Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Azumazi

Project B65 ((With Color Pictures!!))

B65: Battlecruiser or Large Cruiser?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. With the information in posts 1 and 2, what would you list the B65?

    • Original Super A Type designation (CB for USN)
      18
    • Battle Cruiser
      12
    • Not enough data
      1

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

Instead of going into a whole copy past segment from a wiki, or from Conway's Fighting Ships of 1922-1946, I sat down and I evaluated how I would have envisioned this ship. Now from what we know, they were to be designed a lot like the Yamato, using it as a base design. So when I look at some of the "scaled" pictures of it I nearly scoff, especially at that one that they posted on the wiki (Which I'm still not sure where they got that picture.) I personally see it as a near copy of the Yamato Class, as it would have simplified design, ease of parts between ships which means less having to alter production from factories for different ships, and it would allow the same drydocks to be used to build the ships.

 

Using the Large Cruiser Alaska as a counter point, I projected the plans that most likely would have went into producing the B65/65b. Now lets explain the differences between the two ships.

 

B65 was to have 3 x 12.2 inch 50 cal guns in triple mounts.

B65b was to have 3 x 14.2 inch 45 cal guns in triple mounts, and more armor to protect vs Alaska

 

B65, also known as No. 795, was to have 3 x 12.2 inch 50 cal guns in triple mounts. The turrets were to have weighted around 1000-1150 tons (15% margin of error on design). Now the Alaska's turrets weighted 930-943 Tons with roughly 312 tons of the Alaska's turrets weight for armor.

B65 was to use 340-360 tons for armor, so going off the yamato's turrets on armor weight to turret ratio, I found that it would have been extremely close to Alaska's turrets weight, and armor.

 

Alaska: 325mm Face, 127mm Roof, 133-152mm sides (152mm was the forward sides, 133mm the rear sides) and a 133mm rear.

B65: 325mm Face, 135mm Roof , 125mm Sides, and 125mm Rear

 

The B65s turret has less side armor, but its sloped both on the vertical and horizontal plane, giving it more effective armor on a diving round, but the Alaska has better protection on a more straight shot into her forward side, as it would force the round to fuse and skip off over the deck, the B65's could cause it to skip off the turret into the deck and detonate.

 

B65 has one advantage over Alaska, it was designed to have its belt armor taper down a good deal under the water line and be placed behind a bulge to give it protection from rounds hitting into the water and from torpedos.

Posted Image

 

Now a lot of people wonder, how do you make a ship only 16 meters in length shorter and 11 meters wide smaller than the Yamato class shave off nearly 30000 tons?

I want to say to you one word just one word; Armor!

Yamato's armor was 21607t of her weight at 30.8% of the ships total weight.

With a smaller hull, and only going to have 190mm of belt armor at her maximum compared to Yamato's 410mm, which is roughly 46.5% of the same armor, you can estimate that B65 would use roughly 8094 tons of armor at most (46.5% with an additonal 12% removed from sum due to hull width being smaller making less armored surface for the citadel width wise).

Now, the hull is 70% the width as the Yamato (I estimated 12% reduction in armor due to shape and another 3.5% due to length change, but in all honesty, it probably would amount to 20% reduction, but I like leaving a large margin of error), overall the ship is shaving about 28% mass off the hull since it would have had its citadel squeezed in only reducing it in that location which is the bulk of the ship and an additional 6% from the mid section length being pulled in to her citadel.. Giving it a Hull weight of 13554 tons. The gun weight would be under half what Yamato's was, with the loss of the 6.1inch guns, only 8x2 3.9inch guns and only dual 2x 25mm, the gun weight would only be around 4400; however, she would have added weight from the torpedo launchers, which would be around 150 tons with 10 spare torpedos for a reload each. She was to hold 4545 tons of fuel (slightly more than Yamato) and about 4500 tons of machinery due to 4 less boilers, but that number is also including water and oils. She would have most likely used the same optics overall with some adjustments, same radar and equipment, with roughly the same amount of sea planes for trial. Fittings are pumps, counters, lamps, etc, and would have been around 1188 tons (Only one crane for the planes and no catapults). She was to be at 34800 tons at trial weight.

