Cruisers for South America

[JSB]

Re Almirante Cochrane Class Cruise,
not sure that I like the long shafts from in front of the BRs to the screws, (I would go unit and move the cat/hangar back) ?

[Blackbuck]

That would sort of deviate from the original Thurston design a little too much, the underwater hull is as much guesswork as anything else as I've never been able to find anything on it below the waterline.

[Krakatoa]

Looks good B.B. Can certainly see the UK lines in the design.

Karle94: That looks like a good start to your US design.


Following the Niteroi class design, a further design for a cruiser with three triple 8" was sought, which Harland and Wolf was happy to supply. Like the Brazilian H class destroyers, the ship never made it into Brazilian service till after the end of WW2. The design was an enlarged Town class ship.

[smurf]

@Blackbuck "deviate from the original Thurston design "
Those were interesting comments. Have you seen any other diagrams? All I have seen were from Brassey's Naval Annual, all of which had raked funnels, except that I have seen one from the Hiraga Archive 1928 IIRC of Vickers Design 866, a more conventional (not Nelson) Thurston layout. That had three vertical funnels, quite short, and showed the underwater profile. It was in quite considerable detail, like a RN 'as-fitted' plan. I think the archive went off-line, though ...
http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index. ... hive-gone/
http://gazo.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/hiraga2/
http://gazo.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/hiraga ... 401&page=1

[Blackbuck]

I've only seen the one you mention which is the above waterline drawing with raked funnels. I have however seen the 866 drawing, at least the one on the world of warships page.

To me it made sense to head towards vertical funnels and the later bridge style when considering the dates of construction, hence the deviation from the original Thurston design.

[smurf]

"head towards vertical funnels and the later bridge style when considering the dates of construction"
I agree with that, though I don't think it improves the look of it.

[Hood]

There are certainly some interesting entries so far.
The Thurston design looks very interesting. I can't help thinking topweight is going to be a big problem though.
I like Rowdy's Italian entry too.

I was messing around with ideas the other day when I was off work ill. Having looked in Friedman it struck me how the Vickers export designs even in the mid/late 30s still looked as though they were from a decade or so earlier, some light cruiser designs had Walrus aircraft but no catapults!
My thoughts are moving away from Surrey origins to something closer to the Southamptons or Belfast in layout (especially machinery) with a touch of La Argentina. Thinking of 3x2 8in, 4x2 4in, 2x pom-pom, couple of aircraft, unit machinery, belt over engines only and box protection for magazines.

[apdsmith]

Hi Blackbuck,

The cruiser looks very nice, just to clarify, are the engine rooms forward of the boilers or some other internal arrangement (boilers down the insides, engine rooms on the outside?) - I can't quite picture the arrangement in my head...

Regards,
Ad

[Blackbuck]

To the best of my knowledge it would be ER:BR:ER:BR However... In the light of things I'd wonder about a more Nelsonesque arrangement with all the engines forward of the boiler rooms.

[JSB]

To the best of my knowledge it would be ER:BR:ER:BR However... In the light of things I'd wonder about a more Nelsonesque arrangement with all the engines forward of the boiler rooms.

May just be me but your Almirante Cochrane Class Cruise looks very (stern) BR,BR,BR,ER,ER(Bow) with very long shafts ?