Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 8  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 58 »
Author Message
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Haram, the might of...Posted: March 14th, 2015, 5:56 am
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
This is a huge ship, dimensions taken from drawing: 860.5 x 91 feet. Displacement would be well over 30,000 tons. It is as long as the battlecruiser Hood and armed with 12x6"?

I have wondered what the rope like accessories on the 6" and 4-5" secondaries are. The only thing I could think of was water cooling system for the automatic weapons to help keep the barrels cooler.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Haram, the might of...Posted: March 14th, 2015, 1:48 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Krakatoa wrote:
This is a huge ship, dimensions taken from drawing: 860.5 x 91 feet. Displacement would be well over 30,000 tons. It is as long as the battlecruiser Hood and armed with 12x6"?

I have wondered what the rope like accessories on the 6" and 4-5" secondaries are. The only thing I could think of was water cooling system for the automatic weapons to help keep the barrels cooler.
she is an monster, there was build two of these monsters and several smaller cruisers and they was all tasked with protecting aircraft carrier.

the rope thing, is water cooling systems, since these guns are an early mechanical automatic guns. The other reason for the water cooling is that these ships is expected to travel from the cold North to the hot south, and need every thing they can get to protect the barrels from warping!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Haram, the might of...Posted: March 14th, 2015, 6:22 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Work in progress

This is the F class, was designed to supplement the much bigger Kruze class, and was and fleet plane of ships designed to protect aircraft carriers.
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Haram, the might of...Posted: March 14th, 2015, 7:33 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
Quote:
Heavy Cruiser
Tonnage: designed max: 33.000 tons, standard: 22.000 tons
Length: 262 meter
Beam: 28 meter
draft: max: 9.8 meters, Standard, 9.3 meters.
crew: 1400 - 1800
Propulsion: 4 shaft, combined electric an several geared turbines and two low pressure revers turbines on two shaft, 12 boilers in combination of super-high, medium and low pressure boilers. Max: 180.000 shp. (With safety limiter removed: 211.000 shp for short time period (burst speed))
Speed: 33,2 knots (burst at 35+- knots).
Armament:
- 4 x triple 155 mm Havok (model 1200) Mk-8
- 14 x single 56 mm Befer Mark 13 "Bull"
- 12 x twin 40 mm Befer Mark 43 "Dancer"
- 8 x twin 20 mm Befer (contracted) Mark 18 "Sprite"
Aircraft:
two float planes of various model.
For a 1953 CA would it not make sense to,
- cut the float planes (if you are escort for CVs ?)
- cut the 20mm to cut manpower/costs
- go for a uniform 57mm or 40mm (or IMO fast 3' with VT shells ?)
- not sure that anything but geared ST makes sense in 53 ?

With the following you could cut the size/cost and build more of them so you can ring your CVs (or just save money) ?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Haram, the might of...Posted: March 15th, 2015, 2:10 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
JSB wrote:
For a 1953 CA would it not make sense to,
- cut the float planes (if you are escort for CVs ?)
- cut the 20mm to cut manpower/costs
- go for a uniform 57mm or 40mm (or IMO fast 3' with VT shells ?)
- not sure that anything but geared ST makes sense in 53 ?

With the following you could cut the size/cost and build more of them so you can ring your CVs (or just save money) ?

- She was designed for having float planes but was never equipped with them. The admiralty didn't find it necessary to equip them since she is traveling with an CV that have far better facility to carry planes.

- the 20 mm will stay, there are no reason to cut them out. on a ship of this size. and with a crew of 1400-1800 there are no manning problem at all. there is also no cost on this guns, since they are taken from ships she is replacing.

- 57 mm guns is heavy, and thus having a ton of them would be perhaps a little to mush, so to get as many metal in the air as possible, old refurbished 40 mm guns are used next to the 57 mm.

another reason for the guns...
acelanceloet wrote:
- you have tons of 56mm guns, but no 40mm?
- if you read the text close she is using a geared turbines with the addition for the electric motors (the electric motors for this kind of ship, is most likely an early version of today's electric motors)

- There was planned up to 7 of them, but only build 2 of them. these Heavy cruisers travel often together with several other cruisers and destroyers. so to say it's only these two heavy cruiser to protect the CV is not totally correct, since there are several other cruiser in the 170 meter range backing here up.

Although the Heavy cruiser was planned originally as an cruiser that could single handily make an dead zone around an CV with the amount of metal she can get up in the air. Even the 6" guns (aka 155mm) can do long range AAW, but with a limited ROF.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Haram, the might of...Posted: March 15th, 2015, 2:57 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
But what are the 20mm guns for? By 1953 they have neither the range nor the punch to bring down an attacking jet and the fire control isn't good enough yet to bring down bombs and missiles.
I don't really see how having a large crew is going to help manning them either. Those 1500 people presumably have their own jobs to deal with. We're talking at least five people per gun btw (Gunner, two loaders, at least two ammo carriers) plus the guys who man the directors and the magazines. So around fifty people give or take a few, for a weapon that has essentially no use.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Haram, the might of...Posted: March 15th, 2015, 4:16 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Thiel wrote:
But what are the 20mm guns for? By 1953 they have neither the range nor the punch to bring down an attacking jet and the fire control isn't good enough yet to bring down bombs and missiles.
I don't really see how having a large crew is going to help manning them either. Those 1500 people presumably have their own jobs to deal with. We're talking at least five people per gun btw (Gunner, two loaders, at least two ammo carriers) plus the guys who man the directors and the magazines. So around fifty people give or take a few, for a weapon that has essentially no use.
yeah you are perhaps right on that.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: Haram, the might of...Posted: March 15th, 2015, 4:18 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
IIRC, the 40mm guns actually replaced the 20mm in service.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Haram, the might of...Posted: March 15th, 2015, 7:42 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
Hope you don't mind a long ramble but,
Quote:
with a crew of 1400-1800 there are no manning problem at all
My idea was that you cut crew number to cut costs/weight.
If we assume that crew wise you need,

