Shipbucket

Indeed it looks good - a cruiser, albeit very heavy one.

Very large cruisers indeed but on the political books they are 'not' capital ships nor are they officially classed as battleships or battlecruisers but rather as 'komandakreyser', or Command Cruisers. To all intents and purposes though they are battlecruisers with different names as they apply the same basic concept of outgunning what can catch you and outrunning what can outgun you.

Currently trying to figure out the best AA arrangement for them. The 40mm bofors are already more or less in place but the 20mm guns need distribution as well in both twin and single mounts. The 120mm secondaries are in twin mounts and DP guns though their effectiveness is unproven before the start of hostilities. The main armament also has special shells similar to the Japanese type shrapnel rounds though these would obviously be of marginal use if at all. The shell splashes are more likely to do damage to a low flying aircraft than the fragmentation.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

I believe the proper designation is large cruiser ala Alaska.

Only if you're the USN.

_________________
“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.

What calibre are the main guns?
Than I would make judgement on what classification the ship falls under.

APDAF Guns have nothing about The classification It's under.

For Me It's more a Heavy cruiser or what the Germans created, the pocket battleship. Or as the Sweden would call it, a cruiser...

The main armament is 24cm/9.4in guns in triple turrets for a total of nine such guns, imported from KHT's Empire of Gotrige along with much of the other equipment for these vessels.

The classification is indeed an issue that varies between nations. Capital ships like battleships were defined by having guns greater than 10in which these do not however these have a length exceeding many battleships including the UKs Queen Elizabeths with arguably better or at least a more modern protection scheme and higher speed. These vessels would likely however be considered capital ships by foreign nations due to their rather heavy armament with a secondary battery of 120mm/5in guns (which cruisers would not have), facilities for being command ships of the fleet and having a standard displacement of just under 18,000t.

By the above alone a standard cruiser definition would not fit for they are much larger and more capable than most of the treaty era cruisers, yet whilst they are very similar to the battlecruisers in many ways they would also be unlikely to be called such (at least by Sieran anyway). Command Cruisers is suitably vague that it sounds like some sort of political classing rather than that done by the Navy. It is much easier to convince getting funds for a cruiser than a battleship after all, even though the SRN wanted/wants something capable of giving a challenge to a Kongo if the IJN were to deploy one to their Northern fleet.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

I remember one of the treaties(either Washington or London '36)defined a capital ship as a vessel of at least 17500 tons and minimum main armament of 10" guns.
Great going though! Looking forward to the completed product!
Heuhen, I'm curious; why would the Swedes name it simply "Cruiser"?

Because this particularly Nord is a megalomaniac.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

Yes you are correct.... we did own the tanker "Happy Giant" and for us is was just an another ship... for other it was a wonder...