A Danish AU

Seems you are right Morten812, and the aft gun has moved aft between side and top view. Any this looks like a really nice small armored, or protected cruiser.

_________________
[ img ]

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"

bezobrazov wrote:

It looks awesome. What I'd do is to finish one "as build" version with those short funnels, but also have a later version (say 1907/08?) with heightened funnels, and, perhaps more extensive bridge work.

That's the plan. In fact there's going to be a whole host of modifications.

bezobrazov wrote:

If you like you can use my boat sheet; in fact, I may have a few that I haven't posted, that you may be interested in. Just let me know.

I'm actually quite happy with the current setup (Four large rowing boats and two motor launches with Paraffin engines)
That said I'd be interested in seeing what you have.

Morten812 wrote:

might be wrong but the aft gun doesn't look right on the topside wiev?

Right you are. Not sure how that happened but I'll correct it shortly.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Looking smart, though I'd change two things to add to her graceful lines: angle the masts, at least slightly. You don't necessarily need also to angle the funnels, though you can. I would also give her a rambow; in this case even a fairly pronounced one, though this is a matter of taste entirely. But your straight stem just doesn't cut it right here (pardon the pun!). It sorta distracts from an otherwise extremely handsome vessel!

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

I like this cruiser a lot. First it looks plausible and entirely fitting with the designs of that era.
The masts look ok, fighting tops were still in use in this period but I can see Thiel removing them and replacing the masts with pole masts on a later refit drawing. The armour scheme looks good. The bow seems ok to me, by 1900 ram bows were phasing out, although some ships still had them. If it was an 1890 design I'd agree a ram bow would be better.
Thiel, what torpedo battery do you have planned? I'm guessing about four tubes based on historical cruisers of that period, some submerged and some above water but you might have other ideas.

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

bezobrazov wrote:

Looking smart, though I'd change two things to add to her graceful lines: angle the masts, at least slightly. You don't necessarily need also to angle the funnels, though you can.

I considered that, but decided against it because raked masts was at best a rarity amongst Danish ships and because straight masts are stronger and lighter than angled ones. Hence why the Danish cruisers all had straight masts.

Hood: no, alas you're wrong when you state that the rambow design feature was beginning to be phased out by 1900. In fact it took at least another decade for it to disappear. Mind you, the Queen Elizabeths did have a variant of it; so, too, did the "R"-class, and these were designs of the 1912-14 period! Only the French with their curious designs did deviate from this feature on a regular basis, but then their designs tended to look rather grotesque in many instances (though, on a personal note, I still like them!). The Germans did introduce their classic straight stem with their first battle cruiser (Großer Kreuzer) Von der Tann. The Americans began their process only with the 1914 large cruiser design, and the Lexington-class BCs, then applied to the Big Five BBs. The British introduced a radically different bow form in the Hood(!); the preceding Renowns and Courageous class having a halfway clipper/rambow design.

Hood wrote:

I like this cruiser a lot. First it looks plausible and entirely fitting with the designs of that era.

Thanks. I try my best.

Quote:

="Hood"]The masts look ok, fighting tops were still in use in this period but I can see Thiel removing them and replacing the masts with pole masts on a later refit drawing.

The plan right now is that they'll be fitted with a heavy pole-mast with a proper spotting top and rangefinder around 1908-19012.
A proper enclosed bridge and heightened funnels will follow at the same time.

Hood wrote:

The armour scheme looks good. The bow seems ok to me, by 1900 ram bows were phasing out, although some ships still had them. If it was an 1890 design I'd agree a ram bow would be better.

Well to be honest the straight bow was purely a stand-in while I fumbled with the bow I really wanted.
[ img ]

Yes, that's an ice breaking bow. The single greatest military asset Denmark has is the Sounds and Belts. They forces the enemy's navy to stay away or face the RDN on their terms and they are practically impassable for an enemy army. So long as they don't freeze over.
Historically the biggest threat to the RDN, next to indifferent politicians, has been the ice and so it makes sense (to me anyway) to build ships that can navigate through it. The fact that these ships will spend a fair amount of time on the Greenland Station doesn't hurt either.

Additionally, ramming was always a fleet tactic and since these ships will spend most of its time away from the fleet on overseas deployment, it makes little sense to fit them with the structurally inferior ram bow (Though I agree it looks nice)
Additionally by 1900 mine warfare has developed to the point where it's becoming the dominant consideration of the RDN.
The tactics required to bring about a ramming scenario is far too different to the ones needed to utilize a minefield to its full potential.

Hood wrote:

Thiel, what torpedo battery do you have planned? I'm guessing about four tubes based on historical cruisers of that period, some submerged and some above water but you might have other ideas.

I'm not really sure. The bow precludes bow tubes so that's not an option.
Right now I'm thinking two submerged broadside tubes or three rotating tubes on the quarter deck. The latter would undoubtedly be the most useful, but on the other hand it puts a couple of tons of high explosives on the quarter deck and it'll block the aft guns field of fire.

Thiel: with this decision, and your explanation I fully agree. Case rested!

bezobrazov wrote:

Thiel: with this decision, and your explanation I fully agree. Case rested!

I like to thing most of my design decisions are well considered

Shipbucket

Who is online