Shipbucket

Very cool ships, and nicely rendered.

Smurf: You probably sent it to Tzoli. He has a Deviantart page, where he's posted a lot of his own renders of different RL NW designs. I remember him being active on Warship Projects posting these.

I was referring indeed to this one: "RN 1939 9.2in cruiser: 20,750tons, 700'wl x 84'; 154,00shp, 33kn; 3x4 9.2", 6x2 4.5in DP, 2x8 2pdrAA; 7" belt, 4" deck"

Does any drawing or layout info exist for these?

As I said above: There is really only a very crude Workbook sketch and brief written descriptions to go on for the 3x4 9.2in cruiser designs, which in profile would have looked rather like the triple 8in ships, though bigger.
The sketch is in WG John's Workbook - part of his notes on a meeting at which the DNC gave him his initial requirements.
Typical RN cruiser layout, 2 funnels, hangars in Southampton position for deck catapult; short forecastle, turrets A, superfiring B, X.
No detail for DP and AA guns. No TT. Sketch a VERY simple hand drawn profile (no plan) amid a page of handwritten notes of the meeting. John was instructed to try to get down to 18,000tons from the initial 20,000. The idea finished up at 21,500 in 1940. Changes were to the balance of weights of hull, armour, armament and machinery. No detailed layout drawings. DNC had assumed 25ft diameter for the quad turret, but there was no design for that at the initial stage. No finalized design in any real sense at all.

Howdy Smurf,

Would the 4.5" have been the circular type as fitted to the carriers?

I ask because I have had this drawing floating round for a while, unpublished. It is supposed to be 9x12", but with the long range 9.2" the turrets could easily pass for quads. The 4.5" are the same dimensions as the round ones but with more turret and less 'below deck'. This is what I would expect that cruiser type being discussed would resemble.




My apologies James, will find and post there. NM

Thanks for the praises!

I don't want to be a killjoy, but perhaps discussions on the 1939/40 Heavy Cruisers are best discussed in that thread rather than here so we don't loose things later on? We're jumping a long way from 1913 to 1940?

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

Hood is quite right. My apologies for getting carried away answering questions and forgetting we were on the Atlantic cruisers thread.
Also I've got a bit more to say about those, as looking at the text of what I've got rather than at the pictures, I think Hood's turrets are nearer to what was intended than I thought. But I need to send him some stuff first to allow him to respond properly with his thoughts.
Can Admin shift the heavy cruiser posts here to the " British 1940 heavy cruiser project" remembering that there were several projects then?

Forgive me if I now reply to Krakatoa before I forget.
I think the intended 4.5in turrets in 1938/40 would be those fitted in the rebuilt Renown and QEs. Essentially the same as those in the carriers.
The 4.5in as in Battle destroyers was a later direct development, though they might have been fitted if these cruisers were built on as long a time scale as expected to get 9.2in guns and quad turrets. (Or even Mk VI Daring type if completion went post war!)

Much better without the mixed main battery

Drawings temporarily removed pending corrections. Watch this space!

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

I've sent Hood copies of the original drawings in Tennyson d'Eyncourt's notebook. Others in books based on them are not quite accurate.
But I've also looked at the text, and withdraw any suggestion that the mounts were central pivot and not turrets. The text clearly says gunhouse armour 4in for the 1912 ships, 4" and 3" for the B3 and B4 of 1913. It also says 4in armour for the barbettes!
That compares with 8in faces, 6in sides and 4.5in rears for the 7.5in on Minotaur, which had total armament weight 2065tons with ten 7.5in turrets. B3 had 8 7.5in turrets and total armament weight 1090tons. Minotaur also had 2x2 9.2in and B3 had TT so no direct comparisons, but taking off 500 tons for two twin 9.2in leaves 1500tons for 10x7.5 or 150 tons each, which is about right. B3 has about 1000tons for 8x7.5, or 125 tons each or a bit less. With about half the armour thickness but all else the same (gun, cradle, motors etc) that would indicate that Minotaur 7.5in turrets with thinner (4"+3") armour and 15 degree elevation would be about right for B3 and B4, wishing to save a little over A,B1 and B2 initial designs with 4" gunhouse armour. That also means that the guns were most likely the L50 MkV on Minotaur, with the slightly lighter L45 gun with 30 degree elevation on a central pivot mounting developed specially for Hawkins class to increase gun range from 15000 yards to 21000 yards in the light of war experience of longer range gunnery.
Apologies for introducing a red herring. I should have checked my original photos first, instead of relying on memory of some comparisons of 6in, 7.5in and 9.2in guns when the RAN wanted something heavier than Birmingham's 6in for Adelaide.
I still think B3 was a very cramped design, with a smaller hull than B4, which had the advantage of all the guns on the centreline except the 6in alongside the foremast.

EDIT PS: Incidentally, there doesn't seem to be a 7.5in turret on the parts sheet. There's only the CP mount for the 7.5in MkVI L45.
I did find a thread about Minotaur, but I couldn't get to see the drawing, getting 404 error.

Thanks to Smurf and his information I have made some changes.
All now have the Mk XI 50cal 6in gun, the missing 6in casemate on B2 has been added and I've added an additional B4 with straight funnels and masts as this was later requested by the Board and may well have been the final appearance of this design had it been built.

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