My idea for a Improved Konigsberg - An alternate to the Leipzig class

[kriegerfaust]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Königsberg

The Design of the Konigsberg class was a failure the redesign of the Leipzig proves as much being almost identical to the Preceding class.  The major difference between the Leipzig and the Konigsberg class being the offset of one of the main turrets.  The main problem with the turret being offset is that it unbalanced the ship. 

This harshly affected the seakeeping of the ship the German's fixed this in the Leipzig by simply realigning the turret making it a standard design.  What if they had added a fourth turret a compromise between a wing turret and offset turret.  The problem with wing turrets being that they can only fire to port or starboard depending on the installation. 

Now combing the two would fix the stability problem as well as allowing it to fire forward backward and to both sides.  It would also fix the problem the Atlanta solved of trying to mount turrets more than two high.  The Atlanta suffered in that she was more a super destroyer then a light cruiser.  Anyways just my crazy idea if you have any of your own or would like to tear apart my idea also feel free to post below.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig-class_cruiser

My ship the Lubec would have far more stability than the Konigsberg and better firing angles than her or the Leipzig.  Able to fish tail and shoot front back or side to side in ways matched by no other ship.  Infact taking the aft end of my Lubec and flipping her to the front would make a better Atlanta as well.

The design might also be applied to a destroyer making a stronger class of gunboat then would otherwise be possible.  The only stumbling block might be in using the design and applying it to a battleship.  Not knowing much in the way of naval engineering its possible there is a reason why one, wing mounted guns are hull mounted and two why the Konigsberg and sister ships only mounted one offset turret.

Edited January 5 by kriegerfaust

[invicta2012]

53 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

  Not knowing much in the way of naval engineering its possible there is a reason why one, wing mounted guns are hull mounted and two why the Konigsberg and sister ships only mounted one offset turret.

Magazines, generally speaking. Wing turrets were acceptable on early BBs (deep draught) and Atlanta (that's a DD gun - you can get away with a great deal of ready-use ammo in an armoured shell room before you have to start dredging magazines). Konigsberg's offset turrets were no doubt an effort to create a ship which had both speed (requiring hull form and engine space) and a substantial main battery (which required space for magazines) within a given tonnage. 

Edited January 5 by invicta2012

[kriegerfaust]

Engines are the reason why the Nassau had wing turrets, four of them not for more speed but because of bad German engines.  Unlike other countries the Germans engines were different making traditional gun emplacement impossible.  I understand that wing mounted turrets are more vulnerable to fire as they are not buried deep in the ship.  Cruisers in general rely less on armor, only hull mounted guns would displace engine space.  Unless of course they carried the magazine all the way into the primary hull, which again being more offset would not interfere with any engine.  It also mentions that the turret was offset for a better firing angle though speed could have been important as well. Thanks for responding

Edited January 5 by kriegerfaust

[invicta2012]

2 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

Engines are the reason why the Nassau had wing turrets,

There were no problems with the engines on the early RN BBs and BCs such as Dreadnought, Invincible, etc and these ships had wing turrets.... the problem was that the expected cross-deck fire caused too many problems and too much damage to the ship! Centreline turrets just made more sense.

With regards to cruisers - the Atlantas were built during the period in which it was thought that medium calibre AA was most effective. The Juneau types (Atlanta but without the wing turrets) reflected the late war reality that a 40mm twin Bofors AA gun with its own radar system weighed around half as much as a standard twin 5" turret but was much more effective as an AA weapon. The same applies with the sub-classes of Dido -  the Black Prince/Royalist class happily gave away one 5.25" turret for a shedload of 20 and 40mm AA guns. 

If you want to make an interesting German CL class then take the guns found on the IX and X heavy DD line and stack them up on a 8-10,000 ton hull. The KM wasn't subject to the various treaties which made that range the key tonnage for a cruiser but you can bet that Felix Schultz's armament and pen would make for a spicy Tier VI CL. 

[kriegerfaust]

There were no problems with the engines on the early RN BBs and BCs such as Dreadnought, Invincible, etc and these ships had wing turrets.... I was not saying the engine was the reason for wing mounted guns i was saying engines was the reason four of six turrets were wing mounted on the Nassau instead of only two. and the Nassau is German

[invicta2012]

5 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

There were no problems with the engines on the early RN BBs and BCs such as Dreadnought, Invincible, etc and these ships had wing turrets.... I was not saying the engine was the reason for wing mounted guns i was saying engines was the reason four of six turrets were wing mounted on the Nassau instead of only two. and the Nassau is German

All good, but the rational design for an Alt-Tier VI German CL is the M-class; and that's Munchen with quad (rather than triple) torps and a 7.5 second (rather than 5s) reload on her MB. The KM wanted a commerce raider, and that means lots of space for fuel and supplies, things which count for nothing in WoWs. They were better served by auxiliary cruisers, tbh. 

[mashed68]

34 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

With regards to cruisers - the Atlantas were built during the period in which it was thought that medium calibre AA was most effective. The Juneau types (Atlanta but without the wing turrets) reflected the late war reality that a 40mm twin Bofors AA gun with its own radar system weighed around half as much as a standard twin 5" turret but was much more effective as an AA weapon. The same applies with the sub-classes of Dido -  the Black Prince/Royalist class happily gave away one 5.25" turret for a shedload of 20 and 40mm AA guns. 

 

Many Dido class ships were fitted with one less turret because they didn't have enough ready, not because they wanted more medium and short range AA weapons. The 5"+ guns were considered heavy AA not medium btw. 
Experience also showed on US ships that the 5" with proximity fuzes were more effective then the bofors, hence why after the war they removed all the 40mm weapons for 3" guns as that was the smallest shell they could fit the proximity fuse to.

[Nevermore135]

52 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

There were no problems with the engines on the early RN BBs and BCs such as Dreadnought, Invincible, etc and these ships had wing turrets.... I was not saying the engine was the reason for wing mounted guns i was saying engines was the reason four of six turrets were wing mounted on the Nassau instead of only two. and the Nassau is German

Do you know you can utilize the quote function rather than copy/pasting the text of other posts? Not only does the former allow viewers to more easily follow the flow of the conversation, it also provides a notification alert for the one you are quoting (responding to). In addition, manually copying and pasting text screws up the text and background color/formatting, often making it difficult to read for those using different display themes/settings on the forum.

You can quote an entire post using the button below each post, or quote only the relevant part of the post to your reply by highlighting the desired text and clicking the “quote selection” pop-up.

Edited January 6 by Nevermore135

[invicta2012]

9 hours ago, mashed68 said:

Many Dido class ships were fitted with one less turret because they didn't have enough ready, not because they wanted more medium and short range AA weapons. 

True of the first batch but I referred to Black Prince and Royalist, which are Bellona types, intentionally redesigned with one less turret to make room for a host of modifications including RPC on the main turrets, additional armour, additional fire control and improved light AA. The same thought process resulted in the Ceylon type of the Crown Colony class, and a host of similar modifications to other RN and RAN cruisers late in WW2. 

9 hours ago, mashed68 said:

Experience also showed on US ships that the 5" with proximity fuzes were more effective then the bofors...

Proximity fuses were a real game-changer, for sure. But before they were deployed medium calibre AA weapons really weren't very effective. As the RN found when Prince of Wales was sunk - the 5.25s didn't fire often enough, didn't hit enough, and didn't cause the type of psychological distraction that faster-firing guns armed with tracer did. 

9 hours ago, mashed68 said:

hence why after the war they removed all the 40mm weapons for 3" guns as that was the smallest shell they could fit the proximity fuse to.

They certainly wanted to replace the 40mm with 3 inch guns but the 3 inch weapons they designed (both in the US and the UK) never really worked very well and consumed huge amounts of ammunition (the RN considered replacing all the turrets on a Dido class ship with the 3 inch AA turrets seen on Tiger'52 - the ship would have enough ammunition for around 3 1/2 minutes worth of fire, so the plans were abandoned). The Bofors 40mm twin continued to be something which could be bolted pretty much anywhere and whose ammunition supply didn't mean redesigning or rebuilding the ship.