Royal Navy Battleship 'X' 1945

Post any drawings of planned or conceptual ships.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
User avatar
Portsmouth Bill
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Battleship 'X' 1945

#11 Post by Portsmouth Bill »

Very interesting, and well rendered; and not a design I've come across before. :)
Vice Admiral MTG
Posts: 7
Joined: November 21st, 2012, 1:54 am

Re: Royal Navy Battleship 'X' 1945

#12 Post by Vice Admiral MTG »

Nice post WW-2 design, but are the two turrets use the quadruple design in order to keep the maximum firepower of 8x2 main guns? I like to see if the main armament would be 18"/50 guns instead of 16"/55.
User avatar
klagldsf
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm

Re: Royal Navy Battleship 'X' 1945

#13 Post by klagldsf »

Not necessarily; like I said, "final" plans for HMS Lion completely deleted the aft main turret. A drawing of it is in the "What-If" database.
William Walker
Posts: 15
Joined: June 4th, 2013, 8:56 pm

Re: Royal Navy Battleship 'X' 1945

#14 Post by William Walker »

Yes very interesting. It wasn't really a battleships as the turrets were built for shorebombardment and it was going to have less armour protection. It is what I would call a Mobile Artillary Ship. I have plans to build a small version for the currently Royal Navy as class of two ships based on the Invincible class hull with 2 turrents for 4 13 inch heavy guns with new shells for shore bombardment. However in my "Dream Navy" I have a ships just like this but with modern systems, helicopters, VLS and so on.
User avatar
jabba
Posts: 1012
Joined: April 14th, 2011, 5:00 pm
Location: Under your kitchen sink...

Re: Royal Navy Battleship 'X' 1945

#15 Post by jabba »

Nice.
Sumeragi
Posts: 136
Joined: December 22nd, 2014, 10:38 am

Re: Royal Navy Battleship 'X' 1945

#16 Post by Sumeragi »

Can someone tell me the various electronics that are on this ship? I'm interested in the development of postwar British radar and electronics.
Hood
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am

Re: Royal Navy Battleship 'X' 1945

#17 Post by Hood »

No problem:

Main directors: Type 274 (the later single dual-array version)
Secondary directors: US Mk 37 upgraded with Type 275 (as was done to Vanguard)
AA directors: Close-Range Blind-Firing (CRBF) directors (the number of the radar it contains escapes my memory at the moment)
Mainmast: Type 280 air-search radar
Foremast: not sure what the thingy is on top (I cut it from Bombhead's Vanguard I think), some kind of HF/DF array? Lower down on the platform is Type 277P height-finding/ surface search radar.

Please note the RN Radars part sheet now has updated versions of all of these parts.
These are all late-war items of equipment, CRBF just early post-war.
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
Sumeragi
Posts: 136
Joined: December 22nd, 2014, 10:38 am

Re: Royal Navy Battleship 'X' 1945

#18 Post by Sumeragi »

Interesting, so the British put the main director below the secondary, while the US did the opposite?

Know what kind of differences that makes?
JSB
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm

Re: Royal Navy Battleship 'X' 1945

#19 Post by JSB »

I think its maybe just a carry on from the RN planing to fight at closer ranges pre radar (so lower is ok) and then not changing/swaping them round later as that would cost money ? (not sure, that or saving weight if the main is heavier ?)

JSB
Hood
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am

Re: Royal Navy Battleship 'X' 1945

#20 Post by Hood »

That seems to have been standard practice since the 1920s, especially with the introduction of the tower superstructure.

I think the reason is twofold; better unobstructed arcs for the HACS or HA director of whatever type) and to lessen the topweight as the director towers were quite heavy two-storey structures.
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
Post Reply