[Post Reply] [*]  Page 21 of 22  [ 216 posts ]  Go to page « 118 19 20 21 22 »
Author Message
Shigure
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: August 23rd, 2016, 4:45 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 398
Joined: May 25th, 2016, 2:05 pm
That sir is amazing! Well done!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: August 23rd, 2016, 6:07 am
Offline
Posts: 2350
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
An interesting take on an early carrier conversion. The problem we all have for kitbashing an early carrier is there are only the four countries to choose from, Japanese, US, French and the UK ones.

The only thing I would change is the bow. In converting to a carrier, the bow torpedo would have been removed, otherwise the conversion is quite possible. I did one at one stage that was a British conversion of one of the Russian Borodino class for a South American country (that also looked remarkably like a Courageous class), so your WIP has a good chance as any to have been done as you describe.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: August 23rd, 2016, 7:49 am
Offline
Posts: 5288
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
That is a fairly neat kitbash.
My concern would be that the island funnel is quite some distance ahead of the funnel of L20e. It would need to be some 90 pixels further aft unless you want to reroute the boiler uptakes forwards by some 45 feet and then upwards (of course you have to trunk them to one side anyway), it would be complicated though.
On the other hand, placing the island back 45 feet would start to encroach on the arrestor gear layout unless the aft pom-pom is moved.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Oberon_706
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: August 23rd, 2016, 2:34 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 202
Joined: April 1st, 2014, 12:17 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Thanks Gents, I'll have a look at what you've suggested. I agree that the limited number of first Generation Aircraft Carrier Nations is an impediment to creativity, but my AU Nation is a proud Dominion of the British Empire and thus I'm not too concerned. As my AU develops you'll find quite a few crossovers and even straight out copies of RN designs cropping up (as should be expected - just look at the history of the Australian and Canadian Navies), that said however, there will be plenty of originality too so stay interested.

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________

[ img ]
____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
adenandy
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: August 23rd, 2016, 3:18 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1282
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 1:46 am
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - God Save The King!
Considering (1) you're proud members of the Empire and therefore able to iron out ANY problems over a nice cuppa tea and; (2) both your SB and FD scale work is "Tip-Top" and; (3) you have cookies, we're not going anywhere my dear chap, what-what :!: :D

_________________
The Archive - http://shipbucket.com/index.php
NEW site - http://test.shipbucket.com/
The Forum - http://shipbucket.com/forums/search.php ... ive_topics
Misc Drawings - http://shipbucket.com/images.php?dir=Misc Drawings
Old Site - http://www.old.shipbucket.com/
SB IRC Channel - https://discordapp.com/channels/2880167 ... 5533166592


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Oberon_706
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: September 5th, 2016, 2:22 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 202
Joined: April 1st, 2014, 12:17 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Thanks for your contributions lads - very glad you're sticking around.


Ok there's a bit of a backstory to go with this puppy so please read carefully. As usual, constructive critique/comment is encouraged and i'll take on board any suggestions as I continue to develop things.


DCFI - Chatham Class Light Cruiser (1913-1948)


[ img ]

The Chatham class cruisers of the DCFI (known as the City class locally) were a product of First Sea Lord Sir Jackie Fishers’ Dominion Fleet Scheme which aimed to produce independent naval squadrons for service in the Dominions forming the farthest reaches of the Empire. Only Australia and the DCFI bought into the idea wholesale, each ordering such an array and quantity of vessels as to enable the creation of balanced, independent navies of their own (Canada, India, Malaya and New Zealand funded major capital ships of the Royal Navy but still, largely, relied on the Royal Navy for defence of their sea approaches and protection of their trades).
DCFI’s agreement with the Royal Navy and British shipbuilders was by far the greater of the two fleet unit packages; where Australia ordered and received a Battlecruiser, three Light Cruisers and a small flotilla of Destroyers, the DCFI ordered three Battlecruisers, ten Light Cruisers (six to be indigenously built) and a flotilla of 10 destroyers (to be added to by local builds). The cruisers supplied were a development of the Town class light cruiser series of the Royal Navy - long, sleek and fast (27 knots +) ships equipped with a powerful main armament of 8x 6” Mark XI guns in single mountings and two (submerged) torpedo tubes. Armour along its flanks was a maximum of 3” thick and tapered to half that at bow and stern.

The first tranche of four ships, were laid down in UK yards during 1911 and delivered along with their Battlecruiser compatriots during 1913. These vessels, HMFS Waverley, Skye, Stanley, Grytviken, were joined within a year by the first of 6 additional members of the class (Hawick, Sterling, Aberdeen, Stranraer, Argyll and Gleneagles) which were completed in the DCFI during WWI (two to replace classmates lost in the conflict). They served widely during the War, escorting convoys and participating in fleet and squadron actions against the Germans in the Atlantic, Pacific, Mediterranean and North Seas. HMFS Grytviken and Waverley participated in the pursuit and destruction of the Asiatic Squadron of Admiral Graf Von Spee off the DCFI in 1914, Grytviken later going on to sink the Light Cruiser Dresden off the Pacific coast of Chile after a massive search of the Magellan archipelago. They participated in the North Sea Blockade, supported the Gallipoli landings, fought at the battles of Dogger Bank, Heligoland Bight and Jutland. HMFS Stranraer participated in the Zebrugge raid during which she was so badly damaged that she barely made it back to Rosyth and was set to be scrapped. However, the loss during the previous 18 months of Stanley, Hawick and several destroyers to U-Boats and Mine strikes in the North Sea and Baltic approaches meant that the RFN needed every ship it could, so she was instead taken in hand at Chatham Naval Dockyard for significant (and costly) repairs, finally returning to the fleet in 1919.

Postwar, the eight surviving members of the class spent varying periods cycled in and out of reserve as newer ships of the Elusive and Ethereal Classes (Based on the Hawkins class design of 1915) took over the first line roles in peacetime. By the mid-late 1920’s however, the South Atlantic and South America was an increasingly troubled region with Argentina, Brazil and other regional powers increasingly throwing their weight around. In response to this, the Admirals of the DCFI saw a need to increase the size and firepower of the RFN to safeguard the sea lanes and territorial waters of the DCFI. Whilst new ships were laid down, reconstruction and upgrading of older ships in the fleet was also undertaken (under an optimistic interpretation of the WNT rules) to save time and resources. A comprehensive reconstruction (based on the Elusive class) was devised for the Chatham class, but it was discovered that the existing hull was far too restrictive for the modifications and upgrades desired. Taken in hand for a revised refit by Hawick Naval Dockyard during 1927, HMFS Skye emerged the following year a completely revitalised and significantly more effective Man-O-War, despite the downward revision in the project’s scope. Her old guns and superstructure removed to the level of the main deck and foc’sle, her engines and machinery spaces gutted, the near bare hull was reconstructed with new generation yarrow boilers and parson turbines with two funnels in place of the original four. New deckhouses and upper works increased her accommodations and allowed for the mounting of two twin 21” torpedo launchers amidships on either flank. Gunnery was totally revitalised by the addition of new rangefinders fore and aft and new director control equipment atop the foremast. 4 of the 8 x 6” guns of the refurbished main armament were arranged on the centreline in a super-firing configuration fore and aft, secondary armament consisted of the torpedo launchers amidships and 2 positions for quad Pom-Pom mountings at the step of the quarterdeck. The ships boat deck was located aft of the funnels atop the superstructure where the ships boat crane and cradle for a Walrus seaplane were also located. This comprehensive reconstruction resulted in a far more capable ship that was barely recognisable as compared to it’s now obsolete classmates. The only weaknesses in this transformation was the resultant ship was still only very lightly armoured, and carried a minimum of AA defenses, an Achillies heel that would cost the class dearly in later years. Stability issues from the reconstruction were resolved in subsequent ships with ballasting changes and the addition of larger bilge keels.

[ img ]

Five of the class (Skye, Aberdeen, Grytviken, Argyll, Gleneagles) were eventually reconstructed, the last entering the yards for transformation just weeks before Argentina invaded in June, 1929. All members of the class (original and rebuilt) saw service in the ensuing conflict, Waverley, Sterling, Stranraer, Skye and Argyll being involved in the Battle of San Matias (15 February, 1930) where Waverley blew up and sank thanks to a direct hit on her magazines by plunging fire from the pre-dreadnought Moreno. Stranraer and Sterling were both crippled in the same action, resulting in their disposal and scrapping immediately after the war. Argyll, Grytviken and Gleneagles took part in the second battle of the Falkland Islands a month later when their squadron engaged and nearly wiped out an Argentinian flotilla of similar size, the advanced fire control slaved to the main armament allowed accurate, ranged fire from the first salvo, proving too much for the aggressive but ill-trained Argentinians (Torpedo Bombers from HMFS Vigorous also participated in this action). After the ceasefire treaty was signed in 1931, Stanley and Hawick (both largely in 'as built' condition) were decommissioned and scrapped relatively quickly, whilst their rebuilt sisters soldiered on in service, finding a niche role as flagships of the various Escort Flotillas that guarded the long convoy routes north to the central Atlantic and the UK, a role that would become vitally important in the coming renewal of world war.

On the declaration of war with Germany in 1939, the RFN immediately swung into action as the protector of the empire’s merchant shipping in the region, escorting convoys too and from Australia, South Africa and England. The remaining Chatham’s served vital role’s in this regard, providing support to convoys as flagships of the various escort groups. Used solely for this task throughout the conflict, two of the class were lost in action; Grytviken was sunk by the German Pocket Battleship, Deutschland off the Brazilian coast during July 1940, sparking a frenetic hunt across the South Atlantic and the Caribbean that resulted in the cornering and destruction of the Commerce Raider off the Azores three months later. Gleneagles was lost the following year in a U-boat attack off St Helena. HMFS Skye scored a major success, sinking the German Merchant raider Widder in March 1940 off the northern tip of New Zealand whilst escorting a Australia-bound convoy to Sydney via Auckland. Despite some close shaves (mainly due to air and submarine attack) the remainder of the class survived the war to be decommissioned and scrapped during 1946/7, but HMFS Skye was retained and recommissioned as an alongside sea training ship, before being permanently moored in her namesake port as a floating museum in 1979.

Last Edited: 02/07/2017

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________

[ img ]
____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation


Last edited by Oberon_706 on July 2nd, 2017, 12:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Garlicdesign
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: October 3rd, 2016, 1:34 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 829
Joined: December 26th, 2012, 9:36 am
Location: Germany
Hi Oberon!

First, thanks for crediting me, although I don't quite see what for - there's nothing from me in the first drawing, and only the main turrets in the second, no need to credit these.

Second, the 1930s fit might just be viable for the Mediterranean on a sunny day, but in the South Atlantic I would not advise to leave port in that one. Krakatoa jumped into my brain for a much less overloaded design not long ago, so I think I point that one out before he comes and seriously insults you ;). A 152mm twin turret on a barbette - such as the one you mounted, which I drew for 140mm guns - weighs a lot more than two single 152mm centre pivot mounts, and each 102mm twin also weighs at least as much as a 152mm mount. Add the catapult and the deck torpedo tubes, and the ship is irredeemably overweight.

My two cents to improve it:
- if it was reboilered, there will be fewer boilers than before, so smaller funnels will suffice.
- I don't think more than six 152mm can be shipped; I'd replace one with a quad Pompom.
- 1930 is too early for 102mm twins; I'd mount singles, and only four of them. The position on the aft deck is likely to cut under at speed.
- I'm not sure a Town-class hull has enough beam for an athwartships catapult.
- I don't know what the light flaks abreast the aft funnel are; the RN did not use Oerlikons prior to 1939, and would have preferred 12,7mm HMGs in 1930.

Sorry for this somewhat destuctive critique, but I like the general idea of a modernized Town class, so I'd like to see you improve it.

Greetings
GD


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: October 3rd, 2016, 7:27 pm
Offline
Posts: 2350
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Unfortunately Oberon_706 I have to agree with GD.

I like the look of the ship and have a design similar to yours and GD's with 8 x 5.5" but it is on a 505x53 foot hull. The Towns at 450x48 feet would be overloaded with the armament you have placed aboard them. It is the topweight that is the killer for warships. The more weight you add to a design the more you have to take out to balance the ship. If you add a new fire control unit to the top of the foretop of your mast then you add, say 2 tons 75 feet above the main deck of the hull. The higher you mount something on a ship the more it 'weighs' when calculating its affect on the ship. So something like 10 tons of weight would need to be removed at main deck level to balance the new fire control system. That would be something like your two sets of torpedoes being removed.

I would think that you could have one twin 6" forward but I would keep the 6" single mounts for the other 4-5 mountings (same layout as HMS Emerald which was completed in 1928). The original Town class only had a 5x6" broadside, so if you can equal or exceed that by putting guns on the centreline you will still be on to a winner, and give yourself some more 'topweight savings' that you can expend on anti-aircraft weapons (single 4", quad 2 pounder, quad 0.5"mg) Only having the one twin 6" forward allows you to lower the bridge by one deck to save some more weight that you can then spend elsewhere.

I can not see the cross deck catapult working unfortunately, they were not introduced till the Southampton class (also fitted to County class cruisers during their later refits) with their 60 odd feet of beam. Put on some smaller funnels and move the bridge forward and you should have room for a turntable catapult in the same position. Everything is going to be tight and you will be trading one thing out to be able to fit another one in as you try to fit what is mounted on a 550x56 foot hull on your 450x48 foot hull.

I will be interested to see what else you come up with.

Please remember when doing crediting, your name comes last on the trail, for these you would have Youboat / Rodondo / Oberon_706.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Oberon_706
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: October 4th, 2016, 12:33 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 202
Joined: April 1st, 2014, 12:17 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Thanks for the input Gents, very much appreciated.

I was aware that what I'd come up with may be a little top-heavy but somehow I neglected to think about the narrow beam... back to the drawing board i guess. What I am trying to achieve in the AU timeline is advances in ship and naval weapons design that are a few years ahead of the RN in certain areas, so the idea of weapons on DCFI ships that didn't appear in the Royal Navy till a few years later is something I can deal with.

a reworked version of this won't happen overnight but definitely watch this space!

Cheers

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________

[ img ]
____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Oberon_706
Post subject: Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AUPosted: January 19th, 2017, 12:29 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 202
Joined: April 1st, 2014, 12:17 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Guys I have reworked the images for the Cruiser above based on your suggestions - please let me know what you think. I know I can draw tanks fairly well but my Ship-drawing needs a lot of help.

Cheers

_________________
"Come to the Dark Side... We have Cookies!"
____________________________________________

[ img ]
____________________________________________
Current Worklist;

DCFI (Falkland Islands) AU Nation


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 21 of 22  [ 216 posts ]  Return to “Beginners Only” | Go to page « 118 19 20 21 22 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


Contact us | The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited