Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake

Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> Scenario Design

Message

FDRLincoln -> Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 4:47:31 AM)
Conjectural British "Far East cruiser" Drake, based on expanded Hawkins-class hull. An image of what a British CA might look like in the mid-20s, unencumbered by Washington Treaty restrictions, in the Orange Dawn scenario. [image]local://upfiles/14706/C3EF03C8E5D14D28A7D520FE787B7B51.jpg[/image]

FDRLincoln -> RE: Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 7:17:21 PM)
I think the design posted above may be overgunned for the hull size. I am going to cut out parts of the secondary batteries, and reduce the ship from 8x9.2 to 6x9.2 main battery. Still effective for commerce raiding and heavy-cruiser duties but not as expensive to build, and a bit less like a small battlecruiser.

Tankerace -> RE: Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 9:27:04 PM)
I think she could maybe hold four sinlge 9.2s, but I don't think she would be beamy enough to handle twin mounts.

FDRLincoln -> RE: Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 9:39:41 PM)
Yes, that is quite possible. How about 4 single 9.2s, and a larger 4 inch battery? The ship is designed for commerce raiding and "show the flag" roles on distant stations. The 4 inchers would be useful against merchantmen, while the 9.2s provide good punch against any cruisers that show up. The ship would be fast enough to run away from battleships and older battlecruisers. On the other hand, would 4 single 9.2s provide enough hit probability at long range? Maybe we are findiing out why the nations settled on the 8 inch gun?

Tankerace -> RE: Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 9:49:05 PM)
I think you are right, this is the problems they wrestled with. 4 9.2s would have a considerable punch whilea total broadside would weigh 1,520 pounds. Now Hawkins 6 7.5" broadside (remember 1 gun couldn't fire on either broadside) weighs 1,200 pounds. So such a cruiser, while a less chance to hit, still has a heavier broadside than the preceeding class. Comparitively (using a US 8" Gun since the British don't have one yet) a 6 8" broadside would weigh 1,560 pounds, and an 8 gun broadside 2,080 pounds. So, using post treaty 8 inch guns (which are actually better in some respects) she can have a County style 2,080 pound broadside. But, in a logical 9.2" development of the Hawkins, without the treaty, she still gets a broadside increase of 320 pounds. If she could ship 5 9.2s (maybe lengthening the hull some 30 feet), with 2 forward, 2 rear, 1 in the center, her broadside weight would become 1,900 pounds, only 180 less than a historical County class cruiser, and 3 fewer mounts. SO my suggestion would be a slightly lengthened Hawkins, with 5 single 9.2"/50s.

FDRLincoln -> RE: Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 9:54:57 PM)
This is what it looks like with a reduced 9.2 battery. I am considering lengthening the hull to add an extra 9.2 as you suggest. [image]local://upfiles/14706/DE331ECC10AB4754A2843BBB4D1D9C17.jpg[/image]

KingMississippi -> RE: Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 10:03:57 PM)
Lengthening the hull would decrease the armor wouldnt it as you have the same mass of armor spread out on a bigger hull. But it would give it a slightly better speed though.

Tankerace -> RE: Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 10:05:25 PM)
Yeah, the new belt would probably be down to about 4.5-4 inches.

FDRLincoln -> RE: Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 10:07:37 PM)
yes, there will be a cascade effect. Longer hull, speed up to, say, 32 knots? But less armor density along the belt of course.

FDRLincoln -> RE: Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 10:25:49 PM)
How about this? [image]local://upfiles/14706/38C725D21DBC468C8C1A427D0118E20F.jpg[/image]

KingMississippi -> RE: Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 11:17:42 PM)
So basically you have a dual 9.2 in the bow and stern and a single 9.2 amidships. Or is there supposed to be 2 turrets each fore and aft.

Tankerace -> RE: Orange Dawn: Conjectural British CA Drake (12/3/2005 11:21:12 PM)
No, 2 Guns in the Bow, single mounts. Num is number of guns, turret is guns per turret. So, 2 and 1 is not a single twin mount, but two guns in single mounts. 4 2 would be two twin mounts.

FDRLincoln -> new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 5:31:41 PM)
Latest version of the conjectural Drake. I am satisfied with this design, that it is realistic and buildable. What do you guys think? [image]local://upfiles/14706/A26A9F9E7A3A4EFFB355DFA4A910F79C.jpg[/image]

Terminus -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 5:37:40 PM)
Looking very nice. How many are you planning to include?

FDRLincoln -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 5:54:45 PM)
Two: HMS Drake, begins game as Pacific Squadron flagship at Hong Kong. HMS Blake, arrives as a reinforcement some time in mid 1926, one of the first reinforcements despatched. According to the alternate history I'm working on, an additional ship of the class, Cochrane, was planned but cancelled due to the expense of the capital ship program. Or, perhaps, she was laid down but completed as an aircraft carrier. . .I haven't decided yet. . .

KingMississippi -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 7:15:34 PM)
Ok didnt realize that on the editor. Learn something new everyday.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 7:30:43 PM)
Have you designed her with "Springstyle"? If not, do you have handy things like Length, Beam, Draft, Displacement etc so I can get started? Steve.

Terminus -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 8:34:12 PM)
Isn't it called "SpringSharp"? Weird program, by the way. Seems like it's impossible to design something that the program doesn't characterize as "going to capsize" or "not long enough for that displacement".

FDRLincoln -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 8:49:00 PM)
I will springstyle her when I have time.

Tankerace -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 9:33:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FDRLincoln I will springstyle her when I have time. Sounds like some sort of Naval enuendo [:D]

Terminus -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 9:36:48 PM)
Huhhuhhuhhuh... Hey, baby, wanna Springstyle?... SLAP

FDRLincoln -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 9:49:06 PM)
I've messed around with the program and keep getting a "bad seaboat" result, even when starting from the real Hawkins specifications and expanding logically. If someone who is better at this than I am wants to tackle this, I was thinking that the ship would be a Hawkins-hull expanded by about 30 feet, with proportional increase in beam and draught. So far it hasn't preserved the seaworthiness of the original hull, but I'm not very experienced with springstyle/sharp whatever it is.

Terminus -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 10:14:26 PM)
Do the real Hawkins specs result in "bad seaboat" as well?

FDRLincoln -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/4/2005 10:56:28 PM)
not according to a springstyle profile I found on the web. I haven't typed them in myself.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/9/2005 11:37:07 AM)
If anyone can tell me / point me at the actual Hawkins parameters, I'll take a stab at this tonight. "Springstyle" is a windows app based on the original "Springsharp" program and algorythms. One place you can find it is here.

FDRLincoln -> RE: new screenshot of CA Drake (12/9/2005 6:44:24 PM)
Real-life Hawkins class measurements displacement 9800 tons Dimensions, 565 pp, 605 oa, Beam: 58 ft, 65 feet with bulges, draught mean 17.25, max 20.5 Propulsion: 4 shaft Parsons geared turbines, speed 29 to 31 knots depending on ship (each ship had slightly different shp due to differing machinery fit)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875