Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[ballastanksian]

Thinking long term, does anyone have frame plans for the Battle Cruiser HMS Indefatigable? My book on Battle Cruisers has a plan for HMS Queen Mary and there are two sets of plans for HMS Invincible from 'My Hobby', but the Indie seems to be missing.

I like the huge area of planked deck and the funny little island for the second funnel, it is quite a novelty given that most other warships with a funnel island also had partial or full flying decks such as the Collussus's and Neptune.

On more than one point of reference, the shape of the hull is represented as being similar to the Nelson class of the twenties, but I am not 100%sure while Janes in 1919 has the hull drawings for the Lion class in the place of what should be the distinct top profile of Indefatigable.

I do not want to start her until I have Rupert and an M class destroyer completed first so I would not expect frantic searches:O) I can get the top view from the net.

[Pondweed]

If you can't find an Indefatigable plan, and I'm including New Zealand and Australia in that, get an Invincible hull plan and stretch it.

Use the Invincible profile and plan view for things like the focsle and poop decks (bound to be the same), the rigging and things like boats, torpedo net details and funnel details. You will learn a lot from the Invincble plan.

Though I'm surprised you can't find anything down under, they had two bigs ones in WW1.

 

[ballastanksian]

Thanks for the advice Mr Pondweed. There is a set of plans available from Model Boats for HMS Invincible.

[Pondweed]

Thanks for the advice Mr Pondweed. There is a set of plans available from Model Boats for HMS Invincible.

You're welcome. 

Roberts 'Battlecruisers' [Pg 28] does say that the Indefatigable class design "was essentially an enlarged Invincible on which the only real improvement was the ability to fire the wing turrets across the deck without restriction and over a wider ar of fire (70 degrees)."

[Colin Bishop]

Yes, that is quite correct, the Indefatigable class was simply an elongated Invincible to facilitate cross deck firing of the wing turrets. They were a cheap solution rather than the improvement over the earlier class which they should have been.

Colin

[ballastanksian]

Thankyou Colin and Mr Pondweed. My reading came up with a much more wordy and developed way to say the same thing 'Advancement but with little to show for it':O)

Indefatigable was part of the mess that was the 1908 estimates and the other two were gifts so to speak and quick additions to the construction estimates IIRC. New Zealand was a out and out gift I believe.

Indie will go on my list. I have a couple others to get on with first.

[Colin Bishop]

Build Tiger - the best looking ship of them all as completed and a very sound design although she did not have a terribly successful career.

Colin

[ballastanksian]

Ah, so many beautiful ships and so little time space and money! I am a fan of the Renown and Repulse. Their hull lines are gorgeous, spoilt somewhat by bulges as were so many capital ships and that odd squared off bow corner. What is that about?

[derekwarner]

The suggestion that the building of the Indefatigable class HMAS Australia was a gift........is not quite correct 

Detail below from Wiki below @ 2. confirms HMAS Australia contract cost was £2 million British pounds in 1910......the compound rate of interest between 1910 & 2014 is greater than 2262.8%

Accordingly.....the current cost would be greater than [2,000,000 x 2262.8] = [4,525,600,000] British pounds ...................GIFT?  

1.  Indefatigable was part of the mess that was the 1908 estimates and the other two were gifts so to speak 

2. Bids for construction were forwarded to the Australian Government by Reid on 7 March 1910, and Prime Minister Alfred Deakin approved the submission by John Brown & Company to construct the hull and machinery, with separate contracts awarded to Armstrong and Vickers for the battlecruiser's armament. The total cost of construction was set at £2 million. Contracts were signed between the Admiralty and the builders to avoid the problems of distant supervision by the Australian Government, and a close watch on proceedings was maintained by Reid and Captain Francis Haworth-Booth, the Australian Naval Representative in London.

I rest my case.........Derek

[Pondweed]

I've only just been reading that the Aussies only finished paying for her in the 1940s, and of course she was a 16yr old memory by then.

Dereck, £2 million! IIRC the Lion class was only £200,000 more and you got a vastly improved ship.

Princess Royal cost "£1,955,922 plus an additional £120,300 for her armament" while Lion was reportedly cheaper at £2,057,000, her armament coming in at around £118,000.

