Shipbucket

Hood wrote:Looks excellent and a really nice design.
I only have a couple of tiny nitpicks, I'm not entirely sure on the tubular masts for this period (vibration problems etc.) and the searchlights are mounted too high for topweight concerns and they would be better lower down, perhaps where the spotting tops are now. The masts seem too tall in that respect, perhaps swap the searchlights and spotting tops and lower the masts and increase the top yards to compensate. They'll look less stubby then.

I agree with the searchlight problem, they really do need to be lowered. I'll file that under "WTF was I thinking?".

The pole masts, though, I'm not so sure about. I've loosely based this off the USS Tennessee Class, and they also had the pole masts like that before the navy switched over to the cage masts, as did many USN ships of this time period. If I lower them down, then I'm back to the smoke from the funnels interfering with the aft mast spotting top. That's why I raised them. I'm open to suggestions on how to fix that problem. (No, really, I'm not just saying that, I'm looking for a solution and will appreciate suggestions.)

A couple changes made to the Orion Class



and another armoured cruiser I'd started on, still pretty basic and a WIP

Hi Zephyr,

Just a query - I've seen other mention this on other designs - are double-row casemates not A Bad Thing?

Cheers,
Ad

I don't know about a "bad" thing, but they really aren't optimum. However, not every ship built is of optimum design, every navy has a few less-than-successful ships. Most navies and ship designers didn't always figure everything we take as true out except through trial and error in many cases (look at the USN Virginia class BB's for instance with their two story turrets). That's why this is my only ship with the double row casemates.

True enough, Zephyr, and it proved a most cumbersome, impractical arrangement in the Kearsarges and the Virginias!

However, you have compounded all the existing (and, at the time known) deficiencies, by, among others, creating an almost impossible ammunition and propellant supply, by extending or doubling chutes (which, in turn, would be very difficult to adequately protect, since at the time of the inception of your design, flash-proof doors would not have been invented.)

Another, less obvious drawback, and a very serious one, is the extremely low freeboard to the lower gunbarrels, which will cause pitching and disabling sprays to form; not to mention how the lower gun deck will be literally swamped by water, especially at high speed (22.5 - 23 knots?) The Duke of Edinburghs were notoriously known for their low secondary gun-battery command, and were handidly defeated repeatedly in fleet excercises, where they went into close combat (range 3,000 to 6,000 yards; a distance that, at the time, was expected to occur).

So, your last cruiser already in its design has two serious flaws, effectively strikes against it. It is, in a very literal sense a floating coffin!

And, Zephyr, I still don't think putting the conning tower on top of your pilot house is a very good idea. My suggestion: Swap them, and you can even either elevate the pilothouse slightly to increase the clearance to the CT, or you can put the CT in front, but below the PH.

All valid points. Swapping the con is a good idea.

Thanks for being such a great champ! You know that I'd not "waste" my time to comment here, had I not really liked your designs and seen further potential in them!

I'm bit late here but good to see you "back" Zephyr. I don't know much about older ships, but I really like your imagination and quality of renderings. Hey, and I really agree with you about your statement in ranting thread concerning AU's/personal works in general.

What I've learned (from the Chief Himself) is that the railings are better if those are slightly darker in areas there is something behind it. That brings the shape of item (gun, boat, whatever it is) better shown in SB scale. Hope you know what I mean. You'll notice it may be quite irritating but it'll pays off in renderings. But I don't have no idea how to do it against red background.

Against the red background, make the railings dark red.

Charybdis! I forgot to mention to you that there were several "double-storied" designs, such as the Russian ACRs Rossiya and Gromoboi. Theirs was, however, only the forward 8"-guns and 6"-guns. However, as the experience would show during the Russo-Japanese War, these arrangements were far from ideal, and proved often, in battle, an achilles heel, since they could not be adequately protected. (Only Gromoboi, in fact, had any sort of casemate protection; Rossiya's were wholly unarmored!) Again, problems with supplies to the guns exacerbated an already serious problem.
One thing the Russian ACR giants had and your ACR doesn't was ample freeboard, so from that standpoint, the double-storied arrangement was not detrimental. I'm figuring that the Russian vessels were some 20-30% larger overall!

Another class that eventually received double casemated secondaries was the truly gigantic British "Powerful"-class. When rebuilt in 1902-3 they both received additional 6"-guns placed amidships, above the already existing 6"-gun positions. In addition the positions were fully enclosed in armored casemates. However, since the "Powerful" and "Terrible" were protected cruisers (albeit almost grotesquely oversized), they didn't have side armor, and, so, the casemate protection was of very limited value. Also, these ships were approx. some 40-50% larger than your ACR, again, also with a very generous freeboard.

Just mentioning these things, to maybe inspire you further...