Shipbucket

Hi,
Thanks for the info from the pics/diagram it looked like 6 AA guns I assumed 4inch or 3inch ?

As to my plans for a rebuild Tiger, I'm not sure I can justify a full rebuild on cost grounds (Kongo style although I would like to maybe draw a proposal by a greedy shipbuilder ) so would be as follows.
1 ) 1931 kept instead of Iron Duke as training ship ( cheaper as you only have to remove 1 turret )
2) 1935 then use her to 'test' stuff like AA guns and maybe fit an aircraft catapult ?
3) 1938 then a speedy rebuild with new more powerful boilers (as most of the old ones had to be removed due to London Naval treaty) and put back the last main gun turret and belt.
She would be a week capital ship in the WW2 but still very nasty for a 8inch CA or 11inch Deutschland class and available quickly without any work .

or Kongo style,
(could I fit a better one hum, do we have 12 inch belt from iron duke siting in a shed and will it a)fit b)weigh to much(we would have to change the layout or just for the mags ? Not totally sure about this ). This might mean bulging but we will have more power to compensate.
As you can see I cant really decide how much it is worth spending on the rebuild I will try a few options .
Thanks JSB

couldn't resist trying out some ideas (cheap ish rebuild idea with maybe some cheating thoughts (well preparing to rebuild before its allowed) in the admiralty), feel free to rip to shreds !



1) might drop the 4.5 down a deck
2) not sure about the hangar/classrooms may not bother (although in peace time aircraft are not as expendable ?).
3) may remove rear most HIACS looks a bit silly (and not sure I need more than 1 to 'test' and 2 for a 2nd rate ship in 39).
4) may lower rear funnel structure a deck
5) when to swap to new fighting top on front mast ?
6) how to draw a missing belt (but with fittings still in place )?
7) may fit better range finder's to the turrets ( Y has bigger one I think, may copy for B as well )
8) note the different pompoms ( 8,4 also 2 and 1 on other side ) and 2 marks of 4.5 (fixed BB's/split DD's) this RN is going to be well prepped for AA guns
JSB

deleted, to save thread-space/visibility

How much would this really cost (and when, can I spread it over time so HMT doesn't get a big bill and go NO but small bills that go down as running costs) ?

1932-36,
- remove 1 turret, belt and 2/3 boilers ( for treaty )
add ( split up over time to spread cost )
1) New director for main guns (what's the point of training on old systems ? ( ok not sure as not all 15inch got new ones )
2) 1 x HIACS + 4 x rear 4.5 turrets ( one side with fixed round for BB's/CV's the other with separate shell / charge for DD's) this is the biggest bill and I'm not sure if I can hide it as a test installation ?
3)Aircraft well you would want to training both aircraft handling / spotting guns and maybe queen bee for AA ?
4) 40mm ( I have fitted one of each type for testing / training ) so 8 gun set (roof hangar) 8 gun on turret (to test ammo handling/blast), 4 gun on side (for CA/CL/DD ) , and on the other side a 2 and 1 gun set (for DD/MGB). All HV Ammo testing (ok maybe cheating to much)
So not a huge bill (and hidden as testing, not wasted on upgrading an old ship but maybe to much for the mid 30's (as this stuff would be better on an R class or QE ).

pre 1939
5) new boilers, put back belt and turret
6) 2nd HIACS and spotting top (may just add a HIACS to the hold top)
7) maybe add 2 more 4.5 turrets and move the 40mm guns around ( ok maybe to much cost, may keep 4 of the casement guns to compensate ).
8)maybe fit transom stern (can an ensign be persuaded to crash her stern into a dock during training ?

Ok so my rebuild will maybe miss out 1, 6, 7, 8 to cut cost and will reduce the others as well

Thanks for your comments, I find it very easy to start drawing to much (as pixels are free !) 2nd opinions (and 3/4etc) are great.

JSB

PS I'm also tempted to go for as many medium calibres as possible (just to take the p*** at the RN ie [4"/40 QF Mark XIX][4"/45 QF HA ][4.5"/45 QF x 2 different types][4.7"/45 QF ][4.7"/50 QF Mark XI yes they are different !][5.25"/50 QF Mark I][6"/45 BL] have I missed anything ? (well 5.5 from hood but not sure if I can get that on board realistically.
my plan would be from bow to stern casement 6inch (old as 1913) 4 inch AA above (2 types one each side ?) then a mix of all the rest at the back ( 4.5 fixed/4.5split/5.25(small turret, bigger is to late )/4.7 old /4.7 new, but that gives ,me 5 turrets and I only have space for 4 (may mount one instdead of the hanger on center line) this sounds totally stupid but just think this may make the RN think about using less types ! 4"/40 QF Mark XIX and 4.5"/45 QF should be ok for everything ( ok old 4.7"/45 QF and 6"/45 BL will stay in use as they are already built, but save at least 2 types)

you may find http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCGWW2.html interesting if you want more info.

deleted, to save thread-space/visibility

you mean to say rebuilding is not sensible (unless your forced to by treaty's ) .
Thanks for the well thought through reality (but part of me thinks it ruins my plans for this thread, but maybe for the better.) and yes that is a good site (I used it to get all the gun marks above).

I will do a sensible rebuild incorporating a few of your ideas later this week (I had thought twin 4's x 6 + reduced casements before but, I liked loads of new 4.5 etc to much and 2pdr are expensive so will limit the use of the paste button) .

Thanks JSB

deleted, to save thread-space/visibility

Some years ago, over on the 'Warships Projects Board', a small group of us discussed the possible reconstruction of HMS Tiger. While it was generally agreed that the scenario was completely over the top, here's what we came up with - just for the fun of it -

_________________
Keep well and keep drawing,

Monty

3 Tigers


What do you think ?

I'm not sure if,
1) I should swap the catapult for a more IJN Kongo set up.
2) I should join up the funnels if they are new anyway.
3) Anything else that needs fixing.

JSB

The two foremost funnels should probably be joined.