Shipbucket

KHT wrote:I think it would be attractive to make it six barrels for the main artillery. Only four is very little for properly ranging in on targets(one of the many failures of the Outrageous class).

The UK didn't seem to favor triple turrets, except for the Rodney class. And 6 x 16" guns is way too much gun for a cruiser. You could go with an enlarged County class except swapping out the 8 x 8" guns for 6 x 12" turrets pulled out of the old Indefatigable class when they went to the breakers. One turret aft and two forward. You would have to stretch the bow a bit to get the second turret in but otherwise it is probably a workable design.

Well, they were used on most light cruisers of the RN. There is of cource a great differance between a six-inch tripple turret and a battleship-grade tripple turret. The KGV class was originaly envisioned with three tripple 15-inch, and the Lion class wih three tripple 16-inch. True, non were completed as such, but in the case of the KGV, it was becouse of the treaty, and in case of the Lion, they can be assumed to have been completed had WW2 not begunn.
You could just add another twin though. A tripple turret would be ideal, but you've got to make do with what you've got.

KHT wrote:snip(one of the many failures of the Outrageous class).

Outrageous class
I know you meant HMS Courageous and HMS Glorious

How many gerbils power that? Think the screws could be a bit bigger.

Fred

An interesting project Jabba; and its CA1 that attracts me, not least because you could utilise spare 15-in twins, of which there were a suitable number laying around (some of which ended up in HMS 'Rearguard'). I can't add anything further to what Novice has alreday suggested:definately work in a spotter plane to add 'over the horizon' capability.

Interesting ideas which give much scope for discussion and thought.

My own feelings are that the calibre is too big. I'm not even sure that any of the 13.5in turrets or guns ever were retained once the last of that series of dreadnoughts and Tiger were scrapped in the early 1930s. Personally I tend to favour the light cruiser over the heavy cruiser, the former being more multi-purpose and useful for a variety of roles which it can carry out well. The heavy cruiser is a good back up, in the early 40s thee was a proposal to build a new class with new 9.2in guns and I think had they been built they would have been awesome ships, easily ale to match a Hipper. I agree with the comments here, I would certainly add a couple of Walrus for spotting and I'd ditch the 4in twins and fit 5.25in twins, it really needs more gunpower to ward off enemy cruisers and destroyers and provide more AA capability. Also perhaps even so far as 3-4 octuple pom-poms too.

As a replacement for the KGV series I see these as failures. By this time all of the major European powers were still building capital ships (even Germany) and you can't forget the mindset of the Admiralty - the Royal Navy was the most powerful on earth (in their minds, at the very least) - so therefore required capital ships. The fact they stuck like Gentlemen to the London Treaty etc. meant those ships were less successful then they might have been, but in hindsight we can say they were good enough. Pit one of these against Bismarck in 1941 and its curtains, even against Graf Spee in 1939 the odds might be closer than we think due to the small number of barrels, Exeter was wrecked but the danger of three targets split her fire. Of course had Harwood one of these for support a long-range duel would have favoured the bigger gun.
Generally I see the Panzerschiff as a largely bogus concept when its wheeled out in such AU scenarios. We musn't forget the Weimar regime had no other choice, they were constrained to displacements and guns far below the other powers. That they developed such a long-ranged raiding ship rather than a mundane Scandnavian-style coastal defence ship was perhaps a bit of foresight and certainly radical thinking. Even so, they have had more historical impact than possibly warranted from their careers and in my view any foreign attempts to build a similar type would be widely different in concept and execution. Even so it's good to see some RN AU ships trying to push the boundaries.

Nice drawings, but a rather dubious basis for an AU...

Hood wrote:I'm not even sure that any of the 13.5in turrets or guns ever were retained once the last of that series of dreadnoughts and Tiger were scrapped in the early 1930s.

At least three turrets were still afloat in 1939:

Can't offer any actual citations, but from what I recall from discussions on Warships1 etc. it seems that several turrets were retained when Tiger was scrapped.

Novice wrote:Nice designs Jabba, but here are some points
The CA1 design should have bridge wings to the bridge. As it is now they are lacking. I believe the searchlight on the mast is not customarily carried by RN ships. Also I don't think you'll have torpedo tubes on ships of this kind (at least not in the 1920's or 1930's)
On the CA1 design the 4" guns should be 2 on each side with no super firing mountings above the main armament. Also, the bows on CA1 is too long, and I suggest moving everything forward and work in a hangar with athwart-ship catapult (like on the HMS Belfast)
The CA2 design although looks odd (by virtue of it being single ended, like HMS Rodney) the AA armament of 4" is badly placed with no guns for forward AA firing arcs. I also think that placing the quadruple .5" guns on the platform of the funnel is bad, because of ammunition supply. Again the bows of the ship is too long and empty and you can add a hangar and catapult if you move everything forward.
Note that I'm not suggesting to shorten the ships as it will hamper their hydrodynamics.

Yeah, it does need some work on the bridge. Thanks for the secondary and AA advice, this is helpful input! And yes, for a cruiser design of this era, scouting aircraft are a must-have...

youboat wrote:How many gerbils power that?

CA1: 2,340 Gerbils
CA2: 1,950.5 Gerbils

Hood wrote:As a replacement for the KGV series I see these as failures. By this time all of the major European powers were still building capital ships (even Germany) and you can't forget the mindset of the Admiralty - the Royal Navy was the most powerful on earth (in their minds, at the very least) - so therefore required capital ships. The fact they stuck like Gentlemen to the London Treaty etc. meant those ships were less successful then they might have been, but in hindsight we can say they were good enough. Pit one of these against Bismarck in 1941 and its curtains, even against Graf Spee in 1939 the odds might be closer than we think due to the small number of barrels, Exeter was wrecked but the danger of three targets split her fire. Of course had Harwood one of these for support a long-range duel would have favoured the bigger gun.
Generally I see the Panzerschiff as a largely bogus concept when its wheeled out in such AU scenarios. We musn't forget the Weimar regime had no other choice, they were constrained to displacements and guns far below the other powers. That they developed such a long-ranged raiding ship rather than a mundane Scandnavian-style coastal defence ship was perhaps a bit of foresight and certainly radical thinking. Even so, they have had more historical impact than possibly warranted from their careers and in my view any foreign attempts to build a similar type would be widely different in concept and execution. Even so it's good to see some RN AU ships trying to push the boundaries.

re: vs Bismark; yes 1v1 would definitely a losing battle, but (I guess, not too bothered about politics/other AU stuff!)these would be more numerous than KGVs due to lower construction costs. I imagine a few of these alongside HMS Hood wouldn't fare too badly?
Good points on cruiser vs CD there too.

Chris Roach wrote:Nice drawings, but a rather dubious basis for an AU...

This is more of a personal designs project than an AU. I realise these would never have been constructed, this thread is merely an excuse to play around and draw something a bit different

Jabba, wonderful designs and I Prefer CA1, if the DC were to use any it would be CA1. It would have been interesting to see what 3 of the CA1's would have done to the Graf Spee...

Ok, I have updated the CA1 design with changes to superstructure, bridge, secondary armament, catapult and removed torpedo tubes.