Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 49 of 90  [ 900 posts ]  Go to page « 147 48 49 50 5190 »
Author Message
Ashley
Post subject: CG 1952 design FPosted: December 7th, 2011, 12:49 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
The F-design for the next-gen cruiser rehashed the idea of the flightdeckcruiser of the late 30s. The F-design was to be a 12.000 ton ship, equipped with eight A17m-SSM-launchers with 32 further missiles stored in the large superstructure. A twin 'Tornado'-SAM on the foredeck, two triple 'Taifun'-SAMs behind the A17ms. Two triple 'Geier'-launchers on the mid. AA-gunnery consists from four 5,5cm-twins and four 3cm-quads. No heavier guns, most missions are done by missiles.
The design is somewhat unusual because it connects a large amount of helicopters with the capability to deliver massive strikes on any target in the air, on land or sea or under water.
Even though the design was as strongly armed as the OKM wished, it was rejected. The design was finally too unusual for the oldfashioned german admiralty.
[ img ]
The gap between A and F will be filled. Later.
Someone might see a similarity to the soviet Moskva-class. Yes, that's true. That's why the ship can handle the large top weigth. You remember the pear-shaped hull of Moskva?

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ashley
Post subject: CG 1952 design BPosted: December 7th, 2011, 2:01 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
The B-design was very near to the A-design but saw the installation of two additional 15cm DP-full auto-twins and the hanger was now below the deck.
Even though the design was stronger armed than the A-design, it was rejected. There was not enough room for supplies due to the downed hanger and the ammo lifts- and stores for the 15cm DPs.
[ img ]
In reality a 15cm DP was tested but rejected, its performance was so near to the 12,8cm DP that it was dropped. For a turret with those guns there exists one technical drawing only. My turret is purely fictous instead. I will draw the real projected turret later, after collecting more data of the gun.

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead


Last edited by Ashley on December 7th, 2011, 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Raven
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: December 7th, 2011, 5:15 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 107
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 6:30 am
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Contact: Website, Yahoo Messenger
I like the "V" design... kind of a proto-Moskva.

_________________
In Hoc Signo Vinces

By This Sign You Will Conquer


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: December 7th, 2011, 8:57 pm
Offline
Posts: 3910
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: YouTube
Design F is probably one of the weirdest-looking ships I've ever seen. I like the A and B plans, though. Looking forward to seeing the evolution of the Panzerschiffen!

-Matt

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: CG 1952 design FPosted: December 8th, 2011, 12:57 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Ashley wrote:
The design was finally too unusual for the oldfashioned german admiralty.
Or maybe they thought it was too top-heavy.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Satirius
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: December 8th, 2011, 1:10 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 230
Joined: September 8th, 2010, 11:26 pm
Location: Lawrenceville, NJ
I really don't like how the VTOL and the larger helicopter looks. It's certainly not indicative of your ability in general (the other helicopter looks very nice), so I think it's more an issue with the color palette than anything, but it's just rather unpleasant to look at.

_________________
ALVAMA wrote:
I feel sorry for you, I agree you must have such terrible life, and no girl give you attention, The boys leaved because they were not having a safe feeling when beeing with you. Police never found you. Docters did suidice, because they where impressed you was not killed by birth :)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ashley
Post subject: Your thoughts about the next gen CGPosted: December 8th, 2011, 8:08 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
Raven: I like the "V" design... kind of a proto-Moskva.
Yes, it is inspired by Moskva

emperor_andreas: Design F is probably one of the weirdest-looking ships I've ever seen.
Have a look at the original Moskva-class. They where unique ships. I like'em.

klagldsf: maybe they thought it was too top-heavy.
Again, look at Moskva-class, see the hull and understand :) The Moskvas have such a fat ass, they must have been a hydrodynamical wonder

Satirius: really don't like how the VTOL and the larger helicopter looks.
You don't have to. The VTOL is from original drawings,the fat heli is my creation, trying to do a logical one. Most helis are ugly. You know what non-heli-pilots say? Helicopters cannot fly, they are so ugly, the earth rejects them.

The next generation CG is a great playfield to me.
- a fictous situation where germany has become the european superpower in the mid 50s
- the need for a new extreme versitle cruiser type
- modern technologies renders very most ships obsolete
- what ships will be the counterparts of the ngCG

To me, the B-design is the worst by now. It looks somehow chaotic to me, unskilful engineered. I think, you know what I mean.

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Your thoughts about the next gen CGPosted: December 8th, 2011, 5:11 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Ashley wrote:
klagldsf: maybe they thought it was too top-heavy.
Again, look at Moskva-class, see the hull and understand :)
Um, no.

You look at the hull and understand:

[ img ]


It's not nearly as top-heavy as your design is. Go look at the discussion thread for heuhen's nuclear cruiser and the pointers we gave about the original ABL placement being too top-heavy - and that was for a single component on a much larger, nuclear-powered cruiser. I'm betting the missile weight alone is not too far off from an ABL, let alone the heavy-looking, likely armored launcher and its associated reloading/storage equipment, plus how high the rest of the superstructure is. Not to mention, the Moskva also has a much deeper draft - and the draft you have is concerning shallow even for your smaller designs (as borne out in the Hamburg class which clearly this is at least partially based on, which I've mentioned before).

One of the increasingly prevalent things, particularly from newer members, that I'm getting kinda sick and tired of is the idea that they can get away with nonsense and use some loosely aesthetically-related real ship as justification even though they've maybe even looked at the real ship for all of a dozen seconds, if it's not in fact some Chinese wank art. That's idiot-engineering.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Raven
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: December 8th, 2011, 8:09 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 107
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 6:30 am
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Contact: Website, Yahoo Messenger
Keep in mind the Moskva did have a very fat ass, and the hull form in question could nearly qualify as a ramform. With that in mind, you might want to deepen the draft a bit and raise her out of the water some.

_________________
In Hoc Signo Vinces

By This Sign You Will Conquer


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: December 11th, 2011, 2:32 pm
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Keep in mind the Moskva hullform trimmed bow heavy and seakeeping was poor. Also keep in mind both ended up retired before their time by the Soviets.
Hullform is no excuse for poor freeboard.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 49 of 90  [ 900 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 147 48 49 50 5190 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


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


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