RSAN Port Shepstone class

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

1

Wednesday, April 20th 2005, 5:01pm

For those of you interested in South African cruiser design....

Enjoy!

HoOmAn

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

2

Wednesday, April 20th 2005, 6:56pm

I like the drawing, shes a very nice looking cruiser but I have just one minor nitpick.

The turret behind the bridge seems to be in a tight spot between the engine room vents forward of the foremost stack. I think you have the room to move the rear end of the lower deck of the forward superstructure forward to allow for the turret to be moved out of that tight spot.

The aft torpedo's may or may not be able to train outward depending on the superstructure shape between them. I would assume it would curve to conform to the TT's training arc's.

Other than that shes a very beautifull cruiser with an excellent armament layout....

Say Hoo.....mind if I rip off your nice looking aft crane? Hee hee

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

3

Thursday, April 21st 2005, 9:12am

Thanks for your input.

You´re right on her B mount. There is enough room to train the gun - I checked it - but it is quite close. Moving the gun a pixel (~35cm) could be an option. I´ll check.

Regarding her TTs - there is no superstructure at all between those mounts. The boats are stored on a "bridge" connecting the area around her last funnel and the aft superstructure. If I had colored the drawing you would have noticed...

I see if I can make you a template of her cran (top and side view). You´ll get it via email. I guess that´s much better than ripping it out of the drawing above.

Cheers,

HoOmAn

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

4

Thursday, April 21st 2005, 9:58am

It would be a shame to just "rip" it of your nice cruiser....

I was wondering if you had a clear space between the TT's, it was tough to tell given the black and white drawing.

Perhaps that bridge needs to be a bit thicker, thats why I usually shade the black line of a deck with a grey line underneath it to depict a wall of a superstructure. In the case of a "bridge" it would be three pixles high with a grey line in the middle. If you look at my drawings in MSPaint you'll understand what I mean.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

5

Thursday, April 21st 2005, 11:25am

I guess that´s what is called "blacklining" among modelers.

I could thicken the "bridge", though. Thanks for that idea.

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

6

Thursday, April 21st 2005, 2:34pm

I find that one mount's placement behind the bridge a bit odd - I would've expected it to be either back to back with the forward gun, or side by side with it. But I guess it works, so "What...ever".

Otherwise, she really looks like a ship of her vintage. Nice job.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

7

Thursday, April 21st 2005, 3:07pm

There are several reasons for the layout I choosed. Alternatives were skipped because

- superfiring guns forward of bridge: Too modern for 1913. An all-15cm armament is already pushing things.

- side-by-side: Already skipped with the class before (laid down 1910) and Port Shepstone´s foredeck probably wouldn´t have been beamy enough. It would also have reduced her broadside.

- Two guns forward back-to-back: Would have been possible but a single hit could disable both guns and thus rob the ship of her forward offensive capabilities.

The layout I finally used aloows a relatively good fire arc of ~180° (2x 90 deg.) and makes sure a single shell can´t disable two guns. The drawback I bought with that decision is the reduced firepower over the bow but I guess I could live with that.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

8

Thursday, April 21st 2005, 6:57pm

IIRC Tatsuta had the same layout for her forward guns.

Go to the top of the page

JohnEStauffer

Trainee

Posts: 155

9

Thursday, April 21st 2005, 8:28pm

Unfortunately the arrangement of the forward battery also impacts superstructure size. It has to be reduced to allow the extra gun to be added aft. It would be better to use the space for the secondary battery.
While that gun can train, you don't gain a lot of ahead fire.
Is having that gun really that important?
In any event, when the ship is modified or updated, that gun will probably be the first to go.
As far as no forward firing super-firing guns, why not be a trend setter?
A smaller navy is actually in a better position to include new concepts in its designs. Given the numbers of ships planned in larger forces, it takes much more time to get changes in place when you are dealing with in large numbers of ships, planned in advance of construction. (somehow that didn't come out right)

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

10

Thursday, April 21st 2005, 8:41pm

I don't think this is a candidate for trend-setting, as several later SAE designs do incorporate superfiring guns forward.

Interesting perspective on introducing new ideas, though - conventional wisdom here suggests that the smaller navies are least likely to come up with the new concepts in the first place (on account of smaller R&D budgets).

Go to the top of the page

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

11

Thursday, April 21st 2005, 9:07pm

Failed trend

What about a "failed" or unpopular trend setting vessel? How about leaving the turret where it is, but making it superfiring and raise it over the blowers and thus giving it not only a less restricted swing for the barrel and possibly a slightly wider firing arc.

Such a design would be made obsolete by the superfiring forward guns and twin turrets, but it might make the placement of that gun slightly better.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

12

Thursday, April 21st 2005, 10:36pm

????????

To build her as you propose there should be at least a single advantage of such an arrangement - except having the most weird layout.

A raised gun as you propose would add to her topweight, make gun and ammo handling more difficult and would also give the bridge crew some headaches from gun blasts......

Go to the top of the page

Ithekro

Sage

Posts: 3,661

13

Friday, April 22nd 2005, 3:29am

As I said, a "failed trend". It would get the gun clear of the blowers however with more space to swing the gun about without having to be slow and careful about it.

Go to the top of the page

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

Posts: 7,417

14

Saturday, April 23rd 2005, 3:06am

The missing link...

Thanks to much help from the Doc I finally managed to design the missing link between my WW1-era cruisers: the RSANs Santa Fe-class CLs.

Most important to me was to make the steps visible that were necessary to develope each class of my early cruisers. This way you can now easily see how the 1921er CL roots back to the class of 1908.

[img]http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/schiffbilder/Cruiser 1908-1921.JPG[/img]

Next I need to show how RSAN Arion is linked to RSAN Libreville... More work, the drawing boards are waiting...

Enjoy!