How much was Indefatigable? The Brits weren't over-charging the Colonials were they?

[Pondweed]

Build Tiger - the best looking ship of them all as completed and a very sound design although she did not have a terribly successful career.

Colin

I'll give you one name that's rarely modelled in a big scale, Princess Royal. You'd need a plan of Lion, or possibly Queen Mary and tweak the differences.

But you'd be the only kid on your block with a working model of PR.. I've only ever seen J Haynes model her.

It's a great name for ship, imho.

[derekwarner]

 ...it's all good Pondweed....... ...."The Brits weren't over-charging the Colonials were they?"

I don't really know if the ownership of our british designed 'coat hanger'....the Sydney Harbour Bridge is actually now owned by the good people of New South Wales.......

Anyway...I cannot see a 4,525,600,000 British pounds [yes 4.5256 billion British pounds] ...................being a ........GIFT    ...you skinned us........... ....Derek 

[ballastanksian]

Did the bridge cost us that much? 4.5billion? Not that I know. Anyway, there is a plan of Queen Mary in the battlecruisers book. I cannot remember the author's name but it is a good plan and eminently convertable.

[Geoff]

There is also a 3D book on Queen Mary (kagero I think) for about £15 if anyone is interested

[raflaunches]

Hi Ian


Another good book would be British Battleships of World War One by R A Burt.
Ignore the battleship part the book covers the battle cruisers of the Royal Navy and RAN too, it gives all the alterations vessel by vessel, history of the ships, and some good plans and pictures. Hope this helps.

The suggestion that the building of the Indefatigable class HMAS Australia was a gift........is not quite correct 

Detail below from Wiki below @ 2. confirms HMAS Australia contract cost was £2 million British pounds in 1910.

2. Bids for construction were forwarded to the Australian Government by Reid on 7 March 1910, and Prime Minister Alfred Deakin approved the submission by John Brown & Company to construct the hull and machinery, with separate contracts awarded to Armstrong and Vickers for the battlecruiser's armament. The total cost of construction was set at £2 million. Contracts were signed between the Admiralty and the builders to avoid the problems of distant supervision by the Australian Government, and a close watch on proceedings was maintained by Reid and Captain Francis Haworth-Booth, the Australian Naval Representative in London.

Derek, I read the same entry on Wiki, further in the same sentence it says that the eventual costs came under budget, almost £300,000. So the Australia actually cost £1.7m not £2m. Also reading in DK Brown and RA Burt's books about the subject it says that £20,000,000 was put aside to create a fleet for Australia, this was initially to pay for 8 battle cruisers, and 10 cruisers. It never happened and Australia was the only capital ship to serve with the RAN. HMAS Australia was significantly different to her sisters too, she had thicker belt armour (5inches compared to 4inches),and she was the second fastest in class. The only stipulation was that the Australia would serve with the RAN but would be on offer to the Royal Navy if needed. Obviously the war got in the way of any further vessels, it's another case of 'if only'.

[ballastanksian]

Yes, a proper built fleet (Battleships [please rather than B-Cruisers) Perhaps then there would have been a better detterent against Japan in 42 especially id the RN followed up with a number of Aircraft carriers.

I reckon the Australians would not have been as slow as we became developmentally. Admittedly in the pre radar/developed radio era they might have needed the second crewmen as navigators like we did.

[plugger]

Plans available for HMAS Australia I - late WWI configuration from Naval Historical Society of Australia - http://www.navyhistory.org.au/    click on shop then ship plans.


2 sheets: Sheet 1 - top view side view
Sheet 2: sections (14 - full)

[Geoff]

Good find 

[ballastanksian]

That was a first rate piece of lateral thinking Plugger! The price is very pleasant.

Thanks for that.

[Colin Bishop]

Battlecruisers appealed to Australia more than battleships as they were capable of hunting down and destroying foreign commerce raiding cruisers, musch as Invincible and Inflexible did at the Falklands.

Australia only had limited naval shipbuilding facilities and was very much dependent upon the UK to build their larger ships and provide materiel and equipment for the smaller ones. The country could never have afforded a large fleet anyway.

