Ace: "not certain about if it was correct either, Hood?"
But it is not possible to know what "correct" might be for a 'neverwere', at that stage of development.
Let me see if I can explain that pessimistic statement, reviewing the actual design process for these ships. It would be a lot easier if I knew how to post a few typical drawings on this site, but I shall have to manage with words.
As briefly as I can, the end result is that Hood's Shipbucket drawings give his good impression of what those designs would have looked like if completed as shown by the sketch plan at that stage. That is the drawing on page 2 posted by Hood on 20 Oct 2013.
That drawing is a scan of a photograph of the sketch plan, published in Warship 1997. The photograph shows two deck layouts as well as the profile. Its background is uniform light grey, the lines dark grey rather than black. The apparent shading towards the bow in the posted drawing is a result of light leakage in the process of scanning from the book. I know for I did it for another site. The ship is about 6in long in the photo, but the original drawing was 1/16in = 1 ft and so for a 515ft ship it would have been about 32in long, but showing no greater detail than that shown. It was probably a blueprint (judging by the photo's grey background with some evidence of folds to fit an envelope). Hood had only the posted scan to work from. Official drawings were not concerned to show the appearance of a finished ship, but only to illustrate variations subject to question at the stage reached.
That represented the stage a little later than the beginning of the design process, early in 1929, at which choices were being made between five designs differing in armament and protection. The sketch designs were requested 15 Dec 28 and the first conference held 30 Jan 1929. There were presumably five drawings, (though not necessarily, as Design 1 could well serve for discussion of Design 2 and at a push all could be discussed on the basis of those for Designs 1 and 3 which were published in Warship.) the sketch plans would be expected to show a ship which would be stable and float level, which was influenced by the actual disposition of armament, engines, fuel etc. The sketch design might need to be revised to match the standard Form A "Legend of Particulars and Estimate of Weights" when the design was submitted for approval by the full Board of Admiralty.
What I need to do now for a complete picture is describe how all this fits into the design process, which began with a Jan 1929 Staff Requirement for a 30 knot 6000ton ship with 3x2 6in, passed through Board Approval before detailed plans were prepared and construction began and ended with the completion of Leander in 1933 at 7300tons, 4x2 6in, 32.5 knots.
Typically, the very first stage might be accompanied by very simple outline drawings only a few inches long. The final stage would be a set of 'as-fitted' detailed plans usually 1/8in = 1ft sent to the shipbuilders to use for the actual construction. There might be other sketch design drawings if there were significant changes after the early design conference. Such an 'early Leander' late in 1929 was published in the Warship article. The ship at that stage was more like Leander but with a rather slimmer funnel. Design changes during construction were not unknown, but needed Board approval.
None of those Warship diagrams give much idea of hull form, having but one half profile, a basic U shape, roughly amidships. It would be usual, for the purposes of estimating power/speed requirements, to choose a hull form already tested in the Haslar tank. In this case, with length/beam about 10, that would probably have been the D or perhaps the E cruiser form. The final hull form would be determined from model tests once the length and beam had been set by the size needed to accommodate machinery and armament and maintain stability.
|