Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld.
If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works.
To use all features of this page, you should consider registering.
Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process.
If you are already registered, please login here.
I vote for Design 'R'
:-)
And they say Germans have no sense of humour....maybe we should add Dutch to that list!!!!!
If C doesn't work..go with R.
The only difference I can see in these two designs is about 2mm of deck armor. The protection difference between 35mm and 37mm is doubtful, yet for some reason the 37mm model is slightly cheaper than the 35mm model....so go for the 37mm model.
I'd noticed that, but they are both exactly the same light weight!!
Seems a little odd, considering the differences!
Maybe 37 mm is easier to produce for some reason.
I think their bc is still a tad too slow but I´m not going to push that issue.
There´s really a lot of light flak on those ships. Is such an exessive AA suit reasonable for a design of the mid- to late-20s (even under the impression of recent conflicts)?
At least the high l:b ratio and low bc will grant you a hull with enough deckspace for all those mounts. :o)
When I draw it, I may reduce their numbers if it looks too cluttered.
Maybe 37 mm is easier to produce for some reason.
As far as I know, changing deck armor does not alter the cost of the ship so it has to be something else that causes the $1,000 difference.
Looks like I was wrong...
Might have been because I used a slightly bigger (2000 tons) ship to test that theory of mine.
Using no deck armor on your design gives me $ 6.115 million dollars. At 50mm the price has gone down to $ 6.083 million.
But the odd thing is that with my 6000 ton cruiser, the price doesn't change a bit when I go from 0 to 3 inches.
I don't know what it is exactly, but this is what I have noticed after a few tests:
- The slower the vessel, the bigger the jump in armor thickness is needed to notice the change in cost.
- Seems to work with the smaller ships only. I tried it on my 6,000 ton cruiser, but even changing the deck to 18 inches did not have any effect on the cost of the ship.
I reckon that (18") would be proof against most things!!
Including buoyancy, I imagine.
I think that 6,000 ton cruiser with an 18 inch deck will sink faster than you can sim it with Spring Sharp.
What, you haven't tried it yet!!!!
What, you haven't tried it yet!!!!
Of course not. It is a waste of Yens to sink that beautiful ship just to prove that theory.
Compare to this contemporary swedish cruiser,
Colony type
Swedish built cruiser, a bit larger and made for colonial patrol.
Although it is almost twice as heavy as Commodore Green's ship, it's a good-looking design... however the picture won't appear in your post. For some reason the properties give it with "http://http://" at the beginning of the link.
Should work this way...
Nice ship!
No need for a torpedo bulkhead on a ship of this type, tho...
Great pic!
Monday, April 29th 2024, 8:06am
Go to the top of the page
Quoted 