Colin

[derekwarner]

Colin.......this is a sad and very one sided view of the circumstances that Britain imposed on Australia & New Zealand.....as in reality it was 

  Give us your money
We will build & man the battle cruisers named after your countries
  We will then keep them in the north sea to protect England ....all as directed by the First Sea Lord Winston Churchill

Derek

[Colin Bishop]

Derek,

Yes, that was certainly the RN's view, and new Zealand went along with it but not Canada.

Australia wanted her BC kept in home waters and did so which is what I said in my previous post! What's one sided about that?

Colin

[derekwarner]

Colin.....

I suggest that the Australian government had very little say 'if any' in the role & scope for the deployments of the vessel named as HMAS Australia
In fact, HMAS Australia was just another tax imposed on her fledgling daughter land by Britain

Below is an image of our HMA vessels ...Australia, Melbourne & Sydney preparing to anchor in Farm Cove Sydney in June 1919
Derek

[Colin Bishop]

In fact, HMAS Australia was just another tax imposed on her fledgling daughter land by Britain

Your chip is showing Derek!

Things were not so simple, there was quite a lot of politics involved which I have read about from several sources. A summary of the situation can be seen here:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Australia_(1911)

Australia needed a degree of naval protection, whether from the RN or from its own navy and either way that would have had to be paid for from somewhere. Joining with the UK was probably a cheaper option and offered the benefits of a unified command. The downside of course was that the deployment of the RAN ships did not necessarily fit in with the wishes of the Australian Government. People thought about things differently in those days which was the peak of the British Empire and all Dominions and Colonies tended to take supporting the Mother Country more or less for granted.

Whether a battlecruiser was the right ship at the right time is open to argument but there was a need for a powerful ship of force in the antipodes during the early part of the war while there were still German raiders about. After that the ship would have been of little practical value down south but a very useful addition to the Grand Fleet, especially after the losses at Jutland.

Incidentally, what are the other taxes that were imposed on Australia by the UK at the time you refer to?

Colin

[Geoff]

Okay, this is my third attempt to reply to some of the messages on the board. Lets see if this gets through!
 
There seems to be some suggestion that Britain was taking advantage of the colonies with pricing and use of certain vessels. I would refute this utterly as we need to consider the times as they were in the run up to WW1.
 
With the creation of the German fleet the RN centralised it's forces in home waters to concentrate power as it was in home waters that the decision whether the British Empire was going to survive would happen.
 
This was part of the "Entente Cordiale" with France where we moved our battleships out of the mediteranean and left the French to manage that area. In return we guaranteed the German fleet would not bombard the coast of France, which it could not do because of the Grand Fleet, and it never did!
 
In the same way, the centralisation of power brought HMS New Zealand to european waters was a move to protect the colonies.
 
I recall there were arrangements for "Colonial" ships to be used in the event of war with Germany. Australia was kept at home due to potential issues with German raiders but after these were all rounded up and sunk her presence was really no longer needed, but Australia has a long coast line!
 
England was not backwards in coming forwards to protect the colonies hence the deployment of Invincible and Inflexible to hunt down Von Spee.
 
The basic strategic considerations were recognised by Australia and New Zealand and I don't recall any real adverse issues with them from my readings. Bottom line is if England lost the war at sea the German fleet would sail out and conquer Australia, New Zealand and all the overseas territories. Therefore by concentrating power in home waters we were both protecting ourselves and the colonies. Was it unreasonable for the colonies to bear some of the burden of this effort? I would suggest it was not! Jellico remains the only man who could loose the war in an afternoon!
 
Colonies could be lost and regained if we won the war as we could not be strong everywhere which would invite destruction on a piecemeal basis.
 
If the Australia and New Zealand and India hated us so much why did they commit hundreds of thousands of troops and resources to fight in the war? They recognised that the defeat of England (The mother country) would be their defeat as well.
 
It is important to look at the overall picture of stratedgy and not get tied up in minor differences. I guess on that note I wonder what difference having HMS Australia in the North Sea would have made at Dogger Bank and Jutland?
 
On a lighter note an excellent find for the plans of HMS Australia. I would be very interested in purchasing a copy for my collection and at that price will probably do so.
 
Enjoy
 
Geoff