Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Rhade
Post subject: Re: HMS VictoriaPosted: July 5th, 2020, 9:43 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2767
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 12:45 pm
Location: Poland
Floatplanes start to be rather outdated system at the end of WWII. Walrus would be replaced by Seagull but after two prototypes it was canceled as it was just not needed. Maybe "buy" some Curtiss SC Seahawks and use it on ship for some time before retiring whole concept.

_________________
[ img ]
Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ForceA1
Post subject: Re: HMS VictoriaPosted: July 6th, 2020, 12:13 am
Offline
Posts: 34
Joined: November 12th, 2017, 5:58 pm
There are number issues with the design.

Armament:
From the Cruisers of 1960 (designed in 1948-49) onwards the British Cruiser designs were supposed to have guns that were able to train 360 degrees in all elevations without colliding with the superstructure or each other. The rapid training speeds required to engage aircraft (38 degrees per second for the 6in, 60 degrees per second for the 3in) mean that they will build up considerable momentum. If they have to stop clear of superstructure, they have to slow down well before that point degrading performance. Individual mountings will also be controlled by their own MRS director, hence will be firing at different targets. As such they must not interfere with each other.

The 3"/70 QF Mk N1 mountings cannot be placed so close together. The previous point about 360 degree traverse still stands, and each mounting has a muzzle sweep of 21ft. Each mounting also requires a 400 square foot magazine in the form of a "bottling plant" underneath the mounting. To have an idea of what I mean see the following:http://collections.dockmuseum.org.uk/mw ... 4;type=101, http://collections.dockmuseum.org.uk/mw ... 8;type=101 and http://collections.dockmuseum.org.uk/mw ... 1;type=101. They cannot be placed so together. Depending on the beam of your ship, you also be unable to significant amounts of superstructure on the centerline, since the combined muzzle sweep of two 3 inch mountings will prevent the use of more than 42 feet of beam. You may have to keep superstructure to a minimum, and increase volume within the the hull to compensate, like the Cruisers of 1960 and the 1949-54 Cruiser-Destroyer designs.

Radar and other sensors: Is not all that bad. You have an air search radar (Type 960) and a Target Indication Radar (Type 293). Unfortunately when it comes to surface search radars (Type 277) although you have chosen the correct type, the placement is off.

That said, given the period of this ships, a slightly later generation radars are probably a better fit. The number of mountings and directors your design has will considerably exceed the number of targets the Type 293 and it's associated Gunnery Direction System 2 can cope with. The Type 992 radar, and it's associated Gunnery Direction System 3 offered the ability to target 8 separate contacts, each with three weapons or directors, for a total of 24 directors and mounts. This is a much better fit for your ship.

As for surface search radars, I suggest doing away with all of the Type 277 radars, with the exception of the one on the mainmast, and add a Type 974 radar on the foremast. This appeared on both the Tiger class and on the 1949-54 Cruiser-Destroyer series.

Fighter Direction (this is a suggestion, not a recommendation): Given your ship's role as a task force escort, a fighter direction is likely to be a requirement. There are several approaches to this. The existing Type 960 and 277 combination will offer limited air search and heightfinding capabilities.

To improve on this however 1-2 Type 980/981 or Type 982/983 combinations will be required. The Type 277 can be disposed of, but the 2-4 radars required will consume a large amount of centerline space, which will already be limited by the requirements for the armament, directors, masts and funnels.

Alternatively 1-2 Type 984 3D radars are also an option, which have the benefit of getting rid of the need for both the Type 960 and Type 277. Sketches IV and V of the 1960 Cruiser schemes, along with Design II of the 1951 Cruiser Destroyer design series had two Type 984s. However two Type 984 will likely interfere with each other, and none of the Aircraft Carriers that were equipped with it carried more than one. A later Cruiser destroyer design study, and the GW series of Missile Cruisers which culminated in GW96A were designed with one Type 984.

Sonar: This ship will not be performing anti-submarine operations, but around this time British Cruiser and Carrier designs were provided with a Type 176 torpedo warning set. I suggest you do the same.

Masts: The mast also need work. The radars are heavy enough to the point that you will need lattice masts to carry them. If you are limited by centerline space, combine them with the funnels to create macks (which you have already appeared to have done). That said, they would look more like the foremast and funnel of the Daring class destroyers (1949) or that of Sketches III, IV and V of the Cruisers of 1960 series.

Directors: The LRS-1 and MRS-3 directors are the correct choice for this ship, given its role and the period it is constructed in. That said, make sure they don't mask each other, and make sure that they similar fields of view to the mountings they control.

I may be wrong but the FV-1/Type 91 jammer antennas below the starfish on both the fore and mainmast are obsolete by this point, although if you want to keep, no more than 4 (two port and starboard) on the mainmast only should suffice. The HF/DF Antenna is also obsolete, and should be replaced by a UA-3 Porker Antenna (see the British Parts sheet).

Aviation Facilities:
By this point the Royal Navy did not have any aboard cruisers. Aircraft and associated catapults were removed from 1943 onwards.

That said, of you still want to use aircraft in any of your future designs (although not this one), from the Towns onwards, the Royal Navy used fixed athwartship catapults on their cruisers, not rotating ones. A 4 aircraft hangar is also too large for a cruiser, with British cruisers having hangar space for no more than two. The only aviation facilities that this ship is likely to have is a landing spot aft for a Westland Dragonfly.

Boats: British cruisers were expected to operate with considerable autonomy, and as such had considerable boat complements. Unfortunately, in terms of both quantity and type, this is outside the boundaries of my knowledge, but I would suggest at least a pair of whalers (port and starboard, so we would only see one) and a couple of Motor Launches. The sketches for the Cruisers of 1960 show only 3-4 boats, but the official Admiralty model for the unbuilt GW96A (designed about 8 years later) shows considerably more:https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 67652.html


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
FOXGAME
Post subject: Re: HMS VictoriaPosted: July 6th, 2020, 10:48 am
Offline
Posts: 10
Joined: July 1st, 2020, 7:52 pm
oke lol im gowing to need to reconstruct my hole cruiser so this is gowing to take a few days
and what kind of tower do i need to use


Last edited by FOXGAME on July 6th, 2020, 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ForceA1
Post subject: Re: HMS VictoriaPosted: July 6th, 2020, 12:10 pm
Offline
Posts: 34
Joined: November 12th, 2017, 5:58 pm
So I've gone through some of my books to see what sort of boat complement a British cruiser would have around this period. Irritatingly I don't have any for this period, although I have a few examples that bookend the period of your design.

Belfast and Edinburgh (1939): Two 35ft Motor Boats, one 35ft Fast Motor Barge (for ships fitted as flagship), one 36ft Motor & Pulling Pinnace, two 32ft Cutters, two 27ft Whalers, one 25ft Fast Motor Boat, one 16ft Fast Motor Dinghy, three 14ft Dinghies (one for flagship use) and one 10ft Balsa Raft.

The below boat complements are taken from sketches in Norman Friedman's British cruisers.

Design Y (1945): One 36ft Motor Pinnace, two 35ft Fast Motor Boats, one 32ft Motor Cutter, and two 27ft Power Sea Boats. Interestingly the boats are placed above a large hatch that can be accessed by the crane, suggesting more boats stored below deck than those I can see on the plan.

Preliminary Design Study 21H2 (October 1960): One 36ft Motor Pinnace, two 35ft Motor Boats, two 27ft Whalers, one 25ft Motor Cutter, one 16ft Motor Boat, and a 16ft Small Motor Boat.

Escort Cruiser Designs 21M3 & 21M8 (March and September 1961 respectively): One 45ft Motor Launch and one 35ft Motor Boat.

To show how the requirement for 360 degree traverse affected the Cruisers of 1960, I've uploaded a pair of the designs here:http://imgur.com/a/J0ft8u4


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
FOXGAME
Post subject: Re: HMS VictoriaPosted: July 6th, 2020, 3:06 pm
Offline
Posts: 10
Joined: July 1st, 2020, 7:52 pm
this is how fare i have gotten is this a good setup?
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: HMS VictoriaPosted: July 6th, 2020, 3:36 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8503
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
something that are close to your design, a real proposal to the British navy back then:
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
FOXGAME
Post subject: Re: HMS VictoriaPosted: July 6th, 2020, 4:01 pm
Offline
Posts: 10
Joined: July 1st, 2020, 7:52 pm
oke thats the design gone then because then there is no need fore a follo up on the minetaur classe then because cant go less because then you just have a mino and i cant make it like that because then you just have a nother design like the 1954 one


Last edited by FOXGAME on July 6th, 2020, 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rhade
Post subject: Re: HMS VictoriaPosted: July 6th, 2020, 4:03 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2767
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 12:45 pm
Location: Poland
Placing helipad in middle is terrible idea, the turbulence from ship superstructure will be very dangerous and landing on high sea in it's more angry state would be suicidal. Drop the idea or try to model if after Tiger.

_________________
[ img ]
Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: HMS VictoriaPosted: July 6th, 2020, 5:06 pm
Offline
Posts: 2867
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
On the whole, she is quite overloaded. Four main battery turrets and six to eight secondaries would be much more plausible.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
FOXGAME
Post subject: Re: HMS VictoriaPosted: July 7th, 2020, 12:19 pm
Offline
Posts: 10
Joined: July 1st, 2020, 7:52 pm
is this set-up better then ?
[ img ]

and dus someone have those little boats for me and a accurate crane?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 28 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


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


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