Shipbucket

Yeah, he wrote something about that, that I can't remember. I think it was something about what was available and cheap to get at that time... or something in that way.

Apart from the odd placement of the hangar really a very handsome ship. You have to wonder how much mileage the British would have gotten out of them post-war. Ships this new and big might have been good choises for a Sea Slug conversion.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

Don't tempt me Mihoshik

"I only ever found that single drawing "
There are several drawings in various books. They are all redrawn from original sketches in
(1) ShipsCover 624 Armoured Cruisers 1940
(2) Johns workbook 1941 [Drawings in Workbooks are simple sketches (not draughtsman's drawings) about 6in wide]
The differences arise from a 1941 decision that the ships should have a silhouette similar to (and so could be mistaken for) KGV battleships.
These original drawings are all held at the National Maritime Museum's Historic Plans and Photographs department at the Brass Foundry, Woolwich Arsenal.
I have seen all these drawings. Had there been a proper 1/16in = 1ft Sketch Design drawing, I would certainly have bought a copy.

The best redrawing of (2) is Len Crockford's published in 'Building for Victory' by George Moore. See EDIT below.
The best redrawings of (1) are in Raven and Roberts 'British Cruisers' p269 where both the 12,500ton and 15,500ton designs are redrawn.
These drawings are not to scale, and figures for dimensions on the relevant legends should be used, rather than any derived from measuring published drawings.
None of the above drawings show internal arrangements, nor underwater profiles. Friedman's drawing must be based on his interpretation of written discussions about things like boiler positions and armour.

As for the turret design, everything is speculative, as the turrets were never built, nor even a design completed. I'll offer some comments:
The turret was a new design, and so was the gun, intended specifically for these cruisers (and a 1939/1940 range of designs of around 10,000tons, on hulls limited to Southampton length by docking restrictions, chiefly at overseas bases. There are no drawings of these designs, only a table in Cover 624, reproduced in George Moore's article on Cruisers for the Royal Navy in Warship 1997
This MkIX or MkX gun was to fire a 290lb shell with a muzzle velocity of 2670 fps, compared to the Counties' 256lb at 2805fps.
The Counties' twin turret was designed for an elevation of 70 degrees, and a high rate of fire, leading to a complex design. The MkX for 45 degrees and much lighter and simpler. (ie, not based on turning the Counties twin into a triple.)
Gun and turret design was undertaken by Vickers, not the Admiralty, so Admiralty Sketch Design stage drawings do not necessarily accurately represent the actual turret designs, which were not usually finalized at Sketch Design time. Vickers triple 6in, triple 6in high angle and quad 14in of that time were all 'square cut' and it seems very likely that the triple 8in would have followed suit and been an enlargement of the triple 6in. It is not a question of fitting 8in guns into the existing triple 6in. An 8in turret would be over twice the weight of a comparable 6in.

EDIT
A few further thoughts, having looked more carefully at Crockford's drawing in 'Building for victory' redrawn from the drawing in Cover 246.
Its caption says 2as sketched early in 1941. It is therefore NOT a drawing of a ship with a silhouette similar to KGV. The four twin 4inHA shown each side, indicate that this is the 1941 16,500ton version, of March 1941.
It also differs from Raven and Roberts' drawings ,which represent the 1940 design stage, in that the hangar is shown in the 'Southampton' position alongside the rear of the bridge.
Crockford also draws turrets with the length of the exposed barrel rather less than the length of the gunhouse.
That would be true of a triple 8in turret based on the triple 6in, but differs from the turrets drawn in Raven and Roberts. Friedman follows the layout in R&R, which represents the 1940 drawings. Do not assume that this means that the turret design was actually changed - see above.
Not to scale: R&R's 12500 ton is drawn virtually the same length as their 15500ton version. Waterline lengths were actually 610ft and 670 ft, a difference of 10% or 0.5in on the drawing. This shows in the difference in the sizes of the turrets in plan view, which ought to be the same. Blame the publisher's page layout designer.
I suggest, GarlicDesign, that as your gun barrels look to scale to around 10m, that is right for a 50 calibre 8in, but your gunhouses might need to be a bit longer.
See for example
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... FAodeQsNEA
And (but not all the barrel length is shown)
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... FAodbTAPcA
As drawn in R&R and Friedman turrets are not simply a direct expansion of the triple 6in, but whether they correspond to any actual Vickers design is doubtful
The book drawings are all small and sketchy, but if I had to trust which ones were most likely to be accurate renderings of the originals, I would go for Alan Raven and John Roberts every time.

EDIT 2
I've looked again at my photos of W John's Workbook.
There are two attempts at designs for a 3x3 8in cruiser. Both are very basic outlines, dated 1939. Both are for ships 580ft waterline, and therefore relate to the 10,000ton ships with Southampton size hulls.

One more thing to take in is that by the time these would get build, they probably wouldn't have the aviation facilities, as these were all removed in contemporary cruisers as the war progressed. In their place you'd probably see a relocation of the boats to the catapult deck, and the addition of at least two more 40 mm pompom.
In fact the hangar itself might be gone too, replaced by a simple deck house.

_________________
Would you please not eat my gun...

Good point MihoshiK. When drawing any real ship in detail, you need to know the date you depict it if you want a truly accurate drawing. The same is true for "neverweres" though you may never have as much detail known. Your suggestion is valid, but no versions of these ships were ever drawn as they might have been in say 1944. So versions without aircraft facilities must be speculative and start to verge on 'Own Designs'.
If Garlicdesign wants to try that I suggest looking at the differences between Fiji and Superb. If Krakatoa is tempted by a missile ship conversion, then I think you are looking to compare Fiji with Tiger as built.

Very interesting.

Hello again!

Thanks for the feedback!

As for which drawing is the most accurate, there is no real choice for me because Friedman's is the only one available to me free of charge (I invest a lot of time in Shipbucket, but if I start to invest money too, my wife'll probably file for divorce...). According to Smurf, Friedman's drawing seems to be not bad, so a total redraw will probably not be needed.

As for the size of the gunhouses: They correspond with Friedman and are longer than the County-class gunhouses, so I doubt they need be enlargened any more; I will however shorten the barrels a little, because the British mounted their guns relatively far back inside their turrets and quite a part of the barrel was inside the turret.

Concerning variants: The current version is the earliest 1940 sketch. The British did not build particularly fast during the war, so even with high priority, the ship is unlikely to be completed prior to late 1944. By that time, nearly all other RN cruisers had gotten rid of aviation facilities, but I understand the reason for this was not that airplanes were no longer considered necessary, but rather the need to lighten the ships in order to fit additional flak, radar and other gear. If these 15.500 ton cruisers were built, they would be the only modern RN cruisers not designed to meet extremely restrictive tonnage limits, and probably the only ones with ample weight and stability reserves which allow for the addition of more equipment without having to land the aircraft and catapult. As the class was to consist of four ships named for Admirals (anyone knows which ones??), this leaves room for a lot of versions:
- 'as designed' with aviation facilities (basically the drawing already posted)
- 'as completed 1944' - without aviation facilities, but two more 102mm twins and two or four more multiple pompoms
- 'as completed 1951' without aviation facilities and pompoms, but lattice masts, new radar, and Bofors guns in sextuple and twin mounts
- 'as completed 1957' with Tiger-like superstructure and six 76mm L/70 replacing all other AA
- 'as refitted 1963' as above, but with the aft turret replaced by a Seaslug launcher, and two of the 76mm mounts by two quad Seacat PDMS
- 'as refitted 1968' in a command ship configuration with Helicopter hangar and landing deck instead of Seaslug

Any more ideas?

Gimme a week or two and I'll see what I can do...

Greetings
GD

The only other variants I did for the Princess Royal type was with:
2 x twin 6" auto forward and either Sea Slug or Hangar/Choppers aft
Double ended Sea Slug - one Sea Slug forward and aft

See how you go with that lot

@ Garlicdesign: Names: George Moore, in Warship 1997, said
In May 1941 the King approved the renaming of Effingham (not the sunk Hawkins class ship!) to Cornwallis, and Benbow to Albemarle. The names of the other two ships are not confirmed but likely to have been Hawke and Blake (names used for Colony class later). (See Friedman p.369, Note 14) Names had been allocated to the 1940 ships, but records of which names have not been found, though a note in the Fiji Cover suggests one was Bellerophon. Remember too at this time before Dunkirk there were ideas for larger ships around 20,000tons with 9.2in guns. By 1941 these had all been replaced by designs with hulls built to light cruiser (Southampton) standards, to save weight for armament and protection. 4.5in DP were considered, but ruled out on weight grounds (which may be a simple way of saying 'stability' or 'hull stresses' as those depend where additional or replacement weights are placed.) When considering weights of extra AA, radar etc, don't forget the ammunition and the extra crew.
Folk may know I am a purist. In my view all your "variants" are 'Own Designs'. Interesting ideas, but yours, not the Admiralty's!

The only problem with Friedman's drawing is that it is relatively tiny, so measuring dimensions from it is tricky. I've sent you a pm about others.

"I understand the reason for this was [not that airplanes were no longer considered necessary, but rather] the need to lighten the ships in order to fit additional flak, radar and other gear. "
True, without the words in brackets, but the radar actually took over the main functions of the aircraft on cruisers; reconnaissance and gunnery spotting. Radar gave adequate range for both and operated in bad weather when aircraft could not fly. Also if a ship became engaged in a gunnery action, a plane and its fuel could be a liability, and need to be jettisoned.