TZoli's Warship Designs

Tzoli

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
1 February 2011
Messages
2,813
Reaction score
3,190
Hey guys!

This is my first thread in here but I regularly post ship designs at the Warship Projects Forum, so now I've decided to post them here as well.
I tend to draw/design ships which are plausible to build, or I tend to do so!

So let me start with my newest designs a modified German Admiral Hipper and P class Heavy Cruisers.

The idea behind these are the real triple 20.3cm Krupp Turret which can be found here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18915.0.html

So in order:
1. Original Admiral Hipper class Heavy Cruiser: 4x2 20.3cm, 6x2 10.5cm, 4x3 53.3cm Torpedoes
2. Prinz Eugen class (Improved Admiral Hipper class Heavy Cruiser): 2x3,2x2 20.3cm, 8x2 10.5cm, 4x3 53.3cm Torpedoes
3. P class (Modified P class Heavy Cruiser): 3x3 20.3cm, 7x2 10.5cm, 2x4 53.3cm Torpedoes
4. Improved P class (Modified P class Heavy Cruiser): 4x3 20.3cm, 6x2 10.5cm, 2x4 53.3cm Torpedoes
5. Original P class Big Gun Cruiser: 2x3 28cm, 2x2 15cm, 4x2 10.5cm, 2x4 53.3cm Torpedoes
comparsion_cruiser_image_by_tzoli-d61kez6.png


And the ship number in my opinion are:
2x Admiral Hipper
2x Prinz Eugen
3x P-I
3x P-II
6x P
 
And now the Nelson variant of the Bismarck but with 3x3 38cm Cannons!

tirpitz_ala_rodney_by_tzoli-d5xpsu9.png

What do you guys think about these?
 
we think that you should go to http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?action=forum or http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/index.php
that much more suited for your artwork
SPF devoted to REAL unbuilt and secret projects
 
This thread User's artworks contains mostly only user designed vehicles so I think it DO belongs here.
As for Shipbucket, my drawings ain't pixel ones so I won't it there
 
If designs without a real project behind are posted here, the "Theoretical and Speculative" section
may be more suitable.
BTW, comparing your alternative Bismarck design with the Nelson, I think, it would have got problems
with seakeeping, as the complete weight of the heavy artillery is placed much further forward, than
in HMS Nelson/Rodney.
 
Jemiba said:
If designs without a real project behind are posted here, the "Theoretical and Speculative" section
may be more suitable.
BTW, comparing your alternative Bismarck design with the Nelson, I think, it would have got problems
with seakeeping, as the complete weight of the heavy artillery is placed much further forward, than
in HMS Nelson/Rodney.
Click to expand...

Well my designs are mixed
There are ones which based on real designs (Tone class Light Cruiser for Example or the Australian Cockatoo design Heavy Cruiser)
or ideas of real things like my triple turreted German cruisers, or plausible design which could have been built or improved versions of original ships.

As for the Bismarck, indeed probably all forward are a bit forward, but see this:
4x2 38cm weights a bit more than 3x3 38cm (including turrets, guns and the support equipment, elevators ammo rooms etc)
so by moving the heavy machinery aft this could solve the problem but now I see that the Bismarck's Superstructure was quite long for such an arrangement!
 
By the way I've made coloured versions of my latest line drawings. Includes the german ones as well:

comparsion_image_coloured_by_tzoli-d68s95m.png
 
And here is my Australian 1920's era heavy Cruiser proposal the Cockatoo island Works Design:
Difference to the original proposal that it have twin torp launchers and AA Guns and a bit different Casemate placement I've deciphed from the texts

the_first_local_cruiser_of_australia_by_tzoli-d5xgi7s.png


hmas_perth_the_cockatoo_cruiser_by_tzoli-d5xm3tm.png
 
Tzoli, I've moved this thread here, not to depreciate your work, but just to reduce the danger of someone
taking your designs as actual proposals.
About the Australian heavy: It looks very much like a modified Hawkins to me. You noted, that you just modified
the proposal. So there actually was a project of that kind ?
 
Jemiba said:
Tzoli, I've moved this thread here, not to depreciate your work, but just to reduce the danger of someone
taking your designs as actual proposals.
About the Australian heavy: It looks very much like a modified Hawkins to me. You noted, that you just modified
the proposal. So there actually was a project of that kind ?
Click to expand...

Yes there is!
I've created a topic about it here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19763.0.html
 
I've post these designs of mine to know your guys opinions.

So the next one is real proposal with my iteration of it.
The Proposed pre ww1 Coastal Battleship design for the Romanian navy: ('ive used the Hungarian SMS Zrínyi as the base)

big_dream_for_a_small_navy_by_tzoli-d5xcdop.png

nms_bucaresti_by_tzoli-d5xdm21.png

The history:

Before the First World War The Romanian Navy wanted to expand it's capacity so a plan was initiated in 1912:
This called for 6 Light Cruisers of 3500ton (None begun) 12 Destroyers of 1500ton of which 4 started and only 2 arrived and one submarine. Other plans were even more unrealistic calling for a battleship of 13.000tons armed with 4-305mm, 4-203mm and 12-150mm Guns.

So I decided to draw this Romanian Battleship Proposal which I call Bucaresti Class and based on the Austro-Hungarian Radetzky class, just a bit smaller change the twin 240mm Turrets into single 203mm ones and one large single funnel instead of two smaller ones.
Information from the article from Conway's All the World Fighting ships, 1906-1921

On another forum I've been noted of the bad idea for a single large funnel but no explanation added.
 
The problem with whatif is confusion. I think a high knowledge about real historic facts is required to enjoy about whatif possibilities. When the basis for whatif are little known unbuilt projects the effort could left my mind exhausted.

Personally I'd love better to know about the original unbuilt projects...
 
pometablava said:
The problem with whatif is confusion. I think a high knowledge about real historic facts is required to enjoy about whatif possibilities. When the basis for whatif are little known unbuilt projects the effort could left my mind exhausted.

Personally I'd love better to know about the original unbuilt projects...
Click to expand...

That all the text said, no drawing no exact data, just displacement and guns
 
Another pair of drawing/coloured drawing

Based on my friend's idea on an enlarged Baltimore with 4x3 8inch guns
Equipped with 4x3 8inch, 8x2 5inch and 10x4 40mm Guns (Baltimore had 3x3 8inch, 6x2 5inch and 12x4 40mm Guns)
I call her New Haven class I had used the Baltimore as a basis but introduce some changes seen on the real follow up classes like the Oregon City and Des Moines classes.
new_haven_class_heavy_cruiser_by_tzoli-d5x2u1t.png

uss_new_haven_by_tzoli-d5x9p9f.png
 
Tzoli said:
On another forum I've been noted of the bad idea for a single large funnel but no explanation added.
Click to expand...

At first glance, due to its single funnel, it looked to me, what I would expect the HMS Agammenon/Lord Nelson
to look like after a refit à la HMS Barham during the 1920s.
 
Jemiba said:
Tzoli said:
On another forum I've been noted of the bad idea for a single large funnel but no explanation added.
Click to expand...

At first glance, due to its single funnel, it looked to me, what I would expect the HMS Agammenon/Lord Nelson
to look like after a refit à la HMS Barham during the 1920s.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, Lord nelson had 6 secondary heavy gun turrets and much bulky superstructure!
 
And now my most beautiful BB drawing :
A Hypothetical Battleship design to follow up the Alsace class
This ship featuring 4x3 420mm (16.5 inch) and 2x3 152mm (6 inch) as main Anti shipping guns. AA Armaments consist of 10x2 100mm (4inch) Heavy AA and 18x2 37mm Light AA Guns
I call her:
Le Grand navire Cuirasse Napoléon Bonaparte
The Great Battleship Napoleon Bonaparte

le_grand_navire_cuirasse_napoleon_bonaparte_by_tzoli-d5wr4db.png



the_great_battelship_bonaparte_napoleon_by_tzoli-d5wz8az.png
 
Single funnels were generally used to clear the sky arcs for the various anti-aircraft guns resulting in less topside hamper and a in my opinion, a sleeker appearance in some cases. The downsides of this is more internal space is required to trunk all of the exhaust vents together. This leads to a greater chance that a hit could fill large areas of the interior with flue gases since none of the uptakes were armored in any way save for a few older ships (BBs).

