Shipbucket

JSB Said (page-3): I have 2 questions regarding your plans,

1) in 1923 would the RN really ask for 2 Nelsons when they had 2 Majestic at 75% and 80% complete ?

Yes the Majestics are 40kt but 35+3 rebuilding allowance = 38kt and you might well be able to save 2kt from the ship (say fiting twins on the super firing turrets or something ?) The WNT was all about saving money and saving building 2 new BBs 200% v finishing 2 older ones 45% would make the British very happy (and they are an older design so other might not be so upset as they will not be the full 5kt better than a new design with weight saving included)

This would mean that you needed to build 2 new CVs but they will be better than conversions (even if smaller) and they can be put off into the later 20s/early 30s till you have finished playing with your experimental ones and learned what you need.

2) Rebuilding, in OTL you got major rebuilds of 3 QEs, and Renown and Repulse with other smaller stuff done to others (mainly AA but a bit of deck added) so at least 5 But only 3 of them got the full new 4.5 guns etc.

So in this world who would get what ? you have 5 x Rs (useless as OTL), 5 x QEs (unlike OTL now not the fastest/strongest BBs), 3 x B (now in the OTL QE position), 1 x Majestic (now in Hoods position), 2 x N&R (as OTL)

I would think that the rebuild will happen to the Barfleur class even if you would like it to include the Majestic as well and any spare cash will go on limited rebuilds of the QEs (but not sure any will get the full 4.5' guns treatment) but in OTL it came down to date for routine maintenance so might be a bit random in TTL as well)



Looking at completing the Goliath and Bulwark in place of Nelson and Rodney, I would also keep the 40% completed Albion and use that ship as the carrier conversion. With the WNT signed late 1922, the Admiralty has had 3 years to refine the Majestic design. The casemates are removed and replaced with 5.5" in twin turrets. Other internal changes are made to reduce the overall displacement of the ships to conform to the new limits. The two ships end up being 38,000 tons standard, 40,000 tons normal, 47,000 tons full load.



The only thing I am not sure of is if they would have kept the same bridge superstructure or gone with the G3/N3 tower. Again that would be a cost thing. The superstructure would already have been completed, so fitting a new tower structure would have been a complete replacement.

@Eswube
The Iraqi Fury is not a "Sea Fury" in any description, four bladed propeller instead of five, no arrestor hook, no catapult launch points, the tail is wrong - it is a Tempest tail. It may be that it is a real 'Fury' as originally ordered by the RAF and to RAF specifications.



There is no Hawker Sea Fury in the Archive. And yes I do know how to search the archives. Any link only takes you to the page the drawing is in, you then have to search the page for the drawing you want.

You do a very good job as Archivist, but not everything works out the way we want. One of my biggest bug bears with SB is the lack of dates on the drawings. That should have been made a rule from day one. Then you know at a glance at the description lines exactly what is being depicted. No confusion with aircraft companies keeping names alive. Westland Whirlwind fighter/helicopter, Hawker Fury 1930's/1940's, Hawker/Panavia Tornado (1940's & 1980's). Same with the ships that have long service lives. A date on the drawing as to what version is being shown, then there is no doubt.

PS: I flipped the above drawing so it would be facing the same way as the SB one but did not flip all the lettering on the drawing itself, which now looks a bit strange.

I'm working on the Fury/Sea Fury at the moment, hopefully I can finish it in the next few days for you.

_________________

Thank you Rowdy36, that would be excellent, you did a very good job on the Tempests and its variants so I have no doubt your drawings will be to the same high standard.

There is no "SEA Fury" as none in the carrier-capable variant has been drawn, but the name has been applied in case somebody did it at some point (ok, I could name the link "Hawker Sea Fury / Fury" or something like that ).
And wether the plane on the drawing is done correctly or not, I think You should rather discuss it with Rowdy36 and Nighthunter who did it (particularly with Nighthunter, as I believe it was Him who adapted earlier Tempest by Rowdy36).
And I suppose that You could adapt the existing drawing to Your needs.

Btw. the links named LINK1, LINK2 and so on lead not to the page where the drawing is at, but to the relevant post (on that page).

As for the "dates". These things are being dealt with when the need appear. I don't see any point at all to add first flight dates (or "project dates" for never-weres) to all drawings, at least in the FD section, as only for a tiny minority of the planes any confusion would appear.
For the Westland Whirlwind - as yet only the fighter has been made, and I think that clicking on the link to check which one is it, for a time being, isn't some horrible effort.
Hawker Fury - well, that's the main reason why the plane discussed above has been listed as SEA Fury, as it was the basic actually produced model.
And Hawker Tornado and PANAVIA Tornado - leaving aside the fact that we don't have (yet) the first of these, I'd like to point Your attention to the fact, that aircraft are sorted alphabetically by name of manufacturer, so they are placed completely separately, also, not mentioning that PANAVIA produced only Tornado which never ever used Hawker (or rather Hawker-Siddeley) brand name, so I can't see how these two could be mistaken.
For the same reason, while in the history of US military aviation there were two bombers designated B-2, but I don't think there is any need to describe them by date, as first of these would be (had it been drawn) under C for Curtiss and second under N for Northrop.

Krakatoa is correct, the Iraqi and Pakistani Furies were land-based Furies and were the original Fury design originally designed as the Light Tempest for the RAF. The FAA version was the Sea Fury and became the main production model as the RAF already had Tempests and with jets coming along (and other high-performance piston fighters like the Supermarine Spiteful and Martin-Baker M.B.5).
Some Sea Furies ended up in Cuban hands too.

Can't wait for Rowdy's drawing though, its going to be awesome...

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

As I said for the Bulwark above, a version with a G3/N3 Tower bridge may have been contemplated instead. Below is my take on that.




That could well be where a weight saving is made toward the 2,000 tons less it needs.

I would think losing the CT would be well worth it (due to weight) so you may as well go for a new design. (or at least a mix of the 2)

I'm also not sure that you would have AA guns (2pdr singles) on the B and X mounts, 4 x oct 2prd should be plenty for 1920s (and you might not finish/fit them for a few years, say swap the rear CT for a different tower and fit AA guns each side ?)

My only other Q is can you drop the stern 5.5 mounts both one deck down ?

Another go as per JSB's comments.

What if the admiralty decides to complete these hulls with 4 twin 16 inch turrets in place of the 4 triple 15 inch? Pros to that are they get their two 16 in armed ships and they arent wasting any hulls. And then you can keep the 15in triples for the KGVs. The only downside would be the lack of the large carriers