Shipbucket

The 40/70 began service in 1952 (in Swedish service single gun) so I don't think you are talking about 3-5 years (just think of the budgets spent 39-45 you are never going to spend that in peace time so they should count at lest double IMO so {36-39 + 2x 40-45 + 46-52 = 20+ years })
You might go for single 40mm/60s (just about ok if you buy in from the prototype date, but still pushing it IMO,) I would go with 2pdr quad/oct.

The blockier parts with life-rafts, maybe lower it down ? do you need it at all (what does it have in it or support ?), you can even lower the rear director as long as it can look over its turret ? (Cutting weight is always good, unless you need volume but you have the front block so should have plenty)

JSB

Ok my 25kt/12' RN BB



JSB

edit
- raised director (LA stern)
- fitted aircraft + boats
- twin 4' from the start
- realised that my short belt means that I can fit a short deck as well why did I not think of that before so I plenty to spare...

Isn't that just Battleship X squeezed and a few electronics changes?

Funky! However I've got some concerns / questions / comments for you.

That aft director tower is really rather low yet your amidships HACS are miles in the air!

I'd also question the wisdom of your secondary fit, they seem somewhat archaic for the time even if you borrowed them off something else...

You've got some bulwarks without tops ahead of A turret or at least it appears that way. If it were me I'd take the last bulwark position and use that one I'd also raise both barbettes to improve your firing arcs fore and aft.

The length of the belt gives me the impression that your engine rooms are unprotected or are somehow small enough to fit between the turret and your aft-most boiler rooms?

Could you not feasibly truncate the funnels?

No spotting aircraft even at this stage somewhat baffle me =S

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Errr yes that was my inspiration its an earlier smaller X
- That aft director tower is really rather low yet your amidships HACS are miles in the air!
Does it need to be that much higher ? (could go 1 level up)

- I'd also question the wisdom of your secondary fit, they seem somewhat archaic for the time even if you borrowed them off something else...
Yes how did you guess they will be thrown out in the 38/9 refit but if the Politicians will not pay for more twin 4' and Oct 2pdrs they they cant complain if we don't count it in the displacement can they....

- You've got some bulwarks without tops ahead of A turret or at least it appears that way. If it were me I'd take the last bulwark position and use that one I'd also raise both barbettes to improve your firing arcs fore and aft.
I have deliberately dropped the 0 deg bow fire requirement for much better sea keeping and fitted lots of bulwarks and I do want to reduce top weight as I'm going to be quite tight, so I'm not sure .

- The length of the belt gives me the impression that your engine rooms are unprotected or are somehow small enough to fit between the turret and your aft-most boiler rooms? Could you not feasibly truncate the funnels?
The belt should cover T/BR/ER/T its very tight but spring sharp says it will work just (min length needed 306ft using belt of 310ft but its only protection vitals not buoyancy, 68% of normal) Possibly I could join the funnels (but all KVG/V/X had twins hum...)

- No spotting aircraft even at this stage somewhat baffle me,
Hum OK will have to fit one on stern (don't think it will fit in centre) CA style

JSB

Well if you're only going to be firing at point blank ranges with your aft armament it doesn't really matter otherwise, get it as high as you safely can.

Make do and mend! Ooh err. Does seem a bit odd though for capital ships at least. I could understand mentality on cruisers and destroyers just not something as important as a battle wagon.

That's... Bad. Especially if you face something with bigger guns than you. You'll want to hit them as much as you can as quickly as you can and waiting to be able to broadside an opponent is just asking to get butt-hurt by all manner of larger than 12" shells. You'd only really need the one big bulwark too especially with that amount of inclination on the bow and how far back your main armament is. Spray isn't going to be that big of an issue here I;d have thought... If you are worried about it you'd be better off flaring out the bow than just adding umpteen bulwarks too.

Hmm, I'm still a little skeptical of that. I'd take what SS says with a grain of salt and air on the side of caution.

We did look at fantail aircraft launching during the 30s and deemed it was unacceptable because of the risk of flooding amongst other things yet the Americans seem perfectly happy to go down that route. You are however a fair distance from the main guns so blast *may* be less of an issue than OTL.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Hey JSB,

Looking good, the only problem with using a too modern hull and superstructure as the basis for your ship is everything looks out of synch when you stick older weaponry on. You might be better copying the Superstructure off of a Queen Elizabeth / Valiant upgrade which will give you the time period funnel you need (maybe increase the size by half again). Keep some of the twin 4.5" which were available at the time. The other thing which looks odd on the structure you have now is the single 2pd guns, replacing those with quads and an octuple where you moved the aft director from will bring your ship in line with weaponry that would have been available at the time. You could also keep the aircraft handling arrangements between the funnel and aft superstructure (off V/QE) which would get rid of that problem you have on the stern.

Otherwise everything is fine .

Any thoughts on mine, Krakatoa?

Sorry Sumeragi I missed yours on the previous page.

The bridge superstructure is fine (you need to credit Jabba for that), the hull looks US made and looks good (whoever drew it needs to be credited). The turrets for the 10" are probably a bit big, you could reduce the size of those by 25% and still be fine.

(07).The 4.9" guns are a good choice but the turrets they are in look a bit too modern, you could use any of the 4.5" turrets myself and Blackbuck have used on our pre-WW2 ships and they would match the rest of your ship (look up HMS Matchless in Personal Designs for some of my 4.5").

(05-06).The biggest problem I can see is the areas between the bridge and funnel and then from funnel to aft turret. That area looks out of synch. The way you have it now the funnel looks like it should be huge. You need to show those two areas stopping short of the funnel or the funnel being built into the forward compartment. The area there needs to look like it is curving back into the funnel so that the funnel looks normal size. (check my example labelled no.6).

(04). As per 02, the way you have the boats mounted makes the structure behind them appear very skinny. Half of your beam is 46 feet, you then need a space between 4.9" turret and the ships side and also between turret and structure behind it to allow the turret to swivel (3+19+3=25 feet), the two boats are big ones and have appropriate beams (about 10 feet each) plus space for the crews to work around them (10+10+6=26 feet), then you have the structure your aft mast is mounted on which if it is only 10 feet wide will take up 5 foot of your half beam. Adding those up 25+26+5 = 56 feet which means your ship would need a beam of 112 feet to take the layout you have now. To cure that you need to discard the aft structure with the mast mounted on it and make the deck the boats are mounted on the height for that area. You could have a slightly higher structure at the end to mount your director on (discard the armoured tower and mount the director on what is left).

(03).As B.B . pointed out the 40mm quads are a bit too modern, they should really be 1.1" quads, or 2pd quads. Both of those are in your time span.

(02).The aft mast needs to be moved further back. Also if the area it is mounted on is as skinny as it looks (4.9" turret, two boats have to be allowed for), then the support legs of that mast would probably extend down past that area to the next deck down.

(01). The aft director and armoured conning station look 'odd', The armoured conning station looks wrong as there isn't one forward which would be normal if you have one aft. You could build that section back into the structure behind it and place the director there.

- Bridge superstructure: Okay, although perhaps I should credit you (since it's the Keumgang superstructure)
- Hull: I tried making that from scratch.
- Turret: It's deliberately big, since they could be upgunned to 28 cm.
- 125 mm turret: Not sure about this (I tried making the turret myself). Is the HMS Matchless turret design your work? If so, I would love to use them to credit my inspiration.
- Funnel, aft mast, directer: Roger
- Boats: Perhaps I'll just get rid of them, wasn't really liking the bunch in the first place.
- 40 mm: We can just say they're 60 caliber. Korea was passing out the pom-pom at this point, replacing them with its own 40 mm in 1935.