I really like your designs and I hope you continue make more. My only criticism would be to reduce your line weight. It looks like your making these in Illustrator, am I correct? If so I'd reduce your lines by about %50. This would allow for more detail if you chose, as well "clean up" some of the busier areas where all of the thick lines simply merge together.

Just my two cents, keep up the designs man B)
 
CliffyB said:
Single funnels were generally used to clear the sky arcs for the various anti-aircraft guns resulting in less topside hamper and a in my opinion, a sleeker appearance in some cases. The downsides of this is more internal space is required to trunk all of the exhaust vents together. This leads to a greater chance that a hit could fill large areas of the interior with flue gases since none of the uptakes were armored in any way save for a few older ships (BBs).

I really like your designs and I hope you continue make more. My only criticism would be to reduce your line weight. It looks like your making these in Illustrator, am I correct? If so I'd reduce your lines by about %50. This would allow for more detail if you chose, as well "clean up" some of the busier areas where all of the thick lines simply merge together.

Just my two cents, keep up the designs man B)
Click to expand...

I choose single funnel to further differenate from the Radetzky class.
No I used Paint Tool SAI for drawing and colouring these
 
New set.

These two new drawings idea came from of a what-if alternative construction plan for ww1 Era Japan
Instead of building 2-2-2 Fuso, Ise and Nagato class BB's
They would built:
2 Normal 6 turreted Fuso, 3 smaller 4 turreted Ise and 2 Nagato or,
2 Smaller 4 turreted Fuso, 4 smaller 4 turreted Ise and 2 Nagato or either
2 Smaller 4 turreted Fuso, 2 smaller 4 turreted Ise and 4 Nagato class battleships

So instead of few many turreted battleship they would have more less turreted ones.

Small Fuso:
small_fuso_class_battleship_by_tzoli-d5vm0ca.png


Because of the removal of the 4th and 5th turrets the hull is shortened quite a bit. I did not delete the aft conning tower, but removed 1 pair of casemate guns and added 1 pair of AA guns.
The cause that the now 3rd turret isn't superfiring over the 4th one because I meant this to a last minute change in construction plans so no time to redesign the entire ship from scratch.

Small Ise:
small_ise_class_battleship_by_tzoli-d5vln73.png
 
Let's see what if we mix an Italian Admiral's idea, one of the Preliminary design of the Richelieu and the Biggest Battleship of the World!

IJN Yamato De Feo Style!

admiral_de_feo_type_yamato_by_tzoli-d5qvwd0.png
 
Severly limited for and aft fire, especially taking into account the blast problems
with regards to this caliber. ;)
 
Jemiba said:
Severly limited for and aft fire, especially taking into account the blast problems
with regards to this caliber. ;)
Click to expand...

And when does the last time a battleship fired it's guns forward and aft and not broadside???
This was the idea behind Admiral De Feo's proposal!
 
Tzoli said:
And when does the last time a battleship fired it's guns forward and aft and not broadside???
Click to expand...

Nitpicking, I know, but ...

- Hood/POW vs Bismarck/Prinz Eugen, when the british task force, closing on to
the German ships, could just use their forward turrets

- KGV/Nelson vs Bismarck at the beginning of the final battle

- "Battle of the Surigao Strait", when Adm. Oldendorffs task force achieved a classical "crossing the T"
against the Japanese "Southern Force", led by Adm Nishimura, with the battleships Fuso and Yamashiro

In all cases ships without forward firing armament would have been "out of action" for at least a considerable
and maybe crucial time of the engagements.

To make this clear, I didn't want to critise you and not even Admiral De Feo. Actually, the idea with the main battery
concentrated amidship was old, just look at HMS Inflexible from 1892, or, even better the battleship Italia from 1885,
designed by Benedetto Brin. But you probably know about the criticism to HMS Nelson and Rodney, as they actually
had no rearward angle of fire. The Admiralty shrugged it off then, with mentioning, that "British ships won't retreat
and so need no rearward angle of fire".... ::) But reading several examinations of the Battle of Jutland, it was mentioned,
that ships on both sides with turrets amidship (e.g. HMS Iron Duke class, or German König Klasse ) experienced reduced
broadsides due to limited arcs of fire with their mid mounted turrets. AFAIK the protection for the light AA guns of Yamato
and Musashi wasn't actually against enemy fire, but against the blast of the own heavy guns.
Nevertheless, Russian warship design owed a lot to Italian designers, so, why not Japanese ships, too ?
It's an interesting thought experiment, although I think, that experienced in combat would have proved those ideas
as not to be working as advertised. ;)
 
Well Admiral De Feo was lived in ww1 and he concluded this was the future.

