A Battlecruiser for the Emperor

Post any drawings of planned or conceptual ships.

Moderator: Community Manager

Post Reply
Message
Author
VC_
Posts: 47
Joined: October 25th, 2021, 10:24 am

A Battlecruiser for the Emperor

#1 Post by VC_ »

I recently came across a sketch of a Japanese battlecruiser design, labelled "B61". I instantly fell in love with the sleek looks and well balanced proportions, and now I have taken the time to try to bring her to life in SB form.

I had some misgivings initially, the mast looked odd and there is an error on the drawing: the guns are labelled as 14" even though the "3-Y" (presumably short for "3rd Year Type") is the designation for the 16.1" guns, and the turret dimensions fit the latter. I was however able to confirm the 4x2 16.1" arrangement via a specification sheet for this design in the Hiraga archives. The mast was apparently an early design evolution of what eventually became Nagato's 7-legged configuration, and I decided to retain it for its uniqueness.

The design itself is something of a missing evolutionary link between Nagato and the final Amagi cofiguration selected for consctruction. It is one of the battlecruiser variants in a series of "improved Nagato/Tosa" designs. The sketch itself is very bare bones regarding the superstructure, so I took the early drawings for the Amagi class as inspiration for the bridge and pagoda platform layout. This is a stylistic choice, along with retaining the very narrow hexapod mast, as I really like this look (and it gives variety). It is likely that had this ship (or Amagi for that matter) been built, the mast and bridge would have been upgraded during construction to more closely resemble the look of the Nagato class.

As the drawing evolved, it really came to life more than a simple design study, so I crammed in as much detail as I could muster and aimed for an "in-service" appearance in the mid-1920s, with aviation facilities inspired by those fitted to Nagato. To this end, I also came up with a name for the design, a mountain as per IJN practice for naming battlecruisers. Mount Sakurajima is Japan's most active volcano, befitting such a fiery ship.

Principal specifications on the sheet ;)

Link to original sheet based on (as the image is large and widens the forum page too much):

https://i.imgur.com/obqVaXB.jpg

And the final drawing:

Image
emperor_andreas
Posts: 3908
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact:

Re: A Battlecruiser for the Emperor

#2 Post by emperor_andreas »

Very nice work!
Image
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB
Hood
Posts: 7237
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am

Re: A Battlecruiser for the Emperor

#3 Post by Hood »

Looks very good, nice work and a good looking addition.
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
erik_t
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US

Re: A Battlecruiser for the Emperor

#4 Post by erik_t »

A nicely-executed drawing, although I have some concern about the footprint of the foremast. More spread between structural elements would be good-looks like it's only about twelve feet right now, compared to more like twenty feet on Fuso or Hiei around the same time.
Karle94
Posts: 2140
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland

Re: A Battlecruiser for the Emperor

#5 Post by Karle94 »

That is how they were on the early drafts on what became the Tosa and Amagi classes. The Nagato had similar early drafts as well.
VC_
Posts: 47
Joined: October 25th, 2021, 10:24 am

Re: A Battlecruiser for the Emperor

#6 Post by VC_ »

Thanks all, glad you like her :)

erik_t wrote: November 26th, 2021, 3:29 pm A nicely-executed drawing, although I have some concern about the footprint of the foremast. More spread between structural elements would be good-looks like it's only about twelve feet right now, compared to more like twenty feet on Fuso or Hiei around the same time.

Indeed, I share your concern, and so did the IJN, hence Nagato was completed with a much larger footprint 7-leg foremast. However, I decided to keep the narrow one for stylistic uniqueness, not to have basically a Nagato copy-paste superstructure.
Steampower1
Posts: 35
Joined: December 30th, 2017, 10:05 pm

Re: A Battlecruiser for the Emperor

#7 Post by Steampower1 »

Really like this! But- have to agree with Erik T. the base of the foremast legs is too narrow. The only other thing is I like the IJN warships with the forward funnel inclined aft. Otherwise it is great technically and love the color and shading
Post Reply