"Our project differs from the draft design №389 4C scheme by the new compact high-pressure tanks that were actually mounted on a couple of St. Louis and Helena cruisers. This made it possible to use the echelon scheme of the main propulsion with additional compartments for power and damage control central and turret magazines of dual-purpose artillery and AA artillery. The changes outside can be seen in the presence of two small smoke stacks instead of a single large and wide one. Also, the lighter main propulsion allowed for installing two triple turrets of the main turret instead of twin-turrets. 5”/38 Dual-purpose artillery in two twin-turrets and two single-turrets were used (instead of six single turrets, and there was no space left on the sides for twin-barreled guns because of aircraft catapults). The guns were similar to those used on St. Louis and Helena, as well as Wichita that were built at approximately the same time as the ships of our project. The beam-length ratio in the draft design №389 4C scheme wasn’t credible: more than 11:1, while it doesn’t exceed 10:1 for real ships (including swift and low destroyers). And even with that, the ships had problems with stability, which had to be solved by installing sinking ballast, which, in its turn, imposed certain limitations on future upgrades. That’s why we increased the hull beam by almost 2 meters, this caused the water resistance to increase, which was compensated by the increased propulsion output."
So ultimately they start off with a reasonable never-build USN design, and then turn around and pull something from their ass while loudly proclaiming that it's realistic.
Somehow, they made the ship slightly heavier, 2 meters wider, added 2 more guns, and 2500 hp of power, and ended up with the same speed? They also ended up with an block coefficient of 0,38 (quite very low)........ is it just me or did they fail before they started modelling? Did they really think they knew better then the designers at the time? 'oh it has an very large L/B, that will lead to stability issues.......' Yes, it will, if you add way too many guns up top Seeing that they added a lot of beam but did not increase displacement, I suspect they lowered draft and thus hull depth, so this would likely have issues with hull strength as well.
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new. Shipbucket Wiki admin
Well, that is one way of looking at it. On the other hand what they described there is 70-80% logical if this design would have gone forward. On the broader beam I think that might be a typo in Friedman's book, would not be the first and only such mistake in his tables unfortunately (that does not detract from their value a tiny bit). So while WG can not please everyone I htink they have done a reasonable job turning a fully paper preliminary design into a believable if made up ship.
Perhaps I would not have changed the machinery, but the whole line above Dallas has the alternating arrangement so I think they went for consistency there.
at least they give an explanation instead of just leaving us going "what? wait, why?"
What I like to work on/plan to work on:
US ship Proposals and prototypes
Other ships that haven't yet been put up on Ship bucket
Suggestions Welcomed
Currently working on:
Heavy Cruiser Proposal CA-B: ~80% done.
Heavy Cruiser Proposal CA-C: ~5-10% done.
Heavy/Large Cruiser Proposal CA2-D: ~35% done.
FD Scale P-51A Dazzle Camo Livery: ~5-10% done.
Getting better: Always being worked on.
Finished:
FD Scale P-51D's Dazzle Camo Livery (might be redone)
FD Scale P-51D's German Captured Livery
Cool. The article is an interesting read but quite a bit of wonky Russian terminology that doesn't fit the USN, but this is par for the course and understandable. Obviously a lot of work and good thought went into this ship, and as I stated before I had no doubt the ship would "work" from a springsharp/naval engineering perspective.
The article does admit to some laziness on WG's part when creating the "hulls" for this ship. I notice it especially when they mention the original intent to retain the boats on hull A, but remove them on hull B, and how they ended up not bothering (essentially the only change between A and B is the addition of fire control radar). They mention the presence of floats -- but floater nets in bins are generally not seen on USN ships in any number until mid 1942. The neat and tidy bins are a decidedly mid to late war flavor. The boat complement would not have lasted past 1942, though I guess this is reasonable if hull B is meant to be "1942". Naturally no month is given. The foremast platform with SA air search mattress is decidedly anachronistic for 1940, and questionable for 1942. The use of SA is interesting, though not without precedent (some of the Cleveland class units had this radar if more powerful sets were not available when refitting).
It's a fun ship in the game. 99% of people who play it have no idea what I'm even talking about.
Seeing that they added a lot of beam but did not increase displacement, I suspect they lowered draft and thus hull depth, so this would likely have issues with hull strength as well.
