Shipbucket

next up, try and do a springsharp on it and see if I have a warship or a brick. yeah, I know, doing it backwards.

After the Savage Class, an slightly enlarged version was built in 2 different styles, one class with 5 x 5"/38 twin turrets and one class with 4 x 6"/50 twin turrets. With the trunked funnel, the single catapult was moved aft, the first GHRN cruiser with the catapult on the stern instead of midships. Both are still WIP, so the secondary armament is not correct and is in the process of being changed and finalized.

I need help with the trunked funnel. It just don't look right.

My biggest question is, if you need to move the catapult to the fantail because of the trunked funnel, why bother with the trunked funnel in the first place? The whole point is to free up deck space, not sacrifice it.

klagldsf wrote:My biggest question is, if you need to move the catapult to the fantail because of the trunked funnel, why bother with the trunked funnel in the first place? The whole point is to free up deck space, not sacrifice it.

Because I wanted to find a reasonable reason to move the catapult? And like trunked funnels?

I don't know why you want to move the catapult to the deck, there's a reason why most navies had them amidships. USN practice kicked it to the fantail because of a lack of priority for it, in part because not only did we have carriers fairly early on, but some pretty large ones (other than escort carriers and the Independence/Saipan class emergency programs we never had a carrier smaller than Langley and Ranger). The whole point of trunked funnels is that you can consolidate the superstructure for a better protection scheme and/or firing arcs - in fact, on that note, you can rearrange the superstructure on HMNKS Grizzly so that the X and Y turrets are on the same deck (not necessary, but it does keep the topweight down if you want).

Almost everything in naval warship engineering is done for a purpose, and so far you've been pretty good at it, but I'm struggling to find the purpose here. Plus, it just makes the ship look very, very empty.

klagldsf wrote:I don't know why you want to move the catapult to the deck, there's a reason why most navies had them amidships. USN practice kicked it to the fantail because of a lack of priority for it, in part because not only did we have carriers fairly early on, but some pretty large ones (other than escort carriers and the Independence/Saipan class emergency programs we never had a carrier smaller than Langley and Ranger). The whole point of trunked funnels is that you can consolidate the superstructure for a better protection scheme and/or firing arcs - in fact, on that note, you can rearrange the superstructure on HMNKS Grizzly so that the X and Y turrets are on the same deck (not necessary, but it does keep the topweight down if you want).

Almost everything in naval warship engineering is done for a purpose, and so far you've been pretty good at it, but I'm struggling to find the purpose here.

(drawings done at 3AM and prior to coffee. I DID say "work in progress" after all)

Fearless reimagined. Essentially repeats of the Savage Class with 4" secondaries removed, 2-pdr replaced with 40mm, and the forward main changed from 1 x triple 6 to 2 x twin 6

I enjoy the redo greatly, though the AA seems rather heavy for the era. From an artistic standpoint, I'd move the foremast back and free up some space at the top of the tower, and use that room for a larger rangefinder, perhaps more centered on the tower, as a matter of aesthetics, but just a minor suggestion, all in all. I like the shape of the tower; puts me a bit in mind of Giulio Cesare and Cavour, only on a much smaller scale.

These 3 cruisers, the Savage, Fearless, and Grizzly classes, were designed primarily as escorts for merchant vessels and support ships, and to a lesser extent, commerce raiding of their own. When acting as escorts they were frequently the flagship of the escort group made up of DD's and smaller vessels. The primary adversary then had a significant air presence, so they were given a heavier than normal number of guns for that, although the 40mm was also considered a DP weapon against surfaced submarines, small raiders, and AMC's. The Fearless and Grizzly classes had a much larger small weapons percentage than the earlier Savages, who still had a 4" secondary, which in the latter classes was deemed superfluous as the number of main guns was increased, or changed to 5"/38 in the case of the Grizzley's. The RN of that period had a healthy respect for air power, knowing what both the RAF and Fleet Air Arm could do, so by the mid 30's, and particularly after the 6-Weeks War of 1936, they started to increase the number of light mounts on escort vessels, and then on the heavier combatants. These 3 classes were also the largest classes of RN cruisers, at the time, built outside the Kingdom; being built in shipyards in the Dominions and Territories, while the home yards concentrated on the larger and more powerful Colony Class CL's then beginning construction.

I notice the torpedo tubes have been deleted, meaning a more intense focus on Anti-Aircraft protection vs fighting surface engagements than the earlier classes?