Description
Jamaica displaced about 8,631 long tons (8,770 t) at standard load and 11,017 long tons (11,194 t) at deep load. The ship had an overall length of 555 feet 6 inches (169.3 m), a beam of 68 feet 5 inches (20.9 m) and a draught of 19 feet 10 inches (6.0 m). She was powered by Parsons geared steam turbines, driving four shafts, which developed a total of 80,000 shaft horsepower (60,000 kW) and gave a maximum speed of 32.25 knots (59.73 km/h; 37.11 mph). Steam for the turbines was provided by four Admiralty 3-drum water-tube boilers. Jamaica carried a maximum of 1,700 long tons (1,700 t) of fuel oil that gave her a range of 6,520 nautical miles (12,080 km; 7,500 mi) at 13 knots (24 km/h; 15 mph). The ship's complement was 733 officers and men in peacetime and 900 during war.
The ship mounted twelve 50-calibre 6-inch (152 mm) guns in four three-gun turrets. Her secondary armament consisted of eight 4-inch (102 mm) anti-aircraft (AA) guns in four twin turrets. Jamaica mounted two quadruple 2-pounder (40 mm) light AA mounts ("pom-poms"). Her short-range AA armament is not known. The ship carried two above-water triple torpedo tube mounts for 21-inch (533 mm) torpedoes.
Jamaica lacked a full waterline armor belt. The sides of her boiler and engine rooms and the magazines were protected by 3.25–3.5 inches (83–89 mm) of armour. The deck over the machinery spaces and magazines was reinforced to a thickness of 2–3.5 inches (51–89 mm). She carried an aircraft catapult and two Supermarine Sea Otter seaplanes.
Read more about this topic: HMS Jamaica (44)
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“It is possible—indeed possible even according to the old conception of logic—to give in advance a description of all ‘true’ logical propositions. Hence there can never be surprises in logic.”
—Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951)
“It [Egypt] has more wonders in it than any other country in the world and provides more works that defy description than any other place.”
—Herodotus (c. 484–424 B.C.)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)