Shipbucket

Well, since I managed to fit the full turrets, I don't think shielded mounts are necesary. However, weight is going to be an issue so if you're interested you're welcomme to help me with an open-backet mount.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Thank you! When I get home from work I'll set about investigating the matter. In the meanwhile I have a suggestion for your consideration: how about substituting the wing turrets with 4.7 in (120mm) QF guns in open shields? This, I believe, would be pretty consistent with a Scandinavian policy of providing the limited number of ships available with the best possible armament. That way you avoid issues of stability and will add a diversified defense against subs, small vessels and provide a rudimentary AA coverage. Vickers would be able to provide those.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

I considered doing somthing like that, but decided not to since it would leave me with only three 6in guns which is too anemic for my requirements. Aditionally it would ad a new caliber to my arsenal which will require its own training and logistics.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

I fully respect that, but beg you to consider, for instance, the British Bristols, which, albeit from 1911 I believe are the closest to your concept. It featured 2 6" and 10 5" guns. The way I look at it the technical information available might have been limited to Danish naval architects with regards to foreign technological progresses. Also I do believe the addition would not complicate the supply and storage of the additional ammo. In fact, I believe you could work in at least two or three more pairs on the beams!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Hmm, the forum seems to have eaten most of my post.
Anyway, here's the rest.
Firstly, there's the question of need. The ship already have six 3in DP guns for AA, anti submarine and anti torpedo boat work.
The most likely enemies for this ship are cruisers and merchanters, both of which carries 6in guns.
If I understand it correctly the large number of light guns on the Bristol class was a reflection of her main mission which was engaging enemy destroyers. Since this ship is unlikely to ever see a destroyer it makes sense to me to sacrifice the light guns in favour of 6inchers.
Additionally the development of director firing largely reduced the lighter guns' advantage against destroyers. This is reflected in the later British designs of the time like the Darthmouth, Chatham and Birmingham and so on. Indeed, from the Centaur and on the light LA gun seems to have disappeared completely from British designs.
Having a mixed battery is also going to play merry hell on the spotters. The Battle of Jutland has already taken place by the time they have to choose weapons and this RDN is bound to have had observers on some of the ships.
Then there's the question of availability. The 75mm is a brand new homegrown design so the designers can count on them being available and it can do both HA and LA.
The 4.7in BL Mark I on the other hand is only capable of LA and it's produced in Britain. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but Britain is at war while the ships is being designed, meaning that the RDN can't count on the guns being available.

That's why I prefer 6in guns. If open-backed turrets turns out to be too heavy I'll settle for shielded beam and if necessary Y mounts.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

This is an interesting design. It marks a half-way point between the shielded gun cruisers of the 1910s and the twin and triple-gun turreted cruisers of the 1930s.

I myself doubt whether the beam turrets would be good for stability and by 1921 the advantages of broadside gunpower may well surpass those of ahead-fire. A mix of turrets and shields might work but perhaps superfiring guns a bit like the British Es would be interesting to see.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

You're probably right. I'll probably end up with a mix of turrets and shields.
Turns out I'll need that shielded mount anyway Bezo.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Or maybe not.

How's that? I'm still not sure about the stability and I may replace the B mount with a shielded one.
It also gives me two more 3in barrels

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Interesting development indeed! Yes, if superfiring, I'd strongly recommend the shielded one, for the reasons you've stated. Btw, may I take the opportunity to compliment you on this very enlightened and interesting round of arguments and counterarguments. It's really enjoyable to partake in an intelligent discussion. So, being home from work, I will look into the open, shielded mount problem.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Thank you
It's very interesting to leaf through Friedman and see the "Dreadnought paradigm" come to cruisers.
I wonder how these cruisers would have been received internationally. It's a lot like the AK-47 in that all the components where there, it just took a Kalashnikov to combine them all. In my case the Swedes introduced turreted 6in guns in either 1903 or 1912, the Brits introduced all 6in cruisers in 1910, the Americans invented superfiring guns in 1906.

I allmost forgot, now with torpedoes.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.