet operations.

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

It is absolutely gorgeous, but your classification doesn't fly, unfortunately. Your Bay-class is an ACR, not a C (protected cruiser), but as such it neatly fits in to a slot filled by such ACR-classes as the Russian Bayan, French Pothau and Japanese Tokiwa and Asamas. It is true - and it is probably from this you may have derived your designation error, that the US St Louis-class protected cruisers (C-20-22), which had a partial 4" belt but only a main armament of 14-6" guns, not the four 8" that you've equipped your vessel with. Latter, however, all three vessels were reclassified as CAs, when a new classification system was introduced in 1920. My suggestion for you and Greys Harbour, would be to scrap your current classification and use the British-Russian classification system of 1st, 2nd and 3rd class cruisers. In such a system, the Bays would definitely be termed 1st class cruisers, regardless of amount of armor!

Addendum: I have received a more than satisfactory explanation to my query via IM. Thank you Zephyr!

Re the White Rose class, it just doesn't stack up; why move the Ikara gazebo forward, unless to take up a lot of redundant hull? And how many ships of this size have a 76mm Oto parked on the stern? Hull size; sure, nice to have the biggest hull in the world, but that means a lot more cost, hence fewer hulls; sorry, but in the real world this design would not not get built. But what the hell, Its AU and its fun

you and you'r negativity, take and look it on the bright side next time "sir"! hahaha.

ARMOURED CRUISER - AJAX CLASS 1911


Displacement: 15,982 t standard; 17,370 t normal; 18,480 t full load
Length: 499' OA/494' WL
Beam: 86'
Draught: 27'
Propulsion: Coal-fired Boilers, Triple expansion engines, 3 shafts, 43,815 ihp
Speed: 24 knots
Range: 8000NM @ 10 knots
Complement: 960
Armament:
6 x 9.2"/47 (3 x 2)
8 x 6"/45 (8 x 1)
12 x 3"/40 (10 x 1 deck mount; 2 x 1 casemate)

Ships in Class
---------------
1911
Ajax
Triton
1912
Cratos
Venus
1913
Erebus
Hyperion


RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Great design! I've been considering trying my hands at something similar, actually.
Just wondering though, are the 9,2" supposed to be 40cal? Of the top of my head, I don't think GB(which you seem to base your armaments on heavily)actually made an 40cal 9,2" guns after the turn of the 19th century...

KHT wrote:Great design! I've been considering trying my hands at something similar, actually.
Just wondering though, are the 9,2" supposed to be 40cal? Of the top of my head, I don't think GB(which you seem to base your armaments on heavily)actually made an 40cal 9,2" guns after the turn of the 19th century...

crap. I meant the 9.2/47

thanks for pointing that out.

Uh Zephyr I cannot see the Bay Class.

It's an early stealth design.

(Don't know why you can't, image is working fine for me. Maybe try a refresh?)

Zephyr wrote:

KHT wrote:Great design! I've been considering trying my hands at something similar, actually.
Just wondering though, are the 9,2" supposed to be 40cal? Of the top of my head, I don't think GB(which you seem to base your armaments on heavily)actually made an 40cal 9,2" guns after the turn of the 19th century...

crap. I meant the 9.2/47

thanks for pointing that out.

You get problem with you'r secondary, those guns was the 6"/49 and they was designed in 1913 for use on Glatton class ex Bjorgvin class. But I see you have writen it as an 6"/45 gun but I don't know if that gun will fitt in the same housing that the 6"/49 is using...