Shipbucket

yep, but I posted that because a battlecruiser is something else then the slow coastal defence ship mentioned above for defence of the east indies.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

It is interesting for the Dutch that the SMS Oldenburg 12-12" (6x2) was scrapped in Holland. Who is to say for this challenge that the Dutch kept those 6 turrets and used them to either build 1 BC with 8x12" or 2 CDS with 6x12". The Dutch were very capable of building big ships but did not have the infrastructure to build heavy armour and large calibre weapons.



Something like this completed in 1928 may have looked better than the pocket battleships.

Looks nice,
the only problem I can see is that the guns are old and heavy, and the mounts only elevate up to 16.5% giving a low max range for 1930s (16.0 degrees 22,310 yards) v Pocket BBs (40.0 degrees 39,890 yards ), with better 1930s fire control I think this is a problem as IJN CAs 8 inch can range to 29,000 Yards(@ 40 deg).(they are faster so can control the range)(on the other hand if you hit a CA it will not be very happy)
I'm not sure if you can rebuild the mounts without just starting from new and then you might as well just go for new guns as well.

JSB

And it,s to big to be an CDS. Sverige class is the limit in length, after that you get pocket battleship or heavy cruiser. Just my opinion.

but that ship is not an CDS but more an BB.

I'm starting to wonder if I have to post an CDS in here to show you how an coastal battleship should look like, maximum.

A coastal battleship shall and should be small, have low draught, short, etc. All those things it needs to operate close to,the coast line. All ships I have seen to now is just to big for that.

JSB: refurbishing turrets to improve elevation was done by both the British and Italians. Their answer to the problem was to lower the floor of the turret to allow the guns to pivot further and thus increase the elevation and range. The British also introduced a 'super' shell to increase the range of their 15".

Heuhen: each country that built CDS to your style had island chains to defend at short range from their ports (Norway, Sweden, Finland & Thailand). They did not require blue water ships. KHT pointed out in an earlier post that each country that might build a CDS would have different requirements in both size and gunpower. The Dutch would want a blue water ship that could be used in both the North Sea and the Indies. Whereas Ecuador would require a ship big enough to defend the Galapagos turtles.

Seriously the number of countries available to have CDS built for them is small. You have the Scandinavian countries, Poland, Portugal, the South American countries without battleships already and a coast to defend, China, Thailand. Most of the rest of the world are still colonies of the major powers. I've left out Spain, Greece and Turkey as they had ships of this size or bigger already.

It is the country that is paying for the CDS that will define the situational requirements for each ship. I see a CDS as a reduced battleship, something between cruiser and battleship, which is exactly what the Washington and London Treaties tried to keep off the oceans.

Building a ship of CDS size between 1920-1930 at 10,000 tons (designed +/- 30%) will give ships like those designs already entered here.

Heuhen if you are going to design a CDS for here. Don't design one for Norway or other Scandinavian country. Do one for China, Holland, Venezuela. Something that takes you outside your comfort zone. Stipulate the country of origin, the country its for, and the situational requirements you see for a ship of the end user.

I know you draw excellent AU/PD designs (love your hulls, not so sold on your superstructures) so you should come up with something much more than one of my horrible kitbashes. Go for it!

I see what you are talking about, but then this challenge is about an coastal... Not ocean going... But I totally agree on the size, but I still think an Sverige class size, perhaps a bit longer for added fuel, is an ideal cheep coastal ship. Not to small to handle the ocean, not to big to operate close to the coast.

May I come with a suggestion? since the idea is to design a vessel that's to pass as under/around 10 000 tonnes, how 'bout we post all data for people to read - except the displacement? It's a little late, I know, but it will simulate to us the idea of nations having to figure out wether the others are "cheating" as such or not, based of what we know of armament, armour, and speed?

- The turrets have already been modified ( All ships as built: -8 / +13.5 degrees, After 1915: -5.5 to +16.0 degrees) so I'm not sure if you can keep doing it ?

- very few super shells where actually used (apart from to shoot across the channel)

- the old turrets are heavy (admittedly with more protection than you need), twin 12inch is 534/549 tons and the new triple 11 inch is 590 tons + that doesn't show up the extra weight of hull needed for 3 v 2 turrets.

Have you made a full spring sharp of the ship ? (and can you post for us to look at, so we can learn how you fitted it all in). Even if it dose spoil KHT excellent idea

Thanks for your excellent ship, I now maybe need to think of a different ship county to try

JSB

As I said, post all data, except the displacement.
Though I'm also interested in seeing how you managed all that equipment on that weight. A very interesting design, in either case.

I have a question ? what's an acceptable Block coefficient ? For a 10,000 ton ship ? (fast or slow just a range of ok number would be nice, I'm modelling some ships and thinking mine might be to low).

(Krakatoa ship comes out as .421 just for comparison, I hope my maths is right)

Thanks JSB