Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships

[BB1987]

I personally do not see the issue with the 4.7'' mount being almost identical to the 4.5'' one. The concept of the gun mount was basically the same, and the calibre difference is minimal (0.2 inches, or 6mm). The IJN rearmed its older heavy cruisers in the 30s replacing 200mm (7.9'') guns with 203mm ones (8'') without replacing the turrets (with the exception of the Furutakas, but in that case they switched from single to twin guns). The italians did the same going from 305 to 320mm on the old battleship refits.

[acelanceloet]

The goal is not to differentiate, it is to be accurate, right? If the later 4,5in mounting was based on the same design principles, the only things that would change in an shipbucket style drawing would be the dimensions, hatch positions and the barrel length. Looks to me those are different, so in my opinion this was done properly.

You were the one doing the criticizing here, were you not?

[Charguizard]

I don't mind the attention myself but I'm sorry I kinda ruined Hood's thead

Anyways, I've added the notorious part in question to the SB wiki: http://shipbucket.com/wiki/index.php/4. ... rk_VIII_BD

About the superstructure, the glazing comes from me grossly misinterpreting pictures of Nelson. I'm inclined to redraw that bit if a passable argument is presented, but if you think it's allright then I'll just leave it as it is.

Thanks for the comments and feedback to all of you, discussion is important!

[reytuerto]

Very well drawn, Char! First time that I have the oportunity of having a look of the design (and is much more impressive, and massive! )!

[Hood]

To throw my two-pennies worth into the discussion on BD turrets; had I been drawing this I would have been tempted to have used the 4in Mk XV experimental mount BD Mk XVIII as shown on the RN gun parts sheet. This was briefly trialed a couple of capital ships in the mid-30s.

The only real difference is that the XVIII is an earlier design than the 4.5in BD mounts and has a slightly more domed roof.
There used to be really good photo sources for this from the Vickers Barrow archive online but the images were removed years ago.

Given the nature of the BD mounts, there would have been little difference in the above-deck cupola size and little in the way of detailing to differentiate between 4.5in and 4.7in other than the barrel length.

As to the superstructure detail Erik_T brings up, I had the same thought when Charguizard gave me preview of the drawing. Given the forward part of the upper position on the Nelsons were glazed in during the 1930s I felt this wasn't a huge problem. I would be tempted though to to limit the glazing to just the forward section for wind protection and leave the rest open, as on the Nelsons.

[MihoshiK]

Apart from the usual suspects being asses again, this is exactly the kind of thing we need more of. An excellent drawing of a somewhat obscure design.

[adenandy]

I quite like her, as drawn.

Jolly well done Charguizard, you've got my vote

[eswube]

An excellent drawing.

[emperor_andreas]

Excellent drawing, Charguizard, no matter what certain detractors (*cough*ban him*cough*) might say!

[MihoshiK]

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

Know what? Put up or shut up, you mong.

You think it isn't correct? Draw a better part. Come on, fire up MSPaint, Photoshop, whatever, and draw a better part.

Or is your mouth bigger than your artistic chops?