Shipbucket

Thank you everyone for your comments and criticism, it is certainly flattering to be getting so much attention and I feel like I need to address each one of you as best I can.

Instead of addressing you one by one, I'll cover the issues by aspect, starting with the technical aspect.

First of all, after seeing your edit, Krakatoa, I can see that your modifications would result in a ship that works, of course, and it's a subtle but elegant solution.
However, I'll try to prove that there's no problem in the first place, so please bear with me.

First technical point is that the barbettes and turrets are a bespoke solution made by Mitsubishi for this ship, the actual turret and barbette is not taken from anywhere (which goes against the challenge rules, but it was so fun to make them), only the 14"/45 Mark Is were already there. This means that the whole structure will be as tall as it needs to be, taking into account the requirements of the hoists and of the rest of the ship's structure.

I've prepared a new diagram using the armouring scheme and the diagram using the ship's stations that I already had in a hidden layer to show the decks within the hull in light green (I was running out of colours ) and also a cross section of the ship, first at station 12, about amidships, and then just fore of station 18, where the aft barbette would be.



Here you can see that once the barbette meets the armoured deck, we still have three decks to work with below for the hoist before we need to leave space for the triple bottom (I usually draw my decks 18 pixels tall), which means I can easily cram any combination of magazines and shell rooms, most likely from top to bottom as a shell room, a mixed magazine and shell room, and a magazine, as seen on other capital ships.
Now, on the cross section you can see that, indeed, the propeller shafts would cross the lowest deck, making the useful space considerably smaller. However, against this I can say that magazine space has already been provided for one deck higher, and that Renown and Repulse show a very similar arrangement, which would seem proof that such a configuration is not only possible, but also works.

About the ship's capabilities vs B-65, I think there's a parallel situation with North Carolina/South Dakota and Iowa, namely that an increase in power and speed will raise length and tonnage in a hurry. How can this be when Cochrane is only 1.1 kn slower than B-65? I am convinced this is not the case. Reading about B-65 we see that she was designed to produce at least 33 kn, but design speed at the intended 170,000 shp was 34 kn, and it seems very logical to me that during trials, running light and without some of her armament (conditions in which Cochrane achieved her 31.92 kn) she would've easily surpassed 35 kn. Argument in favour of this is the aforementioned Iowas which would hit 35.2 kn running light. So, to me, the big difference in tonnage and length is explained by the extra 60,000 shp B-65 would produce. Would 60,000 shp really require 10,000 tons extra? I can't say for certain, but it gives me a margin to play with.

To add to that, JSB, more often than not I base my ships on a SpringSharp report that I use as a rough draft and document which I later modify according to what my experience using the program dictates, namely that it doesn't like fast ships and overestimates citadel sizes like it was paid to do so, so there's extensive tweaking from start to finish even before starting a drawing.

Now for the political or story factors, the Chilean delegation enters negotiations with the Imperial Japanese government and the shipbuilders with a mostly finite ammount of resources with which to pay for their intended acquisitions, namely Rapa Nui since nitrates at this point are almost valueless. This creates a construction budget that the Chilean delegation must split into whatever assets they need, which means that once whatever they want to buy is decided, the Japanese shipbuilders will not receive significantly more payment for making their products better. This creates negative incentives to making the best ships they can, and rather persuades them to cram the capabilities required into the cheapest ship that would pass inspections. So instead of making a miniaturized fast version of Fujimoto's Battleship, proven architecture is used, corners cut and easy solutions implemented. Like American cars, the ship is full of amazing features like 14" guns, a TDS and a triple bottom, but falls short on other aspects due to the cruiser architecture, like the grouped boiler and engine rooms, the low Cb used to make the short but wide ship go fast, the simple and crammed citadel and the open emergency con. This also influences the light cruisers (coming shortly, I promise!), but not the subs which are seen as something of a delicatessen. Sous Marines extraordinaires, by Kawasaki.

It's this and the timeframe that make it absolutely impossible for her to be based on B-65.

Finally, the more emotional artistic reasons, which can be disregarded at your discretion but I feel like sharing with you regardless.

B-65 is hella ugly and I ain't chopping my baby up -_-

I want to thank you all once more, and everyone who read the fluff and this text.
That's it for my Apology of Cochrane, I hope you'll feel like replying again, since I just love to discuss ship matters with all of you.

