Shipbucket

Agreed . . . these points have been addressed.

Thank You

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.

I'm not sure I'll end up having time to draw an entry for this challenge. But I thought I'd present what I'd been thinking about in the shower

Why would the USN build more gun cruisers? What would they be for? How would they improve upon (either in follow-on or alternate-universe replacement) the Des Moines, Worcester, and Alaska classes?

AA is sort of dubious, at least in a cruiser context. At the time, it appeared (I think quite rightly) that it was better to focus on large destroyers for AA work. There wasn't much purpose in concentrating more than 3-4 major mounts on a single hull. Forrest Sherman, on a dollars-per-capability basis, would be hard to beat.

I looked at SAM-N-8, but it's hard to take it seriously in an era where we were flying proto-Terrier already. I can't see it ever reaching the level of development where a ship was built around it.

But... what the attack carriers needed, potentially, was a way to fend off Soviet surface attack. And, though the small boys at Leyte achieved more than could have been imagined, the intelligent General Board does not depend on luck. Meanwhile, W9 had entered the picture. And the USN had a lot of laid-up old battleships.

.
.
.

What I've been thinking about drawing is a "cruiser" (we could argue about the definition) with 4-6 Mk 42 5"/54, an appropriate accompaniment of 3"/50, and... and one 14"/50 three-gun turret, removed from a Standard-era battleship. This single turret, carried with a much-smaller-than-battleship crew at 30+ knots, is the purpose for the class. Up to twenty turrets were available, which is a whole hell of a lot. The idea is that this single turret would fire only ranging shots and nuclear shots, to protect the escorted attack carrier from heavy Soviet forces (presumably completed in this timeline). A 15kT blast would not necessarily sink a nearby heavy unit, but it's easy to imagine that period designers would consider it an effective deterrent.

So, yeah, Worcester with Mk 42 and a single heavy gun turret. Sort of a large, fast hull atop which we place a WW2 monitor and a CLAA.

Oh you better, erik. That idea is just too cool not to work on.

@erik_t

Pay attention Erik, on US cruiser-projects (last fully gun-armed U.S studies 1944-1953).

Heavy-guns (8", 230mm guns)
after the Des-Moines CA's, there is nothing left between the 203mm Mk 16 (Des-Moines CA's, 1943-1948 guns designed) and the 203mm Mk 71 (onboard USS Hull DD-945, 1971-1978 guns designed).
... Except 1946-1949 ? studies to arm the South-Dakota BB's...with 3 quadruple 203mm turrets (DP) (quadruple 203mm DP guns replace triple 406mm SP guns), this leaves you with imagination

Medium-guns (6", 152mm guns)
After the Worcester CL's (152mm Mk 16, guns 1943-1948 designed), there is nothing (because this US 152mm is the final 6" somewhat fully AA DP outcome, but troubled & imperfect, same as the french 152mm model 1930 DP gun).

In terms of caliber-size guns, I did not find U.S projects (VERY PRECISE/ACCURATE) between the 127mm Mk 42 (1950-1954 designed) and the 127mm Mk 45 (1968-1975 designed) & 203mm Mk 71 (1971-1978 designed)...

Full DP guns (5", 127mm guns)
After Juneau's (CL 119-121), there is only the "project 5"/54 cal cruiser, scheme C of November 30, 1944" with twin 5"/54 Mk 41 (same as on Montana BB's or a newer AA mounting ?, maybe the prototype twin mounting for 5"/54 Mk 42 ???). Any ligth AA cruiser with single or twin 5"/54 Mk 42 during 1950-1954 ???

I know very little about projects 127mm/70 type-F (1940s-1950s); 127mm/54 Mk 65 & 127mm/54 Mk 66 (1960s), but they seem obscure to me.

I do not know all of Norman Friedman's books, but I need time

Mike, I think you shouldn't be going around telling people what to design, seeing as you don't design anything yourself.



;D

_________________
"What are they gonna do, fire me?" - Nate "Tic-Tac" McNally, 2016 (Fired 2019)


All my newer stuff is signed as czslworldtour.

