Treaty Cruiser Design Challenge

[waritem]

What a wonderful ship Charguizard!...............
I hope my workload will leave me enaught time to post something before the end of april.
But it will be very difficult not to be influenced by your exellent design..................................

[Hood]

Given the very long shafts due to the location of the engine rooms and the widely spread turrets out, the de Villers probably has a less optimal and quite vulnerable propulsion, but for sheer crazy Frenchness and originality it takes some beating. The drawings themselves are gorgeous to look at.

[Keisser]

I put the wight at 10.000 metric tons at normal displacement, that's why I marked the crazy SpringSharp remarks. All gun mounts weights since the late 1800's are know. I think SpringSharp developers could include them at their database.

Well, your SpringSharp report is screwed up a bit anyways. I would suggest you to get good with this program before talking about its flaws. Also, put some logic. You said that you took hull of Exeter - good. But then you say one crucial thing - you took a larger hull of Exeter but you did not took larger displacement since it is limited. Thats the biggest flaw of your idea in general. Enlargening the hull strongly requires enlargening of displacement - otherwise your ship looses composite strength gradually.
And not to mention other mistakes you did - they were mentioned by several people already.

[MihoshiK]

Good grief, Charguizard pretty much blew everything else out of the water, and there were already a few very commendable ships in here!

[Garlicdesign]

Hi everyone!

Charguizard, I have to say that I only very rarely break into an involuntary smile when I see a new drawing, but this one certainly had that effect.

Greetings
GD

[erik_t]

Given the very long shafts due to the location of the engine rooms and the widely spread turrets out, the de Villers probably has a less optimal and quite vulnerable propulsion, but for sheer crazy Frenchness and originality it takes some beating. The drawings themselves are gorgeous to look at.

This was exactly my reaction.

Beautiful drawing and extraordinarily French.

[BB1987]

*applause*

[reytuerto]

Hi, Char! Magnificent raider! Very well designed, and nicely done! And with a french flavor as intense as a roquefort cheese (well, roquefort cheese+carmenere wine I mean )!

[Hood]

Thought I would throw my hat into the ring with a modified never-were design.

Essex Class

HMS Essex, in 1933

For the two heavy cruisers to follow the Northumberland sub-class of the Counties, their Lordships demanded increased fighting power. Using savings in construction had meant the previous ships had completed light and progressively fittings had been added. It was thought possible to fit an extra 8in turret to increase the broadside weight. The quarterdeck was lowered to save weight and the extra turret fitted behind 'A' and 'B' turrets. An improved tower superstructure, based on that of those of the capital ships, was also fitted to improve the bridge spaces.
The design was approved and HMS Essex and Durham were laid down in 1930. Both luckily were spared from the spending cuts as the Great Depression began to bite and were commissioned in June and September 1933 respectively.


Displacement
10,000 tons (standard)

Dimensions
Length: 600ft (oa), 593ft (wl)
Beam: 68ft 6in
Draught: 16ft

Armament
5x2 8in Mk.II turrets (130 rpg)
4x1 4in QF Mk.V HA mounts (200 rpg)
2x8 2pdr Mk.M pom-pom mounts (1,000 rpg)
2x4 21in torpedo-tube mountings (9 reload torpedoes)
2x Hawker Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft

Armour
No belt armour
Magazines: 3in box protection (top and sides)
Main turrets: 1in
Deck: 1 3/8in

Machinery & Performance
80,000shp steam turbines
Speed: 32kts (standard displacement)
Endurance: 9,100nm at 16kts

[pepembr_mb]

I put the wight at 10.000 metric tons at normal displacement, that's why I marked the crazy SpringSharp remarks. All gun mounts weights since the late 1800's are know. I think SpringSharp developers could include them at their database.

Well, your SpringSharp report is screwed up a bit anyways. I would suggest you to get good with this program before talking about its flaws. Also, put some logic. You said that you took hull of Exeter - good. But then you say one crucial thing - you took a larger hull of Exeter but you did not took larger displacement since it is limited. Thats the biggest flaw of your idea in general. Enlargening the hull strongly requires enlargening of displacement - otherwise your ship looses composite strength gradually.
And not to mention other mistakes you did - they were mentioned by several people already.

Wrong! Exeter was a 8,390 long standard tons cruiser. I put the standard displacement at 10,000 standard tons in a larger hull with almost the same armament.