Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 5  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Krakatoa
Post subject: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: September 28th, 2014, 9:08 pm
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
I was doing a KGV type ship for my AU when it came to me that I have not seen a KGV as originally planned in SB. I spent an hour this morning going through the various threads with King George in them and if I have missed a previous entry then I apologise to the previous creator.

I have done little other than removing the twin and replacing it with a quad. This added 10.5 feet to the length if the bow configuration is to be kept the same. That is the difference required for the extra clearance required by the quad from the superstructure and the extra size of the quad versus the twin.

[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: September 28th, 2014, 9:10 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9050
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
interesting

since you started on here you could have updated parts on here, but that is just nitpicking.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
ONI-Defense
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: September 29th, 2014, 5:32 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 404
Joined: May 10th, 2011, 11:13 pm
Location: Oviedo, Florida
Good job. :)

_________________
Current Worklist: http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... f=5&t=5562


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: September 29th, 2014, 7:36 am
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
The other leading candidate for the King George V main armament was a vessel armed with 9 x 15". Compared to the 14" quad turret, a 15" triple would need to be about 2 feet (4pixels) longer and 6" (1 pixel) higher. The guns would extend another 2 feet (4 pixels) beyond the existing 14" barrels. The barbette would be smaller as the triple-v-quad would have the triple narrower. I am still trying to quantify the difference in the barbette size and if anybody has an idea as to what the rule of thumb might be I would appreciate the help.
Thanks
Nigel.



Edit: I did read somewhere when researching the 12x14" version that the placing of the barrels for the quad were 96" apart (but I can not find the reference now when I want it). If I could locate that reference again that would help to fix the breadth of the triple 15" turret compared to the quad 14" turret. Then I could scale the barbette.


Edit 2: I have updated the 2pd pom pom's with the latest models. (Got to keep Heuhen happy)


Last edited by Krakatoa on September 29th, 2014, 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
KHT
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: September 29th, 2014, 8:06 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1396
Joined: November 19th, 2011, 12:49 pm
I know it's mentioned on Navweaps, on the page for the 14"/45 Mk.VII, in the Mount/Turret data secction(Note 6, more specifically).
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: September 29th, 2014, 8:07 am
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Thank you Hugo, I knew I had read it somewhere.


The size of the quad turret in width is the same width as the barbette (from photos and line drawings), which on SB original drawing is 81 pixels. Using 100" for the axes for the 15" this would give a width of 68 pixels for the triple 15". If anybody can give me a different figure I will happily use it.


Edit: This is the KGV with triple 15" using the above figures.

[ img ]

I am happy with the turrets, its the barbettes that I am not sure of.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: September 29th, 2014, 12:35 pm
Offline
Posts: 7150
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Nice work.

I know BH did these not so long ago, but with I'm sure these and the real ships could be given some great updating and detailing from the amazing refs at the site Heuhen found:http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/battle ... 939-a.html

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: September 29th, 2014, 1:00 pm
Offline
Posts: 3867
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: YouTube
Very nice work!

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tempest
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: October 2nd, 2014, 6:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 749
Joined: October 21st, 2013, 10:44 am
Location: Wales
I wish Britain didn't build the King George V class to the Washington Treaty limits, if that were the case would they have been the Lion class or a a separate one?

_________________
My Worklist
MD Scale, 4 Pixels : 1 Foot
Official German Parts Sheet
German Capital Ship Projects of The First World War


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
smurf
Post subject: Re: King George V as originally planned 12x14"Posted: November 3rd, 2014, 10:39 pm
Offline
Posts: 207
Joined: October 25th, 2014, 7:46 pm
Your first post:
"I have done little other than removing the twin and replacing it with a quad. This added 10.5 feet to the length if the bow configuration is to be kept the same. That is the difference required for the extra clearance required by the quad from the superstructure and the extra size of the quad versus the twin."
Compare the following data and sentences from Raven & Roberts British Battleships
Design 14L Nov 1935 Lengths 700'pp; 740'wl; 745'oa. 3x4 14in
Design 14P Sept 1936 Lengths 700'pp; 740'wl; 745'oa. 2x4+1x2 14in (Final design)
"The twin mounting involved a new design of mounting, re-designing the supports for B turret and recalculating the ship's trim. The latter meant moving the citadel four to six feet forward to compensate for the reduced weight of the twin mountings"
From the constructors' workbooks, on 7 Oct 35 Design 15C 3x3 15in was also 700ft pp, 740ft wl
Much design effort concentrated on keeping the citadel as short as possible to save weight, though at one point a version 770ft wl instead of 740ft was considered, to get 30 knots. The length reduced the hp needed, which lowered the engine weights and space.

@ Tempest. For the 1937 ships (DoY, Anson, Howe) some very tight studies were done to try to get 3x3 16in into a 35,000 ton ship. They got within 36,000tons, but policy was still to keep strictly to treaty limits, while dates for ordering mountings needed a decision before information was available about Japanese intentions and the Board approved repeat KGVs in Nov 1936.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 5  [ 44 posts ]  Return to “Never-Built Designs” | Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]