Tzoli

Before WW2 broke out, in the mid 30's Romania intended to expand it's navy to protect the shores and important trade routes of the Black sea against Turkey and the Soviet Union. For this plan Romania asked Italy to provide the ships. First it was asked for a larger big gunned cruiser, basically the Italian version of the German Deutschlands the UP-102 in 1936. 2 years later in 1938 OTO (Odero Terni Orlando) (The later OTO-Malera and OTO-Breda company) provided a much more economical design of Scout cruiser or smaller light cruiser, essentially the Italian version of the Japanese Oyodo class. Neither of these two crusiers were able to acquire Romania before WW2 broke out. The data for the design as follows:Date of design: 1938 Dimensions: 140m x 16,2mDisplacement: 4.500tons standard, 6.000tons maximumEngine Power: 75.000shp, 2 shafts Maximum Speed: 67km/h (37knots) Armour: Belt: 52mm, Deck: 25mmArmaments: Some sources states: 2x3 152mm Guns 3x2 102mm DP-AA Guns 12x1 20mm Machine Guns1x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes 6x Arado Ar 196 seaplanes Or as the image shows: 2x3 152mm Guns 4x2 37mm Machine Guns4x1 13mm Machine Guns1x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes 6x Arado Ar 196 seaplanes

I've just found this drawing showing the Design 866 Heavy Cruiser, a distinct relative or predecessor of the County class Heavy Cruisers Dimensions: 179,83m x 19,81m x 5,18mDisplacement: 10.000tons standard, 12.950tons full loadEngine Power: 105.000shp 4 shaftsMaximum Speed: 62km/h (33,5knots) Maximum Range: 15.700km on 26km/h (8.500nm on 14knots)Armour: Belt: 0mm, only bulkheads, Deck: 38mm (Machinery), 76mm (Magazines)Armaments:4x2 203mm Guns6x1 120mm AA Guns4x3 600mm Torpedo tubes 2x Depth Charge Throwers Some data can be found on the drawing but it's hard to read due to quality.

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) are ordered 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 both sides, this is 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 suggest a ship similar to the Agano class but with the 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. ...

I mean I have a much updated drawing: https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/The-Anti-Aircraft-Oyodo-779197354

Why do you guys still find my old drawing???

Okay... time to kill this thread by me commenting in it... Wargaming cannot design a normal warship at all. Not even real ones... Also I would not work with them, associating my works with their choices is a very bad idea for me. If I have official sketches or drawings to use I use that as a basis, otherwise descriptions or in the end modifications of existing ships. That ship you linked while lacks sketches the basis it uses is a real one: There was another earlier attempt: https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Royal-Navy-1938-Design-I-Armoured-Cruiser-868043849 Oh and names... Sure give an armoured / heavy cruiser a name of a colony rather a county... knowing that HMS Girbraltar was a name used for the 2nd Malta class carrier...

Erm.. Where did you get your Shirane??? It is my drawing yet not my drawing as somebody edited it. None of my drawings showing the Nelson style Yamato preliminaries feature the late war refit! Somebody mixed the A-140K series with my Yamato upgun drawing! Also the 4 No.13 variants that were non 41cm ones featured 46cm cannons not 457mm. Your Yashima is the old and now inaccurate representation of the No.13 Design K: https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/IJN-No-13-Class-Preliminary-Design-K-855705958 https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/IJN-No-13-Class-Preliminary-Design-K-V2-855708219 Your Owari too was a hypothetical drawing from the late CanisD. The Real Kii was just the Battleship version of Amagi with thicker armour and somewhat slower speed otherwise the same aspects (Evolved from the Tosa Class) As for Tosa here is the official one as laid down: https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/IJN-Kaga-Class-Battleship-852093882

All Yamatos would be 460mm armed ones but the design evolved as the ships constructed: Yamato subclass: Yamato (No.1) , Musashi (No.2) 41cm belt armour 20cm deck 3x3 46cm, 4x3 15,5cm, 6x2 12,7cm which later changed to 2x3 15,5cm and 12x2 12,7cm Shinano Subclass Shinano (No.110), No.111 40cm belt armour 19cm deck armour tonnage relocated to improved double bottom and other "sensitive" places like sensors 3x3 46cm, 4x3 15,5cm, 6x2 10cm which likely would be later changed to No.797 standard: 2x3 15,5cm and 12x2 10cm No.797 Subclass No.797 40cm belt armour 19cm deck armour tonnage relocated to full triple bottom and other "sensitive" places like sensors 3x3 46cm, 2x3 15,5cm, 12x2 10cm Of course the design take into consideration the install of twin 51cm turrets in place of the 46cm ones to maintain gunnery superiority over the USN (Japan expected that the follow up design of the Iowa which became the Montana will be equipped with 18" cannons)

Oh and you will never find these ship names in any creditable sources, both books, magazines or official documents. The only true names were Yamato, Montana, Worcester, Des Moines, Stalingrad classes. Others are just pure imagination names

And I'm going to kill this thread (for whatever thread I comment on dies afterwards shortly) Still here is the only source about the layouts of the Yamato preliminaries:

Prefer original sketches if possible then using the bes available material online or from books of existing ships of the era and the rest are imagination and experience. For example the Amagi carrier designs I used the official drawings as a basis and tried to search for the best Akagi drawings pre modernization as a fill up for the details. I sometimes use calculations like springsharp to see if the the design is viable for example the Vickers export designs where often only armament and dimensions (sometimes not even that) are available and had to test armour thickness values. Or in case of the 1944 Lions to see how to arrange the upper deck for the 1-1 Malta sized turbine-boiler sets for each of the 6 shafts....

