Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 15  [ 143 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 515 »
Author Message
Gollevainen
Post subject: Re: Treaty Cruiser Design ChallengePosted: March 24th, 2018, 1:30 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4714
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:10 am
Location: Finland
Contact: Website
well if the real engineers managed to lie about the tonnage, wouldnt it be then all in the spirit of the treaties, if such takes Place in here?

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Armoured man
Post subject: Re: Treaty Cruiser Design ChallengePosted: March 24th, 2018, 1:58 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 331
Joined: June 7th, 2016, 4:53 pm
My entry is a Light Cruiser for my Kantai islands AU

[ img ]

KN Agano Light Cruiser

Ordered: 23 March 1924
Laid down: 29 March 1925
Launched: 30 April 1928
Commissioned: 3 June 1929
Decommissioned: 12 February 1960
Struck: 28 February 1976
Fate: Sold 19 July 1978
Status: Broken up for scrap
General characteristics

Displacement: 8,100 t (8,000 long tons; 8,900 short tons)
Length: 580 ft (177 mm) (o/a)
Beam: 53 ft (16.3 m )
Draft: 18 ft (5.69 m)
Installed power:60,000 shp
toumaci 12 × toumaci water-tube boilers
Propulsion: 4 × shafts 2 × Brown-Curtis steam turbine sets
Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph)

Armament:
4 × twin TYPE 29 15cm/60 (155mm)
4 x single TYPE HI 4cm/62 (40mm)
2 × twin TYPE 6 53cm ( 533mm) torpedo tubes

Armour:
Main belt: 100 mm (3.9 in)
Main deck: 37 mm (1.5 in)
Turrets: 25 mm (0.98 in)
Barbettes: 75 mm (3.0 in)

_________________
Work list: 1. various pre-1900 Zipang ships 2. Some protected cruisers and other miscellaneous projects


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Keisser
Post subject: Re: Treaty Cruiser Design ChallengePosted: March 24th, 2018, 2:20 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 177
Joined: May 24th, 2016, 11:26 am
Kannevets wrote: *
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 14,916 shp / 11,127 Kw = 20.00 kts
Isnt 20 kts a too small speed for a cruiser? I mean, with that speed, you cant do three important things:
- Approach your enemy (since light cruisers usually go 32+ kts and can easily escape)
- Get away from larger enemy (even pre-WW1 battleships go 20 kts, that literally means you only have advantage over some gunboats you are not even gonna face)
- Keep with a squadron.

Considering all of this, I only see the use of your cruiser as a gunboat somewhere in foreing station. But then, she is too expensive for that task.

_________________
«A sea is not a barrier, a sea is a road, and those who try to use the sea as an instrument of isolation soon realize their foe has already put the sea into his own service.». - Alfred Thayer Mahan.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charguizard
Post subject: Re: Treaty Cruiser Design ChallengePosted: March 24th, 2018, 2:30 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 424
Joined: January 28th, 2017, 1:17 am
Location: Santiago Basin
I hope you're working on those judges and criteria sheet already!

I was going to make an entry from scratch but since people are posting premade things already, might as well toss in this one for now. ;)

[ img ]

SS report here:

https://pastebin.com/b3nnKNJX

Values may not be all exactly the same because SS is flawed and I've nudged things around according to my experience with it.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Shigure
Post subject: Re: Treaty Cruiser Design ChallengePosted: March 24th, 2018, 3:56 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 967
Joined: May 25th, 2016, 2:05 pm
I've extended the challenge until 30 April.

Reminder: I've no longer made the SS report required.

_________________
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Mitchell van Os
Post subject: Re: Treaty Cruiser Design ChallengePosted: March 24th, 2018, 6:49 pm
Offline
Posts: 1056
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:19 pm
Charguizard wrote: *
I hope you're working on those judges and criteria sheet already!

