HOME | DD
TheoComm — Project 115 class Heavy Cruiser
#cruiser #dunkerque #fictional #heavycruiser #military #moskva #nationstates #navy #rendered #warship #wwii #prinzeugen
Published: 2017-03-30 05:40:58 +0000 UTC; Views: 16519; Favourites: 157; Downloads: 192
Redirect to original
Description
Project 115 was a class of six large heavy cruisers built for the Hosh Navy between 1939 to 1943 and represent the pinnacle of Hosh ship building prior to the end of the war.Armed with twelve 8.9'' (225mm) autoloading guns in three turrets, C-144 to C-149 were originally designed as cruiser-killers, capable of outranging and defeating destroyers and other cruisers while remaining fast enough to escape larger capital ships. In addition, the Project 115 cruisers carried extensive anti-aircraft armament to combat the growing use of aircraft in battles with the Coalition in order to lessen their burden on the dedicated anti-aircraft cruisers already tasked with escorting the older warships built before the Coalitions near prolific use of aircraft.
Unfortunately, they were introduced far too late into the war to make much of a difference, as the Hosh have already suffered heavy losses, and their use consumed resources that could have been used on carriers.
All but C-149 participated in naval battle. All but C-149 were sunk by the end of the war; C-149 was given to the Frankish Republics as compensation after the war.
Displacement:
15,980 t light; 16,901 t standard; 19,213 t normal; 21,062 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(700.72 ft / 687.99 ft) x 67.59 ft x (24.93 / 26.87 ft)
(213.58 m / 209.70 m) x 20.60 m x (7.60 / 8.19 m)
Installed Power:
138,928 shp / 103,640 Kw
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, geared drive, 4 shafts
Speed:
33 knots
Range:
Range 8,000nm at 19.00 kts
Compliment:
815 - 1,050
Armaments:
12 × 8.9” (225mm)/45 cal. guns in three four-gun turrets
18 × 3.9” (100mm)/40 cal. DP guns in nine two-gun turrets
40 × 30mm/60 cal. AA guns in ten quadruple mounts
6 × 24''(610mm) torpedo tubes
Armor:
Belt - Main: 150mm @ 10° incline
Belt - Upper: 75mm
Bulkhead: 75mm
Deck - Fore&Aft: 100mm (multiple decks)
Turret - Main: 200mm
Conning tower: 150mm
Based mainly on the Dunkerque, with some influences from German and Russian cruisers.
EDIT: Remade the ship in springsharp. It works now
Related content
Comments: 31
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you sure this won't capsize? Like look at it's super structure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dunno, stole the design from the french lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If only Saint Louie was a mini Alsace. Love it, could I use it for a book? I’ll give credit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure, as long as I get credit that would be fantastic
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
love your designs, especially they way they combine multiple real designs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're not gonna get a 42,000t vessel to go up to 33kts with only 120,000 shp, unless it's a absurdly efficient hull form. Washington Treaty cruisers of ~10,000t needed ~100,000 shp to get up to +30kt, and ships much lighter than your's here needed closer to 200,000 shp to reach 30kt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
large heavy cruiser? isn't that a battlecruser or fast battle ship?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A large cruiser, such as the Alaska class, is merely an evolution of existing treaty cruisers, to be better, stronger, a supercruiser to beat the shit out of said existing treaty cruisers.
To quote Conway's all the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 (on the Alaska class):
"Although these large cruisers are often considered capital ships (in view of their main batteries and their general appearance) in fact they were simple developments of US cruiser doctrine and requirements; they were in effect, heavy cruisers finally unencumbered by the Treaty limits of 8in guns and a maximum displacement of 10,000 tons. They are often described as white elephants, since by the time two out of the six originally ordered finally appeared in 1944 the tactical concepts which had inspired them had been completely superseded. However, that is not to deny their validity in the context of 1940, when nearly all senior US commanders afloat enthusiastically supported a 'super-cruiser'. to replace the existing 8in type."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Since I don't actually know how shp translates into kts, i generally take the numbers from the wikipedia articles of the ships i used as a basis, maybe adding a bit here and there when necessary, as I generally don't make straight clones.
Quick edit, while I was typing this i was checking out my other cruisers for number comparison and noticed that this ship is absurdly heavy compared to other cruisers/battlecruisers i've made. Generally I copy-paste the statistics format from ship to ship. Checking again, I actually have a battleship with that exact weight, so I probably copied it from there and forgot to change the weight.
Don't suppose you have a suggestion for the weight and shp for this ship? 30 knots is the aim, and I don't see it as being lighter than 20,000t
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dimension-wise your ship is about the size of the Des Moines class, so at most I can see it being around ~25,000t (although I'm not that well versed in the finer details of ship designing myself). Maybe at the same time up the horsepower a bit?
There's a pretty good software for designing warships: www.springsharp.com
Though you might already know that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So I've brought the weight down to 25,000t, and increased the shp by 33%, though that might be too much, i am trying to stay within the realm of what's possible, and that might be a bit much for a late WWII-era cruiser.
As for that software, that's pretty neat, never heard of that before. might make use of it in the future if it's not too much of a hassle over copying straight from wikipedia
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sounds much better now, some slight pushing of the numbers is within reason, just claim those boilers were based on high pressure experimental designs first trialed on destroyers (both the USN & IJN in WWII experimented with putting insane amount of horsepower into destroyer hulls, for example the Shimakaze had something like 75,000 shp)
And cheers on your future endeavors!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Quad mount turrets, deadly if not largely flawed in some areas.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah, you're right. but that doesnt mean it will make someone stop using it.
i understand how it will decrease mechanical reliability.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I never said to stop, just throwing out a fact from that era x3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yup, but it saves on space and armor
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Correct! the Pros outweigh the cons. but the cons still exist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Im actually pretty certain the cons outweigh the pros unless you're trying to remain under a certain weight limit. Not that anyone would know that in context as turrets with more than three guns are rare enough for there to not be any information on their technical reliability.
At the time there were even proposals for turrets with five, six and even seven guns in them
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
4 barrel turrets were a mixed bag. if done right, they were reliable but many like prince of wales were not designed for the quad arrangement and was rushed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In theory yes, but not everything on the drawing board will work out as well under real life conditions. the more mechanically complex an item is, the more unreliable it is, especially with the construction abilities of the time
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The French Quads shockingly were pretty reliable. the only issues they had were problems with the loading and having exposed horizontal tracks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0