WW2 Heavy cruiser

Hi Risen Britannia,

It's looking good, but I'm unsure about the turret front - by the time you're getting to triple turrets, there's normally the beginnings of a "step" at the front - this is normally accommodated by either the slope of the turret front or a flat step in the profile ... however, your turrets appear to have a step in the other direction! This would require larger openings in the turret face in order to permit the guns to elevate as you're effectively cutting the same sector from a larger circle and could introduce a vulnerability to the turret front as a result.

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.
[ img ]

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Krakatoa wrote:

That looks really good Risen Britania.

JSB wrote:

Looks really nice

Thanks

Quote:

The only 'but' I would have would be to increase the flare on the bow to help with seakeeping at the high speeds you want your ship to attain.

Have a look at the bow on the Vanguard as an example of the flare I am talking about.

So make it more of a V shape?

Quote:

Agreed but depends how good you want the design? plenty of nations built wet ships OTL...

How common was it for cruisers? As i don't want to make it "overly good".

Quote:

Unless its AU changed they don't work together the HACS worked with the 4" guns (Bofors has its own smaller directors) and 4 is quite an expensive fit especially early on.

Ah I had assumed that the Bofors could use them from the way they were positioned on the Belfast
[ img ]

Risen Britannia wrote:

Ah I had assumed that the Bofors could use them from the way they were positioned on the Belfast

At this point I would like to ask anybody more knowledgeable to help

But my thinking would be that looking at the SB part sheet to illustrate http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... ?f=23&t=65
The 4" should use HACS I would suggest 2 or 3 but 4 could be ok but is more like the KVG class and expensive.
40mm should use something like STD simple director
Belfast is probably in a post war fit remember she was kept and fought in Korea and rebuilt in later in 50s ? with better post war directors maybe CRBF ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Belfa ... eservation

apdsmith wrote:

Thanks Adam.

In regards to turrets is the top one any better?
[ img ]

JSB wrote:

The 4" should use HACS I would suggest 2 or 3 but 4 could be ok but is more like the KVG class and expensive.
40mm should use something like STD simple director

I will cut the number of HACS down to 2 or 3. Would it be best to keep the HACS next to the Bofors (higher and a better field of view) or the ones behind the 4 inch (closer to guns).
Would something like the Mark 51 FCS be more appropriate for the Bofors?

Hi Risen,

That looks much better - if you look at the 280mm triples from DG_Alpha's sheet you'll see that the step is just about the same proportion (the barrel isn't, obviously, because of the difference in scale, but if the distance between axes scales than so should the barbette \ step proportions):

[ img ]

Also, with regards to HACS, my understanding is that it'll compensate for any offset so you want the best possible field of view, limited by compromising fire arcs for the 40mm and top weight concerns.

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.
[ img ]

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Shipbucket

Who is online