Search results
Search results 1-20 of 155.
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.
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.
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?
Interesting conversion The superstructure seems extremely small. Where is the mast? (for signal flags, etc and in later days radar)
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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' ...
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.
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
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 ...
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 ...
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?
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...
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?
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)
WesWorld »
Monday, April 29th 2024, 12:34am
Go to the top of the page
