The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:30 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
How about a reverse Nelson with three aft turrets and a bridge at the bow.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Seasick wrote:
How about a reverse Nelson with three aft turrets and a bridge at the bow.


Interesting, the Japs had a class of cruisers like that, 2 with a forward turret & 1 aft, the Itsukushima(F), Hashidate(F) & Matsushima(A). I always liked them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 149
Location: south africa
well the dkm leipzig gun configuration would have worked for what you guys want , 1 bow gun and 2 aft guns

_________________
be inspirational today , you might never get that chance tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 4:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Diederick44 wrote:
well the dkm leipzig gun configuration would have worked for what you guys want , 1 bow gun and 2 aft guns


mmm...not the same..she still had fore & aft turrets (& mags), the idea is to have the mags concentrated at 1 end


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 1:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 149
Location: south africa
well dunkerque maybe ? ? had 2 bow main turrets but to invert everything would be tough because your bridge and comms would be exposed with no frontal defence system

_________________
be inspirational today , you might never get that chance tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Diederick44 wrote:
well dunkerque maybe ? ? had 2 bow main turrets but to invert everything would be tough because your bridge and comms would be exposed with no frontal defence system


They would be more like it. Any warship with big turrets aft & none forward looks wierd :crazy: !


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 149
Location: south africa
question if a 10 inch or bigger shell hit an airplane would the shell even explode ? ? Why i am asking is because i read a few reports where a ship popped a plane here and there with its main batteries

_________________
be inspirational today , you might never get that chance tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 05, 2013 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 3125
Location: Hawaii
Given the relatively light construction of an airplane vs a ship I'd highly doubt they'd explode. There's stories of ships of all sizes taking armor piercing shells in unarmored areas of the hull and simply suffering a pair of holes the size of the shell in the hull plating and that's it! An AP shell has to hit some something substantial, like armor, a an engine, a gun assembly, etc... to get them to go off. If a large caliber shell hit a plane chances are it'd send the plane and/or pieces of it for a ride off the ship.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Diederick44 wrote:
question if a 10 inch or bigger shell hit an airplane would the shell even explode ? ? Why i am asking is because i read a few reports where a ship popped a plane here and there with its main batteries


Cliffy B wrote:
Given the relatively light construction of an airplane vs a ship I'd highly doubt they'd explode. There's stories of ships of all sizes taking armor piercing shells in unarmored areas of the hull and simply suffering a pair of holes the size of the shell in the hull plating and that's it! An AP shell has to hit some something substantial, like armor, a an engine, a gun assembly, etc... to get them to go off. If a large caliber shell hit a plane chances are it'd send the plane and/or pieces of it for a ride off the ship.


As he stated, an AP round would likely go right threw. If it hit something solid (like the engine or a full bomb rack!) it may go off, but would likely just rip that section of the plane off. When the Germans invaded Narvik harbor in Norway on 04/09/1940, they sent 10 destroyers of group 1. When the British sent in a counter fleet on 04/13/1940 it was led by HMS Warspite. Reports state that, as the battleship approached the harbor, a German destroyer (Erich Koellner I believe) tried to leave the harbor & was shelled by Warspites forward 15"ers. They first used AP rounds (to see what would happen). They reported several hits at close range fallowed by explosions against the side of the fjord, behind the destroyer. Now if large calibur HE rounds are used then they would obliterate an airplane. I read reports of US 8” gun cruisers off Guadalcanal being attacked by Betty bombers with torpedo runs. They turned their 8”ers on them with HE & reports state that several Bettys took direct hits & disintegrated in mid-air! You should note that the Yamato carried 18” flechette rounds for AA during her final voyage.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 11:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 149
Location: south africa
i know of 3 types of ammunition used in WW2 , he rounds , ap rounds and high velocity rounds if i am correct , but here and there names pop up of experimental rounds that was tested , any info guys ? ? I asked the airplane question because of the airplane vs ship debat

