1/600 What-if 16 gun HMS Belfast

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday All, in late July a member (Chris Hewitt) began a What-if HMS Nelson. During that build thread another member (Gazontipede) suggested a What-if (whiffed) HMS Belfast with sixteen 6-inch guns in four quad turrets. I've decided to have a go at this for a Whiff GB on another forum. And in case you were wondering, I did OK it with Gazontipede first. It was his idea after all.

     Anyway, here goes.     To match the firepower of some foreign fifteen gun large light cruisers (USS Brooklyn and IJN Mogami) the British built two enlarged 'Towns', HMShips Belfast and Edinburgh, intending to arm them with sixteen 6-inch guns in four quad turrets. Unfortunately a workable quad turret couldn't be developed and the ships were ultimately fitted with four improved triple turrets.
     But what if suitable quad turrets were developed and fitted? The ships may have looked something like what I plan to build here. The main variation to the kit will be the quadruple turrets (I think 'four gun turret' is the correct term, strictly speaking) but I might make a few minor alterations also.
     Below is the traditional photo of the box, parts and instructions. I removed the bag just before taking the photo. I did so because light reflecting off the bag made photography difficult.

 

     I commenced the build yesterday. I've glued, re-inforced and drilled the hull. The three holes along the centreline are to allow me to screw the hull to a block of wood, for handling during construction.

     I've also been trying different methods of making quad turrets. If I can't do them then the whole build becomes pointless, so I'd better get something sorted sooner rather than later. My first idea (plan A) was to simply cut the turrets down their centrelines and insert a spacer. Quite simple and quick, but a problem emerged. I couldn't cut/file/drill the two inboard gun slots to a suitable standard. Then I thought of plan B - use two turrets to make one. I have spare turrets, BTW. Carefully cut one turret lengthways between the left and centre gun slots, cut the other between the centre and right gun slots, then rejoin the two wider halves. This is what I've done above. The gun slots are already there, compliments of Mr Airfix. It does make for a wide turret though, a little wider than I'd wanted, but I guess you can't put four 6-inch guns into a shoe box. And hey, this is whiffland. I might lengthen the turrets also to make them look a little more proportional. They will need deepening too. Plan C - make my own turrets but errk, I hadn't planned on doing that. I think I'll go with plan B. What do you all think?
     Well, that's it for now. Stay safe, and regards to all, Jeff.

[Modelholic]

That turret does look good.

Were there any other differences re. armament (amount/placement of, 4", pom-poms etc.)

When I was making my 1/350 Kent, I temporarily placed her 8" turrets on my partially built Belfast just 'cos I could)

I've sometimes thought if it had been possible to build/upgrade them along the lines of a USN Brooklyn.

Move bridge structure back to just fwd of funnel (removing catapult etc.); get rid of 'B' gundeck and place another turret where the bridge was originally.

Tom

[beefy66]

Seems like a very interesting project what about maybe adding a counterweight to the rear instead of lengthening. 🤔

 

Stay Safe 

beefy 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday All, thank you for your interest. I haven't done any more construction, other than plodding away with the turrets. As for other armament differences, I don't know for certain what the original AA outfit was meant to be but I'm thinking of omitting two of the twin 4-inch, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, AFAIK all RN cruisers from the 'County' class to the 'Fiji' class were built with four 4-inch mounts, initially singles then later twins. Except Belfast and Edinburgh who had six twins. I have a vague recollection that the extra two were fitted because of the weight saved when the main armament was reduced to triple turrets. But I could be wrong. The other reason is that I'm now planning to rearrange the midships section a little, to bring the fwd turrets aft a bit, and I might not have room for the six mountings.

     Anyway, I'm off to do another turret, before I fall asleep at the desk.    So, stay safe, and regards to all, Jeff.

[Graham Boak]

The extra guns were fitted because the extra length made it possible to fit more.  Shortage of AA defence seems to have been a continuing problem to the RN.  One thing I would consider on your conversion is removing many of the Oerlikons and replacing them with single Bofors, with other Oerlikons doubled up.  In view of the late war main threat being from the air, this would be beneficial.  Obviously it wouldn't work for (say) 1942.

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Graham, thanks for the info. I've noticed in the past that HMS Belfast's fwd turrets seem to be a little bit further forward than those of the Town and Colony classes, and I guess this would have resulted in even more space midships for those extra mountings. However, these quad turrets are rather large and so I was thinking of moving the fwd pair and the fwd superstructure a bit further aft, where the fuller hull form's extra buoyancy would give a bit more support to them. Maybe the aft pair of turrets a little bit further forward for the same reason. So I may not have enough room for the six mountings.

