Hello everyone, hello Ace
Thanks, that was quick!
a few comments:
- De Schelde has not ever build or maintained carriers: the locks which had to be crossed to get to their docks and slibways was too small for them IIRC. the yards for cruisers would be IIRC rotterdam (RDM and Wilton Feijenoord) and the NSDM in Amsterdam (I would have to look that up to be certain)
- I am not certain the names Amsterdam and Rotterdam match the names of the cruisers at the time, any east indies islands that were free? was zeven provincien and eendracht taken?
- the dutch, at least on the later 1047, actually had better torpedo protection requirements then the germans had themselves...... I am not certain that scant protection matches that figure.
- Were the 75mm guns meant to be dual purpose? I would expect some AA on a 1930 design, as certainly was the case in the 1935 'De Ruyter'
- I am REALLY uncertain about the diesels over an proven steam powerplant?
- no aircraft as build seems weird, as the 1928 admiralen class and the 1935 de ruyter class both had aircraft on board or at least the ability to do so.
- do I spot some 40mm No6 mountings on your 1942 refit? those were postwar mountings, the No 3 and No 4 mountings shown here were used before that (the No4 became well known as hazemeijer)
http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Flak_bofors40.htm
- while the Java Class of 1926 received new fire control in 1937/1938 (similar to that of the 1935 De Ruyter) I am not certain your fire control equipment adds anything new to your vessel. instead, I would expect an a lot larger focus on AA directors such as the 1936 40mm director also found on the dutch parts sheet.
nice drawing though, and interesting, just want to discuss and improve it a bit if I may:P
Concerning your remarks:
1. Breyer states De Schelde as one of the yards capable of building the 1047 BCs, so I saw no problem there. If he was wrong, I can always change the yard.
2. Neither name is completely unknown for a Dutch warship. I figured heavy cruisers would receive different names than light ones; if there is a Dutch naming convention that rules these out, let me know, they can be changed.
3. All 1920s heavy cruisers had scant protection, anywhere. A really balanced heavy cruiser would have been anachronistic for 1926. The first was the Italian Zara-class, and that one was intentionally beyond the 10.000-ton limit, something I figure the Dutch government would not do. I might have omitted one turret, but trading firepower or speed for protection was a later tendency.
4. Yes, they were DP
5. It's a german off-the-shelf design featuring German particularities; without any experience in the design of such cruisers whatsoever, it seemed logical to me that very broad and somewhat loose specifications were issued by the Dutch.
6. Ordering the ship bare-bones to save cost and refitting crucial equipment later is a time-proven way of military procurement, especially in a country that was - by the standards of the time - even more reluctant than most to spend big money for the military. As the cruisers are an off-the-shelf design coming from a country where military aviation was wholly forbidden, it also seemed logical they initially had no airplanes, but ample space to add them. Having no catapults for airplanes was also typical for other Dutch ships (Java and Sumatra).
7.+8. Got me there, drawing is changed. The aft main director was not really needed anyway, as the one atop the mast can cover the rear arc. I had the Bofors guns from the swedish parts sheet, I have to admit, because somewhere in the back of my head I thought the Dutch one only contained postwar stuff.
Greetings
GD