Shipbucket

If you are going to build quad turret cruisers it would be an acceptable thought that your battleships might also have quad turrets.



The major concern shown by the IRC workgroup was that the turrets were too big for the ship. So I have given some examples to show that the turrets would be capable of being carried by Nelson.

The 4.5" shown are the Modified Mark IV mounting designed by Rowdy36. The twin 40mm were the new mounting brought to RN notice by the Dutch and were designed by KHT.

I rather like this one. She'd be a fearsome adversary, as long as her turrets worked properly(then again, the teething problems of these turrets would have ample time before WW2 to be remedied, something that can't be said about most designs featuring quad turrets).

EDIT: Just noticed, the funnels look very thin, almost spindely. I think they can be widened by at least 30 %

Very very good .


My only question is should you put the rear funnel behind the props ?
The OTL ship had the boiler Rooms behind the turbine rooms to save length, how would this ship have them ? I'm just not sure if the turbine rooms will fit behind the funnel and in front of the prop ? Could you have them BR/TR/BR and space out the funnels ?

JSB

edit,
1) Will 80k SHP work with 2 props ?
2) Will having quads not make delays from the OTL due to OTL using the G3 design (a bit lightened).

you can't have the boilers and engine to far aft.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _1936).jpg

Heuhen, the .jpg tag should be within the URL tags of your post. Right now we only get a 404 message.
Either way, to save time:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _1936).jpg

Nice work, Krak! On balance, I do prefer the two quad arrangement to the real design, with that problematic C turret.

Just to throw this out...have you thought about a Gascoigne-style version with one quad forward and another aft? I'm not sure whether that would be a mechanical improvement, but it would make for an interesting drawing.

Thanks for your comments guys,

KHT:
The funnels should be fine, the area of the funnels themselves is greater than the Towns/Crown Colonys which had 80,000shp.

JSB:
The current layout is BR/ER/BR. 80,000shp on two shafts is fine. The Mogador type destroyers had over 100,000shp on two shafts.
The longest delay in time is always the production of the 16" guns themselves, the turrets to fit them in do not take as long to produce, so as long as the builders are notified of the change to quads early enough then it should not cause any delay at all.

Yasutomi:
Yes I did think about a Gascoigne style but the RN was playing with all forward which is what their war experience told them was best. I'm quite satisfied with the drawings I have done though if I get the urge at a later date, then I just might have a play with a fore and aft design.

If you are going BR/ER/BR is it worth splitting the funnels a bit more ?
Or making the front one look like its trunked from under the bridge ?

JSB

Nelson had BR/ER

Yes (OTL) but (on this ship),
a) that will involve very long shafts on this faster ship (with x2 the BRs)

b) Krakatoa has just said its BR/ER/BR.

So with BR/ER/BR the funnels will not be very close (unless they are trunked closer above deck ?).

JSB