     I haven't decided on a vintage yet, but probably early/mid war. One of the reasons is that the kit comes with a hangar door open and a Walrus aircraft visible. By mid/late war they had been landed? Plus, I was considering making my own 20mm Oerlikons and not using the kit guns, they're usually a bit crude. Still, early days yet. Again, thanks for the advice.

     And Tom, I meant to mention this in the last post, that it seems you have an idea for an interesting whiffed Belfast yourself, with 8-inch guns.

Anyway it's gone past 11pm here and I can't keep my eyes open. So goodnight all. Regards, Jeff.

[Modelholic]

A Kriegsmarine Hipper class cruiser (Seydlitz?) with 12 x 5.9" would be a good Whiff!

I assume the turrets would be different to the 9 x 5.9" gunned cruisers (more armour at least).

Tom

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Tom, funny you should mention that, I have a couple of extra Prinz Eugens in the stash and was considering exactly that for next year's whiff. You and I appear to think along similar lines in this regard. 🙂

     I believe that twelve 15cm (5.9-inch) guns were the original planned armament of both Seydlitz and Lutzow but before construction began the design was changed to 8-inch. I agree, it would be a good whiff. Are you planning on doing it? I'd certainly be interested in following your build thread if you did.

Regards, Jeff.

[Modelholic]

Unfortunately no, I'll not be doing that whiff.

My preferred scale for ships is 350 so would involve some outlay.

While I suppose all my warship models could be described as whiff s(I like to make more of a generic 'County' class with a few -I hope - plausible upgrades) that'd be too much.

As for build threads.

After  nearly 5 years on BM I still can't get my head around posting pics. I seem to figure it out and then...it doesn't work!

Still, never mind I'm quite happy in my little modelling room (a.k.a dining Room)

Tom

[TallBlondJohn]

Yes, the turrets of the Airfix Belfast are too shallow and need deepening. I added plastic card to the top which worked well, in this case it'll hide the seam joining the turrets as well.
 

I've long planned to do a Belfast with 4 x twin 8" guns as one of a hypothetical 'Country' class pair, HMS Erin and HMS Hibernia maybe. The similarity would be deliberate so that a German raider wouldn't know what he was facing until the shell splashes started. This idea could be extended to a 'Dominion' class with 3 triple 8" turrets but designed to have a similar profile to the later Colony class - Africa, India, Canada, New Zealand?

 

FYI, Edinburgh lost her catapult and Walrus in spring 1942 (her final refit on the Tyne) and Belfast's aircraft were landed in 1943, though the catapult remained until her next large refit in 1944. The weight saved by the triple 6" was put into extra deck armour. Anatomy of the Ship: HMS Belfast notes that the quads "would have meant the complete redesign of the ship" - which could mean anything. You are right that those quad turrets will make the ship look unbalanced forward, so lets argue that if the ships had been delayed until the quad turret was perfected its just possible - though a push - to propose that they would been pushed back far enough to have the catapult omitted as built, and simply move the entire forward superstructure aft (and delete the hangers). Or as you say, a more likely "complete redesign" would move the superstructure and catapult aft and move the funnels and 4" around to fit it all in - but that is extra surgery.

 

Enjoy!

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Tom, yeah 1/350 would be more expensive I suppose. One of the reasons I prefer 1/600. There are other reasons too.

     What photo hosting site do you use? I use Flikr and a laptop - they seem to work for a technological neanderthal like me. It would be good to see some of your models if we can get the system to work.

 

     And TBJ, thanks for the info. I'm going to deepen the turrets a little, hopefully this afternoon. I've got a few ideas for re-arranging the structures a little, but I don't want to do it too extensively - time restraints. I've got it in my mind what I want to do, soon I'll knock a few of the structures together and then start moving them around, seeing what they look like. I think she'll lose two twin 4-inch because of it. But I think I'll still try to keep the catapult and hangars.

     These whifs you've mentioned above - are you going to give any of them a go? They should be interesting.

49 minutes ago, TallBlondJohn said:

The similarity would be deliberate so

I believe that is one of the reasons the Scharnhorst, Bismarck and Hipper classes looked so similar. And it worked. HMS Hood initially fired on the Prinz Eugen, not Bismarck in the Denmark Strait.

 

Regards, Jeff.

[TallBlondJohn]

10 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

These whifs you've mentioned above - are you going to give any of them a go? They should be interesting.

