You are not logged in.

Search results

Search results 1-20 of 155.

Thursday, May 29th 2008, 3:46pm

Author: JohnEStauffer


I like the choice of AA weapons on the carriers. The real UK did have 57mm QF guns (aka 6pdr's) and 40mm's (aka 2pdr's). Which brings up a slightly OT question - If a country refers to it's armament by pounds (2 pdr's, etc) how can that be shown in springsharp? There was a difference in the 2pdr vs. the 40mm. The UK used 2pdr pom-poms which weren't exactly the same in weight/performance as a comparable 40mm multi barrel mount.

Friday, February 29th 2008, 4:14pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Light Cruiser Comments

Your light cruiser reminds me of the USN's Worchester class that had 6 twin 6" automatic guns. It was indeed larger than contemporary designs - some due to the size of the turret/ammo handling and the need to carry a larger supply of main battery ammo. Also, it had no real secondary battery. It was more like a CLAA on steroids.

Wednesday, October 31st 2007, 3:18pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

A scary treat for Halloween...

It is a scary design. God help us if it ever is really built The forward turrets are so close to the skin of the ship it looks like they would have little protection from torpedo damage. Why 2 turrets side by side?

Monday, October 29th 2007, 3:14pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

What do you do with an Italian cruiser hull???

Interesting conversion The superstructure seems extremely small. Where is the mast? (for signal flags, etc and in later days radar)

Friday, June 1st 2007, 3:43pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Small escort

Is it possible for your "merchant" ship option to carry cargo. If it could, you could build a large number of these for 'merchant' service and then convert the necessary number to military roles as needed. (You could hide the initial construction costs & tonnage used under the civilian budget) In fact if it could still carry cargo as an escort, it could be useful in 2 roles at the same time.

Thursday, April 5th 2007, 3:55pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Margin for growth.

This is slightly OT, but bears on the concept of growth/modification. In SS draft/freeboard are entered by the designer. In many actual upgrades (new superstructures, added electronics, heavier masts, etc) along with changes in armament the displacement & draft increases/freeboard decreases due to the heavier weight. How do you compensate in SS for upgrades/changes?

Wednesday, April 4th 2007, 8:49pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Autogyro hangars

We are talking about only autogyros or other rotary wing a/c in this design process? If so, many of the considerations for FW or STOL a/c operations would not apply and both #1 & #2 would be doable. I like #2 best - at least from appearance. It would probably work for rotorary wing a/c. #3 looks too utilitarian and the cranes obstruct the deck area. It looks like a merchant ship conversion. For the point in time, #1 (or an improvement of same) is probably the best option.

Saturday, March 3rd 2007, 5:28pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Heavy Cruiser 1934

Excellent graphics as usual. Overall a good design. The lack of light AA is probably realistic for the time. I have never been a fan of the midships catapults. They seem to 'eat up' a lot of space that could better be used for AA & DP armament. (Probably in war-time refits they will have to be deleted to increase the AA suite)

Tuesday, January 23rd 2007, 3:53pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Various battleships

Thanks for the information. It is nice to see the various designs that lead to the actual ships chosen for construction. It adds a lot to the validity of a design to see the various ships in the development process.

Sunday, January 21st 2007, 6:39pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Various battleships

I looks like some of these design studies are equipped with some kind of radar installation on the main battery directors I would enjoy seeing the Springsharp stats behind these designs.

Tuesday, January 16th 2007, 4:05pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Italian Large Destroyer

It seems that stability would be increased if there were 2 turrets aft/1 forward. With a raised focsle and superimposed turrets you get a lot of weight up high.

Thursday, January 4th 2007, 5:37pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Cruiser Boggle...

Do you really need CA's to screen carriers? How often would carriers come in gunnery range of other surface units? It would seem that the carrier formations would remain at 'arms length' from surface forces and take advantage of the extended range of their a/c. Carrier escorts should be fast and capable of heavy AA fire - within the CL spectrum it would seem This option would give you more carrier escorts and leave the CA's to function totally in surface action units. I would avoid the 'hybrid' ...

Thursday, November 23rd 2006, 12:35am

Author: JohnEStauffer

Mexican Gunboats

With the two turrets forward the the raised forecastle it would seem that there would be the possibility of overload forward. Why not place the two turrets aft, and a single forward. That would seem to be a better distribution of weight.

Sunday, November 19th 2006, 4:34pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

New DD for Germany, 1933

Well , what turned out the be the German scout cruiser was originally proposed in 1938 as "Destroyer 1938 ac" or "ad" (and was actually larger than this design) and later (1939) grew into a Reconassiance Cruiser. So based on historical precedent I guess this could be considered a destroyer

Saturday, November 18th 2006, 4:00pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Saint C Class Cruisers

It doesn't look like you lost too much internal space with the upgrade to larger guns. You should still be able to accomdate a CIC in this configuration. I don't know where you had CIC located. In most US cruisers CIC was located below decks In some conversions, CIC was moved to a position near the bridge in the superstructure The goal was to either protect CIC (a vital space) below the armored deck, or locate CIC near the bridge to facilitate access by the command staff. I think the new tripod ...

Thursday, November 16th 2006, 9:25pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Saint C Class Cruisers

A dedicated command ship is a real leap forward. Most navies were able to function using the capabilities of modified versions of existing designs. Granted by the end of the war the advances in electronics (radar, CIC's, communications) made more command & control space mandatory. I wonder if the state of the art in the 1930's would justify this type of ship. I wonder what fleet operations/developments lead to the development of a requirement for this design. Have the Italians made any advances ...

Tuesday, November 7th 2006, 9:49pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

HMCS Canada

The Canada is a fascinating ship. The AA battery seems a bit much for a ship of the 30's - it is closer to the upgrades applied during the 2nd WW. Why 5.5" secondaries? They are a bit large for DP's - the shells would be difficult to handle Why not adopt the 5.25" DP that the UK was developing?

Monday, October 9th 2006, 6:44pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

German Training Carrier, 1933

Building a 'warship' carrier is risky for a first effort. What other nations can provide you with background data on early carrier development - to save some steps in the process. Many of the early carriers were conversions of combatants or merchant ships. It gave an operturnity understand the requirements of carrier operations prior to investing in a purpose built design. You need to take 'baby steps" Not only are you concerned with the ship itself but with the aviation assets it will embark. T...

Wednesday, October 4th 2006, 8:25pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Aussie ship drawings

I is a bit difficult to understand the rationale for the angled deck. As designed there is no apparent use. It would be logical to angle the catapult as well. That way the a/c could take off without flying directly over the forward batteries. I don't know that much about air patterns, but would there be problems with air currents when using the angled deck?

Sunday, April 16th 2006, 9:49pm

Author: JohnEStauffer

Whatever happened to the Goeben refit?

What caliber of guns are installed in the new secondary turrets? If they are still 5.9" - the turrets/deck space would seem to be very crowded. Maybe twin 5.9" would be a better choice. Are you going to make any changes to the main battery - for example increasing the elevation/range capabilities? Would it be better to use DP guns for the new secondary battery since there isn't a lot of deck space for new AA guns (4.1 or 3.46 to complement the secondary 5.9" guns)