6' twin crew = 42 (from 6"/47DP Mark 16, Manning was twenty-one crewmembers in the gunhouse, ten in the turret officer’s booth and eleven in the gun house)(212 mt)
This gives you x4 for a 168 crew and 848t for your main guns that are a good pick IMO

Then we get complicated secondary AA guns

- 14 x 57mm single (why not twin ? you can only point at as many targets as you have directors anyway ?)
cant find a single weight or crew but twin Sweden 57 mm/60Model 1950: 23 tons (24 mt)(crew ? assume 10-15 for twin ? so maybe 8-10 for single ? with weight of 14t ?)

- 12 x 40mm twin crew = 11 (5 + 6 ammo ?) (USN For twin and quad mounts, the crew consisted of a Mount Captain, Pointer, Trainer, a 1st Loader for each gun and then however many ammunition passers it took to get back to the ammunition supply point. In addition to the guncrew, there was normally a Mark 51 (or later) Director crew consisting of a Pointer and a Range Setter.)
weight (4445 - 5897 kg)

- 8 x 20mm twin crew = 5 ? (Mark 24: 1,400 lbs. (635 kg))

Why not a 3' twin unless you don't have assesses to VT shells ? RN 3/70' twin 12 crew (37,716 kg)

- your option gives a total crew of (14x10+12x11+8x5) = 312 men and (14x14+12x5+8x.6) weight = 260.8t

a uniform 3'/70 (260.8/37.7= 6.9) so you might well get 7 (or 8) twins (with the reduction in structural weight and directors) this would only need 7x12 = 84 men (or 96 for 8 twins) saving over 216 men (more due to directors etc) (and that will add up to saving in all other departments that support them).

IMO a 8x 3'/70 would be much better (if you have VT shells)(as it should be as both USN/RN picked that option post war !)

If you don't have them VT then a full 57mm is next best IMO, this is not even taking into account that the 20 (and really the 40 as well) are mostly obsolete and to short range to help much.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: Haram, the might of...Posted: March 15th, 2015, 8:17 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
JSB wrote:
Hope you don't mind a long ramble but,
Quote:
with a crew of 1400-1800 there are no manning problem at all
My idea was that you cut crew number to cut costs/weight.
If we assume that crew wise you need,

6' twin crew = 42 (from 6"/47DP Mark 16, Manning was twenty-one crewmembers in the gunhouse, ten in the turret officer’s booth and eleven in the gun house)(212 mt)
This gives you x4 for a 168 crew and 848t for your main guns that are a good pick IMO

Then we get complicated secondary AA guns

- 14 x 57mm single (why not twin ? you can only point at as many targets as you have directors anyway ?)
cant find a single weight or crew but twin Sweden 57 mm/60Model 1950: 23 tons (24 mt)(crew ? assume 10-15 for twin ? so maybe 8-10 for single ? with weight of 14t ?)

- 12 x 40mm twin crew = 11 (5 + 6 ammo ?) (USN For twin and quad mounts, the crew consisted of a Mount Captain, Pointer, Trainer, a 1st Loader for each gun and then however many ammunition passers it took to get back to the ammunition supply point. In addition to the guncrew, there was normally a Mark 51 (or later) Director crew consisting of a Pointer and a Range Setter.)
weight (4445 - 5897 kg)

- 8 x 20mm twin crew = 5 ? (Mark 24: 1,400 lbs. (635 kg))

Why not a 3' twin unless you don't have assesses to VT shells ? RN 3/70' twin 12 crew (37,716 kg)

- your option gives a total crew of (14x10+12x11+8x5) = 312 men and (14x14+12x5+8x.6) weight = 260.8t

a uniform 3'/70 (260.8/37.7= 6.9) so you might well get 7 (or 8) twins (with the reduction in structural weight and directors) this would only need 7x12 = 84 men (or 96 for 8 twins) saving over 216 men (more due to directors etc) (and that will add up to saving in all other departments that support them).

IMO a 8x 3'/70 would be much better (if you have VT shells)(as it should be as both USN/RN picked that option post war !)

If you don't have them VT then a full 57mm is next best IMO, this is not even taking into account that the 20 (and really the 40 as well) are mostly obsolete and to short range to help much.

Hm! I have to look at little on that tomorrow. (I'm going to adjust the armament, and move refurbished 40 mm to small combatants as corvettes and small patrol boats) I can probably go for an solution of 3" for and after and two as flank turret, and move around the 57 mm as third weaponry on here. (layer defense) 6" triple turret for the long range engagement, 3" twin, for medium range engagement and 57 mm as short range engagement.

On other side note, I have just updated the smaller cruiser. it show how I work when drawing! (note this is the cruiser that was build many of)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 8  [ 71 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 58 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]