Yeah your list of battles probably true but look at them:
Battle between a very small number of vessels! One is a battle between straights and islands the other is an escape battle.
Yeah sure battles would start when each ship must face front first toward the enemy and having no forward firing turrets could lead a bit of disadvantage, but during this time the ships are the least vulnerable as their profile was the smallest/thinniest!

Nelson's all forward arrangement was choosen not because UK battleships never retreat but because this was the most economical distribution of armour weight VS lenght for the limited displacement. But look at the studies which led to the O3 (Nelson):
2 forward 2 centre: M2
2 forward 1 centre: G3, I3, N3, M3
1 forward 1 centre: H3b
All Forward: E3, F3/F2 H3a
The Only traditional versions with forward and aft are: J3, K3/K2 L3/L2

In a traditional battleship battle like the battle of Jutland the all centre arrangement would be good as the thickest armour would be the shortest one too!
 
And now a bit different.
Someone on the Warships Projects forum asked how would the ww2 carriers would look like with angled flight decks, so I modified a few Japanese ones which could be built or rebuilt that way. The idea to increase the effectivitness of of the Recovery and launch of planes from these type of ships!
So here they are:

The Hiyo Class:
improved_hiyo_class_aircaft_carrier_by_tzoli-d5lrzq3.png

The Soryu Class:
improved_soryu_class_carriers_by_tzoli-d5loy8q.png

The Taiho Class:
improved_ijn_taiho_aircraft_carrier_by_tzoli-d5l0hic.png

And the Shinano Class (Though maybe I overdone it a bit)
improved_shinano_carrier_by_tzoli-d5kzbfv.png
 
This Battleship design for my friend who likes many turreted battleships so I merged the Ise and Yamato classes :)
It's more of a fun design then a possible build but still...

So this is what you get when your Father is the IJN Yamato and your Mother is the IJN Ise
biggrin.gif

A battleship with 12 38cm (15inch) Cannons in 6 double Yamato turrets and 10 155mm Guns in 2 triple and 2 twin turrets. On a Yamato hull but with smaller hanger space and thinner armour.

when_yamato_meets_the_ise_by_tzoli-d5jkyyu.png
 
the IJN "Yamise" (or better "Isato" ?) could be a good What-If, maybe thinking around the 18 inch
gun design to be a complete failure. or their factory destroyed by an earth quake. To get the ship
into service quickly, older and smaller gun designs were used, although I would think of 16 inch,
like in Mutsu/Nagato, rather than 15 inch, which weren't used by the IJN, I think.

About the IJN carriers with angled decks, I'm somewhat sceptical, if these ships wouldn't have needed
a little bit more mass on the portside for balancing the overhang of the flight deck ?
I would rather expect a flight deck similar to the first conversion of HMS Eagle, 1955
(drawing from http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.ImageFileViewer/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles.orion/7823.layout.jpg_2D00_700x0.jpg)

- I know about the reason for the gun arrangement of Nelson/Rodney, I just thought the way the admiralty was
cloaking the criticism quite funny (if it is more, than just a legend) !

- .. and I think, ships were more vulnerable to gunfire when pointing their length to the enemy, instead of their
broadside, as finding the correct distance was more difficult, than correct azimuth ?
 

Attachments

  • HMS_Eagle.jpg
    HMS_Eagle.jpg
    44.7 KB · Views: 161
In a case of reconstruction or build from skratch the builders surely would put some extra ton steel or concrete on the other side to balance the flight deck.
 
Jemiba, look at it this way: Just assume that a dozen 15" guns and mounts were available.
 