 

They are in the 'one-day' list - there's a lot of stash to get through first. I would use them a chance to play with some paint schemes too. My problem is my quick weekend builds always turn into year long nightmare voyages into OCD.

And yes the similarity idea comes from the German ships, which were deliberately designed to confuse. My thought is that the RN realise this and see how tactically useful it could be for countering commerce raiders - a Sheer class might tackle a convoy covered by a Colony class, but not if there's a possibility that that shape in the distance is a 'Dominion' with 9x8". So in my what-if world, it is foreseen that the London style rebuild of the County class isn't going to be as straightforward as hoped, and the Japanese are re-arming the Mogamis. So such a radical modernisation of the Counties is abandoned and instead Erin and Hibernia are built as 8" Belfasts, with bulged hulls (and maybe the rear turrets a deck lower to save topweight for AA?). Then half of the Colonies are built as 9x6" with matching 9x8" Dominions and an effort to get the colonies (sorry!) to pay for them as future flagships for their own navies. Now there is already an HMS Australia so what would the Oz ship be called?

[Exkiwiforces]

I’ve got a couple of Tamyia Scharnhorst Hulls and having finished read up on both ships. The OKM had planned to up gun both ships as the main guns were a bit short range compared to its British equivalent and there are some neat look alternative main guns on Shapeways.

 

But that’s a wee way down the track atm, as I have to finish off the semi built ships atm.

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday again, considering the discussion current on Britmodeler re RN underwater hull colours, HMS Hood in particular, I was also considering experimenting with colours on this build. I was thinking of trying Hu31 as antifouling, dark grey upper hull (Hu27) with blue midships (one side only), and a lighter grey upperworks. And I was also planning on lowering the rear turrets one deck, partly for reduced topweight and hence stability, and partly because such large turrets so high up would look HIDEOUS.

     As for the Australian ship, I guess HMAS Melbourne? As you said, we already had an HMAS Australia. Plus HMAShips Canberra, Perth, Sydney, Hobart and Adelaide. Three of those got sunk, however. HMAS Brisbane might also be a contender. And please excuse my ignorance, but what does OCD mean?

 

     Many years ago I built a Revell Scharnhorst in 1/570, and recently my daughter gave me another. I plan to do it as the up-gunned Gneisenau. I believe the conversion of the ship was actually commenced, before the RAF came to the party and threw big spanners into the works. Another project a long way down the track at present.

 

     And speaking of semi-built ships calling, I have a couple, one hardly started, so I better get back to the bench. Thank you for your comments and interest. Regards, Jeff.

[Modelholic]

HMAS Darwin?

OCD is Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

Tom

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Tom, and thanks for the definition.    I did consider HMAS Darwin but it appears to me that the light cruisers of the RAN were named after state capitals, and the Northern Territory is not a state. This is in no way meant to demean Darwin in any way but simply to follow the naming customs of that era. However, as we're in Whiffland you could have a very valid point. Regards, Jeff.

[Chewbacca]

Fascinating project Jeff.  I've recently been reading Conrad Waters' Town Class Cruisers - which I recommend for anyone interested in WW2 cruiser design rationale - and that has a number of proposed designs for the later Towns.  I seem to recall that they got to about 18 different iterations before the Controller finally signed off on EDINBURGH/BELFAST (though don't quote me on that - it was a couple of months back that I read that section.

[Exkiwiforces]

2 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Fascinating project Jeff.  I've recently been reading Conrad Waters' Town Class Cruisers - which I recommend for anyone interested in WW2 cruiser design rationale - and that has a number of proposed designs for the later Towns.  I seem to recall that they got to about 18 different iterations before the Controller finally signed off on EDINBURGH/BELFAST (though don't quote me on that - it was a couple of months back that I read that section.

Looks like I have to buy another book down the track once space permits in Naval Book Case. Dammed thing is full of recommend book by certain members from here plus my growing fleet of models atm. My other book case in the house is completely full to a point I may have to move the big diecast models (1/32 & 1/16) into the man cave to make room this yrs wet season reading list.

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday All, yeah, there are some good books about. I used to get my local library to get some in for me, but the down side of that is they want you to hand them back after a couple of weeks. 😥

 

I thought I'd better post the plastic butchering I'm doing to show I'm still working on this and not just talking about it. I've mainly been concentrating on the turrets and barbettes - the whole point of the whiff. I've nearly finished the turrets and I've done the barbettes to match. They're 14.5mm across and 1.5mm high, which equates to 29 feet and 3 feet respectively. Rather wide for a cruiser. Below is how I made them.

