Shipbucket
http://shipbucket.com/forums/

Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU
http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5280		 Page 19 of 22
Author:  Blackbuck [ August 4th, 2014, 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU
Well. It's now reasonably complete (save for the crane etcetera)...

[ img ] Fully loaded
[ img ] Austere load

[ img ]

Some addendum however.

* I'm not sure on the HACS/HADT arrangement
* There are good enough weight reserves in the design to be able to bulk out AAA and electronic fits as required
* The chine has been continued to to the end of the forecastle so that it blends better with the deck lines.
* As with my far South AU I decide to incorporate a weatherproofed (non structural or armoured) bridge/lookout for the sake of crew comfort. Though the open 4" mounts sort of nullify my efforts there.

~Mark.

ETA: Added 'austere' scheme
Author:  JSB [ August 4th, 2014, 7:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU
Blackbuck,
Love it :D.

The only questions I would have are do you really need 4 AA directors ? (Think 2 would be more like some early CLs).
Would 29.5Kn be ok ? Not sure you wouldn't want to keep 32Kn like other RN CLs so you can operate with them or runaway from bigger ships ?
Krakatoa wrote:
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.
I totally agree but I just don't think the FI can build (or buy them in from UK), in the 37-43 period anything other than standard RN (or maybe at a pinch USN), it will be very hard to buy (and the FI probably doesn't have the industry) to build such specialised kit in numbers.

JSB
Author:  Blackbuck [ August 4th, 2014, 7:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU
It's actually 3 and the director tower, originally it was two without a director tower and that... To my knowledge wouldn't actually work. That's what you get for not being well versed in older systems :{

29.5knots is fine for what it's meant to do (hunting AMCs in the South Atlantic) It's not a line cruiser by any stretch of the imagination.
If I wanted to keep 32 knots I wouldn't have even bothered with these in the first place and just gone with the Arethusa from the outset.
Author:  JSB [ August 4th, 2014, 9:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU
Yes I have very little knowledge about them as well :( .

But (just from shipbucket),
leanders seam to have 1 (of something) in 39.
Arethusia seams to have 2 (one tower/director ?) in 42
Crown colony's seams to have 3 (1 and 2 ?) in 45

also I think that some BBs didn't have loads of them in 39,
Royal Oak has 2 (in 37)
Valiant has 2 (in 41)

This makes me think they are rare and expensive things so 4 (3 and 1) on your ship may be to much (or may be fine as well I'm not sure :( ).

(2nd minor point is that your tower also has radar above it is that right for 39 ?)

JSB
Author:  Blackbuck [ August 4th, 2014, 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU
Well, navweaps lists all RN cruisers save for HMS Aurora and all of the Dido/Bellona class as having 3 HACS directors the latter having two. So in theory for a brand new set of hulls the three director arrangement appears to be correct.

As for radar, it's the right period for the specific radar that's on there. Whether you'd be high enough up the list to get it though is another matter :P
Author:  Hood [ August 5th, 2014, 7:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU
Excellent work Blackbuck, she now looks much more seaworthy and battleworthy. I really like the looks, half-way between the Leanders and the Southamptons - a bit like a missing link.

I think 2 HACS would be the most for 1939, I'm sure the Arethusas and Leanders only had two at this stage and the Towns had to make do (From memory, I think the original design only had two HACS but a third was added aft when the ships were being built, the Gloucester sub-class). HACS, like multiple pom-poms, were always in short supply and at this time you've got the C Class conversions and the Wair Conversions and the Hunts all clamouring for HACS not to mention every other major ship in the navy!
Three might suffice, but I'm not sure how you would arrange those on this vessel, perhaps two sided aft and one centreline forward behind the director?
Author:  Blackbuck [ August 5th, 2014, 8:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU
Cheers. Despite that I'd never have bought one I do like the look of her (I'd have probably built them slightly larger).

I could go with just the two amidships sets to begin with, ship something like a quad 12.7 or something similar where the aft one would eventually go?

Alternatively I could do an austere and full scheme, one with all the trimmings and one befitting the out of the way nature of the Falklands...
Author:  Oberon_706 [ August 14th, 2014, 6:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU
JSB wrote:
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 :twisted:) 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
Closed gun mounts are good - especially given the potentially rough conditions in the South Atlantic, It's an AU so i think saying that such mounts exist isn't too much of a stretch.

As for industrial capacity; do not forget that in this AU the falklands by 1939 has a similar population to Australia (approximately 7 Million) and as such a small bus significant ship and armaments manufacturing capacity is well within it's means. All the technical know-how comes from the Mother Country, and the raw materials come from other parts of the empire such as Australia, India and the Middle east (hence the convoy protection focus of the Royal falklands Navy and Air Forces).

I intend to detail the particulars of the Falklands indigenous shipbuilding capacity as part of the History of this AU.
Author:  Oberon_706 [ August 14th, 2014, 7:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU
Something to restart discussion.

Aircraft of the fleet air arm are displayed by categorys; Fighter/Interceptors, Torpedo/Dive Bombers, AEW&C, Ship-board spotter planes, Trainers, Land-based patrol/ASW and Rotary Wing.

The version of the CAC Boomerang and the Gloster Peregrine are aircraft i've adapted/created for this AU;

- The CAC Boomerang MkIV is an AU version of the original CAC product tailored for naval applications. It features an upgraded engine in the the form of the bristol Hercules/Centaurus radial, as well as improved laminar flow wings and bubble canopy for improved pilot viability. It's main armament consists of two aden cannon and two .50 machine guns. In this form it is more than a match for most axis aircraft it will likely come up against in RFN deployments during WWII and the immediate post-war era. It will replace the T6 Texan as the FAAs Primary flight trainer in the post-war years.

- The Gloster Peregrine is a 'what-if' aircraft based on upgrading the proposed Gloster F5.34 fighter design to something that could well have been a contemporary of aircraft such as the P-51, later marks of spitfire and the Hawker Typhoon/Tempest/Fury design series of fighters. It shares the same Bristol Hercules/Centaurus Radial engine as the latter family of designs, and carries the same basic armament/s.

Royal Falklands Navy - Fleet Air Arm (1939-1955)

[ img ]
Royal Falklands Navy - Fleet Air Arm (1955-1980)

[ img ]

Royal Falklands Navy - Fleet Air Arm (1980-2014)space saver

Work on my WWII Ships of the Fleet is continuing but will likely take some time as i'm back in the throws of a Uni semester now.

Cheers
Author:  Oberon_706 [ November 28th, 2014, 5:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Preliminary thread for a future Falkland Islands AU
Some of the SB Scale Aircraft art i've been doing to facilitate aspects of both DCFI AUs

P61 Black Widow

[ img ]

Shinmaywa US-1 Flying Boat

[ img ]

Martin P5M Marlin Flying Boat

[ img ]

Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer

[ img ]

CAC CA-19 Boomerang 2

[ img ]

Focke-Wulf 190/Boeing P42A Shrike

[ img ]

T28 Trojan

[ img ]

Vickers Valiant

[ img ]

E1-A/D Tracer (S2 Tracker Airframe)

[ img ]

DHC-4 Caribou

[ img ]

Bristol Beaufighter

[ img ]

Short Empire flying boat

[ img ]

Edit:
06/12/14 - added DHC-4 Caribou
07/12/14 - added Bristol Beaufighter
20/02/15 - added Short Empire
Page 19 of 22 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/