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.
San Pietro Classe Incrociatore
Two ships authorised for 1931, San Pietro y San Silvestro. Possibly 2 additional units at a later date.
13.000tons
190 x20 x 7.5
c. 32knts
12 x 203/53, 14 x 100/65, 16 x 37/54AA
Personally I think the aft 100mm mounts are poorly possitioned given the ammount of deck space available.
Other than that she seems ok, personal tastes aside.
Really good stuff! What picture is the "photo" based on?
I agree with Wes - the aft 100mm mounts are poorly positioned. Are those TT bays amidship?
Duca degli Abruzzi. Considerable heavy lifting needed to be done.
Whats wrong with the aft 100mm mounts? They have fairly good firing arcs in a compact arrangement.
Splinterproof torpedo bays amidships. Two per side.
The 100mm are horribly cramped behind "X" turret, particularily the side mounts. Given the deck space they really shouldn't be. They likely interfere with "X" mounts arcs as well.
I'd place them slightly forward replacing the 37mm mounts and placeing the 37mm's elsewhere. that would give both the aft 100mm and "X" turret far better arcs.
Nowhere else to put the hangar or the 37mm mounts. I don't think it'll prove to be a great problem.
The 37's could go where the 4 light machine guns are, midships, which could be reloctated elsewhere. Looking at your boat deck it seems you have the space to move things forward slightly in order to create more room on the aft superstructure.
Those light machine guns are 25mms, which should be in Breda twin mounts - so they need to be redrawn.
The aft superstructure is as small as possible for the hangar.
I could move No.2 funnel forwards, but that wouldn't suit my below-decks arrangement.
I really don't think the arcs of fire are that bad.
What about putting the after 37s on the aft deck (similar to the American placement of 40s on the aft end of the modern battleships), and then place the 100s where the after 37s where?
What about putting the after 37s on the aft deck (similar to the American placement of 40s on the aft end of the modern battleships), and then place the 100s where the after 37s where?
The 37mm turrets are enclosed, weatherproof and blastproof so they can go onto the fantail. But I don't like the look.
Can't put the 100mm guns where the 37mm were. The ammunition hoists would interfere with the hangar and cause topweight problems.
Drawing program
Does your program have any way of allowing you to rotating the aft main turrets to you can place them back into the drawing at their maximum transverse forward? This would allow Wes and Hooman (and myself for that matter) to see that the after batteries won't cause blast damage to the after 100s in their present position.
The drawing program I use is too simple to do that, but others can allow such changes by degrees, photoshop I think does.
MSpaint is able to flip/rotate selections in 90° intervals. Using sketch/skew, if you spend enough time at it, you can get other angles. Other programs are probably easier, but no matter what it distorts line-drawing images a lot
I'm think that X turret will be able to traverse 120° from the centreline.
The 100/65 guns are in enclosed mounts, as are the 37mm mounts. Not much in the way of superstructure to damage.
One solution to the spacing of the main & secondary batteries aft, would be to eliminate the aircraft handling facilities amidships, move the secondary & AA mounts farther forward, and give the aft main batteries more room to traverse.
(I realize that a/c were standard installations, but look how much could be gained by not including them in the design)
I've really got to keep the aircraft on there. They need a long-range scouting element to be effective. Later one the scouts will probably be replaced by Re 2000s or an equivalent for anti-aircraft duties.
The doctored photo appears to be lacking the aft main director shown on the diagram. I'm guessing the objects beside the funnels are searchlights?
My concern, if I were in the RMI, with the 100mm mountings would be that they're so close together that a single hit might well knock out 2 or even 3 mountings, but there are limits imposed by fitting 4 triple 203mms onto a ~195m hull.
No after director on the photo. Building from scratch was too hard. Maybe I'll add it later.
Searchlights alongside the funnels.
I prefer the extra firepower from another 100/65 mount. I'll accept the "risk" that all 3 turret could be put out of action with a single hit, but that won't be before any other cruiser is a blazing wreck...
...not if she has freinds with her!
Quoted
What about putting the after 37s on the aft deck (similar to the American placement of 40s on the aft end of the modern battleships), and then place the 100s where the after 37s where?
Saturday, May 11th 2024, 11:22am
Go to the top of the page
