UK Proposed CL's 1918

Post any drawings of planned or conceptual ships.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
eswube
Posts: 10696
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am

Re: UK Proposed CL's 1918

#11 Post by eswube »

Very interesting and nice work. :)
MihoshiK
Posts: 1035
Joined: October 16th, 2010, 11:06 pm
Location: In orbit, watching you draw.
Contact:

Re: UK Proposed CL's 1918

#12 Post by MihoshiK »

Very nice work. Looking forward to the five-gun variant.
Would you please not eat my gun...
Image
smurf
Posts: 207
Joined: October 25th, 2014, 7:46 pm

Re: UK Proposed CL's 1918

#13 Post by smurf »

Thanks for this. A great Christmas present. I too am looking forward to the 5-gun version. You might give that an F name.
These ships were projected to match some reported plans for fast German ships with two For anyone 8.2in guns, but those were faulty intelligence, and never existed, so these had little chance of being built, especially as hand-loaded 7.5s on the Hawkins class needed two men and a cumbersome special grab, and so were slow to load.
Designer: Sir Eustace Henry William Tennyson d'Eyncourt (to give him his full name - but note the y)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Eustac ... st_Baronet
For anyone interested, the drawings were scans from Keith McBride's article " E's and Super E's" in Warship International No3 1996.
Those were redrawn by W. Jurens from ADM 1/9223 1564. The signature on Jurens' drawings is a facsimile (he spelled d'Eyncourt without the y) but it is a fair representation of a true signature. I have a scan of the as-fitted drawings of the G3 battlecruiser with an original signature. ETdE underlines it with a flourish!
Krakatoa
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: UK Proposed CL's 1918

#14 Post by Krakatoa »

A Xmas present for all those following this thread. The 5 gun version.

I have taken aboard the comments made and have renamed them with F names. A fuller description is on page 1.

Image

I quite agree with Smurf that these cruisers would never have been proceeded with once the intelligence on the German ships had been proved false. The 7.5" was an ungainly gun in an open mounting and it can be seen why the Admiralty looked at converting the Hawkins class to 6" cruisers. One reason of course was that there were only 4 ships in the Navy with 7.5" guns and stocks of shells had to be kept for them all over the world. A waste of resources.

I would have liked to see the single turrets of the Minotaur class or even a new twin turret produced to arm these ships with 4-8 guns.
Last edited by Krakatoa on January 29th, 2015, 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
emperor_andreas
Posts: 3908
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact:

Re: UK Proposed CL's 1918

#15 Post by emperor_andreas »

Awesome job!
Image
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB
JSB
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm

Re: UK Proposed CL's 1918

#16 Post by JSB »

Very nice ships and execution them merry Christmas,
JSB
Krakatoa
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: UK Proposed CL's 1918

#17 Post by Krakatoa »

Smurf sent me a true copy of the DNC's signature and I have cleaned it up from the jpg and added it to both drawings.
Krakatoa
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: UK Proposed CL's 1918

#18 Post by Krakatoa »

This should probably be in personal designs but it does give an idea of what the ships may have looked like with twins instead of singles.

From what I can figure the extra weight would be somewhere in the vicinity of 150 tons. How much that would affect the speed I can not imagine it would be by much.

Image
eswube
Posts: 10696
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 8:31 am

Re: UK Proposed CL's 1918

#19 Post by eswube »

Good work!
Charybdis
Posts: 1003
Joined: November 8th, 2011, 4:29 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Contact:

Re: UK Proposed CL's 1918

#20 Post by Charybdis »

Very nice work, indeed!
Post Reply