Search results
Search results 1-20 of 89.
just something I'd like to point out: all your guns are breech loading guns.
Quoted Originally posted by parador Really ? Poor boy !!! What happened ??? I like turned the situation I had with her from bad to worse bc of something stupid I've done. So I was thinking perhaps a phone call will help. Here's basically the conversation: Me: Hello? Her: Hello? Me: Can you recognize me by my voice? (I haven't talked to her in a while) Her: ...... (hangs up) Me: I guess she did recognize me by my voice
Happy new year, folks. But I had a terrible start: got something close to a slap in the face by the girl I like.
Yeah, I know, 11:1 == bad? but she's rather short-legged, so not really meant to operate in the open (and stormy) seas.
Here's another DD design from me. Smaller than the one I had before at < 1500t standard I'm not sure whether to use 4 x 125mm or 6 x 100mm, and whether the relatively large torpedo arsenal is a good idea. Enter ship name, Siamese Destroyer laid down 1938 Displacement: 1,383 t light; 1,462 t standard; 1,598 t normal; 1,707 t full load Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (372.37 ft / 360.89 ft) x 32.81 ft x (11.81 / 12.32 ft) (113.50 m / 110.00 m) x 10.00 m x (3...
My try: Enter ship name, Bulgarian Minelayer laid down 1938 Displacement: 2,863 t light; 2,994 t standard; 3,305 t normal; 3,554 t full load Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (489.60 ft / 475.72 ft) x 47.57 ft x (13.45 / 14.09 ft) (149.23 m / 145.00 m) x 14.50 m x (4.10 / 4.29 m) Armament: 6 - 4.13" / 105 mm 65.0 cal guns - 39.15lbs / 17.76kg shells, 350 per gun Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1938 Model 3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, ma...
Offed a few days for misc shit. Been trying to draw something on my own without too much of a success. Will try more. Quoted Originally posted by Red Admiral Given Siam's limited operational radius, I don't think that a l:b ratio of 11:1 is over the top. At the same time, Siam doesn't have the greatest experience in building ships so it's probably wise to build to a higher strength to give more margin for error, say 0.60. Me hoping to get some foreign partners into this design? Preferably those ...
Quoted Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc Having just recently read Halsey's Typhoon, I'd have to disagree; It was the overloaded high L:B Destroyers that foundered, and snapped in half in some cases, not relatively fatter DEs, auxilliaires, and other ships. In fact, Tabberer and other DEs took a pretty savage beating, but did not founder and were under control once the weather subsided. Well, nevertheless, I feel that the current design is good enough. I've looked at other deisng people have and ...
Last version I can think of: one armed with 16 torpedoes! Enter ship name, Siam Large Destroyer laid down 1938 Displacement: 2,841 t light; 3,000 t standard; 3,472 t normal; 3,849 t full load Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (519.74 ft / 505.25 ft) x 45.93 ft x (13.78 / 14.68 ft) (158.42 m / 154.00 m) x 14.00 m x (4.20 / 4.48 m) Armament: 8 - 4.92" / 125 mm 50.0 cal guns - 55.12lbs / 25.00kg shells, 250 per gun Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 19...
I'm a bit skeptical on how you're going to fit all 15 mounts like that... or is it just me? But I think that I'm sure that you're not able to place 37mm triples on top of the 130mm guns.
Perhaps a 37mm 8 barrel version of the Spanish Meroka then?
Quoted Originally posted by HoOmAn Well, it´s a mix. During the 4th Fleet Incident (see i.e. http://shippai.jst.go.jp/en/Detail?fn=0&id=CB1011022& or http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=110056 even though these sources are not very detailled) several IJN vessels, especially DDs of the Fubuki class, were heavily damaged. Some even lost part of their hull (snap in two) while many other units had their hulls buckled and rivets cracked away becaude of hull deformation. The reason was ...
Quoted Originally posted by thesmilingassassin Yep, for a breif while the Japanese had all kinds of stability issues with their ships mostly due to efforts to limit the designs to Washington treaty standards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomozuru_In…mozuru_Incident Well so far I've found out that Japanese ships in the 30s had to be rebuilt bc of lack of stability/strength, but I've found nothing that relates that directly to high l:b ratios. It seems that the stability/strength problems were ca...
Coming up with two additional versions: 1 beefed up with an extra 150mm gun, another AA version armed with 12 x 100mm DP main guns. Enter ship name, Siam Large Destroyer laid down 1938 Displacement: 2,829 t light; 3,000 t standard; 3,472 t normal; 3,849 t full load Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (519.74 ft / 505.25 ft) x 45.93 ft x (13.78 / 14.68 ft) (158.42 m / 154.00 m) x 14.00 m x (4.20 / 4.48 m) Armament: 6 - 5.91" / 150 mm 50.0 cal guns - 110.23lbs /...
The primary roles of the 150mm guns on my CLAA is still AS, but I'd still like them to have some AA capabilities, so probably still going for 150mm/60 for better AP at least in those designs? Anyways, I managed to get my 150mm gun version slightly faster with the better gun arrangement. Revised version up in previous post. Much thx to your info and help, Hrolf Hakonson!!
Small question: should the 3 aft guns on my design be placed on aft deck or aft deck aft in SS? I was thinking of arranging the guns as in the Fletchers but I'm not really sure how it can be done in SS.
Quoted Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson For the roles this ship has, I'd go with the bigger bursting charge. The AP capability just isn't that crucial, and you can get decent AP capability with a 48-50 caliber gun anyway. Ok, then, but should I then stick with 150mm/60 DPs in my CLAAs? anyways, some revised designs. The sea keeping droppeed down to 1.00~1.01 so I'm not sure whether to use them or not. Enter ship name, Siam Large Destroyer laid down 1938 Displacement: 2,841 t light; 3,000 t s...
Quoted Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson Why are you interested in a 60 caliber 15cm gun here? For the purposes a ship like this serves (crushing destroyers and smaller vessels, launching torpedoes and running away from larger vessels), the extra barrel length isn't useful (the thicker-walled shells needed to deal with the higher velocity won't carry as much HE, see here: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_59-60_skc25.htm and here: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_59-48_skc36.htm ). T...
A slightly revised version with 150mm main guns. I have found out that my 4500 t cruiser is a failed design. The hull is slightly revised too. Enter ship name, Siam Large Destroyer laid down 1938 Displacement: 2,841 t light; 3,000 t standard; 3,472 t normal; 3,849 t full load Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (519.74 ft / 505.25 ft) x 45.93 ft x (13.78 / 14.68 ft) (158.42 m / 154.00 m) x 14.00 m x (4.20 / 4.48 m) Armament: 5 - 5.91" / 150 mm 60.0 cal guns - ...
Quoted Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson For the roles you've posited, I'd go with your heavy destroyer or a version of that design with the 15cm guns (though possibly somewhat shorter barrels, 60 caliber guns might be a bit much for the mount and hoist and the lightweight hull). This vessel doesn't add enough capability to be worthwhile, IMO. Yeah, probably. This design mainly allows 1~2 more 150mm guns and better protection scheme. Currently thinking about a shorter main gun of 150mm/55 or ...
WesWorld »
Sunday, April 28th 2024, 10:29pm
Go to the top of the page
