Shipbucket

I always look to your work as inspiration and reference for my own designs, keep up the good work.

Ooh...me likey.

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

The point is to make realistic designs that I imagine could have been built if not for the treaties. Starting with the ones that were actually planned. With the help of Friedmans US Battleships, I can get a look at designs from the late 20s-early 30s.

Here is a slightly modified Northampton class. What is different you may ask. To save you the time and effort, she has the overall measurement of the Portland class. That means the Northampton is 3 meters longer, for a total of 186 meters long. The armor belt extend all the way to the magazine of the number 2 turret, it only extended to the aft portion of the bridge in real life. The armor belt has been increased from 3.5 inches to 5, giving it adequate armor against 8 inch shells. Apart from that, she is he same as real life, only more effective as a heavy cruiser.



And a wip of what would eventually become the Alaska class; the biggest of all the large cruiser design study. The heavy cruiser CA-2D. At 261 meters long, 30 meters wide and 9,525 metes deep, she would have been a mini-battleship with her standard displacement of 38700 tons. With 212000 shp she could have achieved a speed of 33,6 knots. Her arnament was 12x12"/50 guns, and 16"5"/38 in 8 twin turrets.

Very nice work on the Northamptons! Can't wait to see the Alaskas completed!

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Sorry to question your nice design,
But would anybody build 8 inch CAs if no treaty's ?

6inch CLs make sense as its the first size that can reliably beat AMC and destroyers but after that why build 8 inch if you can spend the cash on BCs and the inevitable fast BBs race ? Would congress actually fund any CAs (after they grudgingly buy sufficient fast BBs to beat the IJN).

You also have the 6 Lexington's that are 'tinclad' BCs already cant they just be relegated to act as the CAs.(they cant act in a battle line with such thin belts)

JSB

Cruisers are cheaper than BCs and BBs. The battleship arms race expected after WWI was expected to be an economy breaking one, almost suicidally so. Besides, BBs and BCs would be too busy engaging other BBs and BCs to worry about the cruisers. Without the treaty, it is possible to make 8 inch gun cruisers that are armored well enough to withstand guns of the same caliber. The USN understood that fully well. The British acted upon it, making almost exclusively 6 inch gun cruisers, because they could be good light cruisers for a 10000 ton displacement. The Lexington class was armored to withstand 6 inch shells, and as such, would be vulnerable to heavy cruisers. The CA arms race started before the treaties, with the British Hawkins class. The improved Omaha class evolved into the Pensacola class, the first American CA. American cruiser design with 8 inch guns go back to the end of WWI. So even without a treaty, 8 inch gun cruisers would be built.