_________________
w o r k l i s t :
Hatsuyuki-class Escort Ships . . . <3

I won't be giving the full backstory of this vessel as I'll be saving that for my own AU, so consider the drawing itself as a taste for when I decide to finish up and post the real thing

Admiral Schrodinger, Antaran battlecruiser laid down 1931 (Engine 1934)

Displacement:
18?763 t light; 19?689 t standard; 21?164 t normal; 22?344 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(692.51 ft / 679.13 ft) x 80.38 ft x (28.87 / 29.99 ft)
(211.08 m / 207.00 m) x 24.50 m x (8.80 / 9.14 m)

Armament:
6 - 14.00" / 356 mm 45.0 cal guns - 1?382.54lbs / 627.11kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1931 Model
3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm 45.0 cal guns - 63.03lbs / 28.59kg shells, 150 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 8?799 lbs / 3?991 kg
Main Torpedoes
6 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m torpedoes - 1.687 t each, 10.120 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 7.99" / 203 mm 441.44 ft / 134.55 m 10.43 ft / 3.18 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100% of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 9.84" / 250 mm 7.87" / 200 mm 9.84" / 250 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.79" / 20 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2.99" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 1.97" / 50 mm Quarter deck: 1.97" / 50 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 9.92" / 252 mm, Aft 9.92" / 252 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric cruising motors plus geared drives, 3 shafts, 110?000 shp / 82?060 Kw = 32.01 kts
Range 7?999nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2?655 tons

Complement:
876 - 1?140

Cost:
￡8.279 million / $33.118 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1?523 tons, 7.2%
- Guns: 1?503 tons, 7.1%
- Weapons: 20 tons, 0.1%
Armour: 5?356 tons, 25.3%
- Belts: 1?538 tons, 7.3%
- Armament: 1?568 tons, 7.4%
- Armour Deck: 1?923 tons, 9.1%
- Conning Towers: 327 tons, 1.5%
Machinery: 3?165 tons, 15.0%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 8?719 tons, 41.2%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2?401 tons, 11.3%
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
25?004 lbs / 11?342 Kg = 18.2 x 14.0 " / 356 mm shells or 2.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 17.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 56 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.86
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a straight bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.470 / 0.478
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.45 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.27 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 56
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00%, 28.67 ft / 8.74 m, 23.46 ft / 7.15 m
- Forward deck: 30.00%, 23.46 ft / 7.15 m, 18.24 ft / 5.56 m
- Aft deck: 35.00%, 18.24 ft / 5.56 m, 18.24 ft / 5.56 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00%, 18.24 ft / 5.56 m, 18.24 ft / 5.56 m
- Average freeboard: 20.48 ft / 6.24 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.9%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 153.9%
Waterplane Area: 36?802 Square feet or 3?419 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 110%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 168 lbs/sq ft or 820 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.59
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

_________________

Finally managed to finish off the CLs, these are only a side dish but I hope you enjoy them nonetheless.
The material on the submarine is pulled straight from the other post.

THE LIGHT CRUISERS: PINTO AND ERRÁZURIZ

Quite obviously, a single large cruiser could never solve the capability gap left by the rapidly aging Chilean cruisers in service in 1930, and so the shipbuilding program included two much smaller ships intended to fulfil the following rôles:

- Reconnaissance for the fleet
- Destroyer flotilla leader
- Fleet screening
- Trade protection

Budgetary priority given to the battlecruiser and the submarines meant that these two assets were reduced in size during final negotiations, the final design settling on a 4,000 t, 35 kn ship. This did not prevent the designers from attempting to cram as much firepower into the hulls, and in the end, a layout of seven 6”/50 guns was chosen, all in single mounts with shields and associated hoists, powered in traverse only by hydraulic motors, for cost and weight reasons. Anti-aircraft armament comprised of two single 4”/45 guns on platforms and four 2-pdr Mark II* pom-poms on the superstructure. The armament was rounded up by two triple 21” torpedo tube mounts for Mark VII torpedoes. Mine rails were installed on the aft deck for the carriage and deployment of 16 naval mines. Just like COCHRANE and the cruiser submarines, the armament was bought in Great Britain, and shipped to Japan where the builders fitted and adapted this to the ships.
Power was supplied by four oil-fired Kampon boilers, also grouped together into two boiler rooms in order to save space. This was converted and transmitted by two turbine sets similar to COCHRANE’s outer sets, with a high-pressure stage, a low-pressure stage and a cruising turbine, coupled to a reduction gear transmission for each shaft. A third turbine driving an electrical generator was located further back, next to two Mitsubishi 6-cylinder 4-stroke diesel generators.
The two ships, to be named PRESIDENTE PINTO and PRESIDENTE ERRÁZURIZ were laid down in March 1931 at Uraga Dock Company and Fujinagata Shipyards respectively. The ships made much more thorough use of welding and weight saving techniques throughout their construction. As in COCHRANE, the armour was used as structural stressed members, in this case the belt ran down from the deck to the double bottom amidships, over boilers and machinery. This meant that they ended up some 9% overweight, but nonetheless they were deemed acceptable by their buyers. Their launching ceremonies, while much less pompous than COCHRANE’s, were nonetheless attended by diplomatic parties from both Chile and Japan, and various observers from both international media and other navies.
First to be completed, ERRÁZURIZ ran trials in October of 1932 within the Harima Nada sea delivering 35.2 kn from 59,200 shp. PINTO had her completion delayed and ran trials two months later. During her run, she suffered a bursted boiler that killed three and sent her back to the dockyard, having clocked only 34.4 kn on 57,300 shp. They were nonetheless accepted in early 1933 and proceeded on a trans-pacific journey, in which they called at Pearl Harbor and Pape’ete. They both suffered from leaking fuel oil tanks in bad weather on the last leg of the journey, and had to undergo repairs in Talcahuano after arriving at Valparaiso on the 27th of March of 1933.






