Shipbucket

Bezo fantastic stuff as always
Maybe I'm mistaken and sorry if I am but isn't that the twin 4.7in mount you described as a single mount or is it an au version, also if its an au version, does it have more anti aircraft capability?

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Trojan, you were right, my typo. The text has been updated!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Very nice work!

-Matt

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

ace, you obtain that by the saved weight due to the removal of the main armament plus additional miscellaneous fittings. The new 6" turrets are, in fact, considerably lighter than the old 7.5" gun houses, and there are only three of them; not four. Also, the old secondary armament was heavier than the newly refitted one. the replacement of the heavy main tripod will have saved weight as well, since it involved the removal of substantial built-up areas, etc, etc.
In other words, yes, ace, i did calculate it, and if you'd care to read, (or re-read) the original post (Psara-class as originally fitted out), and then make your own calculations, you'd reach pretty much the same conclusion, I'm sure.

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

I only like to note that weapons are often not more then 10-15% of the total weight of an ship, while this armoured belt will be rougly 14% of your total displacement (if my estimations of 4500 tonnes is correct) . but ok, I will take an look at those mounts later if I have time, but I really doubt it to be honest.
EDIT: ok, I looked at the dimensions you gave in the earlier post, I was a bit wrong as I estimated the beam much less (an L/B range of 10 to 1 is larger then I expected, I estimated 15/1....)
I will return on this later.

_________________
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

Bezo just just one more question (I hope you do not mind me calling you bezo),
the 4.7in. mounts you used from my knowledge weren't known for being great anti-aircraft mounts even the full turret version
So I am curious what convinced you to use them for your secondaries
I have always been fond of them actually but the lack of anti-aircraft capability due to the mounts compared to the American 5"/38 always disappointed me.

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Ace, that's ok. I was only trying to encourage you to look deeper into it, which you will do. The truth is that, having "spent" some 15 odd years with this design (and the others), you should become pretty familiar with their respective idiosyncrasies, right?
EDIT: I'm compromising. I went back to the Northamptons (the benchmark for a number of different kind of important keypoints) and I thinned the belt to 3" instead of 4. I also added additional info as from where the belt was provided.

Trojan, it's perfectly ok to call me Bezo; most people here do. As for my choice of this particular weapon, that is based on the effort to make this AU as realistic as possible. In such a scenario then, you may just have to make do with whatever ordnance is on offer; not necessarily the technically most superior etc. the 4.7" MkXII L/45 is precisely such a weapon. It was widely used in, for instance the Weapons-class DDs, till being replaced by the more efficient 4.5", in 1943. Then, that is also another crucial factor time factor, that is the actual availability within the specific time-frame described.
I'm fully aware of the inherent deficiencies of the 4.7", but that is exactly how I build my AU. It's a very imperfect world...

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Ok that was the answer I was expecting, and a very good one indeed, I completely agree with such reasoning.
Which Weapon class ships used 4.7in., I thought they all used 4in. and were completed after the war, is there a weapon class I'm not aware of?
Sorry for all the questions

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

No sweat, Trojan. Sometimes I'm answering a tad too fast for my brain to catch up. I should, of course, have written "Tribal"-class of 1936 and J, K and N classes of 1938. I apologize for the confusion. And you're right about the "Weapons"-class. It was, indeed, a post-war design!

_________________
My Avatar:Петр Алексеевич Безобразов (Petr Alekseevich Bezobrazov), Вице-адмирал , царская ВМФ России(1845-1906) - I sign my drawings as Ari Saarinen

Actually the Weapon class were a wartime design, meant to complement the Battle design in production. As things go, in an un-perfect world, none of the class were completed during wartime, and with the end of war a massive cancellation wave swept the Admiralty causing only 4 Weapon class to be completed all post war.

_________________
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"