Like some, you did not understand
I do not give him lessons, no goals, no orders
Only my opinion (and some data's, to support my words, obviously some technical/historical datas were subject to debates)
After he does what he wants
This is called a discussion, a debate
Opinion's, Discussions, Debates, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, DO YOU KNOW ?

Colombamike is a important member here in the forum, yes he doesn't draw and that is okay, but what he do, is quality check drawings we post in the real design section and never build section. and document it quit good, with pictures and everything. He does probably more researchers on drawings we post than what most of us do.

But he is also nice to have as the second pairs of eyes...



And we are both of topic here... I will not be surprised if admin, remove our postl!

I concur, having worked extensively with Mike, I find that he might be a bit abrasive at times, but he is always helpful.

_________________
My Avatar is
French Vice-admiral Louis-René-Madeleine Le Vassor de La Touche, comte de Tréville
The original spelling of my last name is: LaTouche.

Being laid up all week with flu has its downsides and upsides. One positive is that I've had time and just enough concentration to throw together an entry.

The starting point is Garlicdesign's excellent Admiral class heavy cruiser design which I have stripped down and redrawn with a host of post-war structures and equipment.



In 1942 the Admiralty concerned that the threat from German surface raiders, especially the heavy cruisers and battlecruisers lurking in Norwegian Fjords ordered the construction of four Admiral class heavy cruisers. Shipyard commitments saw work progress slowly by 1943 in favour of the Colossus and Majestic class light fleet carriers and smaller escorts. By 1945 the hulls for Collingwood and Hawke had been launched with Byng and Cochrane nearly ready for launching when the war ended and the need for heavy cruisers seemed over.

The Admiralty raised many schemes for completing the Tigers and Admirals as the core of the post-war cruiser fleet but monetary restrictions and development problems saw these plans drawn out and reduced in scale. By 1947 Byng and Cochrane had been launched to clear their slips. The re-emergence of the Soviet Navy with a powerful fleet of Sverdlov class cruisers supported by Stalingrad class battlecruisers created the need to re-look at the the cruiser fleet. The 15,500 ton Admirals seemed suited to the requirement with their powerful 8in guns sitting unused at Barrow-in-Furness and the Admiralty began a fresh batch of sketch designs.
Although three conversions were wanted, the Admiralty's insistence on keeping Tiger and Lion saw Cochrane removed from the programme and she was scrapped in 1953, Byng had already been disposed of.

Rebuilt between 1953 and 1956 Collingwood and Hawke emerged as powerful cruisers. The superstructure was completely rebuilt and the machinery was overhauled and fitted for NBC protection.

Specifications
15,500 tons
677ft (oa), 671ft (wl), 82ft (beam), 20ft 6in (draught - not including sonar domes), 25ft 6in (draught - including sonar domes)
Powerplant
Steam turbines, four shafts, 120,000hp
31kts (clean)
7,000nm at 24kts
Armour
4.5in belt, 2in deck
Armament
3x3 8in (200 rpg) (fire-control by 2x LRS-1 directors with Type 901 radar and 2x MRS-5 directors)
4x2 3in L/70 (450 rpg) (fire-control by 4x MRS-3 directors)
2x2 40mm L/70 (fire-control by 2x MRS-3 directors)
1x 'Double Ruler' anti-torpedo rocket/mortar launcher
Electronics
Type 960 air-search radar
Type 293Q target-indication
Type 277Q surface search/height-finder
Type 978 navigation radar
Type 174 and Type 170 sonars
Type 667/668 'Cooky' jammers

Although capable ships they were expensive to maintain and operate (and were becoming dated in the missile age) and in 1966 and 1967 both were laid up and after a short time in reserve were decommissioned and sold for scrapping in 1971.

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

Impressive, I like it a lot. It does seem like the AA directors don't share arcs with the AA guns though.

_________________
w o r k l i s t :
Hatsuyuki-class Escort Ships . . . <3