   For cruiser and battleship turrets I've settled on 4.8mm (3/16 inch) styrene tubing for turret trunking. So I drilled a 3/16 inch hole through the material for the barbette and a piece of scrap, drilled a pencil hole in the scrap 7.5mm from the centre and scribed a circle. Then I cut it out, trimmed the corners and ran a 3/16 inch gutter-bolt through it. The gutter-bolt then goes into the drill press and as it spins I push a file against the barbette to file it round. Do this at the slowest drill speed you can. In the foreground is a completed barbette. It still needs a keyway filed into it.

     I'm going to re-arrange the ship's structure a little. The fwd turrets and superstructure are going to be moved aft about 10-12mm, and the aft turrets I plan to lower one deck level. This will result in the midships area being condensed a bit. I'll probably lose two of the twin 4-inch AA guns, but I still want to keep the catapult and hangars. So to help me visualize what the model will look like I've thrown together some of the structures from a cannibalized kit, flash, sink holes, burrs, poor fit and all.

    The blue/grey plastic is the kit I'm building, while the grey plastic is the sacrificial thrown-together structures to get a feel of what I'm doing. If you compare the X and Y barbettes you can see how much bigger are the new ones I'm using. Also you can see the turrets. I've lengthened them by 1.5mm (that white cross strip) and deepened them by 1/2 mm. That white dot in the centre of the turrets is the centre shaft. As you can see I've slid the upper deck rearwards a little, to put the fwd turrets their correct distance from the bow.

     Well, that's it for now, more progress soon I hope. So stay safe and regards to all, Jeff.

[TallBlondJohn]

Since you've dropped the rear turrets a deck, a 4" twin could superfire over them to cover that rear arc. Also, would look cool!

[ArnoldAmbrose]

15 hours ago, TallBlondJohn said:

Since you've dropped the rear turrets a deck, a 4" twin could superfire over them to cover that rear arc.

Yeah, that's an idea I'll look into.

 

Gidday All, I've been doing more plastic butchering, mainly at the sharp end,  on the 16-gun Belfast. As I've said earlier, I want to move the fwd turrets and superstructure aft by about 10mm. One option, which wasn't really a contender, was to remove the original barbette for 'A' turret and the 'B' gundeck guides and simply add my own stuff further aft. Easy to do but not very neat. The scribed deck planking would have huge and obvious blank areas. Skip that idea.
     So my plan (plan A) was to cut through the deck at the fwd edge of the scribed planking in front of the breakwater, slide the majority of the deck aft by 10mm and fit a 10mm wide bit of styrene as the missing deck. Plus remove the kit barbette and add my own in it's place. One problem with this plan is that the deck piece, as it gets moved aft, will sit in a wider area of hull. I'd have to widen the deck piece on both sides. This would have been visible, and not easy to do neatly with the scribed planking of the deck. I'd actually done most of this though, then I thought of a plan B. Instead of trying to add two side pieces of deck. why not slit that bit of deck down the centreline, spread both halves outward to the edge of the hull, and add a single centre wedge. And if it's not too neat well no problem because most of the wedge will be hidden. And instead of having a 10mm strip of styrene across the hull cut the bow piece from another kit deck (I have spares from cannibalized kits) 10mm longer. It also means I don't have to match deck pieces of varying thicknesses.     I've gone with plan B.

     In the foreground is my original 'pointy bit' (bows), no longer required. As you can see I now have two breakwaters, which looks a bit odd. And here I wouldn't mind your thoughts please. Do I remove the fwd breakwater? The scribed deck planking has already been removed both sides of it. Do I remove the aft breakwater? It still has scribed deck planking both sides. Or do I invoke the Whiff Clause and keep them both?
     The area between the breakwaters is a bit rough, but I can hide some of the joins by busying it up a bit, such as stowing paravanes over the deck joins, hatches, lockers, vents, rafts etc.
     I've also been doing a little bit of work down aft, but not worth a photo yet. Plus still working on the turrets.
So that's it for now. Thank you for your interest. Stay safe, and regards, Jeff. 

[Chris Hewitt]

Like any what-ifs ,keep it going .

[TallBlondJohn]

Some capital ships had a second breakwater (e.g. Hood) but not any cruisers AFAIK - quick flick through Friedman - nope. I'd remove the forward one.

[Modelholic]

Will it be quad pom-poms on the hangar corners (like the Towns) and on the aft superstructure. Or just octos (as Belfast) aft?

Tom

[Modelholic]

Must admit to a liking for four quads!

Tom