Shipbucket

Well, the smaller you make them the less able they'll be to do proper cruiser tasks. If it were me I'd invest in some proper light cruisers. Leander or Arethusa proper rather than a mini Arethusa.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Thanks all for your contributions along this line of thinking - JSB certainly has stirred up some interest in this thread!

For my part (as original author of the thread and the Falklands AU) I'm very interested in the concept, particularly as it presents a significant capability for the Falklands navy without the need for Large, crew-intensive, UK-Built and maintained ships.
My intent in adopting this concept (to be further refined in due course) is that these ships, to be known as the Indelible Class, take the place of the 'Improved Town' Class cruisers i was planning to adopt, and are built in Falklands' own Admiralty Yards at Mare Harbour as the Commonwealth's first all welded warships (anything larger than 10,000 tonnes is at this stage beyond the capabilities of the Falklands indigenous shipbuilding capacity. These ships would enter service between 1937 and 1940 and be used for Convoy escort and Armed Merchant Cruiser protection in the south Atlantic and on the pacific coast of South America.

At this stage i've only mase some minor changes to JSB's original drawing, but i plan to edit it further in due course and present variations as the ships progress through their service life. a History-of-type will also be added.

(see post below for this)

Cheers

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________


____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation

Indelible Class "Ultra-Light" Cruiser

(Space Saver)History of Type



(Space Saver)As Built (1937-1940)

As Modified during WWII (1942-3)


(Space Saver)Late WWII - Early Post-War reconstruction

(Space Saver)New-Build "MkII" Arrangement Circa. 1948-1955

(Space Saver)Final "Destroyer Leader" Configuration (1960's - Early 1970's)

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________


____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation

Do tell me to stop if you don't want random ideas .


With a bit more thought I think my idea doesn't really work (it would have been built if it did )

1) I think 4 guns doesn't give good salvos (especially 1/2 salvos, or if one turret is out) this really hurts it as it cant range properly.
(This doesn't totally kill it as it would still probably win v a AMC)

2) it still uses stuff that needs a real military shipyard (turrets, armour, directors) so it cant be built as well as other CLs but instead of them (and cant be built in the FI ).
(This will stop it as the RN will not post 37 prioritise a none multi use ship)

So next (s****) idea,

I Think a destroyer based ship,

1) might be buildable in FI (with a few parts from UK)

2) Thinking a large destroyer with 8 x 4.5 or 4.7s +light AA

Does anybody have a shipbucket of an Abdiel class such as HMS Manxman ? (or will I have to do it from scratch ).

JSB

The destroyer below I did for heavy weather areas with twin 4" in light turrets, gives the guns crews a bit of cover in freezing conditions.



Is that the sort of thing you are looking for?

A big bonus the 6" ships would have over the prospective AMCs is elevation and ergo range. A well controlled set of 6"/50s can in theory out-range the guns on an AMC by a substantial margin...

On a similar note. I had a go at knocking up a basic scheme for a 2x3 layout yesterday.

Longer than Indelible but shorter than an Arethusa. Substantial chine forward to clear the barbette. Pretty beamy and designed around a 29.5kt top speed with decent endurance. I figure for action so far out of the way of proper combatants (at least in meaningful numbers) they'd be ideal.




ETA Revised layout

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

A super destroyer would be a Tribal. That's the origin of that class, trying to make a fast 10x2 4.7in mini-CL. So in a sense that's re-inventing the wheel.

On unit machinery, in vessels this small the unit layout actually was inferior as it increased the length of the machinery spaces so increased the weight of deck and belt armour and ate into already scare hullspace. That's why the Leanders were so cramped and living conditions were worse compared to the Arethusas. Plus you need additional engine room crews and extra deck access on both sides of bulkheads etc. The extra protection was not worth the extra weight and cost. A torpedo is going to make a whole 35ft long and 15ft high and render bulkheads non-watertight over twice that length (70ft) so flooding two, if not three, compartments. Not only that but the RN practice of two voids along the after section was an unforeseen hazard that mean when they flooded the ship capsized. A scary stat: of the 134 RN ships torpedoed, 99 sank. Of 34 that made port, 17 were never repaired.

Blackbuck, I really like that 2x3 6in concept. I think the forecastle deck should go back much further, perhaps to the foremast. The torpedoes could be move further aft. I'm wondering if you could get 29.5knts out of a two-shaft machinery layout and save some hull space/ length.

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

I like the 6 x 6 Cl I think its better than mine (if not quite as small, will it be better than a Arethusa ?)
IMO,
- would swapping the 40mm back with the .5 help as well ?
- I might add a side twin 4inch (beside the empty funnel not used by the 40mm)
- use RN style crane ?

As for the Tribals (I did suggest them as better than a CL earlier in the thread but they aren't sufficiently CL like ).

I would maybe want range/open ocean capability so a bigger hull.
I would really want the bigger hull to fit more AA (DP guns +40mms)

A Abdiel class sized ship with tribal armament might work ? (2,650 tons standard rather than 1,850 tons (standard) would give me plenty ?)

Is the unit layout actually was inferior on a DD as it doesn't have a belt ?
Do we know how many are really small ship out in the Atlantic ? (but I agree that is scary !)
JSB

*That's something I could well do as currently it does seem rather off
*Simple enough to do I'd imagine, perhaps swapping the forward whaler with them?
*I did wonder that myself but couldn't think of a precedent for it off hand at least a contemporary one?

---

*You could indeed swap the pom-pom and quad fifties if you needed to.
*Originally I'd intended to place a pair of 4" mounts amidships either side of the catapult then decided I ought to place motor launches there so currently there's a state of flux. The weight reserves are there for the 4" in any case.
*The only RN style cranes I've been able to lay my hands on were surrounded by pixel haze so I used one that I knew didn't for ease of use.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

I too have tried small 6" cruisers in the past, for what I will describe as heavy weather nations. For that reason I keep the main and secondaries in turrets, no open mounts till the AA.



This does give a cruiser about the length of an Arethusa, a bit slower, but much more capable.