Some Dutch Never Weres
Posted: October 20th, 2023, 6:35 pm
Hello, it's about high time I post my works on the forums instead of the discord. So without much delay let's get to them.
I'll start mostly with some canceled projects. I went back to fix some template issues but otherwise I've completely dropped them.
Hoffmann 1934 armoured washington cruiser
Canceled. Due to the date I swapped 2pdrs with modern 40mms and tower with De Ruyter's SS as I found they both resemble each other in early blueprints. I disliked how the secondaries had no good FC nor the 40mms. The catapult and boats also proved more cramped than expected. Combined with the trillion layers for the SS and how outdated most elements are I doubt I'd revive this project.
The design had dimensions of 197,5m wl 171m pp; 20,00m beam; 6,25m draft and 11,50m depth. Armament was 2xIII 20cm Bofors, 3xIII 12cm DP (one in open AA mount), 8x1 40mm AA and 8x 12,7mm. Armour was a 140mm belt, 50 + 25mm decks, 40mm tds bulkheads and 200mm vitals. Propulsion of 76k on 2 shafts. Speed was 30kts at 14k full load displacement, 30,7kts at 12k normal and 31,5 at WNT standard 10k.
Hoffmann 1929 armoured washington cruiser
This is closer to a draft than anything. Canceled mostly because the drawings were mostly technical so not a great reference to draw with.
The design had dimensions of 179,5m wl 183m oa; 19,80m beam; 6,50m draft and 12,70m depth. Armament was 2xIII 20cm/50 Bofors, 6x1 10,5cm/50 DP, 8x1 40mm AA and 8x 12,7mm. Armour was a 150mm belt, 50mm deck and 75mm at slopes, 40mm tds bulkheads and 200mm vitals. Propulsion of 76k on 4 shafts. Speed was 30kts at 14k full load displacement and 32,3 at WNT standard.
Compromiskruiser
This is a design, once again by Hoffmann, to directions by committee Onze Vloot. To fill the details left by the drawing I used the Java-class and early De Ruyter designs. The light AA mounts I placed in twin mounts one pair next to the aft deckhouse like on destroyers, the other at the tower likewise the Java-class refits. The full referenced tropedo and AA armament is represented. The aft deckhouse had to be extended to fit the cannons. To fit the last two I moved them to roughly where on the Java-class 75mms were placed. Due to no referable twin mounts for those I kept them in singles. 40mms were placed likewise in the 1934 design.
The design had dimensions of 175m length; 16,84m beam; 5,53m draft at 10k 5,07m at 9k. Armament was 4xII 15cm, 4-6x 88mm, 8x40mm and 8x 12,7mm. Armour was a 100mm belt, 40mm deck and 60mm at slopes, 40mm tds bulkheads and 125mm vitals. Propulsion was 80k. Speed was desired to be 32kts at 9k normal displacement though to be sure was computed for 33kts at 9k. Full load would be 10k and WNT standard 8k.
Kannoneerboot 1938
This is the Dutch design for the gunboats that would become K1 through K3 in German service. The largest differences are in armament. Two less 2cm machine guns and 40mms instead of 37mms. The Dutch design also had dual-purpose triaxially-stabilised twin automatic 12cm mounts (12cm No. 9) but under German control they received simpler destroyer mounts (12cm No. 8). Sadly I have no good reference for the weapons yet. The drawing itself I also find rather elementary using older elements and practices.
De Ruyter IVS design
This is a slightly intermediate stage of the De Ruyter. The hull had already been lengthened and room was made for the 7th cannon though not drawn on the blueprint. In contrast to the earlier design the fore pair of 10,5cms were raised.
I am not really a fan of this drawing due to the empty cannon location and the poorly implemented catapult, boats, plane and crane. Maybe I'll revisit the earlier design and finish that.
33kt 950t destroyer
Cute little bugger.
AI-cruiser
Alright so this one is closer to a personal-design than never were. Though I'll be posting it with the rest. I had found a large amount of sources referencing a desire for a larger-than-washington cruiser. Using what I've learned from Hoffmann in computing weight and citadel length as well as some dimension math from downscaling the battlecruiser designs I created what ought to be a reasonably representative design.
The references used are many so cohesion had to be settled. The basic outline was taken from M.A. Cageling of a 13 to 14.000t full 20cm cruiser going 33kts. This is in line with Ir. M. Rappard's "faster Hoffmann" and A.G.Æ. Rappard's 10 to 15.000t 20cm cruisers. As well as the articles that appeared in Deli Courant on different occasions. Whilst Nuboer did give particulars for a 13.000t with 24cms, later particulars of the battlecruiser downscaling as well as J.A. de Gelder and Busssemaker went all the way to 16.000t. Though these boasted heavier armament than the other designs and thus are not considered.
