I like but how are you building it in the UK when the RN is so short on plate for its emergency program that its buying from Czechoslovakia ? (unless they are planing to take them over you will not get any building priority, that and I think its more a 42 ship with that AA fit ?)
Please JSB, read Smurfs posts before commenting on availability of space to build the various designs that will be posted here in this time frame. There may be a few too many 20mm for the time but it looks fine as is.
Although a nice concept, Nigel, I would remove the after-most 4" mounting each side, and 2 quad 2pdr mountings. This is excessive AA armament for a 1930s cruiser.
Also you might give her the Brazilian flag at the stern, and if up to it the jack on the stem
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"
A few comments:
Eswube: "are we limited to real-life armament/equipment (and "real" countries of origin) or is it possible to draw ships with purely fictional equipment?"
I'd envisaged trying to draw what a British, or a French or a US yard might produce. They would use their own equipment - French guns on a French ship as with Krakatoa's 8in La Galissonnière . So on a British one, 2pdr, not Bofors in late 30s. Oerlikons? Perhaps. A Dutch yard might use Bofors guns for main armament. JS White put Bofors twin 40mm on Grom, so if you think the South Americans would specify light AA, OK; but I think builders would choose main armament they could get (which is why Chile didn't get responses with triple 8in, but by 1939 RN was considering it.)
Personally I think everything fictional removes constraints that have to be thought about, and makes the whole thing into just drawing a handsome ship?
Novice: " I would remove the after-most 4" mounting each side, and 2 quad 2pdr mountings. This is excessive AA armament for a 1930s cruiser." Krakatoa's AA was carried by most RN Counties by 1939, and heavily reinforced for some later. I agree it is heavy for a 1930s 8500ton cruiser, and I doubt a British yard would mount twin 20mm before 1939 though Chile did want a pair.
The 8-barrel 2pdr was heavy, hard and slow to make and relied on a complicated brass casting.
The quad 2pdr was developed for smaller cruisers and destroyers, replaced the casting by steel plate, was lighter and could be made in quantity - a good reason for fitting it.
Krakatoa: I'm not sure you can do what you hope on 8500tons. Fiji managed a lot on 8500, but at 568' (that's overall length? Fiji 555') x 64' beam x 23', you are looking at Superb, which was well over 9000tons with 3x3 6in, but draught about 20-22ft. Warships especially cruisers have to carry a lot of equipment, stores, ammunition as well as the basic gunpower, armour and machinery. An 8in twin weighed some 200tons, compared to a triple 6in about 150. 100 rounds per gun would add about 300x200lbs or 30 tons. 100 roundspg of 6in 120lbs x 300 = 15 tons. It all adds up.
On the other hand you have Full load 10750 tons, standard 8500 tons. That's 2250 tons of fuel and reserve feed water, but a range of only 5500 miles @ 15knots? Fiji had 1700tons for 8000miles at 16kn. Chile has a very long coastline, and might want to strike north on the Atlantic coast.
Having said all that, your second ship is a pretty good representation of one of John Brown's sketch designs. Bravo.
Though theirs was smaller with less armour, [520'pp x 58' x 17'] it still came in at 8400tons.
I can probably leave the full load displacement, maybe let it creep out to 11,000 while increasing the standard to 9250 with a bit of extra fuel to increase the range. I did think the 8500 might be a bit light but was working it off the Colony type. The extra weight would probably drop the speed a knot, which would not be a problem in the rougher South Atlantic where sea speed is likely to be 28-29 knots and full speed only achieved on the finer/flatter days.
Having done a couple of 8" cruisers for the major South American nations, I thought a smaller cruiser for somewhere like Peru might be in order.
Yes it does have a heavy AA battery. All countries started increasing the importance of AA weapons during the Spanish Civil War when modern aircraft showed what formidable opponents they would be against ships in the very near future. British cruisers were designed from 1936 onwards with more and more AA weapons till they virtually bristled like hedgehogs. I have left room on the Almirante Grau for quite a lot more 40/20mm to be able to be fitted during future refits. The 5.5" are the UK weapon in a light turret with 40 degree elevation. No thought was given to use those weapons in an AA role, they were purely surface weapons.
" standard to 9250 with a bit of extra fuel to increase the range" I didn't mean that!
Standard Displacement is [Full load - fuel + reserve feed water] = 10750 - 8500 = 2250 tons which is more than enough fuel for your original 5500 miles.
Fiji needed only 1700 tons for her 8000 nm at a knot more. I think you already had a range of well over 8000 miles. You now have about 1700 tons of fuel, 75,000shp (5000 less than Fiji) and I assume not a transom stern, so you will be more efficient than Fiji at cruising speeds and should still make 8000 miles.
" standard to 9250 with a bit of extra fuel to increase the range" I didn't mean that!
Standard Displacement is [Full load - fuel + reserve feed water] = 10750 - 8500 = 2250 tons which is more than enough fuel for your original 5500 miles.
Fiji needed only 1700 tons for her 8000 nm at a knot more. I think you already had a range of well over 8000 miles. You now have about 1700 tons of fuel, 75,000shp (5000 less than Fiji) and I assume not a transom stern, so you will be more efficient than Fiji at cruising speeds and should still make 8000 miles.
Your Peruvian cruiser is interesting. In fact the Chilean 8in fell foul of Treaty limits. In the real world the Chileans also ran into finance problems, shifted to a slightly better armoured Fiji, and then to much smaller options. Vickers offered a 6000ton standard slightly enlarged Dido with vertical funnels and 4x2 5.25in DP to make 34.5kn with 80,000shp (backed up by or replaced with a smaller scout of 3600tons, 36kn, 3x2 5.25")
No chance of Chile getting 5.25in turrets in 1939/40 of course.
Sorry for the double post - a bit hasty with the button.
Thank you Kim for the crest