_________________
be inspirational today , you might never get that chance tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Diederick44 wrote:
i know of 3 types of ammunition used in WW2 , he rounds , ap rounds and high velocity rounds if i am correct , but here and there names pop up of experimental rounds that was tested , any info guys ? ? I asked the airplane question because of the airplane vs ship debat


well what's more important is the fuse! One of the great secret weapons of WWII was the US development of the Microwave proximity fuse. this was what really gave our AAA the extra punch that aloud the USS South Dakota to score 23 air kills (the highest ever in history for a single surface ship) at Santa Cruise where the Musashi was just a moving target. a lot of people disdain Battleships by pointing to Axis ship performance but they didn't have HE with Prox fuse ammo (a real killer). While I'm not aware of it being used in anything larger than the 6" on the post war AA cruisers there's no reason why it wouldn't work on something large. Whats more, with very large guns, specialised sub-munition rounds could be developed (like firing a half dozen or more 5" rounds at one time from a single 16" tube)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2013 7:03 pm 
all turrets aft sounds like they plan on running from every fight


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2013 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Guest wrote:
all turrets aft sounds like they plan on running from every fight


Yea, That's why the British G3 & N3 (what the Nelsons were based on) had no aft turrets, It was believed they should rarely have the enemy in their rear arc (though the Lion had the enemy in its rear arc when it was limping from Dogger Bank!). Still any BC (designed to run from anything bigger than it) might have to.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2013 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 149
Location: south africa
to have guns on only one side leaves major gaps in defence , if the enemy came from the front and all your guns are at the rear you are in major trouble same vice versa you would be shelled like crazy and all the enemy must do is to stay out of your guns position

_________________
be inspirational today , you might never get that chance tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2013 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 149
Location: south africa
axis ships were lethal at long range and scored hits where most ships couldnt , now a microwave fuse sounds interesting but germany was busy with theyre projects like a nuclear round , the project was disbanned after a while but if they got it right no ship would have been safe within striking distance of such ammo types , as it seems to me WW2 was a sci fi type of warfare as both allies and axis were developing new types of tech far beyond the imaganation of what was thought possible

_________________
be inspirational today , you might never get that chance tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Diederick44 wrote:
to have guns on only one side leaves major gaps in defence , if the enemy came from the front and all your guns are at the rear you are in major trouble same vice versa you would be shelled like crazy and all the enemy must do is to stay out of your guns position


That's where Maneuvering comes in, at Tsusima the Japs stayed ahead of the Russians main battleships. the Russians had all-round fire but with only 2 guns (half) forward. if the Russian BBs had had all of their guns forward they would have been able to fire back better. the main problem is the fleet maneuver, with individual ships (like most WWII engagements) the ship in question can turn faster than the enemy can run around (unless their in a narrows), it's when the fleet has to turn in a tight fleet formation that you can't make sharp turns without running into each other.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3242
Location: equidistant to everywhere
Guest wrote:
all turrets aft sounds like they plan on running from every fight



I don't think so. How often have you known battelships to engage a target dead ahead?

I think the main reason why all turret aft arrangement is silly is it would force the machinery space farther forward, unnecessarily increaseing the shaft length, and compromising the defence of the magazines due to the need to route shafts under or around the magazines.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 1:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
The Reichmarine light cruisers Leipzig and Nuremberg both had a conventional gun layout with the 15cm on the center line. The K class that came before them had the oddly staggered 15cm on the stern. The idea was that the stern turrets would have a large firing arc that would reach very far forward. It didn't work well in practice and Leipzig reverted to the the conventional layout.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
I came up with the reverse Nelson as a way of designing the oddest looking warship possible.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2013 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:00 pm
Posts: 149
Location: south africa
well whats the dimensions of your ship ? ? To make it odd wouldnt be a problem but to make it practical is another story

_________________
be inspirational today , you might never get that chance tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group