Matrix Games Forums

Game files:

Dutch lineup so far.

That Rotterdam thing is not a good design. Poor siting of the guns.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Another Dutch "never-was". CA Rotterdam. Presumably an 8" cruiser.

OOOOOOHHHH! Now that's nice (again)!!!! Heck, some of our stuff may need a makeover! Thanks Gary!


TOMLABEL

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That Rotterdam thing is not a good design. Poor siting of the guns.

How is it all that different from some of the treaty cruisers? It's also possible they could be smaller caliber than 8".

Not talking about the main battery, but the positioning of the AA suite.

Also, there's very little reason for the Dutch to build both Project 1047 AND heavy cruisers. Both are for fighting IJN CA's, and the Dutch can't afford both.

Would they have the shipbuilding hability to launch all those ships ?? Battlecruisers, heavy cruisers...That's A LOT of steel.. 

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not talking about the main battery, but the positioning of the AA suite.

Also, there's very little reason for the Dutch to build both Project 1047 AND heavy cruisers. Both are for fighting IJN CA's, and the Dutch can't afford both.

Not much of an original AA suite to speak of in any case. As with everyone else, early war experience pushed AA suite upgrades in almost every ship.

And as you point out, these would not have been built to 'deter' the Germans. Given the economic situation of the 1930's, there was little to no money for any of these. But again, we're in the 'what-if' realm.

Well if I could get hold of some stats on the Dutch ship building industry we could maybe find out how much they could have built, optimal. The BC project was on hold for a long time due to lack of understanding of underwater torpedo protection.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not talking about the main battery, but the positioning of the AA suite.

Also, there's very little reason for the Dutch to build both Project 1047 AND heavy cruisers. Both are for fighting IJN CA's, and the Dutch can't afford both.

What's wrong with the positioning of the AA suite?

I'm not saying anyone has to include all the ships. If someone wants to just include the BCs or just the CAs, that's fine by me.

Well, the two Bofors mounts behind X-turret won't have much of a firing arc, blocked by that mast and the floatplanes. That wing turret below the bridge is the same. And how, by the way, is that gun director behind the forward Bofors mount supposed to work, when it's looking at nothing?

The wiki article stated that the purpose of the BC's was to defeat the IJN CA's. It makes me wonder would they bother building the CA's.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the two Bofors mounts behind X-turret won't have much of a firing arc, blocked by that mast and the floatplanes. That wing turret below the bridge is the same. And how, by the way, is that gun director behind the forward Bofors mount supposed to work, when it's looking at nothing?

I see what you're saying with the gun director (assuming that's what it is). The Bofors mounts presumably would be firing off to the side and not in line with the ship under most circumstances, but yeah, they could be placed in more strategic positions.

ORIGINAL: oldman45

The wiki article stated that the purpose of the BC's was to defeat the IJN CA's. It makes me wonder would they bother building the CA's.

Well, I guess it would depend upon what happens in one's alternative universe. If they don't build the BCs then that would create a need for some CAs. If they do build the BCs then maybe they don't need the CAs or maybe they could still use one or two. I'm no expert but I suppose it would be like any other decision by any other navy. Generally more is better and if they can afford to build more they will.

How does this look, then? Took out the gun director and placed the two bofors in the rear side by side instead of in line.

Better.[:)]

Are those DC racks on the stern?

Nice work by the way.

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Are those DC racks on the stern?

Nice work by the way.

Not sure. They look like it in close up, either that or mines. Unfortunately the author(s) of the drawings I've been using for the Dutch navy doesn't give stats for his ships.

As far as stats go, I'll see if I can come up with some for some of the never-were dutch ships. I'll post them here for due scrutiny by the AE community.

Wow! After looking at the stats for fuel consumption, range and endurance of US warships to try to get a handle on WITP stats, I've gone cross eyed. I think I'll leave the stats to the experts. I'm more comfortable with art work. [X(]

OK. I broke down and did some stats for the Dutch BC 1047 project. First off the name I have for the class is from a famous Dutch ship of the line and means "Golden Lion".

Some of the stats for the ship class are really just "eye balled" based upon similar ships in the database and not based upon any concrete facts, but then there aren't a lot of concrete facts for the ship as it never existed IRL.

Feel free to respond with any critiques. I'm interested in how realistic the projection might be.