Kriegsmarine 1946, second approach

[Ashley]

I do not change the ship, I change the story. The old Clemson-class destroyer was refitted this way and a new top-secret anti-rolling-system was tested. The system failed as the whole refit proved as a failure. She made it hardly to Portland, where the ship was abandoned.

In other words, I give it up with her. The Clemsons are no useful source for interesting conversions to me. Thanks for your comments, they were useful!
Sometime you have to accept a fail. This was annother one.

[Ashley]

In 1944 a design for a battlecruiser was ordered. The ship was to be smaller and cheaper than the O-class BC and should use the new 12" gun within a highly automated turret. The design should reuse module from the P-class cruiser.
The Q-class BC is a lenghtened P-class with 12" triples, 5" DPs but overall no very spectacular design for a 1945's ship it looks somehow like 'oldschool'. Not a bad ship, not a weak ship, surely a counter for the Alaskas, but due to the much lesser armor an easy prey for fast BBs (if they can catch it...). The old BC-problem, you know.
The german OKM did like the design, but the need wasn't there. Smaller navies showed high interest. Argentine was satisfied with their Rosas-class BCs. Turkey liked it as successor to the Yavuz. Even Spain was thinking about building one or two at their own yard with german help. But all orders were stopped, the dockyards had to go on war production for the Kriegsmarine only. Only two years later, the Q-class was obsolete. After viewing the german navy introducing sophisticated weapon systems like radar-guided aa, SAMs and SSMs the all-big-gun ship was out. Smaller ships, armed with missiles got the highest interest now.

edit: hmmm, something has happened to my template. I'll correct that.

[Ashley]

I just recognized, the 2cm aa on the fore funnel might be covered by the starboard crane. The crane is usually lowered done to the deck, then the aa can fire without handicap.

[bezobrazov]

How do you do those scuttles? In itself it's quite artful!

[eltf177]

The Q-class is quite beautiful!

[Novice]

Why do you need five types of directors when you use only two types of guns?

[Ashley]

How do you do those scuttles? In itself it's quite artful!

I copy the ship, put it into word, there it becomes a draw object. Then I turn the object to the angle I wish and make screen dump. The dump is a bitmap I copy back into mspaint, do the background and ready.

[bezobrazov]

Hah! Have to try that, sounds like a lot of fun!

[Ashley]

Why do you need five types of directors when you use only two types of guns?

Ah, I like those good questions! Some are redundand systems. Let us see: we have the 2D Würzburg on top, we have the Euklids with added optical director, we have the 11- and 7m directors with added Seetakt, we have the well known optical aa directors. At a time when radar is not perfect and ecm-hardening just at the beginning, redundancy is a must.
I did not install that much radar as an later KM-ships due to the 1944 design. It's a time of technical turnover. A 1946 design would see far more radar and lesser optical directors. And finally there is a typical german phrase: "Much helps much." OK so far?

[Ashley]

The Q-class is quite beautiful!

Thanks, I thought that after finishing, too. Only the ugly radar dish on the top disturbs the view. The hull might be a source for a big 50s CAG.