Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 7 of 42  [ 414 posts ]  Go to page « 15 6 7 8 942 »
Author Message
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: AntaraPosted: May 16th, 2018, 11:42 am
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Sorry to put a short history lesson into your subject. Your ships are okay, but as other have pointed out the bridge etc are rather low.

The answer is "Height Is Vision". Before 1938-39 and the first fumblings of radar, the higher you could get your eyes with and without binoculars/telescopes the further you could see and detect your enemy.

So you had ships with very high masts with the crows nest as high as possible. Aided to that you also had you main gunnery directors as high as possible in the ship so that they could 'see' as far as your guns could fire.

After, say, 1940 it did not matter as much as it was your radars that needed to be carried as high as possible for detection purposes. But you still wanted your radar augmented gunnery directors to be as high as possible to be able to fire at the targets your radars had detected.

Others may be able to explain it better and maybe should have done so earlier.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Shigure
Post subject: Re: AntaraPosted: May 16th, 2018, 2:00 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 967
Joined: May 25th, 2016, 2:05 pm
Colosseum wrote: *
Cool but I can't help but think the aftmost 5" gun just doesn't have enough usable arc to justify its weight / crew requirements.

Prop guards should also always be centered over the outboard propellers.

Otherwise looking quite good as usual.
The mistake with the aft 5" mount can be fixed with the next class, no ship is designed perfect :D

I'll fix the prop guard issue soon.
Krakatoa wrote: *
Sorry to put a short history lesson into your subject. Your ships are okay, but as other have pointed out the bridge etc are rather low.

The answer is "Height Is Vision". Before 1938-39 and the first fumblings of radar, the higher you could get your eyes with and without binoculars/telescopes the further you could see and detect your enemy.

So you had ships with very high masts with the crows nest as high as possible. Aided to that you also had you main gunnery directors as high as possible in the ship so that they could 'see' as far as your guns could fire.

After, say, 1940 it did not matter as much as it was your radars that needed to be carried as high as possible for detection purposes. But you still wanted your radar augmented gunnery directors to be as high as possible to be able to fire at the targets your radars had detected.

Others may be able to explain it better and maybe should have done so earlier.
I've compared the height of my directors to USN cruisers and they seem pretty close, either slightly higher, slightly lower, or on the same level as their IRL counterparts. The same goes for the general superstructure. You may also notice the later refits of the this class in particular have their aft directors raised.
Hood wrote: *
A nice design.
I would have been tempted to run the forecastle deck a little further aft to gain some extra internal space.

Also, there appears to be a kink in the bilge keel and hull shading just under the aft funnel, is this intentional?
Nice spot! This was an error brought on by lengthening the hull.

_________________
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Shigure
Post subject: Re: AntaraPosted: May 16th, 2018, 3:11 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 967
Joined: May 25th, 2016, 2:05 pm
I'm sure I've addressed all of the issues with the design. I've reuploaded them.

_________________
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Shigure
Post subject: Re: AntaraPosted: May 26th, 2018, 8:33 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 967
Joined: May 25th, 2016, 2:05 pm
Jacinta class light cruiser

[ img ]

As the final prewar light cruiser built by the Antaran navy, the Jacintas were similiar in displacement to their heavy cruisers but were built for a separate role. Their 6" rifles had a rate of fire advantage, and for that reason they were meant to compliment destroyer flotillas, whilst the Navy's CAs were meant to compliment capital ships. The first two vessels of the class, Jacinta and Danita, were commissioned in late 1338. Due to the Presdon Naval Treaty, the class was forced to be reclassified as a heavy cruiser due to displacing over 8000 tonnes, and in addition her 6" triples were replaced with 8" twins. As they weren't designed to carry these new mounts there were several mechanical issues that arose as a result of this, however they were replaced with their original guns at the outbreak of war (excl. ARS Annora).

For protection, Jacinta had a 127mm belt and a 50mm deck. On trials all ships achieved a minimum 34.5 knots, excluding ARS Delport which was plagued with propulsion issues following incorrect replacement of her gun mounts and barbettes and thus she achieved only 30 knots up until 1344.

The Jacintas were generally considered one of the best cruiser classes the Navy had ever produced from a design standpoint, as succeeding cruisers were directly based on this design layout. Their wartime careers were extensive: Annora was torpedoed during the Battle of the Tanagah Sea, Delport was heavily damaged during the Battle of Tuscadia and scuttled as a result. Azura City and Wilmington served mostly in the Freyatic theater, usually as coastal bombardment. Bentwood is mostly known for being the last vessel to be hit by a Kamikaze, as late as 1349 by a trainer.

[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]

Ships

Jacinta - scrapped, 1350
Danita - scrapped, 1349
Azura City - sunk in testing, 1350
Maxine - scrapped, 1350
Bentwood - Scrapped, 1349
Delport - scuttled, 1345
Annora - torpedoed, 1343
Monmouth - sunk in surface action, 1344
Wilmington - scuttled as reef ship, 1353

_________________
[ img ]


Last edited by Shigure on May 6th, 2021, 11:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Shigure
Post subject: Re: AntaraPosted: May 26th, 2018, 8:42 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 967
Joined: May 25th, 2016, 2:05 pm
Removed for being outdated.

_________________
[ img ]


Last edited by Shigure on January 14th, 2021, 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
BB1987
Post subject: Re: AntaraPosted: May 26th, 2018, 10:25 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2818
Joined: May 23rd, 2012, 1:01 pm
Location: Rome - Italy
Possibly your best cruisers yet.
And yes, thanks to Colosseum, the Measure22 really suits the look! :D

_________________
My Worklist
Sources and documentations are the most welcome.

-Koko Kyouwakoku (Republic of Koko)
-Koko's carrier-based aircrafts of WWII
-Koko Kaiun Yuso Kaisha - KoKaYu Line (Koko AU spinoff)
-Koko - Civil Aviation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Shigure
Post subject: Re: AntaraPosted: June 14th, 2018, 5:38 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 967
Joined: May 25th, 2016, 2:05 pm
Empress Azura Junko class battleship

[ img ]

The weight of the naval treaties lead to great dissatisfaction in the Antaran navy, and the Second Presdon Naval treaty which, at first restricted battleship guns to 14" in 1337, was once again changed to 15" after several countries still refused to sign the treaty. Antara's emperor, still trying to 'maintain the peace', of course signed every treaty that was thrown is country's way. The anger among the navy boiled over and some of Antara's admirals conspired to violate the treaty in secret. The two Fleet Admirals Nicholas Doyle and Frederich Bradford, as well as two other subordinate admirals, initially discussed the idea of constructing a battleship class that would clearly exceed the tonnage and main gun caliber limit to make up for the supposed weakness in Antara's current series of warships. The Queen Ericas, while being armed and armoured pretty well by Antaran standards, was not fast considered fast enough to escort the navy's new carriers which were rated over 30 knots. The navy could not construct an improved version of the Ericas, let alone a repeat due to the main armament restrictions.

Fleet Admiral Doyle informed Grand Admiral Cole of the proposal, who was convinced and accepted. In 1338 the Admiralty held secret negotiations with the director of the Bureau of Naval Construction, under the nose of the king, about ideas on an ideal battleship which disregarded the treaty. Erin White's 60k tonne battleship with 3x3 406mm guns, 33 knots and very well armoured design won. The Bureau and the Admiralty managed to convince Minister of the Navy Jacobs to allow the design to go through, all whilst under the nose of the king. The fear of prosecution for treason was high among the members involved in the project, but it was assured by the Minister that she would receive most of the blame in the event the project was found out.

The Entarro State Shipyards was chosen for the new warship as the yards were already being expanded to allow for the construction of fleet carriers due to begin in 1340. Minister Jacobs assigned the name Empress Azura Junko for the first vessel, as well as a dummy 35k tonne version to cover the budget. The second dummy vessel was not named until 1939, where the the second vessel was to be named King Eisen Junko. Azura was laid down in 1340, the same year Emperor William VI stepped down and his daughter inherited the throne. Taking advantage of the new queen's lack of knowledge and experience, Minister Jacobs revealed the construction of the battleship and received approval to continue with the project at last.

Eisen Junko was laid down months before the start of the World War in 1342, when dockyards were available for a ship her size, after Azura was commissioned. A third Azura Junko was planned, but abandoned in favor of more fleet carriers.

As laid down, the class displaced 60400 tonnes standard. She was by far the most armoured warship the navy had built, with a 406mm main belt, with 127mm ends, 203mm upper belt and 155mm main deck.

[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]

Ships in class

Empress Azura Junko - preserved as museum ship, 1394
King Eisen Junko - scrapped, 1994

_________________
[ img ]


Last edited by Shigure on March 31st, 2021, 1:49 am, edited 6 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: AntaraPosted: June 14th, 2018, 10:23 pm
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Wow!
The fastest battleship build I have ever seen. 14/3/38 to 02/06/40 - just 27 months. I don't think even the US built one that fast. Certainly not one your size of monster.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
shipsinker
Post subject: Re: AntaraPosted: June 14th, 2018, 10:25 pm
Offline
Posts: 35
Joined: February 2nd, 2011, 3:41 am
Location: Hillsboro,Tennessee
would love to see a top down view


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Shigure
Post subject: Re: AntaraPosted: June 15th, 2018, 7:07 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 967
Joined: May 25th, 2016, 2:05 pm
Krakatoa wrote: *
Wow!
The fastest battleship build I have ever seen. 14/3/38 to 02/06/40 - just 27 months. I don't think even the US built one that fast. Certainly not one your size of monster.
Antara isn't exactly the same as the US.

Also I made an error in the description: Eisen Junko would not have been completed in 1940, but rather 1941.

shipsinker wrote: *
would love to see a top down view
I was actually working on one but lost the drive.

_________________
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 7 of 42  [ 414 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 15 6 7 8 942 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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


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