I was going to make an entry from scratch but since people are posting premade things already, might as well toss in this one for now. ;)

[img]https://i.i*snip*mgur.com/QqYcvZq.png[/img]

SS report here:

https://pastebin.com/b3nnKNJX

Values may not be all exactly the same because SS is flawed and I've nudged things around according to my experience with it.
Holycow what a beautiful warship

_________________
Fryssian AU with Lt.Maverick 114
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9802&p=193331#p193331
[ img ]
Embarked on: HNLMS Karel Doorman A833
To do list:
-Zeven Provincien class cruiser
-Joint support ship all sides
-F124 Sachsen class frigate
-F125 Baden-Württemberg class frigate
-Clemencau class aircraft carrier
-Zeven provincien class frigate
-Poolster class AOR
-Amsterdam class AOR
-Minas Gerais aircraft carrier


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charguizard
Post subject: Re: Treaty Cruiser Design ChallengePosted: March 25th, 2018, 4:38 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 424
Joined: January 28th, 2017, 1:17 am
Location: Santiago Basin
:D

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
nighthunter
Post subject: Re: Treaty Cruiser Design ChallengePosted: March 25th, 2018, 12:30 pm
Offline
Posts: 1971
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 8:33 pm
So, since I can't get SpringSharp to work on my PC, and since it was dropped as a requirement, I am posting the Spokane class scout cruiser as my entry:
[ img ]

Spokane class scout cruiser:

Length: 545 ft
Draft: 24 ft
Beam: 55 ft
Displacement: 4,230 long tons (4,298 t)
Propulsion: 4 × Westinghouse reduction geared steam turbines, 4 × screws
Speed: 37 kn (69 km/h, 43 mph)
Range 7,500 nmi at 12 kn (22 km/h; 14 mph)
Crew: 25 officers, 350 enlisted
Armament: 4 × twin 6 in (152 mm)/53 caliber guns, 2 × single 6 in/53 caliber guns, 3 × 3 in (76 mm)/50 caliber anti-aircraft guns, 2 × triple 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes, 6 × .50 (12.7mm) caliber water-cooled machine guns
Armor:
Belt: 3 in (76 mm)
Deck: 1 1⁄2 in (38 mm)
Conning Tower: ​1 1⁄2 in
Bulkheads: ​1 1⁄2-3 in
Aircraft carried: 1 × floatplane
Aviation facilities: 1 × Stern catapult

_________________
"It is better to type nothing and be assumed an ass, than to type something and remove all doubt." - Me


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Garlicdesign
Post subject: Re: Treaty Cruiser Design ChallengePosted: March 25th, 2018, 1:32 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1071
Joined: December 26th, 2012, 9:36 am
Location: Germany
Hi Folks!

Glad to hear that stuff that was already posted qualifies, so here's my three cents:

1. Rotterdam-Class (Netherlands)
During the mid-twenties, the Dutch, who had pleaded to provide a credible defensive force for their east Indies possessions to the British and the US in exchange against guarantees from these powers to coming to their aid in case of a Japanese attack, were looking for an affordable heavy cruiser design to be license-built at De Schelde in Flushing and Fijenoord in Rotterdam. Germany was still banned from the international arms market, but Blohm&Voss set up a subsidiary company in Rotterdam, which eventually won the contract by downscaling the existing I/10 design to 9.500 tons and accepting Bofors guns as main armament (Vickers had tried to sell a modified County-class to the Dutch, but wanted to supply the guns itself). The ships were laid down in 1925 and 1926 and completed in 1928 and 1931, respectively, the delay being a result of the Great Depression. They were named Amsterdam and Rotterdam. They carried eight very powerful 203mm guns, but only scant protection and a bare-bones secondary armament of seven 75mm guns and six 533mm torpedoes. Propulsion was provided by two sets of Parsons turbines with six boilers and 60.000hp plus two MAN cruising diesels with 13.500hp; top speed was 32 knots. They received airplanes in 1933 and 1935, exchanged four of their seven 75mm guns with 40mm Bofors twins in 1936 and 1937, and swapped their remaining 75mm guns for Bofors 105mm twin heavy AA mounts in 1938 and 1940, respectively, at that time also receiving a completely reworked fire control suite.

[ img ]

2. Craigmiadh-Class (Thiaria)
Plans to build Thiarian heavy cruisers were made since the mid-1920s. The first study was a wholly unarmoured ship with only six heavy guns which would conform (with some cheating) to the 6.000 ton limit; even then, the main guns were limited to 195mm caliber. Guns of this caliber were in use in the Thiarian navy since the 1900s; they had equipped a battleship, two armoured cruisers and nine coastal artillery batteries with a total of 54 guns. Their 105kg shells were considered exceptionally powerful, and there were still over 2.000 of them on storage. Although the 6.000 ton heavy cruiser project was dropped in 1928, development of an all-new 195mm gun with a sliding wedge breech for high ROF was continued anyway. When Thiaria was again admitted into the club of naval powers at London in 1930, they were granted 45.000 tons of heavy cruisers. The optimum way of utilizing this tonnage was - obviously - to build five 9.000 tonners. As most early US treaty cruisers were rather light and came out significantly below the 10.000 ton limit, construction of a reasonably balanced heavy cruiser on this tonnage seemed feasible to the Thiarians. Now the existence of a 195mm gun, which was considerably lighter than every foreign 203mm piece, proved beneficial. Within six months after signing the LNT, a 9.000-ton heavy cruiser designed around three 195mm triple turrets was presented to the naval staff for approval. The ship looked outwardly quite similar to the Urgharda-class, with a short tripod mast forward and a big one aft, two widely spaced funnels and a clipper bow. General appearance of the design reminded of contemporary Italian cruisers - essentialy a mix between the light Raimundo Montecuccoli and the heavy Bolzano - but the hulls were sturdier and beamier, and the superstructure looked more massive, with the funnels being of equal height and width. Unlike the Urghardas, the new heavy cruisers had catapults and aircraft hangars from the start, although the Thiarians did not yet have the required small scoutplanes; of the rather heavy French flying boats used instead, only one rather than the specified three were embarked, because it did not fit into the hangar. These cruisers were the first Thiarian ships with wholly domestic Thiarian machinery; unlike the Urghardas, which had all turbines amidships, the twin-shaft plant of the new heavy cruisers was arranged in two independent units of one turbine set and four boilers each, protected by transverse bulkheads and void spaces. 80.000 hp developed a design speed of 32 knots; although they were a thousand tons lighter than the British County-class ships, they were half a knot slower with the same designed hp due to the shorter hull. Designed range was 10.000 miles at 15 knots, which was necessary for raiding; they proved economical steamers in service, even with dirty hulls. Apart from their nine 195mm guns, they carried six 100mm flaks in three twin mounts aft, ten semi-automatic 37mm twins, six quad 13mm machinegun mounts and twelve 559mm torpedo tubes in four triple sets. Protection was improved compared with the light Urghardas, with an 80mm belt covering a relatively large part of the hull and a complete armoured deck of 40mm. They were reasonably safe against 152mm shells, but not against 203mm ones; this was deemed acceptable, because neither were most foreign 1920s heavy cruiser designs. All things considered, the Thiarian heavy cruiser was a well balanced warship with no outstanding features, but also no particular weaknesses (apart from the rather large tactical diameter due to relatively small rudders).

[ img ]

3. Almirante Abreu-Class (Brazil)
Brazil's cruiser force faced block obsolescence in the early 1930s, just when the Thiarians and the Argentines started to gear up and order heavy cruisers. In order to acquire sufficient numbers of cruisers, limited size was considered acceptable; four units of a balanced and affordable design were considered more useful than only two of a high-end one. Thus they specified 8.500 tons maximum size, 32kts speed, at least six 203mm guns and protection against this caliber. Armstrong met these specifications with a modified Apollo-class hull, which - apart from the missing superfiring turret aft - was hard to distinguish from a standard Apollo from a distance. With their 114mm belt plus armoured boxes over the magazines, they were well protected; they also were rated seaworthy and comfortable. Their main armament was augmented by 8 102mm HA guns and three quadruple pompoms; eight 533mm TTs and two fixed catapults (arranged as on HMS Exeter) were provided. Two were built in Great Britain from 1933 through 1936, two more in Brazil from 1935 through 1940.

[ img ]

If I can scratch together some time, maybe I try something new... I have an idea for a contradiction in terms, a 1930s Japanese cruiser adhering to the WNT size limit.

Greetings
GD


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Keisser
Post subject: Re: Treaty Cruiser Design ChallengePosted: March 25th, 2018, 2:16 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 177
Joined: May 24th, 2016, 11:26 am
Here is my entry to this challenge - a 8 500 ton "Class B" cruiser.
Their names are:
Mir - Peace
Trud - Labor
Mai - May
Pravda - Truth
Zvezda - Star
Iskra - Sparkle
Zarnitsa - Heat Lighting
[ img ]
SpringSharp report - https://pastebin.com/AEn2wKzV

_________________
«A sea is not a barrier, a sea is a road, and those who try to use the sea as an instrument of isolation soon realize their foe has already put the sea into his own service.». - Alfred Thayer Mahan.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 15  [ 143 posts ]  Return to “Drawing Challenges” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 515 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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


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