[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Trojan
Post subject: Re: Heavy CruiserPosted: July 14th, 2012, 6:50 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1216
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 4:29 am
Location: Big House
Really nice start!
whats the rear radar though? I'm not sure why but it looks vaguely COld War Russian to me and I'm probably mixing it up with something else
also in U.S doctrine wasn't 12 6" guns considered a light cruiser not a heavy cruiser?

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Novice
Post subject: Re: Heavy CruiserPosted: July 14th, 2012, 6:59 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 4070
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:25 am
Location: Vrijstaat
6" guns were considered light cruisers under the term of the Washington treaty of 1922. Guns above 6.1" were heavy cruisers.
The aft radar is USN SPS-8 a height-finding radar IIRC.

_________________
[ 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"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
travestytrav25
Post subject: Re: Heavy CruiserPosted: July 14th, 2012, 7:11 pm
Offline
Posts: 270
Joined: June 2nd, 2012, 10:05 pm
Location: Texas, USA
Contact: Yahoo Messenger, AOL
Yeah, I'd put some 8"/55RF Mark 16s on there instead of the 6" turrets. You could probably put the same number of 8" turrets on there, although that might be a bit too heavy.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Clonecommander6454
Post subject: Re: Heavy CruiserPosted: July 15th, 2012, 7:23 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 756
Joined: August 8th, 2011, 2:35 pm
@travestytrav25
Those are 8"/55 Mk.15 Gun. I'm thinking to place the Mk.16 instead of Mk.15 instead.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
travestytrav25
Post subject: Re: Heavy CruiserPosted: July 15th, 2012, 7:44 pm
Offline
Posts: 270
Joined: June 2nd, 2012, 10:05 pm
Location: Texas, USA
Contact: Yahoo Messenger, AOL
Clonecommander6454 wrote:
@travestytrav25
Those are 8"/55 Mk.15 Gun. I'm thinking to place the Mk.16 instead of Mk.15 instead.
That's not a bad idea. Since your 3"/50RF guns and electronics are obviously of post-war vintage, you may as well have post-war main guns. However, keep in mind that 4 Mark 16 turrets would add about 600 tons to your ship, and the Mark 16 guns' turrets had cylindrical turrets whereas the Mark 15 gun turrets on the Baltimore and Oregon City class cruisers were conical, so they took up less room below decks.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Clonecommander6454
Post subject: Re: Heavy CruiserPosted: July 17th, 2012, 7:19 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 756
Joined: August 8th, 2011, 2:35 pm
I'm actually thinking picking the 6"/47 DP Mk.16 or 5"/54 Mk.16/Mk.42 fitted onboard Worcester Class instead of the common 5"/38. Is that possible?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
SrGopher
Post subject: Re: Heavy CruiserPosted: July 17th, 2012, 12:10 pm
Offline
Posts: 371
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 9:21 pm
All I can say is that you would need substantial beam for the 6"/47 DP mounts, and you would be limited due to the handling areas required by them.

_________________
Worklist:
Puerto Oeste - AU - WWI-WWII


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: Heavy CruiserPosted: July 17th, 2012, 12:29 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3741
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
I've got a copy of the 5"/54 twin that would have been on the Montana class someplace around here.

_________________
Please don't call me Tim. If you don't want to use Timothy, use TJ.
MATHNET - To Cogitate and to Solve


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
travestytrav25
Post subject: Re: Heavy CruiserPosted: July 17th, 2012, 1:14 pm
Offline
Posts: 270
Joined: June 2nd, 2012, 10:05 pm
Location: Texas, USA
Contact: Yahoo Messenger, AOL
The 5"/54 twin would be a great idea. The 6"/47DP probably wouldn't work without making your ship way too wide. The 5" twin turrets are a base ring mount, with a non-turning ammo handling room below the turret, whereas the 6"/47DP was a barbette turret with a rotating barbette that extended 4 decks below the turret. Plus the 6"/47DP turret weighed 208 tons, whereas the heaviest twin 5" turrets weighed somewhere in the 50 ton range, so the 6"/47s would probably just be too heavy.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Clonecommander6454
Post subject: Re: Heavy CruiserPosted: July 18th, 2012, 7:58 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 756
Joined: August 8th, 2011, 2:35 pm
Some progress update:
[ img ]
PS: I only kept the hull and removed everything else.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 22 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mislau and 8 guests


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


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