Shipbucket

I get your suggestions but,
IMO the turrets are as big (if not bigger bottleneck than the actual guns, remember they had spares to swap and reline them) and I don't think 1800t is a small amount ! when the total armament they are designed for is (800x3=) 2400t ! that's a 1/3 extra I just don't see it coping with just a bit more width (without big problems like slowing down and having to redesign it totally).

JSB

When the two R class arrived at the Grand Fleet in late 1916 with the original 6" armoured belt. Admiral Jellicoe sent them back to the builders to have a new belt of 9" armour fitted. The original 6" belt being placed above the new belt. That added armour plus the addition of more deck armour added over 2000 tons to the original displacement. That is without any additional breadth of hull to compensate.

The 9" belts were fitted during 1918-21 (Repulse) and 1923-26 (Renown). This, along with increased deck, slope, barbette armour and new anti torpedo bulges added some 4,000 tons to each of their displacements. Maximum speed was reduced from 32.5 knots to 30.75 knots.

The extra 500 tons fitted to each ship in 1916 was mainly to their decks.

_________________
Keep well and keep drawing,

Monty

forgive me if I'm wrong but you are suggesting that,

A R&R class can have 1800t added (the heavier turrets) because they added lots of belt and only lost 2 Kn speed.
But,
- They still need the belt as well.
- The turrets are much higher up (this will magnify the weight ?)
- The bigger turrets will need bigger barbettes = more weight.
- The bigger holes will need reinforcing = more weight.

So you now have a fatter/wider ship much heavier that will be much slower, is it now still a BC or just a week BB ?

I would think a 27-29Kn R&R is much less useful ?

JSB

JSB,

If you are responding to my post, I was not suggesting anything. I was merely pointing out the correct dates that the armour belts were altered in Repulse and Renown.

However, for what it's worth, I do not think either ship could have been fitted triple 14" turrets aft unless modifications were made to the rather fine after-run during construction. I would agree though, that a significant reduction in either speed or in the scale of protection would have to be made in order to incorporate triple 14" turrets into the design. I'd suggest that the ships' beam would have to be around 100 ft, not including the bulges.

Meanwhile, I forgive you.

_________________
Keep well and keep drawing,

Monty

The triple 14in was probably not feasible, at the time triples were frowned upon by the Admiralty and designing a new turret for one ship would be a waste of resources and time, as would redesigning the hull. Saying that, its an interesting concept and I've not seen many ideas using those 14in barrels for the Chilean ships. Overall, the drawing itself looks pretty good.

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

Like your cruiser, a well thought out and realistic design, good backstory as well.

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Very nice!

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

Hm, why not go with the same guns, but with double turrets instead of triples? You save weight that way, perhaps turning it into the fastest ship in the navy

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...