Proposed Alliance Schooner Cruiser

Proposed four stack schooner rigged cruiser.  Main armament 4 x 6" bag guns in two two gun turrets, 4x4" 50s, and 12 x 21" torpedo tubes in four three tube mounts.  Lemurian design sail/steam propulsion for extended range.

I’m afraid it would be counterproductive. The narrow hull of fast turdbine cruiser simply would not react to the masts pretty well. The center of gravity would be too high, and in the wind, the ship overall stability would be seriously compromized. In other words – the schooner rig would made ship worse as artillery platform, and would be a serious danger to stability in heavy sea or if the ship would have combat damage, but provide almost nothing in therms of propulsion. The ability to crawl on the 2-3 knots simply didn’t worth it.

Probably built with broader beam, for stability. Slower than a pure steamer say 20 knots, sails can give about 10 knots Length 375 ' beam 40'. Schooner rig can sail closer to the wind thus the sails can give Pacific Ocean ranges without emptying the bunkers.

Pokermind wrote:Probably built with broader beam, for stability.  Slower than a pure steamer say 20 knots, sails can give about 10 knots  Length 375 ' beam 40'.  Schooner rig can sail closer to the wind thus the sails can give Pacific Ocean ranges without emptying the bunkers.

But for what reason? I really doubt that 10 knots under the sails are really possible. The screws would provide quite a lot of resistance. And for what possible reason you could need a slow turbine cruiser?

Range of cruise and endurance.

Range of cruise and endurance.

Just... send more oilers, ok? This didn't worth it. Even the Russian Imperial Navy, who favored long-range raider operations (against Britain, on Pacific) eventually decided that the sail equipment are useless. The last russian cruiser with sails was "Ruyrik", and she clearly demonstrated, that even with large sails - 22700 square feet! Ten times more than HMS "Victory"! - she was unable to have more than 4-5 knots even in relatively good conditions.

The sails are absolutely ueseless. The idea that you could "save fuel" by them is completely wrong, because to have power and be able to steam immediately, you still need boilers lit. The calculations of late 1890s clearly shown that the weight of masts and sails are far more than any fuel economy.

So, I'm afraid this is the Outdated Idea That Simply Didn't Pay For Itself.

Yah, but I do love the tall ships of fighting sail.

I agree that they look nice, but in military therms they became useless as soon as screw propeller was invented. Alliance put sails on their early frigates not because of their usefullnes, but because they have no choice with primitive, unreliable engines and limited fuel supplies.

The main spur of wars of expansion was first coaling stations US Spanish American War, 1904 Russian-Japanese War, and WW 1 to a certain Extent, then fuel depots. Some hints that League of Tripoli's WW 2 on home world also sparked by this need of fleets for bases, although access to raw materials may be bigger spur.