Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 5  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: United States Navy: An Alternate TakePosted: September 10th, 2019, 2:11 am
Offline
Posts: 3532
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: Website, Skype, YouTube
I for one would like to see the Chinese ships...I am intrigued. :)

As for other designs, maybe IJN BBs with 15-inch guns, i.e, revamped Kongo, Fuso, and Ise-classes?

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - present

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: United States Navy: An Alternate TakePosted: September 13th, 2019, 2:03 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1844
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
Here is the first wave of foreign ships.

First up is the Chinese battleship Zhongguo as envisioned in 1912.

With limited funds and infrastructure, China could neither afford, nor comfortable operate large battleships. Yet, they needed a counter to the Japanese Kawachii class. They turned to American shipyards for a design of a battleship that was not very big, yet, had enough firepower and protection to be relevant. Speed and range was not considered of great importance. The end result was a battleship that was armed with 8x12/45 caliber guns in four twin turrets, one pair superfiring fore and aft. The secondary battery consisted of 22x5"/51 caliber guns and 6x3/50 caliber guns for use aginst mtbs. With a modest top speed of 20 knots and an 11 inch armor belt the pair of ships would give China much greater capability agains any nation attempting to attack.

Chinese Battleship Zhongguo as deisgned in 1909:
[ img ]

The Zhongguo as planned did not survive that long. With Japan moving to 14 inch guns, China would be behind. There was no way they could get more battleships than the two that was laid down. Thus, China ordered the cessation of construction of the two battleships, and would have them redesigned to take 14 inch guns. The ships were lengthened by 18 meters and widened to 28 meters from 26. The 6 single purpose 3 inch guns were exchanged for 4 dual-purpose 3 inch guns. The armor was increased to 13 inches. The completion of the first ship would be delayed with 3 years, from 1912 to 1915, allowing the Chinese to expand docks and yards to better accomodate the larger ships.

Chinese Battleship Zhongguo as commisioned in 1915:
[ img ]

China was supposed to get a pair of battlecruiser to go alongside the battleships, but found that they were unable to pay for two full-size battlecruisers. An alternative was put forward by the Fore River Shipyards. The design was for a "dreadnought-type" cruiser. It was to be armed with 12x10"/45 caliber guns in superfiring guns fore and aft with two wing mounted guns en-echelon. The seoncdary battery consisted of 19x5"/51 caliber guns and for 3 inch AA guns. Though almost as big as the 1909 design for the Zhongguo, it was much faster at 27 knots. She was also significantly lighter with an armor belt of 6 inches. The Shǎndiàn would be the largest, and most powerful non-battlecruiser cruiser in the world for almost two decades. The Shǎndiàn was commisioned in 1915 with great fanfare.

Chinese Cruiser Shǎndiàn as commisioned in 1915:
[ img ]

Lastly is the Brazilian Battleship Riachuelo as designed in 1914. It wont need that much introduction as it is a variant of the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge classes, but for Brazil.

In 1913-1914 Brazil contacted British shipyards for the design of a new battleship. Vickers came up with design 781, heavily based on the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge classes, it was armed with 8x15"/42 caliber guns. The secondary battery consisted of 14x6"/45 caliber guns and 10x3inch QF guns. The AA suite consisted of 4x3inch AA guns and 8x2pdr HA guns. With a powerful battery of 15 inch guns, an armor belt of 13 inches and a top speed of 22 knots, the Riachuelo was a top of the line ship as planned in 1914.

Brazilian Battleship Riachuelo as designed in 1914:
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: United States Navy: An Alternate TakePosted: September 13th, 2019, 3:43 am
Offline
Posts: 3532
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: Website, Skype, YouTube
Awesome!!!

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - present

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: United States Navy: An Alternate TakePosted: September 14th, 2019, 1:56 pm
Offline
Posts: 6583
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
The Chinese and Brazilian ships are very interesting and well drawn designs.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: United States Navy: An Alternate TakePosted: September 14th, 2019, 2:49 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1844
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
Thanks for the kind words. I am currently working on the semi-realistic notion that Canada would have 3 QE class ships built for them. In real life, the parliament voted against this. So I am wondering, are there any modifications that might have been made to make them better suited for Canadian use?

Over at Wolf's shipyards, Wolf made the Canadian QEs have their secondary battery moved into the superstructure, is this realistic for the QE class?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: United States Navy: An Alternate TakePosted: September 15th, 2019, 9:28 am
Offline
Posts: 6583
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Yes I think that is a more than feasible evolution depending on the timing of your AU QEs. If they are laid down around 1914 then they could easily have received higher casemates.
You could explore some of the features of the planned Agincourt for inspiration. The U4 and U5 I drew a few years ago were more radical proposals for the Canadian ships but I doubt they would have actually been built in that form.

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


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: United States Navy: An Alternate TakePosted: September 15th, 2019, 3:18 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1844
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
I've finished on the first of the Canadian QE class battleships; the HMCS Acadia. The Acadia replaces the HMS Agincourt. Two more would follow. The Quebec was commisioned in 1918, and the Ontario would be commisioned in 1923. The last two were heavily delayed by the war, and the need for more escorts for anti-submarine duty to protect the convoys. There were some minor changes done to better accomodate the ships for Canadian service, such as a fully enclosed spotting top.

HMCS Acadia as commisioned in 1916:
[ img ]


Last edited by Karle94 on September 17th, 2019, 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: United States Navy: An Alternate TakePosted: September 16th, 2019, 12:21 am
Offline
Posts: 3532
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: Website, Skype, YouTube
Very nice work!

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - present

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rainmaker
Post subject: Re: United States Navy: An Alternate TakePosted: September 16th, 2019, 3:37 am
Offline
Posts: 139
Joined: August 2nd, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal, QC
Great work but check your Canadian flags ;) The Maple Leaf flag didn't come into existence until 1965.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: United States Navy: An Alternate TakePosted: September 16th, 2019, 11:34 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1844
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
Officially it became the flag in 1965, but has been a symbol of Canada since the 1700s, at least according to wikipedia. Do you guys think I should keep the hull plating, or is it too distracting?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 5  [ 49 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


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


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]