Shipbucket

I count six different gun armaments on that destroyer. A bit much, unless some are firing the same ammunition.

Wait, you mean, the technology was about 60 years ahead in your germany because they did more effective technology development? Because I happen to know that even modern minesweepers are not fitted with an mine detection system as effective as you seem to be describing.

_________________
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

That's an answer that fits into my first question, thanks for it! As I said already, for me an AU is not only to upload another vision of things and/or ships, planes, countries, etc., but to generate debates of plausibility of what we may concieve for exactly that AU! That's for me the main fun of this all...

You are right! Only the 150 guns on positions A and D and the 20mm double quads for AA are of the same type. The 88 in position B is intended to be as DP and the "strange looking" gun on position C is there for testing purposes. It's a quick firing 55mm AA double gun with water-cooled barrels, I'll describe that when listing the entire technical characteristics of the ship. Thanks for the comment.

Edit: But since the ship (I think every ship from a certain dimension up) has different ammunition chambers, where is the problem of having in the rear 150mm, 88 and 55mm ammo stored? The two 20mm quads have their own separate ammo chambers.

But to show acceptance for your point, I changed the following:

- The rear gun above the experimental 55mm unit, I exchanged it for a 88 Flak, so we have now two 88, one front and one rear. The front one is DP, so by definition it needs two kinds of ammo.
- The two smaller guns on the superstructure I put now the same type of units, a double 37mm AA.

Edit 2: In its proper topic in this thread, on paqe 13, the final descriptions for the "Schleswig" destroyer have been added as well as some corrections made. I think all is okay now. Also my own "part list" has been updated.
Any comments on the changes made? On the technical aspects described? It's for me important to know for contnuing this AU story, because - and I repeat myself again - it's not only for drawing ships, or is it?...

No more new ships for the AU German KM, the Parliament in Berlin has stopped funding new units for financial reasons due to other priorities.

Please read eric_1's arrogant last reply to my mere question if it would be or not feasible to do it. If it was made with big success on airplanes of that time (I recall the "Black Widow" plane) why wasn't it done in ships? The ships had sonar, looking down; what prevented the technicians at those times to try it on ships as well? Is this forum not also for debating technical questions? I'm astonished, to say the least.

Uhm maybe because radar and sonar are completely separate developments?

Sonars at the time were fairly limited. Running at speed? the sonars were blind, due to noise. This is true even now, but we have gotten those speed to higher ones due to more advanced computers, better sonar dome and better acoustic elements. However, this problem gets worse when detecting small things (mines for example) and on surface ships. In addition, the sonars would have to be optimised for certain ranges: the ASDIC systems on destroyers was blind at short ranges. Some US submarines had mine avoidance sonar, this worked at short range, when travelling at low speeds and while being deep enough to not get too much noise from the surface. This system was not available or suitable back then for minesweepers, and would not be for decades.

Erik_T's reply (please if you call somebody arrogant, spell their name correct, well actually please do so whatever you call them ) Gave you information about your idea not working and reasons why it wasn't feasible. You answered something that sounded like 'but with german superior tech without nazi's they might have fixed it!', which annoys people who would otherwise go into nice technological discussion with you.

_________________
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

D

You're still misspelling his name

As for why Erik bowed out, and what I tried to say: the nazi regime not being there would not suddenly advance the germans 20 years. You seem to suggest that when somebody tells you your idea is impractical or impossible. Might be that we are misunderstanding you, but that is where I suspect it got too weird for Erik.

_________________
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

My only interest is to know what is so different technically speaking between sonar and radar on a ship and I simply asked a question: "Would it be feasible with more government funding for research to get to a forward directed sonar?" I know now that no, it wasn't at that time feasible, but I still am curious why. If Mr. Erik is too touchy maybe someone else understands what exactly I am at and gives me answers in a moderate tone like you, acelanceloet, since there are more people around here...

Edit: My question was not exactly put here on my part. My main point is: Why isn't it feasible to put on the bow of a ship a radar dish antenna the same way it was done in the time on airplanes.