STATISTICS:
Displacement:
4,026 t light
4,360 t standard
5,086 t full load

Dimensions:
L: 143 m (469 ft)
B: 14 m (46 ft)
D: 4.35 m (14 ¼ ft) normal

Propulsion:
2 shafts, 2 turbine sets, 4 Kampon boilers, 58,000 shp total, 35 kn

Range:
5,000 nmi @ 15 kn

Complement: 315 officers and enlisted.

Armament:
7x 6"/50 Mark XXII
2x 4”/45 QF Mark V
4x 2-pdr QF Mark II*
2xIII 21” torpedo tubes, Mark VII torpedoes

Armour:
Belt: 57 mm (2.25”) tapering down to 38 mm (1.5”)
Deck: 32 mm (1.25”)
Bulkheads: 45 mm (1.75”)
Gun Shields: 120 mm (4.7”) face, 20 mm (0.8”) sides.
Bridgehouse: 20 mm (0.8”)

And just for the hell of it, I've included a reeeeally unlikely scheme, mimicking her old namesake in 1900.




THE CRUISER SUBMARINES: CAPITÁN DEL SOLAR AND CAPITÁN SPOERER

The two CAPITAN SPOERER-class submarines, CAPITAN SPOERER and CAPITAN DEL SOLAR were ordered in 1931 to Kawasaki Dockyard Company, Ltd. as part of a bigger trade deal involving the Empire of Japan and the Republic of Chile, amidst diplomatic protest from both the United Kingdom and the United States. They were based on the Junsen type submarines then entering service with the Imperial Japanese Navy and were intended for long-range patrol and commerce raiders, but they used armament and ordnance purchased in the United Kingdom to maintain commoniality with the rest of the chilean fleet. Enjoying a very long range and on-station time, these submarines could maintain station just outside the mouth of the de la Plata river or keep extensive patrols all along the pacific coast of South America. They would enter service a bit after the three O'BRIEN-class boats and while at first their roles would seem to overlap, the appearance of the CAPITAN SPOERERs would mean that the old and worn out H-class submarines H-2 TEGUALDA and H-3 RUCUMILLA could be taken out of service. After a period of instruction in Japan, the two SPOERERs would sail to Chile, calling port in Manila, Auckland and Papete. They would prove themselves of excellent quality and demonstrate impressive performance, albeit they were notoriously slower to dive and harder to handle underwater than their O'BRIEN stablemates.



STATISTICS:
Displacement
1920 t surfaced
2600 t submerged

Dimensions:
L: 96 m (315 ft)
B: 8.3 m (27 1/4 ft)
D: 4.9 m (16 ft)

Propulsion:
2 MAN Type 2 4 stroke diesels, 5800 shp total, 18 kn
2 electric motors, 2200 shp total, 9 kn

Range:
14,000 nmi @ 10 kn surfaced
80 nmi @ 4 kn submerged

Test depth: 85 m

Complement: 62 officers and enlisted, 10 prize crew during wartime.

Armament:
2xI 4.7"/45 QF Mark IX
1x 12-pdr 20 cwt QF HA Mark IE
8x 21" TTs, 6 fore, 2 aft, 18x Mark VIII Torpedoes


And Tris, I've been looking at your battlecruiser for a few days, and while the drawing is great (it is, don't touch it, it's wonderful) I think you can extract better numbers from SS with a bit of, "accomodating" for it's particular biases.

_________________
w o r k l i s t :
Hatsuyuki-class Escort Ships . . . <3

Those are exceptionally pretty, Char! I wonder how long they stay in service?

They look great!

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