Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Royal Sovereign Class Never-Were's
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5571		 Page 2 of 3
Author:  Hood [ September 12th, 2014, 9:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Royal Sovereign Class Never-Were's
Thanks for all the praise guys.

I wondered when I would receive a Colombamike analysis!

The armour figure is true. Royal Oak during her 1934-36 refit had 900 tons of deck armour added (thanks to her bulges being added). This comprised 4in of NC armour added over the magazines and 2.5in added over the engine rooms. Her original horizontal armour was only 2-1in thick, so her final thickness was about 5in. I assume the intention for the Catherine refit would have been to add about 4in across magazines and engine spaces, even so 2,000 tons does sound like a lot of additional armour considering Royal Oak received 900 tons. In my scenario above I've assumed Royal Oak would be used as she already had additional armour and so this could have saved manufacturing additional armour which was in short supply - the main reason why this refit never started (beyond the impractical nature of the mission!)

As to the plan you posted, that is the one I used to base my drawing on. Canis D had found it over at one of the Warship Discussion forums years ago but no origin is known. Had he not stated that, I would have assumed it was one of his excellent AU drawings. It is not an official plan (I have never ever seen an official sketch drawing of the Catherine refit) and to me it looks as though someone has done exactly what I have done. Taken the Royal Oak line drawing from Breyer (or equivalent publication) and kitbashed it.

The AA layout is NOT what I would expect from RN practice at all. There are 14 sets of multiple MGs and 9 pom-poms!! Not even aircraft carriers had that kind of firepower at that stage of the war and no 1939-40 era ship would have so much. The AA guns atop A and Y turrets are far too cramped and the amount of mounts is far too high. I have allowed my senses to go slightly, my first instinct was 5 pom-pom mounts and 4 MG mounts but I allowed myself a couple of extra given the aerial threat, Orkelions became available in 1940 so I added just two of those. Without the experience of Norway, Dunkirk, Crete and Malta I very much doubt whether many additional AA mounts would have been available or even thought of as necessary by their Lordships (carrier support was intended for the operation).

So I felt my job was to refine an idea based on that kitbash, but to make a more historically accurate version. We have no idea what the final design would have looked like and this is a best estimate.
Author:  Colombamike [ September 12th, 2014, 9:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Royal Sovereign Class Never-Were's
Hood wrote:
The AA layout is NOT what I would expect from RN practice at all. There are 14 sets of multiple MGs and 9 pom-poms!! Not even aircraft carriers had that kind of firepower at that stage of the war and no 1939-40 era ship would have so much. The AA guns atop A and Y turrets are far too cramped and the amount of mounts is far too high. I have allowed my senses to go slightly, my first instinct was 5 pom-pom mounts and 4 MG mounts but I allowed myself a couple of extra given the aerial threat, Orkelions became available in 1940 so I added just two of those. Without the experience of Norway, Dunkirk, Crete and Malta I very much doubt whether many additional AA mounts would have been available or even thought of as necessary by their Lordships (carrier support was intended for the operation)
I concur Hood
Author:  smurf [ November 3rd, 2014, 12:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Royal Sovereign Class Never-Were's
Comments as requested
I have photos of the drawings in Sir Eustace Tennyson d'Encourt's notebook. They are quite crude, hand drawn ones. They don't always quite correspond to descriptions in books. His drawing of T1 differs from the drawing by John Roberts in Warship 1995 (Brink of Armageddon, Keith McBride, p61.) ETdE has made red ink corrections. The Warship version looks like his initial version, but has the funnels slightly more separated. I don't know if McBride had another source (eg Ship's Cover or ADM report. I've never looked at these for R class)
So, T1 ETdE initial & McB: Funnels closer than yours. McB slightly, ETdE just about touching, with the after funnel crossed out and a single funnel line in red added. 6in casemates Six on the same deck level as the base of Y turret. Line goes from just aft of funnels to centre of B turret barbette, guns equally spaced. Two aft casemates under centre of Y turret and under the gap between Y and X barbettes, one deck down from the other 6in.
Red corrections (single funnel) aft casemates deleted, two guns added in turrets (not absolutely certain they are not casemates) on level of the six casemates, one just aft of the mast, one forward of the mast, distance from the other a bit larger than the separation of the forward casemates. This rearrangement of guns looks to correspond with the change to single funnel.

Triple turret. Design T4 has 9 guns, with the triple turret in Y position,
There are also details of design T2 with two triple and two twin turrets, and T3 with five twin turrets. No diagram of either. I'd assume T3 Iron Duke layout.

Design W1 has eight casemated 6in. one forward of the centre of X barbette; one under the centre of A barbette both on deck level of base of Y barbette. The other six are in a double deck set the lower three on the same deck level as the base of Y barbette, the upper three a deck higher.
The centre guns are below the funnel. The forward pair near the front of the bridge, the aft pair the same separation behind the funnel.
Author:  Hood [ November 3rd, 2014, 8:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Royal Sovereign Class Never-Were's
That is great information smurf. I was working from what was over at Warship Discussion and D.K. Brown's Grand Fleet.
I'll make these changes and update the drawings. I'll add an extra T1 to show the changes to single funnel and casemates.

Why do you think the Admiralty reverted to double-deck casemates? Was it to improve performance in heavy weather or to an attempt to concentrate the armour and save weight (but then why the weird single casemates fore and aft)? I'm sure I've read somewhere that double-deck batteries had been abandoned previously as they were impractical/ short traps.
Also, what was the purpose of the armoured spotting position added in the stem? Some very curious and retrograde steps...
Author:  smurf [ November 3rd, 2014, 9:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Royal Sovereign Class Never-Were's
Edit: That post was intended to be a pm!
Author:  csatahajos [ November 4th, 2014, 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Royal Sovereign Class Never-Were's
Hi Smurf! Is that you David??! Nice to see you again ;) and hope to see you soon over at Warship Projects 4.0 as well ;)!

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.p ... -projects/
Author:  Hood [ November 4th, 2014, 9:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Royal Sovereign Class Never-Were's
Thanks for information from Smurf I am revising these drawings.

First up, the initial design, T1. The upper drawing is the perhaps the first T1 design penned by Sir Eustace Tennyson d'Encourt's notebook. The bottom drawing represents the changes made during the design process, in effect becoming the Royal Sovereign as built.

[ img ]
[ img ]
Author:  Bombhead [ November 4th, 2014, 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Royal Sovereign Class Never-Were's
Wow superb drawings. ;) Now I know why I don't draw battleships.
Author:  Krakatoa [ November 4th, 2014, 11:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Royal Sovereign Class Never-Were's
Lovely drawings Hood. They really capture the grandeur and majesty of the big gunned battleship.
Author:  emperor_andreas [ November 5th, 2014, 2:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Royal Sovereign Class Never-Were's
Very nice work!
Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/