To get an early idea on how such a ship would look, I approached the concept using Hoffmann's methods for displacement computation and the Warship International article for citadel size. A "full 20cm" battery was interpreted as the 4 guns forward 4 guns backwards. Because Hoffmann's data was used I could not compute 21cm+ calibre cannons. To cover for this I wound up using an Eendracht-class turret layout for possible extra weight should 21cm twins be placed.
The secondary battery, although ideally would have a good number of DP 10,5cm guns (as previously those had been rejected for 15cm cruisers for risk of battery interference), would instead be a pair of 12cm twins per side as with the early battlecruiser designs. This is also arguably the more "Dutch" option as that is were most designs leaned to and data is available for.
Protection would be as on Hoffmann's design, 150mm belt 75mm decks, 40mm tds 5m deep and 200mm vitals. However, Hoffmann's data did not go high enough in displacement so dimension and speed computations proved difficult. As such the initial 100.000SHP and dimensions proved skeptical.
To get a more modern ship hull the shape of the battlecruiser project was taken and downsized. To maintain good hull speed the length had to remain long and due to Soerabaja's geography the draft shallow. This meant slightly more beam reduction for a 23,5m beam instead of 25m.
The new length gave a hull speed of ~34,4kts and wet surface area resistance for a 180.000 SHP battlecruiser proportionally would necessitate 100.000 SHP for the same (34,5kt) speed. To cover the other resistances an additional 10% was estimated and an additional 10% for safety and loss in machinery height.
With the extra beam the units could receive slightly more area for the extra power. The division between the central units was made even wider and the tds was shortened to more conventional levels. Citadel length remained the same although does not account for extra magazine size for the triples and converted boiler room height into surface area. However, considering the extra margins and already spacious density of the referenced propulsion data this should not be an issue.
With new armour lengths the computations were redone. Since they appeared above norms more attention was given in deck computations which gave a more accurate lower amount. Ultimately I wound up ~460t over budget. However, the computations were done in ts of 1.000kg giving 224t extra room. The original 35% hull estimate was found to be around 88,7kg per LBH which is ~10% higher than the reference design. Which gives another 490t.
With those computations done we had a vessel within 13 to 14.000t, protection against 20cm fire, armament for 2xII 2xIII 20cm turrets and a speed of computed 34,5kts to cover the necessary 33kts.
I had opted for a unit system as was desired during the battlecruiser design project. For drawing reference I use the Eendracht-class cruiser, early battlecruiser drawings (one funnel) and later battlecruiser drawings (two funnels). Since the battlecruiser superstructure was deemed a bit too large, I had opted to mimic the Eendracht-class a bit more, though with added secondary directors as per the later battlecruiser design. The limited space aft by the turret also meant I had to mimic that iteration to place the 40mms whilst also losing a single 20mm mount.
The first problem that arose during this process was the catapult installation. Eventually the later battlecruiser setup was chosen with fixed catapult. It was hard to place the crane in a similar location as the early battlecruiser design. Due to the lack of a rotating catapult the crane could not access the catapult properly without sacrificing access to the foreward boat storage. The solution was found in placing the plane backwards. Although I had preferred a bit more space for planes with larger wingspans, it is still surprising it could fit aviation at all.
Due to the reduced beam the full boat stowage could not be attained. It had also given me much trouble with the forward superstructure and having to mix the designs (whilst giving me ladder nightmares). The loss in length meant that besides the boats no 40mm director could be fit aft. Although not necessary due to the autonomous control, RPC was still a preferred solution to Dutch engineers.
De Ruyter
Okay so this is a fully real design. You'll understand why once the next one is opened. The blueprints were a nightmare to combine as none were fully complete to form a good base and they all differed slightly (perhaps due to drawing inaccuracies, slight differences in scanning or because the design was in a different stage).
Ultimately the drawing turned out quite successful, though proved extremely time consuming in research.
A. van Sorge design
This is based on a pair of drawings made in various journals and newspapers. Creative liberties had to be taken as the drawings themselves differed in some aspects and it seems like the author had to draw De Ruyter from memory. Aside from keeping the top superstructure, funnel and catapult arrangement I have tried to honour the changes fatefully, though had to adjust them as they were drawn with a lightly inconsistent scale.
The biggest creative liberty was taken with the forward AA mounts. 40mm No. 4 mounts were employed to cover for the lack of director. I had also slightly extended the base with platforms to give more space.
I'll start mostly with some canceled projects. I went back to fix some template issues but otherwise I've completely dropped them.
Hoffmann 1934 armoured washington cruiser
Canceled. Due to the date I swapped 2pdrs with modern 40mms and tower with De Ruyter's SS as I found they both resemble each other in early blueprints. I disliked how the secondaries had no good FC nor the 40mms. The catapult and boats also proved more cramped than expected. Combined with the trillion layers for the SS and how outdated most elements are I doubt I'd revive this project.
The design had dimensions of 197,5m wl 171m pp; 20,00m beam; 6,25m draft and 11,50m depth. Armament was 2xIII 20cm Bofors, 3xIII 12cm DP (one in open AA mount), 8x1 40mm AA and 8x 12,7mm. Armour was a 140mm belt, 50 + 25mm decks, 40mm tds bulkheads and 200mm vitals. Propulsion of 76k on 2 shafts. Speed was 30kts at 14k full load displacement, 30,7kts at 12k normal and 31,5 at WNT standard 10k.
Hoffmann 1929 armoured washington cruiser
This is closer to a draft than anything. Canceled mostly because the drawings were mostly technical so not a great reference to draw with.
The design had dimensions of 179,5m wl 183m oa; 19,80m beam; 6,50m draft and 12,70m depth. Armament was 2xIII 20cm/50 Bofors, 6x1 10,5cm/50 DP, 8x1 40mm AA and 8x 12,7mm. Armour was a 150mm belt, 50mm deck and 75mm at slopes, 40mm tds bulkheads and 200mm vitals. Propulsion of 76k on 4 shafts. Speed was 30kts at 14k full load displacement and 32,3 at WNT standard.
Compromiskruiser
This is a design, once again by Hoffmann, to directions by committee Onze Vloot. To fill the details left by the drawing I used the Java-class and early De Ruyter designs. The light AA mounts I placed in twin mounts one pair next to the aft deckhouse like on destroyers, the other at the tower likewise the Java-class refits. The full referenced tropedo and AA armament is represented. The aft deckhouse had to be extended to fit the cannons. To fit the last two I moved them to roughly where on the Java-class 75mms were placed. Due to no referable twin mounts for those I kept them in singles. 40mms were placed likewise in the 1934 design.
The design had dimensions of 175m length; 16,84m beam; 5,53m draft at 10k 5,07m at 9k. Armament was 4xII 15cm, 4-6x 88mm, 8x40mm and 8x 12,7mm. Armour was a 100mm belt, 40mm deck and 60mm at slopes, 40mm tds bulkheads and 125mm vitals. Propulsion was 80k. Speed was desired to be 32kts at 9k normal displacement though to be sure was computed for 33kts at 9k. Full load would be 10k and WNT standard 8k.
Kannoneerboot 1938
This is the Dutch design for the gunboats that would become K1 through K3 in German service. The largest differences are in armament. Two less 2cm machine guns and 40mms instead of 37mms. The Dutch design also had dual-purpose triaxially-stabilised twin automatic 12cm mounts (12cm No. 9) but under German control they received simpler destroyer mounts (12cm No. 8). Sadly I have no good reference for the weapons yet. The drawing itself I also find rather elementary using older elements and practices.
De Ruyter IVS design
This is a slightly intermediate stage of the De Ruyter. The hull had already been lengthened and room was made for the 7th cannon though not drawn on the blueprint. In contrast to the earlier design the fore pair of 10,5cms were raised.
I am not really a fan of this drawing due to the empty cannon location and the poorly implemented catapult, boats, plane and crane. Maybe I'll revisit the earlier design and finish that.
33kt 950t destroyer
Cute little bugger.
AI-cruiser
Alright so this one is closer to a personal-design than never were. Though I'll be posting it with the rest. I had found a large amount of sources referencing a desire for a larger-than-washington cruiser. Using what I've learned from Hoffmann in computing weight and citadel length as well as some dimension math from downscaling the battlecruiser designs I created what ought to be a reasonably representative design.
The references used are many so cohesion had to be settled. The basic outline was taken from M.A. Cageling of a 13 to 14.000t full 20cm cruiser going 33kts. This is in line with Ir. M. Rappard's "faster Hoffmann" and A.G.Æ. Rappard's 10 to 15.000t 20cm cruisers. As well as the articles that appeared in Deli Courant on different occasions. Whilst Nuboer did give particulars for a 13.000t with 24cms, later particulars of the battlecruiser downscaling as well as J.A. de Gelder and Busssemaker went all the way to 16.000t. Though these boasted heavier armament than the other designs and thus are not considered.
To get an early idea on how such a ship would look, I approached the concept using Hoffmann's methods for displacement computation and the Warship International article for citadel size. A "full 20cm" battery was interpreted as the 4 guns forward 4 guns backwards. Because Hoffmann's data was used I could not compute 21cm+ calibre cannons. To cover for this I wound up using an Eendracht-class turret layout for possible extra weight should 21cm twins be placed.
The secondary battery, although ideally would have a good number of DP 10,5cm guns (as previously those had been rejected for 15cm cruisers for risk of battery interference), would instead be a pair of 12cm twins per side as with the early battlecruiser designs. This is also arguably the more "Dutch" option as that is were most designs leaned to and data is available for.
Protection would be as on Hoffmann's design, 150mm belt 75mm decks, 40mm tds 5m deep and 200mm vitals. However, Hoffmann's data did not go high enough in displacement so dimension and speed computations proved difficult. As such the initial 100.000SHP and dimensions proved skeptical.
To get a more modern ship hull the shape of the battlecruiser project was taken and downsized. To maintain good hull speed the length had to remain long and due to Soerabaja's geography the draft shallow. This meant slightly more beam reduction for a 23,5m beam instead of 25m.
The new length gave a hull speed of ~34,4kts and wet surface area resistance for a 180.000 SHP battlecruiser proportionally would necessitate 100.000 SHP for the same (34,5kt) speed. To cover the other resistances an additional 10% was estimated and an additional 10% for safety and loss in machinery height.
With the extra beam the units could receive slightly more area for the extra power. The division between the central units was made even wider and the tds was shortened to more conventional levels. Citadel length remained the same although does not account for extra magazine size for the triples and converted boiler room height into surface area. However, considering the extra margins and already spacious density of the referenced propulsion data this should not be an issue.
With new armour lengths the computations were redone. Since they appeared above norms more attention was given in deck computations which gave a more accurate lower amount. Ultimately I wound up ~460t over budget. However, the computations were done in ts of 1.000kg giving 224t extra room. The original 35% hull estimate was found to be around 88,7kg per LBH which is ~10% higher than the reference design. Which gives another 490t.
With those computations done we had a vessel within 13 to 14.000t, protection against 20cm fire, armament for 2xII 2xIII 20cm turrets and a speed of computed 34,5kts to cover the necessary 33kts.
I had opted for a unit system as was desired during the battlecruiser design project. For drawing reference I use the Eendracht-class cruiser, early battlecruiser drawings (one funnel) and later battlecruiser drawings (two funnels). Since the battlecruiser superstructure was deemed a bit too large, I had opted to mimic the Eendracht-class a bit more, though with added secondary directors as per the later battlecruiser design. The limited space aft by the turret also meant I had to mimic that iteration to place the 40mms whilst also losing a single 20mm mount.
The first problem that arose during this process was the catapult installation. Eventually the later battlecruiser setup was chosen with fixed catapult. It was hard to place the crane in a similar location as the early battlecruiser design. Due to the lack of a rotating catapult the crane could not access the catapult properly without sacrificing access to the foreward boat storage. The solution was found in placing the plane backwards. Although I had preferred a bit more space for planes with larger wingspans, it is still surprising it could fit aviation at all.
Due to the reduced beam the full boat stowage could not be attained. It had also given me much trouble with the forward superstructure and having to mix the designs (whilst giving me ladder nightmares). The loss in length meant that besides the boats no 40mm director could be fit aft. Although not necessary due to the autonomous control, RPC was still a preferred solution to Dutch engineers.
De Ruyter
Okay so this is a fully real design. You'll understand why once the next one is opened. The blueprints were a nightmare to combine as none were fully complete to form a good base and they all differed slightly (perhaps due to drawing inaccuracies, slight differences in scanning or because the design was in a different stage).
Ultimately the drawing turned out quite successful, though proved extremely time consuming in research.
A. van Sorge design
This is based on a pair of drawings made in various journals and newspapers. Creative liberties had to be taken as the drawings themselves differed in some aspects and it seems like the author had to draw De Ruyter from memory. Aside from keeping the top superstructure, funnel and catapult arrangement I have tried to honour the changes fatefully, though had to adjust them as they were drawn with a lightly inconsistent scale.
The biggest creative liberty was taken with the forward AA mounts. 40mm No. 4 mounts were employed to cover for the lack of director. I had also slightly extended the base with platforms to give more space.