Yes I'm the one you call TZoli and who is the one who draws historical newer-were warship designs based on the information available.

I'm a he

These texts were from Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921 and 1922-1946Late 19th century:The 1899 Naval Expansion Programme: My notes:The 4 built river monitors were ships of the Ion C. Bratianu classThe 8 river torpedo-boats are the ships of the Capitan Nicolae Lascar Bogdan classPre WW1:The 1912 Naval Programme: My notes:The light cruisers were apparently of British origin or at least the British (probably Vickers) proposed designs for Romania.The 4 built destroyers were the ships of the Marasti class from out of which only 2 were re-purchased by Romania, their Italian name was the Aquila classThe submarine was ordered from Italy but construction not started apparently.The 13.000ton coastal battleship should had been similar to the Austro-Hungarian Radeztky class Battleships.Post WW1:The gains: My notes:France requisitioned 3 submarines originally ordered by Romania in 1916-17 and commissioned them as the O'Byrne class in 1921The acquired 7 torpedo-boats were 4 ships of the Viforul and 3 ships of the Naluca class, these ships were former Autro-Hungarian boats. Though only 6 reached Romania the 7th sunk on passage.The ex-French ASW Gunboats were the Friponne class became the Capitan Dumitrescu class though only 4 commissioned, the 5th used as spares.Pre WW2:The 1927 Naval Programme: My notes:The 2 finished destroyers out of 4 were the ships of the Regele Ferdinand class.The two submarines from which only 1 was acquired was the Delfinul classThe submarine depot ship was the ConstantaThe 1937 Naval Programme: My notes:The cruiser was the Italian scout cruiser design by OTO - Odero Terni Orlando, later a larger big gun cruiser of the UP-90 type were proposed but neither design was accepted.The destroyers are unknown, probably Italian design in origin, none were started.From the 3 submarines only 2 were started in 1938, the Requinul and MarsuinulThe Minelayers were the ships of the Amiral Murgescu class

I know two mid-1920's proposals which for one we have a drawing of but for the other I'm not sure it was existed or get the data wrong: The 1925 design: 130 (wl) x 18,5 x 6,5m Displacement: 7.650tons 32.000shp, 2 shafts, 44km/h Armour: 50mm Deck, 150mm Belt, 40mm Slopes Armament 2x2 283mm/50 6x1 149mm/50 4x1 75mm/60 2x1 40mm/39 The 1926 version: Same dimension, and engine but displacement was only 7.200tons Armour: 70mm Deck, 150mm Belt, 40mm Slopes Armament 2x2 283mm/50 1x2,4x1 149mm/50 4x1 or 2x2 75mm/60 2x1 40mm/39 The official drawing I have depicts the 1925 version so I'm not sure if the 1926 one existed at all. Do anybody know more info about this 1926 modified project?

I'm pretty liberal with copyrights but stating false information is not good.

That drawing of mine posted a few times previously but always the original not this "Made by that person" I'm okay with my drawings posted anywhere but not if it got shown as someones own drawing

No. Adolf Hitler was much different then Napoléon both military command and country ruling wise. And also that depends on how you view your history. Only a French could tell you how they view Napoleon. As a Hungarian I view him positively, a British and German might think otherwise.

Nahh I just periodically checking the forums for my name if one or more of my drawings got shown here. But I would like to ask this MilleniumExodus comrade about his sources.

How very nice of you to represent it as not only a historical design from a PUPPET GOVERNMENT of France but also added weapons from Alsace by YOU! Can I get paid for your work by illegally stating it is your drawing of a historical design? But my congratulation for you of having some very limited windows paint drawing skills!

Also saying that the 51cm Cannons has worse ballistics then the 46cm shows how they are not competent regarding naval artillery!

No. This "Yashima" is neither the upgunned Yamato (Official plans to upgun them replacing the main wepaonry with twin 51cm) and neither A-150 (neither versions as info about them is very sparse) Because this battleship has lass AA then the 1945 Yamato with only 10x2 10cm rather 12x2 10cm as envisioned for the No 797 subclass. Shinano would had been as Yamato launched but with 10cm AA guns and revised armour scheme. A-150 was described having "lots" of 10cm mounts so a minimum of 6 per side in my opinion. This article explains them well: https://warshipprojects.com/2018/04/24/the-yamato-class-genesis/

At least post my updated more detailed versions of this proposal! https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/The-Anti-Aircraft-Oyodo-779197354 More info since I've posted in that thread, it was actually a conversion of the Oyodo still under construction then And because there is very little info available on it I've made a number of turret layouts for it: https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Layouts-654066263

I don't mind mentions and links to my images, just be accurate when posting the info. In my description I stated my ideas for the Tone-Kai

My Tone-Kai version (official proposal, limited info available) features 4x4 61cm Torpedo tubes not, 4x3! https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/改利根型重巡洋艦 https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Tone-Kai-type-Heavy-Cruiser-557681807 Late war version: https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Tone-Kai-type-Heavy-Cruiser-Refit-559774477