Very nice cruiser, Krakatoa, but her name??? Isn't that rather an unfortunate choice?
Is she really that leaky??? 
| Shipbucket http://shipbucket.com/forums/ |
|
| Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5280 |
Page 18 of 22 |
| Author: | bezobrazov [ August 2nd, 2014, 8:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU |
Very nice cruiser, Krakatoa, but her name??? Isn't that rather an unfortunate choice? Is she really that leaky???
|
|
| Author: | Krakatoa [ August 2nd, 2014, 8:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU |
I was originally going to name it Inconstant after a cruiser in one of JE Macdonnell's books, but my fingers slipped 
|
|
| Author: | JSB [ August 2nd, 2014, 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU |
The main problem IMO with just having 2 turrets in a tin clad is that you might lose 50% to one hit  .And you do have a lot on that ship (I'm no expert) but all the enclosed 4 inch and that many directors cant be light ? I give you my next try, A SUPER destroyer (very super  ) I have taken a tribal and made it bigger (till its almost a CL). This should have, - good range - good in big weather in the ocean - may be built without a belt/turrets so can maybe be built in FI.(with as few parts from UK as possible) - cheaper and will still fight an AMC ![[ img ]](http://www.majhost.com/gallery/JSB/Shipbucket/ficlsuperdd2.png) JSB edit, made hull a bit deeper. |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ August 2nd, 2014, 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU |
if that still has an destroyer hull, it is going to be quite unstable. the decks look too be quite high, and the draft is quite low. you also lack any space for air intakes for the boilers. |
|
| Author: | Krakatoa [ August 2nd, 2014, 10:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU |
Ok - same hull as before, but maybe a bit overgunned. So go to a DP armament. I've kept the hull the same to keep the hangar and cross deck catapult. ![[ img ]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/hazq62y5hkr80h0/HMS_Inconstant_CL-1936.PNG) This gives both the CL / Super DD type armaments while still being of a reasonable size. Cured its leaky problems too!
|
|
| Author: | Oberon_706 [ August 4th, 2014, 1:44 am ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU | |
The destroyer below I did for heavy weather areas with twin 4" in light turrets, gives the guns crews a bit of cover in freezing conditions.
![[ img ]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/sa3ra3bzym11cb7/BNS_Manaus_%28DDL-1934%29.PNG) Is that the sort of thing you are looking for? Thanks Krakatoa I love this! - and would consider it as a pre-war Destroyer/Destroyer Leader option, but not in place of a light cruiser. |
||
| Author: | Oberon_706 [ August 4th, 2014, 4:39 am ] | |||
| Post subject: | Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU | |||
Thanks all for your contributions along this line of thinking, For my part (as original author of the thread and the Falklands AU)
Do tell me to stop if you don't want random ideas .JSB I'll repost this so you don't have to go looking for it
Falklands Military.
Cheers
- Naval Forces - Royal Falklands Naval Service – Pennant = His/Her Majesty’s Falklands Ship (HMFS) - Began out of Falklands Contributions to Royal Navy South Atlantic squadron during and post WWI. - Defined as a distinct Naval Service with own ships and Pennant as early as 1919 – Formalized after 1921. - Has seen combat service during WWII, Korea, Falkland’s War (1978), Operation Shepherd (Protection of Mediterranean sea-lanes during Anglo-Spanish conflict over Gibraltar during late 1990’s), and ongoing Anti-Piracy operations east of Suez. - Currently operates some 30 Major Warships and support assets. Fleet Air Arm operates fixed wing and rotary wing assets in support of fleet operations. Initial Force Composition on Creation (1935) - 5 x D class Destroyers – in service from 1935 Darwin (Sunk–1944) Duty (Sunk-1941) Dire (Sunk-1941) Dagger Diamond - 4 x H Class Destroyers – In Service from 1937 Hercules (Sunk-1939) Halcyon Hyperion Huntress - 2 x ‘Improved Exeter’ (Falkland) Class 8" Heavy Cruisers – In Service from 1937 Falkland Falconer - 4 x Indelible Class 6” Light Cruisers Indelible Inexorable Impeccable Interdictor Additional Forces (war orders + Royal Navy in-Conflict Transfers) - 3 x Castle Class Corvettes Allington Castle (Sunk) Lancaster Castle (Sunk) Farnham Castle (Sunk) - 5 x Flower Class Escort Sloops Saunders (Sunk) Sedge (Damaged) Steeple Sturdee (Sunk) Beaver - 5 x Bathurst Class Escort Minesweepers SeaLion (Transferred-RN) Tyssen (Transferred-RN) Speedwell (Sunk) Stanley San Carlos - 6 x Hunt Class Destroyers (Various Marks) Hugo (Mk1 – Sunk) Headland (Mk 1 – Sunk) Hussar (Mk IV) Hoplite (Mk IV) Hercules (Mk IV) Hustler (MK III) - 3 x Crown Colony Class 6" Cruisers South Georgia (Sunk) Orkney Shetland - 1 x 'Improved Exeter' Class 8" Heavy Cruiser Forceful - 2 x Auxiliary Cruisers/Troop Transports Southern Conveyor Southern Commodore - 4 x T Class Submarines Trenchant Taciturn (Sunk – all hands) Terrible Turbulent - 1 x Submarine Depot Ship Grytviken - 1 x Destroyer Tender Mechanist - 3 x Underway Replenishment oilers/Colliers Sustenance Supply Storesman - 1 x Majestic Class Aircraft Carrier Pioneer (Air group of Seafires and Barracudas) |
||||
| Author: | Oberon_706 [ August 4th, 2014, 4:42 am ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU | |
I too have tried small 6" cruisers in the past, for what I will describe as heavy weather nations. For that reason I keep the main and secondaries in turrets, no open mounts till the AA.
This is looking promising! I'd like to see how this one develops, perhaps on a crown colony-derived hull?
![[ img ]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/36g3p3j1jw9a4ag/HMS_Incontinent_CL-1936.PNG) This does give a cruiser about the length of an Arethusa, a bit slower, but much more capable. |
||
| Author: | JSB [ August 4th, 2014, 6:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU |
1) In terms of gun mounts, I'm sure closed turrets are better but if open mounts escorted the Russian convoys then will they not suffice for the FI ? (and closed mounts will eat up more industrial resources that the FI probably doesn't have in the build up to WW2) 2) I promise I will try to keep to your line up (mostly  ) its just that I think its a bit heavy biased (and to much is not buildable in the FI, look at the RAN,RCN lists).JSB |
|
| Author: | Krakatoa [ August 4th, 2014, 10:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU |
Sorry JSB, But the open mounts on UK ships were purely weight/cost considerations. Since the UK held itself up as the shining light for keeping within Treaty restrictions, it was forever fighting the weight war in size and armament to displacement restrictions, which most other countries ignored. Once WW2 started ease of construction took precedence and the O-S classes of destroyers, destroyer escorts, frigates etc used what was already in production, it wasn't till 1943 that the destroyers changed from the 4.7" (in use since 1917-18) to the 4.5" size which is still the common UK gun size (though it has gone through a few marks since then). Also the Russian convoys would have loved escorts with enclosed turrets, they just did not have them. It is worth reading the books about the Russian Convoys and the conditions faced by the sailors that sailed in them. The book on PQ-17 is well worth a read. If you are able to fit enclosed turrets on your ships then you do so. |
|
| Page 18 of 22 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|