Shipbucket

Well, two funnels did come to mind, it'll require some jiggery pokery though. I'd rather keep to the straight funnels as they fit better with the later design IMO.

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

The later design time you choose, the smaller the propulsion plant is for the same horsepower. Technology marches on. Using Warspite as an example, the same 75,000shp power plant in 1914 and 1934, the 1934 plant is 2/3 the weight of the earlier one. Which is where Warspite gained the extra weight for improved deck armour.

Hi Krakatoa,

Yep, absolutely - only adding armour to a light cruiser is probably a wasted exercise, I'd thought, hence the switching "smaller plant for same horsepower" to "same size plant for bigger horsepower" - the bit I'm torn on is whether, after only a few years, it's worth while. Because the back half of the ship would be staying the same structurally it's not such a big job as it would be to change around a geared turbine installation it would be cheaper, I think, but still not sure it's cheap enough. That's a lot of metal to chuck out for only 10% power and <10% range.

Regards,
Adam

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

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

I have to ask apdsmith,
- Why the TE in a treaty environment ?
- Why swap 3x6' for 2x8' ? are they really better (and more importantly is the difference worth the cost of new guns ?) OTL IJN thought so but USN/RN didn't seam to.

Hi JSB,

No problem, they're fair enough questions
- TE because I think it's an intriguing system. It's got pluses and minuses and I was interested in exploring how significant the pluses are, and how significant the minuses are. Plus it's a part of how NSWE "does things" - TE is completely impractical for destroyers, so they don't use it on those, but have a Porsche-like mania for electric transmission wherever possible.
- There are a couple of reasons. NSWE is trying to make the most of the hulls it has and a refit to 2x8" turrets is quicker than building a whole new heavy cruiser (although in the AU they will do exactly that later on). The 8" compares favourably to the 6" mounted on the Leipzig and Bismarck classes in terms of throw weight and appears to be substantially better in terms of range (which, given that the 6" will happily reach out to 20-25km for both Leipzig and Bismarck is perhaps not so important - it's going to stretching the FC at that range anyway, I think?) and penetration - using Leipzig's /L60 as an example, at 11.2km, you'd expect 20mm penetration from an AP shell, if Navweap's figures are correct - so penetrating a light cruiser becomes problematic. Using Admiral Hipper's 203mm you'd expect to punch clean through most light cruiser armour (assuming a belt of 50-100mm) at a range at which your target, though probably able to reply, would not have a significant chance of penetrating your armour themselves (from the 203mm penetration tables on Navweaps I think at around 17km or so).

I hope that explains the reasoning enough - the TE bit is probably the weakest (it's basically "TE is cool!") but I think the reasoning on the 203mm is fairly sound.

Regards,
Adam

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

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

Garlicdesign, that looks soooooooo perfect! It's almost as if you've read my mind. That is almost precisely the look and layout I was aiming for. The armament looks good too, about the right weight between types and decent enough AA for South America.

Blackbuck, its looking much better with those new turrets.
I'm still unsure what machinery layout Thurston was aiming for. I reckon six boilers in 3 boiler rooms, but there seems to be little space for the turbines aft, and it seems narrow for turbines either side of a centreline boiler room aft. I think you've made a good switch with the move to two shafts.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Some more tweaking here and there, machinery and boiler spacing mainly and the associated changes in belt length etc.

Having looked upon a cutaway / plan of Nelson it seems that having an <BOW>ER:ER BR:BR:BR<STERN> layout would be within the realms of plausibility.

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

I like the all forward armament, Blackbuck, but the cruiser is virtually un-protected. It also looks like the engine room is in front of the boilers room, judging from the funnels position.
Your armor-belt looks to be protecting only the boilers and some area in front (the engine rooms?)

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

Well, going from the original Thurston design that is all the belt seems to cover, at least externally hence my preference for the internal magazine citadels.
The belt currently covers the entirety of the engine and boiler rooms with everything else getting splinter protection or in the case of the magazines internal plating. I did mention all this in the actual blurb a few pages back...

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

The armour systems look and reads fine. It is comparable to what they were doing with the York's at a similar time period.
The two funnels look good, just removing one funnel makes the ship look more modern.

I would note you have binoculars in the central citadel but none on the aft citadel. More likely aft than central.