No problem, as we are talking about what-if. I'm just trying to create a plausible story behind it and
AFAIK 15 inch guns weren't used by the IJN. But maybe after WW I, when the German Highseas Fleet
was deployed amongst the allies, Japan got no battleship, but, after lengthy and difficult negotiations,
they were allowed to get those 15 inch guns from SMS Bayern and SMS Baden. Lying around unwanted
for a long time, they were refurbished and modernised and fitted to that ship... ;)
 
Yes 36cm and 41cm Guns were used by the Japanese but I did not wanted to make the same error as the UK by introducing a smaller calibre because of the naval treaty which clearly not in the category of the newer 41cm/16inch cannons, so I've chosen 38cm/15inch.

Though if I would choose the 35cm cannons I could probably have less issue with hull stress during a full broadside!
 
The reasoning could have been the same, as for the design of the Brazilian battleship, that later was to become
HMS Agincourt. Standardisation of ammunition was regarded as more important, than an increase of caliber and
maybe the "shot gun effect", leading to more hits and probably achieved quicker, than with fewer larger caliber
guns, would have compensated for less hitting power of a single shell.
It's all just a matter of explanation ! ;)
 
Probably.
But who wants to fire all guns together and wait like ages to fire another salvo when you continously fire one turret after another and giving one hell of a pounding to the enemy in the machine gun effect? :D
 
From Geoffrey Bennett "Die Skagerakschlacht" (The Battle Of Jutland) :

" ... during the whole battle HMS Agincourt showed the ambition to fire full fourteen-gun salvoes. The
sheet of flame was big enough to create the impression, that a battle cruiser had blown up ..."

But from a tactical point of view you may be right.
 
Yeah that is a well known phrase (A Naval ww1 Movie about Jutland would be great showing this event!)

And now some real designs.
My incarnations for the Improved Yamato and the A-150 (Super Yamato) proposals:
The 4th and 5th sister ships of the Yamato had to be built with twin 51cm Cannons so these two drawings represents this change, one with the original 12.7cm Type 89 the other with the 10m Type 98 AA Guns:
the_yamato_kai_1st_variant_by_tzoli-d5iedu5.png

the_yamato_kai_2nd_variant_by_tzoli-d5ii1yn.png

And now my version of the A-150 with 4 twin 51cm Cannons (bit different turrets as these had time to be designed precisly for this hull), "many" 10cm AA Guns, and a larger funnel
battleship_a_150_the___super_yamato___by_tzoli-d5ip7g9.png
 
And now instead of posting all the Yamato Preliminary Turret Layouts I made a single picture showing them:

A.: 3x3 46cm Cannons all forward, Nelson Style and 41cm Armour
B.: 3x3 46cm Cannons regular, 2 forward 1 aft Style and 41cm Armour
C.: 4x2 46cm Cannons regular, 2 forward 2 aft Style and 41cm Armour
D.: 3x3 46cm or 41cm Cannons all forward, very similar to Nelson Style and 41 or 38cm Armour
E.: 2x3,1x2 46cm Cannons regular, 2 forward 1 aft Style and 41cm Armour
F.: 2x3,2x2 46cm Cannons regular, 2 forward 2 aft inverted Andrea Doria Style and 41cm Armour
G.: 2x3,1x2 46cm Cannons all forward, Nelson Style and 41 or 38cm Armour
H.: 4x3 41cm Cannons regular, 2 forward 2 aft Style and 38cm Armour

(Beware!!! Big Image!!!)
the_comparative_turret_layout_of_the_ijn_yamato_by_tzoli-d5hvc0i.png
 
Great, many thanks !
I'm not adept to the development history of the Yamato, can someone give the reason, why in
design E and F the triple turrets were superimposed to the twins ? From the standpoint of
the CG, this seems to be not ideal, I think.
 
Jemiba said:
Great, many thanks !
I'm not adept to the development history of the Yamato, can someone give the reason, why in
design E and F the triple turrets were superimposed to the twins ? From the standpoint of
the CG, this seems to be not ideal, I think.
Click to expand...

Probably because of the Citadel Armour I assume. Instead of a rectangle it would be more like of a trapezoid and thus smaller armour area
 
Tzoli said:
Probably because of the Citadel Armour I assume. Instead of a rectangle it would be more like of a trapezoid and thus smaller armour area
Click to expand...

I assume, you mean, because of the smaller magazines for the twin turrets, which would be at the end of the citadel ?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom