All things Airfix 1:600 warships - details and conversions etc.

[Graham Boak]

Weren't the R class battleships deliberately slow designs, compared to the fast QEs?  Whereas the two battlecruisers had to be fast, by definition.   So they would need to have more powerful engines in a narrower  hull with a much smaller armoured belt.  This would make the R class a very poor start for design studies, and certainly not conversions.  Any similarities in other features can be explained by being whatever the current design team currently thought was a good idea.  They may well have been paid for from funds allocated for two extra R class and occupied berths planned similarly.   

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Graham, I would never claim to be an expert on this, my interest is of a general nature and I have no doubt there are others here with much greater knowledge than me. As far as I know the 'R' class were designed to fight in the battle line and hence their speed was that the rest of the battle fleet, you're correct in that. Adm Jackie Fisher was the champion of the battlecruiser, I think they were his brainchild, or so I've always thought, and so when he came back to the Admiralty he immediately ordered the sixth and seventh ships of the 'R' class to be completed as battlecruisers. How far these two ships were advanced (or even begun) I've no idea. This is what I recall reading some time ago and I admit to be relying on my memory here. I'm open to correction though. 🙂 But I agree with you in that there are major differences between the two types, particularly in the power plant and armour. Best regards, Jeff.

[Ratch]

7 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Your conversion of a Hotspur to a Hunt class (HMS Dulverton if I recall?) I thought was very good. Regards, Jeff.

Thanks @ArnoldAmbrose Jeff, I don't claim it to be very accurate 

[Rob S]

On 11/3/2021 at 10:14 PM, Graham Boak said:

... So they would need to have more powerful engines in a narrower  hull with a much smaller armoured belt.  This would make the R class a very poor start for design studies, and certainly not conversions.  ...

 

 

 

Revenge-class battleship Installed power 18 Babcock & Wilcox boilers 40,000 shp (30,000 kW)

Renown-class battlecruiser Installed power 42 × water-tube boilers 112,000 shp (84,000 kW)

 

Revenge-class battleship Beam88 ft 6 in (27 m)

Renown-class battlecruiser Beam90 ft 1.75 in (27.5 m) 

 

Revenge-class battleship Armour Waterline belt: 13 in (330 mm) 

Renown-class battlecruiser Armour Belt: 3–6 in (76–152 mm) 

 

Nearly Three times more Power in almost same Width Hull (Longer Hull of the Battlecruiser gives the required Slenderness Ratio) and yes a much smaller but longer Belt.  

 

From Wikipedia - print these out to scale and fold the Repulse and compare : : 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Rob S

[Graham Boak]

Thank you Rob: it is of course slenderness ratio that matters not the beam itself.  I hadn't realised that the Revenge was so much longer, but battleships aren't really my thing.

[junglierating]

On 9/30/2021 at 5:26 AM, Rob S said:

 

I worked with a former CPO who served on “Snakey Blakey” from recommissioning after conversion to decommissioning. 

 

After a couple of other ships (somehow just missing a Falklands War deployment) He later went on to Illustrious and then transferred to the RAN (sadly missing out on his Benefits being transferred over after they told him they would be) and served on Sydney (III) in the 1990 Gulf War.  

 

He was chuffed too when as I was leaving my Role I delved into my “Stash” and gave him a Matchbox Tiger which he had no idea there was a kit of. 

 

Theres a legal case there I would 🤔

[ArnoldAmbrose]

     Gidday, actually HMS Revenge was much shorter. I've just looked them up. HMS Revenge had an oa length of 620 feet 7 inches, HMS Repulse 794 feet. I agree with the beams quoted by Ray S above. But I think it will be the hull shapes at the ends that could decide (for me, anyway) which kit to use. Below is a photo of the Airfix HMS Warspite (644 feet oa) above and a whiffed model of HMS Repulse below. The whiffing did not alter the hull in any way. Both models are 1/600 scale.

     Notice the fuller (much more rounded) hull of Warspite at the stern. This would be very similar to that of Revenge. Another problem if the centre section of Repulse was removed to get the correct length would be that you would lose the majority of the hull bulges.

 

     Now look at the forward halves of the hulls. Warspite and Revenge had ram bows, Repulse had a cleaver bow.

     Warspite has casemate 6-inch guns, as did Revenge, but Repulse did not. Those of Warpite would have to be altered and added to but I think it would be an easier job than on Repulse. There's also the issue of the number of twin 15-inch turrets required - four for Warspite and Revenge but only three supplied with Repulse.

     No doubt there will still be some other minor discrepancies and I have yet to cut plastic and commence a build of HMS Revenge, and am not likely to for a while yet but I think I'll still go with a Warspite conversion rather than Repulse.

     Oh, and in case you noticed the similarity between the bridge superstructures of the two ships, yeah the whiffed Repulse (I call her HMS Reliant) has Warspite's bridge. 🙂

Regards, Jeff.

 

[AWFK10]

On 11/3/2021 at 12:14 PM, Graham Boak said:

Weren't the R class battleships deliberately slow designs, compared to the fast QEs?  Whereas the two battlecruisers had to be fast, by definition.   So they would need to have more powerful engines in a narrower  hull with a much smaller armoured belt.  This would make the R class a very poor start for design studies, and certainly not conversions.  Any similarities in other features can be explained by being whatever the current design team currently thought was a good idea.  They may well have been paid for from funds allocated for two extra R class and occupied berths planned similarly.   

Renown and Repulse were ordered as improved Royal Sovereign class battleships from Fairfield and Palmers respectively. R A Burt ("British Battleships of World War 1") says that "the first ten plates were laid down for Repulse on 30 November 1914 but building for both Repulse and Renown was very slow because labour and materials were being concentrated on such heavy ships as could be hastened to completion during the 6 months it was thought hostilities would last". The two contractors were informed of the decision to convert the ships into battlecruisers on 19 December. Renown may have incorporated keel plates that Fairfield had already laid down for the battleship, if there were any: Burt doesn't say whether construction had actually started. Repulse was definitely restarted from scratch, as Palmers didn't have a slip long enough to build the new battlecruiser design and the contract was transferred to John Brown. Both ships did use material, including long lead time items such as guns and turrets, that had been ordered for the battleships but as you say they weren't conversions.

[Rob S]

Here's a great project for two Warspites!  The Battlecruiser "version" of the QEIIs - HMS Leopard (continuing the "Splendid Cats") - that should have followed the Battlecruiser "version" of the Iron Dukes - HMS Tiger (Drawing found on the Internet by "Tzoli") : 

 

[Rob S]

On 11/7/2021 at 1:23 PM, ArnoldAmbrose said:

... There's also the issue of the number of twin 15-inch turrets required - four for Warspite and Revenge but only three supplied with Repulse. ...

 

 

However two Repulse kits (One short cut bow and one short cut stern will give you an "R" Class the left over long cut stern and long cut bow will give you an amazingly long WHIFF!) will give you four for the "R" Class and two for either an original Courageous or Glorious!  

 

Problem solved!  

 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Rob, that HMS Leopard could be quite interesting. Are you planning on doing it?

And regarding HMS Glorious, I'd like to do her twice. Once as a light battlecruiser (Adm Fisher called them "large light cruisers" I think) and also as an aircraft carrier. For that build I'd probably use a Repulse hull, and save the turrets for the other Glorious and a monitor. I haven't looked into any of those much, yet. They're just ideas at present. Regards, Jeff.

[Rob S]

21 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Gidday Rob, that HMS Leopard could be quite interesting. Are you planning on doing it?

 

 

If I ever get the time and talent - Yes definitely as I have more than enough Airfix Warspites.  

 

 

 

21 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

And regarding HMS Glorious, I'd like to do her twice. Once as a light battlecruiser (Adm Fisher called them "large light cruisers" I think) and also as an aircraft carrier. For that build I'd probably use a Repulse hull, and save the turrets for the other Glorious and a monitor. I haven't looked into any of those much, yet. They're just ideas at present. Regards, Jeff.

 

The Repulse hull will have to lose about 2.8 m in beam (4.67 mm in scale) for the LBC / LLC version so a bit of diet needed there.  Building a Glorious and an "R" Class from two Airfix Repulses would certainly solve the distribution of the six turrets between the Glorious and the "R" Class.  

 

The Aircraft Carrier version of Glorious would be really good to see.  There is something about Glorious and Courageous (and to a lesser extent Furious) that just screams "Inter War Carriers" and the fantastic array of Aircraft that they carried.  

 

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Rob, these are just ideas bouncing around in my head at present, I haven't gone into them deeply. I'd consider scratchbuilding the hull of the Glorious battlecruiser, because of the narrow beam and lack of a bulge. It might be too difficult to modify a Repulse hull. But AFAIK the ships were bulged when converted to carriers so a Repulse kit hull might be the way as a carrier. A long time off for me as yet, though. Although I have been known to alter my build program from time to time. I've got two intact Repulse kits plus another that's been raided and the box currently marked "WW1". I also have three Warspite kits, one of which is missing the bridge structure plus a turret and two guns. This will become the carrier HMS Eagle. 🙂 Regards, Jeff.

[Rob S]

Managed to get a part built, part unbuilt (meaning was built then pulled apart), part unbuilt (meaning exactly that!) Airfix Scharnhorst and already had a part built part painted Monogram Bismarck so looking forward to building Gneisenau with 15 inch guns as it was intended to rebuild her after the damaged she sustained in dock after the Channel Dash. 

 

[PF Naughton]

Hi, 

I just picked up a bundled lot of Airfix's older boxings of HMS Warspite, HMS Suffolk and HMS Hotspur off eBay.  I have thoughts of trying to convert Hotspur to Glowworm and Suffolk to London (though I suspect the Suffolk's hull bulges may become an issue).  For Warspite though, I think I will leave her as is for now, since I have always wanted a model of her.  Maybe if I can get another copy of her, I may try and backdate that one to something more along the lines of what she looked like at Jutland.

 

Pat

 

PS.  I also have a copy of a new boxing Airfix's HMS Belfast and I am going back and forth between trying to build the kit as-is or trying to do her as she looks now, or even trying something totally different like a what-if with either an HMS Exeter style or a rebuilt HMS London style bridge to represent what a ship laid down earlier might have looked like.

[ArnoldAmbrose]

Gidday Pat, these would all be interesting projects to follow. HMS Glowworm would need ten torpedo tubes, I believe she was the trial ship for the pentad (quintuple) mounting. I don't know what other mods a Hotspur kit would require. I'd love another Hotspur kit myself to convert into a Hunt class, HMS Ledbury to be precise, but I haven't seen one available here for years. 

     Your idea of a current HMS Belfast would be something I've not seen before, or you could have a lot of fun with a Belfast what-if, let your imagine run a little (or a lot) without having to worry about the accuracy of an exact replica.

    What ever you do, I'll be prowling the Maritime WIP section in anticipation of your build threads.🙂 Regards, Jeff.

[Chewbacca]

On 17/12/2021 at 04:49, PF Naughton said:

(though I suspect the Suffolk's hull bulges may become an issue). 

Very simple solution to that.  Waterline the model.  The vast majority of the bulge is below the waterline so there is very little bulge to cut away once you've taken a razor saw or Dremel to the boot topping.  I did it in my conversion to DORSETSHIRE - this shows how little needs to be removed.

 

But I do fully acknowledge that waterline models are like Marmite; some love 'em and some hate 'em.

 

[Ratch]

Is there a conversion of an Airfix ship to make HMS Cumberland as at the Battle of the River Plate?

[Our Ned]

See http://steelnavy.com/FelixCumberland.htm for a somewhat dated conversion of the Airfix kit to a 1938 Cumberland (written well before the availability of much in the way of aftermarket items) - she would have looked very similar in 1939, although she had crew shelters for the 4" gun crews between the mountings (shorten the kit parts to represent these).  Note that Cumberland's 2pdr mountings were quadruples, but the author of the article used octuple ones from the Belfast kit.  Cumberland was not present at the Battle of the River Plate, but arrived at the scene soon afterwards - by then she was probably wearing AP507C (a light grey) on all vertical surfaces, with the letters "CU" in black on the top of "B" and "X" turrets.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Our Ned
Typo

[Rob S]

On 12/23/2021 at 7:07 AM, Our Ned said:

See http://steelnavy.com/FelixCumberland.htm for a somewhat dated conversion of the Airfix kit to a 1938 Cumberland

 

 

Sadly it says :

 

steelnavy.com expired on 01/07/2022 and is pending renewal or deletion. 

 

Does anyone know if it will come back or if like Aussie Modeller it too as gone the way of the Dinosaur? 

 

[AntPhillips]

Steel Navy still there on: http://www.steelnavy.net/

 

I suspect the direct link to the Cumberland is faulty.

[Our Ned]

It's not the link to the Cumberland article which was faulty!  There were two SteelNavy sites, the old one (...steelnavy.com - on which the Cumberland article was to be found) which ceased being updated many moons ago, but was left "live" when the newer one (...steelnavy.net) was commissioned - and the latter has not been updated for a while due to changes in the hosting arramgements).  It looks like the old site may now have been lost.

[czechnavy]

HMS Cumberland in 1938 - I  have a Word version of that article which I downloaded years ago - has the photos and the diagrams embedded in it. 

 

I downloaded it as I live part of the year in Spain where I have no internet access - lack of internet is the best way to ensure that plenty of modelling is done!!

 

Message me with an email address and I will happily pass it on!

 

 

[Rob S]

Deleted. 

Edited November 2, 2022 by Rob S

[Rob S]

On 12/17/2021 at 2:49 PM, PF Naughton said:

For Warspite though, I think I will leave her as is for now, since I have always wanted a model of her.  Maybe if I can get another copy of her, I may try and backdate that one to something more along the lines of what she looked like at Jutland.

 

Pat

 

 

Funnily enough I dragged out a scruffy mid issue boxing of the Warspite probably to sell but then found two different sets of as built WWI era Plans of Warspite and Barham I had blown up to 1:600 so actually started to cut plastic. 
 

At the same time I found a set of Tiger Plans I had also blown up to 1:600 and accordingly dragged out two late issue boxings of the Iron Duke to try and work out what needed to be done as well as evaluating what bits may be useful on a WWI Warspite. 
 

Possible respective WIP Threads may be started if I progress any further.