Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
Moderator: Community Manager
Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
43 tons? My source seems to be bad. I'll redo her with ligther arms.
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead
Current work list:
go on playing dead
-
Portsmouth Bill
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
- Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
The basic problem is that the class was not suitable for anti-air conversion; and what the RN desperately needed (in early WWII) was asw assets; so a few light aa, plus a gun for use against submarines was all that was required, and all that could have been done [realistically]. I have done HMS Roxborough, a modified 'Town', based on Colosseums USN version, but it does not seem to be on the archive; when I'm home I'll post it for comparison.
Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
That reminds me, isn't it about time for another "lost sheep" thread like the one you did on the old forum?
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error
Worklist
Source Materiel is always welcome.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error
Worklist
Source Materiel is always welcome.
-
HMS Sophia
- Posts: 863
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 10:34 am
Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
lost sheep?
Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
PB made a thread were people could post WIPs that had been abandoned and finished drawings by other users that for some reason hadn't been uploaded.
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error
Worklist
Source Materiel is always welcome.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error
Worklist
Source Materiel is always welcome.
-
HMS Sophia
- Posts: 863
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 10:34 am
Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
Curious. And what, its free reign on them? Or just bask in the glory of unfinished drawings 
Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
The goal would be to get them finished and uploaded, but the rules would be up to the mods.
Anyway, we're getting of topic.
Anyway, we're getting of topic.
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error
Worklist
Source Materiel is always welcome.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error
Worklist
Source Materiel is always welcome.
Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
Yes, good idea. And yes, OT.Thiel wrote:That reminds me, isn't it about time for another "lost sheep" thread like the one you did on the old forum?
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead
Current work list:
go on playing dead
Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
Fitting multiple directors will also be impossible; indeed even a single Mk 37 is probably impossible. The below-decks weight, volume and power requirements were considerable. Perhaps a single Mk 56.
-
Portsmouth Bill
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
- Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach
HMS Roxborough; for some reason I never submiited it for upload; but it does show what the problem was in RN service, that is, the bridge. To be fair, these old ships were designed with the intention of fleet support against opposing destroyers in 'no mans land' between the battlefleets. They weren't supposed to do continuous steaming, or escorting slow convoys, more, short sprints with refueling from bigger ships. They didn't do too bad in the pacific, but in the North Atlantic they suffered. On some occasions the bridge was crushed, so any upgrading was in that area, as in this one:
