Tzoli

According to the Japanese Wiki: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%94%B9%E5%88%A9%E6%A0%B9%E5%9E%8B%E9%87%8D%E5%B7%A1%E6%B4%8B%E8%89%A6 There was a warship design which was proposed in 1939 for the Maru 4, Naval Armaments Supplement Program. This cruiser was to be based on Tone with same armament and arrangement (4 twin 20cm gun turrets all forward) but slightly larger displacement of 13.000tons standard. 2 ships to be built but the design never progressed beyond the proposal. I've been intrigued by this design and decided to make a drawing of it which I now present here as well. Because of so little information available, I had rather free hand to design this never were warship. The changes compared to the original Tone class heavy cruisers as follows: - Slightly different main armament arrangement: 3 facing forward, 1 aft resulting one shell handling room to be closer to the hull's centre. This should slightly help the ship's stability and weight distribution. - 10cm Type 98 DP-AA Guns which are designed at the time these warships proposed and are vastly superior to the 12,7cm Type 89 DP-AA Guns. - 4 quadruple torpedo launchers instead of the original triple, providing the same torpedo firepower as the later Ibuki class heavy cruisers. - More numerous and differently arranged triple 25mm Type 96 AA guns to provide heavier AA support - Slightly different superstructure and platforms with 4 instead of 3 large reflectors. - Seaplane hanger very similar to that used on the Oyodo class light cruiser and which able to carry 3 seaplanes of various types (Mitsubishi F1M Pete, Aichi E13A Jake or Kawanishi E15K Shiun/Norm) - 3 catapults to launch the seaplanes, 2 of the regular 19,4m long type and 1 45m long type for the E15K Shiun. - Total seaplane capacity: 3 on the catapults, 3 in the hanger and possible 1 more on the deck totalling to 6-7 seaplanes. Alternatively without the large 45m catapult the seaplane capacity could rise to: 2 on the catapults, 3 in the hanger and 3-4 on the deck totalling 7-9 aircrafts - Possible slightly stronger engines of approximately 160.000shp - Possible thicker armour of 127mm Machinery and 150-160mm Magazine belt with 75mm deck Now the drawings: As built or soon after commissioned: A very likely 1943/44 refit for the Tone-Kai design similar to what happened to the IJN Oyodo:Removal of the 45m large catapult, using it's space to carry E13A Jake Floatplanes, more 25mm triple and twin AA guns and the green-light green camouflage pattern used on many IJN warships.

For long time there were news to rearm the Brooklyn class light cruisers with single 12" guns though this would be troublesome as only 4 turrets could be replaced as there are not enough space for such a long barrel at the 3rd turret's place. Later I've got informed that not the Brooklyns which considered to be updated this way but the cruisers based on her eg the Wichita class which was better suitable. Read similar here (last few posts) http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/6923-brooklyn-class-preliminary-design-studies/

I know very little about the brooklyn class light crusiers design process, but the USN played with various ideas where and how to put this many guns and turrets. Apparently 3 alternatvie version were proposed: A - 5x3 in an Iron Duke style arrangement having 2 pair forward and aft and the 5th one in the aft just forwards of the aft superstructure B - 4x4 similar to the A version, only remaining the first pair, while the aft pair is replaced with a single quad turret so does the 3rd one. C - probably one of the craziest idea to use the Nelson style (or later Tone style) arrangement having all 5 triple turrets on the front, and anything else aft. I assume this design was not chosen becuse the lack of firepower aft, and the consdierably larger load on the hull on the front, though it would require the least armoured area for the magazines. Thanks for CanisD for the drawings:

I know not much about this design but maybe our Italian friend stefsap does. What I know that in 1938 the Di Giussano alone or more of her sisters are considered to convert to anti-aircraft light cruisers. Apparently two versions are considered a semi-partial conversion replacing the original 152mm guns with 135mm ones to fight the enemy cruisers or destroyers or a full conversion with 16x1 90mm Model 1939 AA guns.

The last French battleship the Jean Bart had a struggling and long history before finally commissioned in 1949, 13 years later after she was laid down, but she received her final look in 1953 and being in active service from 1955 to 1961 and finally scrapped in 1970. The last battleship of the world to be commissioned Jean Bart had received numerous proposals and design studies to finish her, ranging from her original purpose as a Battleship through the more astonishing proposals as a Hybrid Battleship-Carrier, full scale carrier or even as an anti-aircraft Battleship. Only one other class of battleships had such numerous proposed variants, and that is the USN's Iowa class Battleships in which their long service life multiple studies are proposed to extend their usefulness in the late WW2 and Cold War era, from Full scale carrier to Guided Missile Battleships and to Amphibious Assault Support Battleships. So now let me show you how the French Jean Bart would look like with the various proposals: 1.: The original layout of the Richelieu class battleships. They would had been equipped with 5 triple secondary turrets of 152mm Dual-Purpose guns and a moderate amount of 37mm Modéle 1935 asymmetrical light AA guns. 2.: This is the modified layout and the look if she was finished before the surrender of France. The forward pair of triple 152mm turrets are removed and replaced with 100mm Modéle 1930 heavy AA guns, while a reduced number of 37mm Modéle 1935 asymmetrical light AA guns would be installed. 3.: Here you can see how Jean Bart would look like if she would get away and got the same refit in America like her sister the Richelieu. Numerous 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikon light AA guns to be added. 4.: The actual Jean Bart in her 1955 form with the large number of 100mm Modél 1945 Heavy AA and 57mm Modéle 1949 light AA guns, together with radars and radar assisted rangefinders. 5.: One of the radical proposals to finish the incomplete ship to a unique design, as an Anti-Aircraft Battleship. Proposal dates back to 1941-192 the inability or capacity of the US cannon foundries to produce the necessary barrels to finish her as well as the events of Pearl Harbour made this study born from desperation. Removal of the 2nd incomplete turret, and the aft secondary 152mm guns would give large amount of space for both heavy ad light AA guns. The heavy AA guns would be the famous Mark 12 5inch (127mm) guns in the twin DP-AA turrets, while the light guns would be the usual but increased number of 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikon MGs. Radars and associated rangefinders would be installed as well. 6.: A French proposal of 1940 shortly before the Fall of France to finish her as a hybrid battleship and aircraft carrier capital ship to provide not only fire support for the Marine Nationale but aircraft projection or aerial fleet defence. Proposal would be feasible as the aft part of the ship is still not complete, though there would be stability issues to be solved having large weight on the front and the tall superstructure on the right side. Armament would consist of the French 100mm Modéle 1933 AA guns in twin turrets and 40mm Bofors with 20mm Oerlikon as light AA defence. 7.: Another USN proposal from 1945, was the full conversion of the partially completed hull to a fleet carrier. Heavy AA fire would have been provided by the 5inch (127mm) Mark 12 AA guns, while light AA are from the 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikon Machine guns. Air complement is not known apart from USNAF planes, but the size would allow a decent air group of around 50-60 planes.

Since the creation of the fist modern torpedo in 1866 by Robert Whitehead (UK) and Giovanni Luppis (AH) many nations tried to design and build warships which use this weapon as their primary armament and in large numbers. Before the conversion of IJN Kitakami and IJN Oi to torpedo cruisers of the Imperial Japanese Navy just before WW2 there were already proposals to utilize this weapon by larger cruiser or capital ship sized vessels. Italy in fact created a mainly torpedo armed battleship to destroy enemy blockades around the eve of WW1. But Russia too was considered to build such vessels though on a slightly smaller scale, on cruiser or smaller battleship hull. The design itself started it's life as a regular battleship for the Black Sea fleet with 4 triple turrets and a maximum calibre of 406mm Cannons. Discussions between the Admirality and the designers eventually led to designs with increasing torpedo armament and reduced main weapon calibre eventually ending in the finished design. With more then 80 torpedo tubes and 12x 180mm guns and heavy armour, the ship would be a deadly opponent to any kind of vessel it could face. The final design while in armament wise could be considered as a heavy cruiser, the displacement main belt and turret armour would classify her on the battleship type. The Specifications of the design: Dimensions: 203,4m x 25,5m x 8,2mDisplacement: 23.000tons standardEngine Power: 72.000shp, 2 shaftsMaximum Speed: 52km/h (28knots) Maximum Range: 2.300km on 26km/h (1.250nm on 14knots)Armour: Belt: 400mm, 450mm near the citadels and 50mm at ends, Deck: 85mm (75+10) with 40mm (20+20) lower deckArmaments:4x3 180mm Guns84x1 457mm Torpedo tubes Schematic drawing: Armour layout: From: http://www.e-reading.link/chapter.php/1007019/15/Vinogradov_-_Poslednie_ispoliny_Rossiyskogo_Imperatorskogo_flota.html

Nope, the site which hosted these were since loooooong gone. And even when it was existed it was containing some alternative history and idea behind these photoshop images.

It's been a long time since there were a new meaningful topic in this thread, designed for never were ships but looks like it was both overshadowed by WoW and researchers tend not to trust arcade style games for information. Never the less here are the various Mogami variants the IJN wished to build or actually built:- Mogami class light cruisers as designed and laid down.- Mogami class light cruisers (IJN Mogami and Mikuma) as finished- Mogami class heavy cruisers (IJN Mogami and Mikuma) as refitted- Mogami class heavy cruiser IJN Suzuya as proposed for anti aircraft heavy cruiser conversion- Mogami class heavy cruiser IJN Kumano as proposed for anti aircraft cruiser conversion- Mogami class heavy cruiser IJN Mogami as rebuilt to aviation cruiser- Mogami class heavy cruisers as rebuilt to light aircraft carriersNote how the aircrafts which was carried changed over time. Full (7600x10.500pixels) resolution can be found here: http://orig13.deviantart.net/5d15/f/2016/158/e/d/the_mogami_variants_by_tzoli-d9xbvs7.png More detailed info on the variants:First variant:After the sign of the First London Naval Treaty of 1930 Japan reached it's maximum allowed heavy cruiser tonnage by the completion of the 4 units of the Takao class and thus it had to cancel the following improved Takao class heavy cruisers. The tonnage limit for light cruisers too were very close to the set limit but by scrapping 4 pre-WW1 era protected cruisers of the Tone and Chikuma classes (3 ships), and replacement of the Tenryu class (2 ships) and the Kuma class (5 ships) by 1934 and 1937 allowed Japan to build 6 new light cruisers which then became the Mogami and Tone classes.Originally the Mogami class would displace only 8500tons standard but the requirements of the navy was so similar that of the 10.000ton Takaos that standard displacement risen to 9500tons and different weight saving measures had to be taken to reach this goal and thus Design C-37 was born.As the drawing illustrates the Mogami class as born was quite different from the ones actually finished. A bridge very similar to the Takao was adopted despite it's large mass resulting top heavy problems, large surface area for enemy fire and wind resistance counterweighted the positive points of centralised placements of fire-control, communications and navigational stations, the quadrupedal foremast was also taken from the Takao class. By reducing the boilers from 12 to 10 a single funnel could be adopted as well. A protected hanger was provided for the seaplanes which was almost identical to that of use on the Takaos. Main armament was chosen to be 15 155mm guns in 5 triple turrets from the very beginning and because they are designed to provide AA fire, the secondary armament was chosen to be only 4 single guns but of new type (12,7cm Type 89). Torpedo armament and placement too was very similarly arranged that of the Takaos.Second variant:This is how Mogami and Mikuma was commissioned. After the Tomozoru incident of 14th of March 1934, plans were created to fix the stability issues of the Mogami class (among other ships of the fleet as well). These plans (unofficially known as the first efficiency or stability improvement works) were completed in June of that year but the first two units were already launched while he other two just laid down. The plan included the strengthening of the transverse bulkheads, replacing the large Takao style bridge with a much smaller one cutting it's weight by 2/3rds, removal of the seaplane hanger and rework of the aft superstructure, reducing their weight by half. Various deck height reductions were included, as well as moving the torpedo tubes further aft, increase the AA guns to 4 twin from 4 single mounts, and reducing the number of boilers from 10 to 8 in the last two units: IJN Suzuya and IJN Kumano.Third variant:In 1937, following the denunciation of the 2nd London Naval Treaty of 1936 in the IJN decided to construct new ships and continue to modernize or refit the existing units, including the battlecruiser Hiei and light cruisers of the Mogami and Tone classes. While the barbette diameter of the Tone class was changed during construction there were no problems for them to fit the 20cm twin gun turrets used on the other cruisers but Mogamis was already finished by this time so the construction of new turrets postponed their refit. This refit (unofficially known as the third efficiency improvement or main gun replacement works) included the change of the 15,5cm triple turret to the 20cm twin ones, replacing the older Type 90 torpedoes with the newer Type 93 ones also known as Long Lances, replacing the seaplane catapult with a heavier and stronger one as well as torpedo-firing command station on top of the mainmast.Fourth variant:After the battle of Midway in which Mikuma sunk and Mogami was heavily damaged only 3 operational Mogami class cruisers remained in service. Between late 1942 and early 1943, while Mogami was underwent repair and conversion into an aviation cruiser to increase the fleet's scouting capability, plans were drawn up to convert both Suzuya and Kumano into Anti-aircraft cruisers. The plans included the replacement of all the main 20cm twin turrets to twin 12,7cm DP-AA mounts as well as increase of light AA gun armament. Though original plans included to convert both of the two fully operational cruisers to Anti-aircraft ships, most likely to wartime shortage of 12,7cm guns as well as suitable dockyard capacity, Suzuya would only got her aft guns replaced by the mentioned AA weaponry while still able to provide the same firepower as the Furutaka and Aoba classes.Sidenote: I've taken the liberty to add more MG director towers knowing the ship's changed purpose to AA instead of surface combat.Fifth variant:While IJN Suzuya would only got half the AA gun replacement that was proposed, IJN Kumano could had received the full conversion creating a potent AA platform rivalling even that of the USN's Atlanta class Anti-aircraft light cruisers. Other changes likely would be included the replacement of the main gun rangefinder with High-angle one as well as more Machine-gun director towers for controlled AA fire.Sixth variant:After the battle of Midway Mogami was heavily damaged and between late 1942 and early 1943, she underwent repair and conversion into an aviation cruiser to increase the fleet's scouting capability. This time the entire aft section of the ship rebuilt removing both turrets (one was heavily damaged) and their ammo storage rooms was modified to hold gasoline, bombs and other ammunition. The aircraft deck extended to the stern with a rail system to move the designed complement of 11 Aichi E16A Zuiun floatplanes though at first she carried a mix of Mitsubishi F1M Pete and Aichi E13A Jake floatplanes. Her light AA armament also increased with associated directors as well. After the conversion was finished her main role as frontline combatant changed to a more supportive role to provide reconnaissance and scouting for the fleet with the ability to launch all her planes in roughly half an hour.Seventh variant:Shortly after the battle of Midway at the end of June 1942 proposals were made to quickly replace the carrier losses of this devastating battle. As no new fleet aircraft carrier to be excepted operational at least until 1944, conversion plans were made for all the cruisers and battleships of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Soon the Furutakas and Aobas were ruled out as considered too small and the Yamatos were not just new but too important for conversion.The conversion of the battleships (4 Kongo, 2 Ise, Fuso and Nagato) would take 18 months and would result in vessels with around 210-220m x 34m flight deck and an aircraft capacity of roughly 54 planes. In the end the Kongos were ruled out because with their high speed they could escort the carriers, while the Nagato's 410mm cannons were still considered a powerful armament, this lead to the decision of the Fuso and Ise classes with Hyuga's aft turret damaged this made the decision straight: Ise, Hyuga followed by Fuso and Yamashiro.As for the cruisers (4 Myoko, 4 Takao, 3 Mogami and 2 Tone), the conversions would took around 8 months to finish and would result in light carriers with 195-200m x 23,5m flight deck and an aircraft capacity of roughly 30 planes. In the end only the partially completed Ibuki was chosen to be finished as such a carrier, but even she was not finished in time.My drawing represent the Mogami class conversion into CVL, though I do not have any drawings of the plans I do have access to the Tone's similar conversion and the Ibuki from which I've created this.For those who are interested in the Tone class (IJN Chikuma to be precise) original sketch drawing showing her converted form, you can find it here:i.imgur.com/bb9sfxC.jpg

Lack of production capacity most likely. IJN Shinano too was equipped with 12,7cm guns while 10cm ones were intended for her originally.

Some now information I read in Lacroix's IJN Cruiser book. The larger 12x2 10cm AA cruiser are actually proposals to modified the then currently under construction or to be laid down cruisers of the C type (Submarine squadron leaders), the Oyodo class. The Oyodo hull was actually larger and the displacement too was greater than stated for that original drawing (blue-greyish). While the hull numbers 815-818 was the actual real AA cruiser design from start, to be equipped with 4 twin 10cm guns, seaplanes and likely the 100 depth charges.Originally 8 ordered for the two Yamato squadrons (each with 4 battleships) but reduced to 4 later in the war and eventually none started. These AA cruisers got the in development design number of V-18 and later the actual design number of C-45. These ships were to be smaller, and a standard displacement of 5800tons and 7150tons full load as stated for the larger ship. Conclusion: The original drawing: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/17421/B4AC91CAB4494A55B2F419641202F714.jpg is from a naval book or magazine which includes drawings of other cruisers as well as the wrong impression of the 4x3 20cm armed heavy cruiser: http://i.imgur.com/fNmsUDf.jpg The confusion comes from the very limited information about these ships and artists and researcher errors. The larger ship (12x2 10cm) was based on Oyodo hull and not started as a dedicated AA cruiser design from start as Oyodo was designed for a submarine squadron leading / command ship, with the modified design proposed in 1941. The smaller (4x2 10cm) ship was designed from start as an AA cruiser and it's history dates back to 1938/39 while it's requirement finalised in 1941/42

Re-posted because someone locked the first thread and seems it cannot be unlocked. Not much is known about this cruiser design but here I try to collect the few bits. 4 ships (Hull number 815,816,817,818) were included in the 1941 5th Naval Armaments Supplement Programme but none of the ships were laid down. They were ordered after the defeat of Midway and would be heavily armed with 10cm Type 98 AA guns and numerous 25mm AA machine guns. No project number ever found for this design but actually two variants seem to exist.The first one which is more widely known but probably one of the early proposals featuring a larger, cruiser sized ship with 12x2 10cm Type 98 gun turrets grouped in 4: Front, aft and on the sides, this was often called the Japanese Atlanta. The other is a smaller vessel with only 4 such turrets but also to carry seaplanes, sources say this design was chosen. Other sources say this would be a command ship for destroyer squadrons, especially the AA Destroyers of the Akizuki class and to keep up with the fast carriers. For such role floatplanes are envisioned, as well space for commanding officers and radio equipment.Here are the known data of these two designs:(Early larger version)Dimensions: 172m x 15,8m x 5.7mDisplacement: 7,150tons standard, 9,200tons full loadEngine Power: 103.000shp 4 shafts,Maximum Speed: 63km/h (34knots)Range: 13.000km on 33km/h (7.000nm on 18knots)Armour:UnknownArmaments:12x2 100mm (3 forward, 3 aft, 3-3 on the side)numerous triple 25mm AA machine guns100 mines(Later, smaller version)Displacement: 5,800tons standardArmaments:4x2 100mmOther: 2 SeaplanesThese drawings show the layout of the larger version. There are no drawings available for the smaller version, though some models and artist concepts suggest a ship similar to the Agano class but with the above mentioned weaponry. Criticizable the large amount of twin gun turrets on such small hull and displacement. It is only known what kind of weapons these ships would carry but not in what kind of mounts. For the 10cm Type 98 guns 3 kinds of mounts are developed but only two used: The fully enclosed turret used by the Akizuki class (and to be used on the B-65 Battlecruisers) and what is shown here, the open mounting used on the Oyodo and Taiho classes and the 3rd shielded mounting would be used on the Shinano and A-150 Super Yamato classes The fully enclosed turret weighted 33,4tons while the open mounting only 20,4tons. ...

The Austro-Hungarian Kaiserliche und Königliche Kriegsmarine (Imperial and Royal War Navy), abbreviated as K.u.K. Kriegsmarine like other navies of the world developed and proposed a number of designs of various warship classes which did not left the shipyard or the drawing board. Here I will show you the non capital ship proposals aka the cruisers, destroyers and monitors. Monitors To my current knowledge these are the only known monitor projects: Number XI and XII River monitors (to be named SMS Duna and SMS Tisza) were the largest Danube monitors ever laid down. Ordered in 1917 and never finished, though some sources say they were launched in 1918. Data on the design Dimensions: 73,9m x 13m x 1,7m Displacement: 1.240tons standard Engine Power: 2.100shp, 2 shafts Maximum Speed: 19km/h (10knots) Armour: 40mm Belt, 25mm Deck Armaments: 2x1 190mm Guns 2x2 90m Guns 4x1 37m Guns 1x1 90m AA Gun Here is the model from the Heeresgeschichtliches Museum Wien (Vienna): Also known as the Adria-Monitor Type, a pair of seagoing monitors were proposed at the end of 1917 to provide offshore fire support for the troops of the Dual Monarchy at the coasts of Italy. Not much is known about this design apart that they would displace 1500tons standard and would carry 2x 24cm cannons in 2 single turrets. None were laid down. Destroyers Improved Tátra class Destroyers 8 destroyers of this class was authorised in September 1917, but only 4 units were actually ordered on 22nd of December, 1917. The steel shortage prevented their being laid down as only some 200tons of materials had reached the Shipyard at Porto Ré by the end of the war. The turbines and boilers, being built in Budapest were about 35% complete at the time. Data on the design Dimensions: 855m x 7,8m x 2,6m Displacement: 880tons standard, 1.050tons full load Engine Power: 20.500shp, 2 shafts Maximum Speed: 60km/h (32,5knots) Range: Unknown Armaments: 2x1 120mm Guns 2x1 90m AA Gun 2x2 450mm Torpedo Tubes 1900ton Destroyer design 12 destroyers of 1900tons were authorised in September 1917, while the next month the Naval Technical Committee (K.u.K. Marinetechnisches Komitee) issued a specification for a 2000ton destroyer with the following details: Dimensions: 115m x 10m x 3,8m Maximum Speed: 63km/h (34knots) Armaments: 4x1 15cm L/50, 4x1 6,6cm L/50 AA, 6x 53cm Torpedo Tubes Two shipyards were invited to put forward their suggestions in line with this specification. DaFi tendered their project in April 1918. The ships would had the following details: Dimensions: 122,4m x 10,2m x 6,8m Displacement: 2.272tons standard, 2.498tons full load Engine Power: 43.000shp, 2 shafts Maximum Speed: 63km/h (34knots) Range: 5.600km at 30km/h (3.000nm at 16knots) Armaments: 4x1 150mm Guns 4x1 105m AA Gun 2x2 533mm Torpedo Tubes This project was approved but the situation deteriorated rapidly and no vessels were ordered. It was not until the 15th of August, 1918 that STT submitted alternative proposals for a 2440ton destroyer armed with 3x1 15cm guns and another 2650ton destroyer armed with 4x1 15cm guns. The above mentioned data and designs are from these books:: Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921, Austro-Hungarian Warships of World War I by René Greger and Warship International, No3, 1978, by Anthony Sokol.

Added a few more photos and drawings

I wonder if those really be 203mm guns or more rounded numbers like 200 or 210mm, on the other hand the Chinese big cruiser (early heavy cruiser) would be armed with 203mm guns

Those cruisers I've posted here: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/35122-austro-hungarian-non-capital-ship-designs/ Though I do not know the revised Project VII design with 203mm guns

I've found calculations for a 10.000ton cruiser in the Hiraga archives. What is unique about this vessel that it would carry 4 triple 20cm heavily armoured gun turrets, though calculations shows quad turrets were considered a well but it is unknown if it would carry the same number of such turrets aka 4 quad or a reduced amount of 3. In the Hiraga archive the vessel is described as Myoko type cruiser so we can safely say it is one of the preliminary designs which led to the Final Myoko class heavy cruisers. Other document shows a high angle 80°maximum elevation turret variant, which is higher then the actually installed ones. Data (what is available) Dimensions: 198,12m (waterline?) x 17,52m Displacement: 10.000tons standard Armour: Belt 89mmArmament: 4x3 203mm gun (or 4x4 or 3x4) minimum 2x1 120mm DP-AA guns The document's relevant pages: Weight comparison with the Furutaka or Aoba class Weight calculations for the hull. (armament is on the lower left corner) Some data about the triple an quad turrets including the barbettes: More detailed info on the barbettes:

And here are my drawings based on the documents above: A triple and quad turreted Myoko preliminary design modernised before WW2:

Before WW2 and in the later years the Royal Swedish Navy intended to expand and modernize their fleet both with coastal defence warships and cruisers. As WW2 progressed the navy went to a more mobile and faster route featuring cruisers but in the end only 1 cruiser design with 2 ships in it built: the Tre Kronor class light cruisers of 1943-44 (Finished postwar in 1947) though these ships designed by Italy in 1940-41 by CRDA (Cantieri Riuniti dell'Adriatico) But the slower but more heavily armed and armoured coastal battleships were not discarded entirely both the Swedish Admiralty and the Italian Ansaldo company proposed designs for the fleet expansion and modernisation plan including a Monitor and various coastal warship designs: Monitor Design Date of design: 1945 Dimensions: UnknwonDisplacement: 10.200tons standardEngine Power: UnknwonMaximum Speed: Unknwon Armour: UnknwonArmaments:1x3 210mm Guns 8x2 57m AA Guns Coastal Battleship Design (Some sources refer to them as Viking class) Date of design: 1934/36 (or 1939) Dimensions: 133m x 19,5m x 6,85mDisplacement: 7.150tons standardEngine Power: 20.000shp, 4 shaftsMaximum Speed: 41km/h (22knots) Armour: Belt: 254mm, Deck: 50mmArmaments:2x2 254mm Guns 2x3 120m DP-AA Guns 4x2 40m AA Guns Coastal Battleship Design by Ansaldo Date of design: 1941 Dimensions: 173m x 20m x 7mDisplacement: 17.000tons standardEngine Power: 90.000shp, 4 shaftsMaximum Speed: 43km/h (23knots) Armour: Belt: 200mm, Deck: 120mmArmaments:3x2 280mm Guns 4x2 120m DP-AA Guns 5x2 57m AA Guns 2x2 40m AA Guns 6x1 20m AA Guns Note: Deemed too large and heavy by the Swedish navy. Coastal Battleship Design Date of design: 1945 Dimensions: UnknwonDisplacement: 13.900tons standardEngine Power: 56.000shp, 2 shaftsMaximum Speed: 37km/h (20knots) Armour: Belt: 300mm, Deck: 120mmArmaments:2x3 210mm Guns 2x2 120m DP-AA Guns 6x2 57m AA Guns 16x1 25m AA Guns

This does not mean there were not triple gun turret equipped IJN design in the 8-8 fleet program, it's just I don't know such except for Design M

Most of us don't read japanese so only the drawings or photos could be informative if anybody have them. For the model book that looks like promising but the front cover starts with a triple barrelled turret armed (which looks like the Yamato turrets) IJN warship with hexapodal bridge layout is not promising as all the accepted designs had twin turrets and WW1 style. To my knowledge, only one design of that period (late 1910's, early 1920's) connectible to the 8-8 fleet is Design M (4x3 457mm) most likely preliminary of the number 13 class battlescruisers/fast battleships

Somewhat related: This short article by Bo H. Hallenius is from Warship International, N°1, 1979. Now the question is, what this Ornen Light Carrier or aircraft carrying cruiser be?

381mm Model 1914 http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_15-40_m1914.htm

A cruiser design from the early 20th century, probably around at the time of the Russo-Japanese war. A unique armoured cruiser with an almost uniform main armament of 152mm guns in mostly gun turrets.The lack of superfiring turrets and their circular shape shows it was from the early 20th century. Data: Armour: Belt 152mm, Deck: 25mm OR 152+127mm and 102+25 Armament: 8x2,4x1 152mm Guns 6x1 120mm Guns 4x1 457mm Torpedo Tubes

You can simply identify these turret by these aspects:Italian? Check. Single Barrel? Check. Circular turret? Check. One conclusion: 90mm Model 1938/39 gun turrets

And why this messing up required??? It is now much less logical setup, hard to overlook and missing order. I hope this is only temporally...