 

B65 Weight (Tons)

Hull: 13454

Armor:    8094

Armament: 2605

Guns 2455

Torpedo 150

Machinery 4500

Fuel 4545   

Optics   97

Planes 113

Electric 1125

Food/Water 600   

Fittings: 1188   

Total: 36321 Tons (Estimated Trial 34800)

 

(Recalculated with hull design at proper length and width, and proper % and it hits 9.3% margin which is close to the limit at 10%); however, I found out later I had the weight for the Guns incorrect due to accidentally adding in the barbette substructure weight into the guns and it doubling when I did the weight later for the substructures and magazines. Guns themselves would be 78 Metric tons, 28 tons for the breach/recoil system and rammer, 2.5 tons for the elevation motors for the guns. So 959 tons for 9 guns. The 3.9 inch guns are roughly 22 tons per 2 gun mount, so 176 tons. After that we have the 13mm guns which are...lets just say a half a ton for both. The main turrets had roughly 440 tons of machinery to operate the turrets and hoists for the rotating magazines in the barbettes along with the cordite storage and full ammo. (some how I managed to not pay attention and added this to the original gun weight and did the gun weight again, guess doing it half asleep does that  :veryhappy: .

 

(EDIT) I resized a Yamato Class Super Battleship into the B65a, reduced her hull beam, resized her guns to 15.5m (12.2x50 cal), reduced her turret size to fit them in mass of 15% of Yamato's, fit in her AA guns, placed her torpedos, and relocated parts of the hull. I linked the picture instead of putting it directly in the forum post because its 2.4MB in size as a jpeg. I also left the original Yamato turrets on the BP to show you the size difference her turrets/guns were over the 12.2's. the 18.1's were roughly 5 meters LONGER, and it shows in the design.

 

Initial Drawing before final Illustration

 

(Redesign 2) This one adds a plane, resizes the length of the hull to proper measure and cleans up a bit of the ship.

 

Redesign of first drawing.

 

The 2 red lines next to the hull on both the port and starboard sides to show how much wider Yamato is to the B65. The cutaway in the hull are where the Torpedo launchers would be located under the main deck above the primary armored deck, with a 4x launcher on each side. She would benefit from something the Mogami and others didn't and that's the fact she would be over armor and not above an exposed section of the ship, however, should a bomb hit the primary deck and fuse hitting the torpedos, the superstructure would take considerable damage, but the machinerooms should be okay allowing her to escape or fall back. One other feature I did was I removed the 6.1 inch guns off their barbettes, and replaced them with 3.9in DP guns, the Barbettes aren't that much different in size, and the B65 would easily have been able to take that design and lower their height to fit them in properly. It would have simplified the design process and production and allowed the DP guns to fire 10 guns at either side with 8 guns at a verticle angle. I shortened the length between the 2nd turret and the forward 3.9 DP, and also shortened it from the gap on the 3.9 DP into the super structure, removing the extra length the Yamato would have over the B64.

 

Overall from the designs going off what data I could find on the B65/b, I actually could see them having produced these ships without many issues. As for her reaching 34 knots, I find its very possible with her 160000 shp, and slimmer design, she might have even pushed 35 knots, but the B65b with her additional armor and weight along with most likely additional AA guns would have probably reduced its top speed to 33 knots like what happened to the Mogami's design.

 

Ship Size

Length: 245m

Beam: 27.56m

Draught: 8.81m

 

Armor

In Figures in post 2

 

Armament

31cm (12.2) 50 Cal x 9 in Triple turrets with an AP round of 561kg (1265lbs) capable of range of 32920m during testing

10cm 65 cal Type 98 HA x 16 in dual mounts

25mm Type 96 x 16 in dual mounts

13mm Type 93 x 4

61cm Type 93 Torpedos in quad mounts on each side of the ship

 

Fire Control Systems

Type 94 LA Director x2 with 8m range finder

Type 94 HA Director for AA guns x 6

Type 95 Machinegun Director in Superstructure x 1

Type 96 110cm Searchlights x 6

 

Machinery

8x Kanpon RO GO boilers in eight rooms

4 sets developing 42500 each for a total of 170000shp

 

Speed

Designed: 33kt

Possible: 34-35kts depending on end weight and testing

 

Aircraft

Catapult: 25.6m Type 1 model 2 No. 11

Planes: Navy Type 0 three seaters, one on catapult, 2 on racks on deck.

 

Complement

1,300 Officers and Crewmen (Designed)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B65b

 

Armament Upgrade

36cm 45 Caliber 9 in triple turrets

 

Armor

Unknown (They were currently testing ways to have the deck resist 1000kg bombs) and to look at adding armor to resist the Alaska class.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ishikari (Final Version Design) B65(a) (My design)

 

Ship Size

Length: 245m

Beam: 27.56m

Draught: 8.81m

 

Ship Weight

Empty: 30626 metric tons (removal of fuel, munitions, food/water, and personnel)

Full Load: 36321 metric tons

 

Armor

In Figures in post 2

 

Armament

31cm (12.2) 50 Cal x 9 in Triple turrets with an AP round of 561kg (1265lbs) capable of range of 32920m during testing

10cm 65 cal Type 98 HA x 16 in dual mounts

25mm Type 96 x 16 in dual mounts

13mm Type 93 x 4

61cm Type 93 Torpedos in quad mounts on each side of the ship

 

Fire Control Systems

Type 94 LA Director x2 with 8m range finder

Type 94 HA Director for AA guns x 6

Type 95 Machinegun Director in Superstructure x 1

Type 96 110cm Searchlights x 6

Radar: Type 21 Mod 3 Surface and Air Radar

Type 22 Mod 4 Surface and Gunnery Radar

 

Machinery

8x Kanpon RO GO boilers in eight rooms

4 sets developing 42500 each for a total of 170000shp

Speed

Designed: 33kt

Possible: 34.3 kts

 

Aircraft

Catapult: 25.6m Type 1 model 2 No. 11

Planes: Navy Type 0 three seaters, one on catapult, 2 on racks on deck.

 

Complement

1,300 Officers and Crewmen (Designed)

 

B65a Ishikari Picture in Color

 

 

I would also like to say, that I do not understand the choice of the 36cm or 14.2 inch guns. Japan already had developed the 15 inch guns for the B64 class and tested them, hell why not even give them the 16 inch guns of the Nagato since they were giving modernized AP rounds and a 43 deg elev, not to mention the barbettes would be able to handle the weight since they were originally designed to hold 18.1 inch guns (I expect they wouldn't have altered that design much in the B65 just so they could upgrade its armament like how they did with the Mogami, as its better to build bigger than needed and be able to upgrade its firepower than build under that limit and be up a creek and need to redesign and rebuild a ship completely; however, after resizing the turrets to fit the 12.2's, I can see why they went with the 14.2 inch guns. They most likely could not have fit the 16 inch guns in the turrets after they were designed for the 12.2's due to the mass reduction in the turret along with the resizing of the Barbettes to fit them, they could fit the 14.2's as I ran a test with the Kongo's 14 inch guns and the caliber/ with recoil would fit into the turret without recoiling into the rammer in the rear.

 

 

 

Data for Yamato and B64/65 taken from "Conway's All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946" and "The Battleship Yamato" by Janusz Skulski

Data on specs from Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War by Eric Lacroix

 

Additional Info, B65a/b specs are of my addition as it follows the Japanese design process of adding and redesigning during pre trial phases. The ships were set to be in fleet by 1945 which means the tested upgrades on Yamato would have been added, and the up guns might or might not have been added.

 

(Edit: Updated poll for rewording.)

Edited by Azumazi
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

First picture here shows armor on hull from side angle with a cut away.

Posted Image

Most of the armor has been reduced by 50% down to 40% from Yamato depending on location to a maximum of either 7.5 inches (190mm for belt) or 127mm for deck (5 inches) excluding the boiler room cover which is higher than 5 inches (it usually is the highest protected spot on the deck armor by amount of armor, but it is pourous to allow smoke out so its weaker in integrity.

 

The second picture is a side cutaway of ship to show decks and armor layouts.

Posted Image

For those of you who don't know, those armored boxes in the rear are the Rudder Engine rooms, hence why they so protected, the one furthest in the back is the primary rudder and the one up close is for the secondary Rudder. Ship was resized pulling the hull back and removing 4 meters of length and reshaped as such.

 

This last picture is a top down view of the armor setup of the ship.

Posted Image

The hull was only resized in length and not width, as a previous picture on first post shows the width resize. I just wanted this one to show the changes in armor and how it would have looked most likely.

 

Also for those who don't know the different types of armor used in ships. I have included a chart to help you understand their designation.

Posted Image

On to the 12.2 Inches capabilites.

 

Now any penetration ability of the weapon has been lost, but we can get a rough estimate of its capabilites based on the Alaska's 12 inch guns. The 12.2's were being designed much like the Yamato's with the design to punch into the water and hit the hull of an enemy ship, but also be effective at punching armor. The shell weighted 46kg or so more than the US's 12 inch gun, but the US based Mk 18 mod 1 AP shells would probably be of slightly better design, so the extra weight giving more pen would be more or less =/=. Due to this we could pretty much guess that the rounds would be almost exactly the same in penetration across the board until 20000m where the heavier projectile would get better pen by about 5-7% in angle plunging.

http://www.navweaps....S_12-50_mk8.htm

The link above will give you an idea of what the 12.2's capabilities would have been.

 

Also any more info I find over time will be added, and including designs and configurations.

 

If you have any questions, please ask away :)

Edited by Azumazi
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

It isn't that distored if you click the picture in the post and have it expand out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155
[-LA-]
Alpha Tester
634 posts
2,465 battles

One fairly common error I would like to point out - the B64 designation refers to the Amagi class, whereas the B65 designation refers to both the 12in and the 14in variants of the 'Super' A Class Large Cruiser. These 2 variants are just subdesigns of the B65, like the various A140 proposals which formed part of the Yamato design process. I know Wikipedia says different, but it is incorrect, like it is with regards to a lot of the deeper topics regarding naval warfare and history.

 

Here is the evolution of the Amagi class as part of the 8-8 plan; the B64 being the final design to which Amagi and Akagi were ordered prior to their conversions to carriers.

Posted Image

 

I have yet to see a single Japanese source that refers to the Super A Class design as the B64.

Edited by Elouda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

View PostElouda, on 16 February 2013 - 06:05 AM, said:

One fairly common error I would like to point out - the B64 designation refers to the Amagi class, whereas the B65 designation refers to both the 12in and the 14in variants of the 'Super' A Class Large Cruiser. These 2 variants are just subdesigns of the B65, like the various A140 proposals which formed part of the Yamato design process.

In "Conways' All the worlds fighting Ships 1922-1946" it is designated as the B64 and B65, because of this it can be argued both are right (as they kept changing designations during the war due to change of needs after midway)

Here is the direct snip from the book it self on it.

Posted Image
Edited by Azumazi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155
[-LA-]
Alpha Tester
634 posts
2,465 battles

View PostAzumazi, on 16 February 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

In "Conways' All the worlds fighting Ships 1922-1946" it is designated as the B64 and B65, because of this it can be argued both are right (as they kept changing designations during the war due to change of needs after midway)

As said, I've yet to see a single Japanese source which refers to it with the B64 designation. A simple error like that in a fairly well known book is likely the source of a lot of the confusion about this topic in western materials.

Any changes to the B65 design after its initial plans would simply have become the B65B, B65C, etc.
Edited by Elouda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

What book is that by the way? I might grab it since it seems pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155
[-LA-]
Alpha Tester
634 posts
2,465 battles

Its taken from the Hiraga Archive. I don't actually have the precise source for that one, but its basically a compilation of all the paper design specs from there, such as;

http://rarebook.dl.i...GlzaD10cnVlJg==

http://rarebook.dl.i...GlzaD10cnVlJg==

 

Lacroix & Wells Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War has a section on the B65 Super Cruiser along with some numbers. No mention of the B64 in relation to the Super A Cruiser.

Edited by Elouda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

Yeah the 3 books that I have that are in English (Since I do have a few in Japanese) are

Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War (pages 829-830 have the Super A type)

The Battleship Yamato (Talks about its designs being from the Yamato itself but only gives a few words of mention)

Conways Fighting Ships of 1922-1946 (Page 178)

 

You're right about it not being mentioned beyond that of Conways, but most references go off that usually and I have seen in Japanese texts them talk of the Super A class as a B64 and B65 in the past. Although since some records were destroyed, they might have used it to cover up the development of the ships; however, for references sake, I'll change the Topic to B65 and B65b for the 14.2 weapons and upgrades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155
[-LA-]
Alpha Tester
634 posts
2,465 battles

Theres a good thread on the Warships Projects board at http://phpbbplanet.c...warshipprojects on the 8-8 plan.

 

Some of the confusion regarding the B64/65 is brought up there - the original error in conversion seems to have occured in Warships of the Imperial Navy, 1869-1945. This is the work upon which subsequent western literature seems to have then based its conclusions.

 

If you do have any Japanese texts that mention the B64 in context of the Super A Class cruisers, I'd be very interested in looking at them or even looking for them myself if you can provide a general direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

I'll have to talk to my buddy who works at Kyoto University, but it's where I saw some of the texts on it when in 2004 I was in Japan. I was trying to find data on something else during the war and my buddy Kenji noticed it in a letter that was held over between the War from the 呉海軍工廠 or Kure Naval Yards about their progress on the B64's new 31cm gun testing, it was one of the few documents about the 31cm guns that was mentioned. It was also partially damaged and Kenji had to read it while wearing gloves.

 

The reason why it stood out to me so much was that it was wrote as ビ六十四 which roughly translates to Bi-64 or B64, it might be where some people got the reference, and being that a lot of records were destroyed from Kure's factories since it had a store house in Hiroshima being part of Hiroshima Providence, so there is no telling now.

 

I guess the best way to verify that would be to look into the 12.2 guns themselves since they were built and tested, so maybe that would be the missing link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

Yeah the more I read through the rarebook data on Tokyo Universities Archives the more I'm thinking they did it to possibly hide the development of the B65 by making it seem that they were working on the B64 Battlecruiser again (Which to be fair it actually had a decent armament and armor setup and probably would have been better than the Kongo class) if they had modernized it with better boilers and the like it probably would have been decent.

 

I definitely like the original blueprints of the Amagi they have as well, as it gives me a nice setup on its armor, which means I can actually add the "true" B64 in here for everyone who doesn't know how to navigate a Japanese archive :)

 

Also I did an update on the first post with a hyperlink to the remodel of the hull for the B65a (B65 base version would just be without the Radar's.)

Edited by Azumazi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

God I feel like I'm bumping my own thread but it isn't without warrant.

 

I added a poll because honestly I think this needs to be discussed. The Alaska, for all attempts and purposes was classed as a "Large Cruiser" or as some historians are calling them based on other designs of the time "Cruiser Killers". Now the Alaska class was designed from the ground up around the Baltimore-class cruiser. One feature that in my opinion that opts her out of the Battlecruiser roll was her complete and utter lack of torpedo and lower belt protection put on capital ships. She also lacked bulge to even give her a slight degree of success. She did have a nice 9 inch belt at its highest near the water line up to the second deck and good turret protection coupled with strong barbettes however it came with a cost.

 

Now, B65, was designed opposite, they looked at the current production of Yamato and downsized it. After armor testing using some of their older hulls from after the Washington treaty they designed the Yamato based on their field tests of rounds from enemy BB's hitting the belt, deck at a plunge angle, and the types of protection that could be afforded. They then took this data for the B65's design to make her lighter, faster, and more lightly armed.

 

Now the reason I slide more with the B65 being a Battlecruiser over a Super Heavy Cruiser, is that she was designed around a capital ship mindset. Hell, her hull follows capital ship design from the ground up. Being that she was to be based on a smaller version of the Yamato hull, which was proven to be quite effective, and well structured to support heavy weight she was in a much better position to be considered a "fast capital". She would have had belt that ran to the bottom of the keel and tapered, with an extensive bulge affording her much more protection against strikes hitting under the water line, and for torpedo hits from enemy ships, subs, and aircraft. She also had something else going for her the Alaska didn't, a hull that could accept a lot more upgrades and strain with a smaller loss of speed. Based on calculations of boyancy vs surface area and direction of force (Remember sometimes it can be off as shown on many tests, Alaska is a good example of that one) she most likely could have maintained a 31 knot flanking speed with an additional 6000 tons added to the ship. The 14 inch guns addition would have ran another 1000 tons using the same turrets I provided as they already have the space to take them (Which is most likely what they Japanese would have done to upgrade them faster) and around 5000 tons to use for armor, additional AA guns, and other upgrades. To give you an idea of how much armor that is, that would take her from 7.5 inches of belt, aka 127mm, to roughly 12 inches or 305mm of belt at its highest point, with probably an additional 1.2 inches to the deck for roughly 31mm more armor. This would maker her better armored than the Kongo class Fast Battleships which she was phased to replace.

 

This made me wonder, were they designing her so lightly weighted so they could uparmor her slowly to find the balance of armor/speed to go with her armament for carrier support operations? If so it seems to me she falls far more in line with a fast capital than she does a large cruiser.

 

What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

Well it seems that the Developers are putting the Alaska as a Battlecruiser, so I have a feeling that the B65 will also be put into that catagory for the tech trees. I think they are doing it to make it easier to balance the ships and give them a place in the tech trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
533 posts

From what I have understood battlecruiser won't technically be a seperate category of ship in the game. There are just four types of ships, carriers, destroyers, cruisers and "battleships" (ie. capital ships in general). Seeing that Alaska and even the German Pocket Battleships are going into capital ship category, that's indeed surely where B65 will go as well. Perhaps ingame (and purely falvour) designations like battle cruiser and battleship will exist as sub categories or ship specific designations, perhaps they won't (in WoT, all tanks in light tank category are designated light tanks, there aren't any cruiser tanks or infantry tanks or the like). I though you were talking about such flavour designations actually, not about their placement in the techtree.

 

If we get actual ship specific (flavour) designations, I do think that it would be most interesting to designate ships according to the practise of the country that used them. So Alaska should be designated as large cruiser rather than battle cruiser regardless of it's actual placement in the techtree. I'd follow this with quite literal translations of foreign terms, so German WW1 battle cruisers should be designated as great cruisers (or perhaps as large cruisers together with Alaska, to rub people who think Alaska isn't a battle cruiser with different name off  :biggrin:) as they were großer kreuzers not schlachtkreuzers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

View PostGigaton, on 18 February 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

From what I have understood battlecruiser won't technically be a seperate category of ship in the game. There are just four types of ships, carriers, destroyers, cruisers and "battleships" (ie. capital ships in general). Seeing that Alaska and even the German Pocket Battleships are going into capital ship category, that's indeed surely where B65 will go as well. Perhaps ingame (and purely falvour) designations like battle cruiser and battleship will exist as sub categories or ship specific designations, perhaps they won't (in WoT, all tanks in light tank category are designated light tanks, there aren't any cruiser tanks or infantry tanks or the like). I though you were talking about such flavour designations actually, not about their placement in the techtree.

If we get actual ship specific (flavour) designations, I do think that it would be most interesting to designate ships according to the practise of the country that used them. So Alaska should be designated as large cruiser rather than battle cruiser regardless of it's actual placement in the techtree. I'd follow this with quite literal translations of foreign terms, so German WW1 battle cruisers should be designated as great cruisers (or perhaps as large cruisers together with Alaska, to rub people who think Alaska isn't a battle cruiser with different name off  :biggrin:) as they were großer kreuzers not schlachtkreuzers.

Very very true, but I also think back at what the term "Battle Cruiser" stood for and think how it could have more or less evolved into what the Large Cruisers would have been doing.They were originally the evolved version of the Armored Cruiser, and were to be designed to attack and kill their older Cruiser counterparts. So it seems to me in reality Alaska and B65 would be considered by the first definition as true Battle Cruisers, as they weren't designed to engage Captial ships, but more or less, their weaker Cruiser counter parts. Also to be fair, 12 inch guns were once considered only 20 years before the outbreak of WW2 to be Capital ship sized weapons even if they were phased out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

Added the B65 (Class Fuji) Battlecruiser picture in under B65a in the top post with a hyperlink to the color picture to give a much better view of her.

 

Give a +1 if ya like, took me 8 hours to reconstruct 40% of the ship even using the Yamato picture as a base.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155
[-LA-]
Alpha Tester
634 posts
2,465 battles

I like your version, though I think the secondary placement would have been different.

 

Sort of like on this design.

Edited by Elouda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

Yeah, as I had explained to Royal in a private message. The reason why I went with the placement of the AA that I used was maximum projection.

 

16 aa barrels total, with 10 being able to cover most of any direction. With the above design they can only get 8 barrels in each direction.

 

I'll probably see about designing them into the super structure instead of on a barbette/support to smooth it out and allow me to move the structure back more to possibly place the aircraft in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

I did a bit of work on the Ishikari model today. I changed up the layout some with more of the "conventional" styles of the B65 floating around.

 

http://i.imgur.com/2l2HyJK.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

Okay I put the final version of Ishikari on the first post and its full specs.

 

I thought I should elaborate on why I used the name Ishikari for the first vessel. I chose Ishikari because it is a River, a Bay, and a City, but more or less due to the bay. Capital ships were named after Provinces, Cruisers after rivers, so I decided to name her (being a super a cruiser) after a Bay. This case Ishikari, the bay that Ishikari river dumps into north of Sapporo. It is also the second largest river in Japan. I felt this fit the ship class well considering they would be "battlecruisers" by design but called super a cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,201
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,992 battles

Bumping this thing back to the first page since someone in another thread made a new post saying they didn't see this one, so now they can't miss it at the top of the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×