Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Keumgang-Class Battlecruiser (AU)
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5794		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Sumeragi [ January 1st, 2015, 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Keumgang-Class Battlecruiser (AU)
[ img ]

Launched: 1922
Displacement: 28,500 t (Standard), 33,260 t (Full)
Length: 214.6 m
Beam: 27.6 m
Power: 115,000 shp
Speed: 31 knot
Range: 10,000 nmi at 14 knots
Armament:
- 8 x 14" (4x2)
- 20 x BL 6 inch Mk XXII (10x2)
- 72 x QF 2-pounder Mark VIII (9x8)
- 10 x QF 2-pounder Mark II (10)
Armor:
- Belt: Maximum 229 mm
- Deck: Maximum 146 mm
- Turret: Maximum 229 mm
- Conning Tower: 254 mm


This is a design I made for an alternate history fiction I am writing. It's supposed to be a redesigned HMS Tiger to fit the needs of the 1920s. Daihan is the actual official name used by the Korean Empire, which got ignored (just like Japan wanted to be known as Nihon).

Without going too much into details, basically Daihan participated in an alternate WW1 (Great Eurasian War), and is a staunch ally of Britain. It is also a creditor country, in makes a bargain to do a Kongo-like arrangement for a BC and tech as payment for part of the loans.

The design of this ship is basically redesigned Tiger, utilizing the lessons of the Great Eurasian War and the G3 battlecruiser design. In addition, this is armed with 14 inch gun that the Kongo uses, since Daihan has military links with Japan. I think some elements might be too advanced, but I figure I can get away with it since the different war has accelerated various developments that happened slightly later in our reality.


I made this before seriously considering coming to Shipbucket, so only Jabba comes to mind as the original source I used. Apologies to those who I might have forgotten. Also, the label for some reason comes out like that despite putting it as Ariel point 14.


Any thoughts and comments would be appreciated.
Author:  JSB [ January 1st, 2015, 10:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Keumgang-Class Battlecruiser (AU)
Welcome,

My main comment on your ship would be to ask how different is your AU ?
- can they have radars on the ship in 22 ?
- the light self contained twin 40mm AA you are using didn’t work well in the 40s do to being to complicated.
- apart from that the hull style is a bit old for 22 (bow/stern)

JSB
Author:  Sumeragi [ January 1st, 2015, 10:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Keumgang-Class Battlecruiser (AU)
JSB wrote:
Welcome,

My main comment on your ship would be to ask how different is your AU ?
- can they have radars on the ship in 22 ?
- the light self contained twin 40mm AA you are using didn’t work well in the 40s do to being to complicated.
- apart from that the hull style is a bit old for 22 (bow/stern)

JSB
Thank you for the response.

- Yeah, forgot to change that.
- Is that so, I'll have to change those then.
- Well, it is supposed to be a Tiger hull. Any suggestions on how to change it?
Author:  Rodondo [ January 1st, 2015, 11:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Keumgang-Class Battlecruiser (AU)
Looks great, I'll expand on JSB's points though, in 1922 you'll most likely be shipping mid-WWI rangefinders, what you have currently looks like a good 1940's refit. Just be wary that most of the secondary guns you have were not around in 1922, most ships at that point had a few 3" HA mounts instead of a proper AA suite. I'd recommend having a look at the Nelson Class and HMS Hood's bow, that should give an idea of the change in hull form in the early 1920's from the ram bow.
Author:  Sumeragi [ January 2nd, 2015, 12:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Keumgang-Class Battlecruiser (AU)
[ img ]

Launched: 1922
Displacement: 28,500 t (Standard), 33,260 t (Full)
Length: 214.6 m
Beam: 27.6 m
Power: 115,000 shp
Speed: 31 knot
Range: 10,000 nmi at 14 knots
Armament:
- 8 x 14" (4x2)
- 16 x BL 6 inch Mk XIV/XV (8x2)
- 7 x QF 4 inch Mk V (7)
- 10 x QF 2-pounder Mark II (10)
Armor:
- Belt: Maximum 229 mm
- Deck: Maximum 146 mm
- Turret: Maximum 229 mm
- Conning Tower: 254 mm


I suppose the bow is where I need to think about.
Author:  Trojan [ January 2nd, 2015, 2:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Keumgang-Class Battlecruiser (AU)
Looking good
I would use the bow of HMS Hood as a baseline, since it's a battlecruiser of a similar era and somewhat close in size.
You also still have 40mms hazemayers which weren't developed until the late 30s.
Author:  Sumeragi [ January 2nd, 2015, 2:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Keumgang-Class Battlecruiser (AU)
Trojan wrote:
Looking good
I would use the bow of HMS Hood as a baseline, since it's a battlecruiser of a similar era and somewhat close in size.
You also still have 40mms hazemayers which weren't developed until the late 30s.
Okay, I'll take note.

Yeah, forgot to take out the hazemayers and change them to the QF 2-pounder Mark II

Also, I'll be modifying the bridge. I figure the influence of G3 might result in something more modern.
Author:  Sumeragi [ January 2nd, 2015, 4:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Keumgang-Class Battlecruiser (AU)
[ img ]

Launched: 1922
Displacement: 28,500 t (Standard), 33,260 t (Full)
Length: 214.6 m
Beam: 27.6 m
Power: 115,000 shp
Speed: 31 knot
Range: 10,000 nmi at 14 knots
Armament:
- 8 x 14" (4x2)
- 16 x BL 6 inch Mk XIV/XV (8x2)
- 7 x QF 4 inch Mk V (7)
Armor:
- Belt: Maximum 229 mm
- Deck: Maximum 146 mm
- Turret: Maximum 229 mm
- Conning Tower: 254 mm


Nice and simple.
Author:  JSB [ January 2nd, 2015, 4:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Keumgang-Class Battlecruiser (AU)
Getting better,

IMO I would,
- fix stern/rudder as well like you did with bow (and remove 4' from it)
- cut the remaining radars (on masts)
- try to lower the top-weight, buy cutting hight from the 4' guns (and maybe the 6' as well) and the main bridge
- do you need more funnel (or 2)
- maybe cut the main director for a smaller OTL used one ? (top/front of bridge and top of CT)

JSB
Author:  Sumeragi [ January 2nd, 2015, 4:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Keumgang-Class Battlecruiser (AU)
JSB wrote:
- try to lower the top-weight, buy cutting hight ..... the main bridge
Perhaps just go back to the smaller version? I've tried the larger G3 bridge to see if there can be maximization of technology.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/