Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships

[Charguizard]

It brings me great pride and joy that Hood has permitted me to share this with you in his thread. I would like to present you design 16A from 1928 for a 34,800 tons std Battleship with 4xII 16" guns and 23 knots on 45,000 hp.
I'd like to thank Blackbuck for sharing all the information about this ship with me and of course I welcome your comments and criticism.

[erik_t]

Do you know what is the nature of the extensive glazing along the O-6 level? It's not "wrong" per se, but I don't recall seeing anything similar on other ships of the period.

The quad pair (?) of 4.5" BD mounts is also sort of strange.

Well-drawn, though!

[Colombamike]

I welcome your comments and criticism.

For a "1935 as commissioned :
- twin 4,5"/45 QF Mk I or Ml III unavailable (these mounts were available only by 1939-1940)
=> replace these mounts with twin 4"/45 QF Mk XVI mount

[Blackbuck]

Except the design shows and identifies them as 4.7" BD mounts, had they not been dropped they are what would have been shipped, so they are perfectly correct.

Next time, perhaps do a little more research Mike before calling someone out.

[heuhen]

Nice drawing.

Looks like a nice replacement for HMS Warspite

[Colombamike]

Except the design shows and identifies them as 4.7" BD mounts, had they not been dropped they are what would have been shipped, so they are perfectly correct. Next time, perhaps do a little more research Mike before calling someone out.

@Blackbuck, I don't agree with except if you give much more accurate details

1) BD => ???, these turrets mounts look like a 4,5"(114mm)/45 QF Mk I or Ml III mount
2) Historical facts, guys, 4,5"/45 QF Mk I or Ml III mount first installed onboard :
- Valiant & Queen Elizabteh : 11/1939 to 12/1940, Renown : 09/1939, early Illustrious class 1940-1941...
- Ark-Royal (4,5"/45 QF Mk I HA ("open-mount")) : fall 1938

Blackbuck, young guys, do not confuse the 4.7" (120mm) and 4.5" (114mm)

[Blackbuck]

You really are a giant cockwomble aren't you. Even when you're WRONG you feel the need to act like an ass to people.

The development process of what would become the 4.5" BD mounts started in the 1920s with a successor to the 4.7" HA guns used on the Nelrods. Initially, the 4.7" calibre was carried over and as such is shown on SEVERAL of the 1920s proposals. At the SAME TIME a 4" mount was also being designed for vessels NOT CAPABLE of shipping the 4.7" BD 'thimbles'.

So, accurate details I suppose that these are fake news and not accurate enough for you



Same series of designs as 16A, notice the 4.7" thimbles


16A itself


I have more that I could scan from other books if I had them to hand, do you want me to continue to prove you wrong or would you rather back down admit that for once you are WRONG

[Colombamike]

@Blackbuck,

Good luck to differentiate (VISUALLY SPEAKING) your 4.7"BD and the 4.5" Mk I/Mk III mount....(except 2-3 pixels)
My opinion, boy, before drawing a Gun-mounting, finds the full COMPLETE DIFFERENCE/FULL SIDE-LINE/CUTAWAY, & add it to the official "british drawing refs", before add it to current drawings...

[Colosseum]

Please conduct yourselves in a professional manner.

Off-topic spam posts split and moved out.

[Colombamike]

Good luck to differentiate (VISUALLY SPEAKING) your 4.7"BD and the 4.5" Mk I/Mk III mount....(except 2-3 pixels)
My opinion, boy, before drawing a Gun-mounting, finds the full COMPLETE DIFFERENCE/FULL SIDE-LINE/CUTAWAY, & add it to the official "british drawing refs", before add it to current drawings...

@ all, please :
before criticizing, draw accuratly/precisely the 4,7"BD 1928-1934's mounting (to differentiate from the 4.5"Mk I/Mk III), and after it, we speak about it again