Page 60 of 137

Re: Grays Harbor Designs

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 6:25 pm
by eltf177
Zephyr wrote:#1 turret really can't go any further forward because of magazine issues, I would think.
That and you'd need to move the Barbette. I don't think that's practical, affordable or even feasible.

Re: Grays Harbor Designs

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 5:21 am
by Zephyr
Looking at it, that forward section did look rather silly being long and empty like it was, so I moved #1 turret forward some and added another octuple 2 Pdr on a bandstand. Seems a bit more balanced now.

Image

Re: Grays Harbor Designs

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 6:33 am
by Zephyr
I decided to revisit an earlier ship as I've never been over happy with what was envisioned as a flagship class being described on sprinsharp as being "not a good seaboat - will have difficulty functioning in an agitated bathtub" ... (ok, not literally that description, but you get the idea) ... So, I tried again and made the draught a bit deeper and raised the freeboard some. This of course raised the tonnage, but thats ok as I don't have a pesky Washington Treaty to worry over. It then decided that it is now a good seaboat and good steady gun platform.

Image
Displacement: 19,525 t standard; 22,098 t normal; 24,156 t full load
Length: 683 ft OA / 675 ft Waterline
Beam: 74 ft
Draught: 28 ft
Propulsion: 12 Boilers; 4 Geared Steam Turbines; 4 Shafts
Speed: 32 knots
Range: 15,000 NM @ 14 knots
Complement: 1,030 + Flag Staff
Armament:
10 x 8" (5 x 2)
4 x 5.5" (4 x 1)
4 x 4" HA (4 x 1)
4 x 2 Pdr (4 x 1)
Aviation:
2 Catapults
3-4 Floatplanes


So, any comments on the Jupiter Class - Mk.II?

Re: Grays Harbor Designs

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 9:52 am
by eltf177
I like it, but that's a lot of displacement for what is basically an enlarged heavy cruiser. I just don't see it being practical.

Re: Grays Harbor Designs

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 10:48 am
by bezobrazov
I do agree that the displacement is rather high. Compare my Thevai-class, which is about the same length, has more freeboard, but, instead of a "whopping" 74 ft is 70 3/4 ft in beam. My design came out at a Much more modest 13,070 tons std displacement. Also I armed it with 10 9.2 in guns!
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 0&start=60

Re: Grays Harbor Designs

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 2:17 pm
by Zephyr
Hnh. OK, lowered the block coefficient some, narrowed the hull, and reduced the range a bit, and it actually came out better. Go figure.

Displacement: 15,242 t standard; 16,670 t normal; 17,812 t full load
Length: 683 ft OA / 675 ft Waterline
Beam: 70 ft
Draught: 28 ft
Propulsion: 12 Boilers; 4 Geared Steam Turbines; 4 Shafts
Speed: 32 knots
Range: 9500 NM @ 14 knots

Re: Grays Harbor Designs

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 2:37 pm
by bezobrazov
Ok, that's much more realistic! Now we'd only see which of our designs kicks the hell out of the other! 8-) :D :lol: ;)

Re: Grays Harbor Designs

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 2:53 pm
by Zephyr
bezobrazov wrote:Ok, that's much more realistic! Now we'd only see which of our designs kicks the hell out of the other! 8-) :D :lol: ;)
Mine, of course. We're The Royal Navy [insert trumpet fanfare here], and we never lose. :lol:

Re: Grays Harbor Designs

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 3:19 pm
by Thiel
Zephyr wrote:[insert trumpet fanfare here]
*Fanfare*

Re: Grays Harbor Designs

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 3:32 pm
by Zephyr
Thiel wrote:
Zephyr wrote:[insert trumpet fanfare here]
*Fanfare*
PERFECT! :mrgreen: