Shipbucket

I wonder, what is the reason for the GMLS on that deck and not on the lowered deck level?
very nice vessels, worthy alternatives for the dutch cruisers if not the USN early CLG's and CAG's.

are there plans for more postwar developments of this AU?

_________________
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

Fascinating to see such a good looking Cruiser evolve like that. Great job!

Nice cruiser evolution.

Really nice set of drawings GD, right through to 1943 iteration, after that you sort of drift away again.

Why oh why do you waste your time fitting asdic/sonar on your cruisers? The country in the world with the greatest need of ships with asdic was the British. They never bothered putting asdic on their cruisers does that not tell you something? I said about an earlier post that cruisers were just not agile enough to be useful for chasing U-boats. That is still the case with these cruisers.

In the Fisherless RN I got told by plenty of people that fitting a missile system on cruisers that had been worked hard during the war and were not likely to have 20 years of good service left in them would not be considered for conversion. Your ships have taken war damage which despite best endeavours are never repaired to 100% of what they were originally. You would be far better off building a new cruiser sized vessel with the missiles fully integrated into the design.

Result = Excellent for drawings through to 1943, barely pass mark for 1943 onwards.

while the british did not do it, did the USN not plan to put SQS-23 sonars on their aircraft carriers? some were even build with the bulb in place IIRC.

_________________
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

And why did they not do it Ace? Monetary problems or the realisation it would be a waste of time.

Why are you so rude?

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

I think so. I know Giuseppe Garibaldi carries a bow sonar, as did Invincible, as do the big Japanese "destroyers". On the other hand, SQS-23 and these other large systems have much longer useful range than did the spotlight units of the immediate war era.

Outstanding cruisers! This 1950s/60s period of guns and early missiles is very interesting, and I've really enjoyed following the progression and design lineage of your ships. I hope to see more postwar stuff!

_________________
Republic of Lisenia AU - In progress
Republic of Lisenia in FD Scale - In progress

Hello again!

@ Ace: I'm no expert on cold-war systems, so don't laugh too loudly at my reasoning. Of course I wanted a launcher with maximum capacity. I also wanted optimum protection. Mk.10 Mod.0 and Mod.8 would have their roof above the armoured deck level (upper end of the armour belt), Mk.10 Mods 2, 5 and 7 would have their roof exactly correspond with the armoured deck if the launcher was placed on quarterdeck level, so these were preferable as far as protection is concerned. So I thought anyway. But when I looked at the excellent below-deck US missile launcher sheet, it seemed to me that any Terrier launch system would require the armoured deck to be removed above the magazine in order to clear the way for missile transfer to the launcher. So mounting a Mk.10 Mod.5 launch system on quarterdeck level - with the magazine below the armoured deck level - would give no real advantage, because the armoured deck had to go anyway, and have the disadvantage of limited magazine capacity. A Mk.10 Mod.2 or Mod.7 would penetrate too deeply into the hull, and the launcher would actually have to be placed another deck higher (which would have looked slightly ridiculous). So, if the armour deck had to go anyway, the most sensible solution to me seemed the Mk.10 Mod.8 with 60 missiles. That one would also penetrate very deeply into the hull, leaving only 1,5 meters to the ship's bottom. Being no expert, I assumed that might not leave enough space (for auxiliary machinery, drainage pumps, whatever) and placed it one deck higher. If someone however convinces me that the armoured deck can be retained above the Mk.10 Mod.5 magazine, I would probably change the drawings and go for the smaller magazine, in exchange for better protection.

@ Krakatoa: According to Friedman, DC racks were standard equipment for British cruisers from the start of the second world war. Also ccording to Friedman, the British started fitting ASDIC to light cruisers late in the war (a drawing of HMS Superb in his book on British Cruisers shows one, and sketches of several unfinished designs also show ASDIC compartments forward). If war experience had indeed showed the uselessness of ASDIC on cruisers, starting to fit it to them late in the war strikes me as... well... somewhat eccentric, especially as none of the cruisers so fitted carry forward-firing ranged ASW weaponry. So the RN probably saw some use in fitting cruisers with ASDIC, after all. For what little I know about ASW, the efficiency of ASDIC could be improved by several ships working together, which IMHO leads to the conclusion that the more ASDIC-equipped ships you have, the better; the actual killing needs not be done by the cruisers, but if they can help locate the sub, they are still more useful as if they can't do anything at all. With a destroyer/frigate fleet that never significally exceeds a hundred vessels throughout the war, the Thiarians might just be earlier able to spare some ASDIC sets for light cruisers than the British who need to equip about a thousand destroyers and escorts. So there really is no need to take personal offence for me consistently not heeding your advice about where to put underwater detection gear and where not.

Concerning the sensibility of refurbishing battle-damaged cruisers rather than build new ones: Of course option number two is better. Unless you just lost a world war, have to avoid transmitting the wrong political signs to the victors, and are forced to turn every penny twice before spending it. Building an all-new missile cruiser would have been the sensible thing for the Italians too, but they modernized Garibaldi because that was what the budged allowed for. The Thiarian Navy had the additional problem that they were somewhat discredited after it had been the army that led the revolt against the fascist government, with the Navy for the most part waiting for the civil war to run its course and then join the winning side. Not giving the admirals what they wanted was considered a virtue in its own right in 1950s and 1960s Thiaria, so they got what could be spared and not more. It's politics, not common sense. It will take till the late 1970s for the Navy's reputation to recover and a serious renewal of its fleet to start.

Greetings
GD