Shipbucket

Krakatoa, I think you've nailed it. Here's another suggestion; send your ship to the US and have her fitted with 5"/38s (4x2,2x1) and Mk 37 FC.

(click for full size)

_________________
Keep well and keep drawing,

Monty

I like the 5-inch design, but those beam turrets look a bit odd...

You're right eltf177. I grabbed the wrong mounting from the parts sheet. Corrections made. Thank you.

_________________
Keep well and keep drawing,

Monty

Interesting idea BCRenown,
I think I would use the 5.25" layout with beam turrets and have 6 x twins. A/B Q1/Q2 X/Y. Another position for a tachymetric director needs to be found for that forward quad 2 pounder. Otherwise if they are going to the States you could replace the quad 2 pounders with quad/twin 40mm.

Krakatoa, with more time on my hands, I have revised the drawing with two twin 5" mountings in beam positions and added pom-pom directors. I was seriously tempted to install another twin 5" mounting abaft the aft director but wasn't sure about weights. Yet, I think a 'Hawkins' ought to be able to carry a heavier armament than an 'Atlanta'.

As for the retention of the 2pdr pom-poms, I am reminded of HMS Delhi's US rebuild that combined single 5" and quad 2pdr mountings. Fitting quad Bofors would certainly be better if it were a reasonable possibilty given the time-line. ???

_________________
Keep well and keep drawing,

Monty

Its mainly topweight that is the problem. Adding all the radars and directors up on high means stuff from lower down has to be removed to restore balance. There is pretty much a full suite of Radar aboard so six twin 5" is probably the right fit. If you want to add a seventh then the first 4 20mm aft of Y turret was where Z 6" mounting was, fitting a 5" twin there would be ok.

Atlanta's may have started with 7/8 twins, but as soon as the extra equipment started being added, torpedoes then twin 5's got dropped off to restore balance. By the end of the war they had a lot less firepower but were much more accurate and deadly with new radars and proximity shells.

Some more great ideas, especially the US refits. Probably not worth the dollar expenditure unless you can get these under Lend-Lease terms, but certainly potent. I see nothing wrong in having the pom-poms like Delhi had.
I think Nigel's version with beam guns looks about the best for the 5.25in versions and the 4.5in version is interesting too. I think that might get the nod from the Admiralty by 1940 as the 5.25 mount are in short supply anyway and needed for the Dido and KGVs then completing/ on the stocks. Actually its plausible that the 12 mounts for two Hawkins might have gone to Scylla and her sister instead given wartime priority and the 4.5in for those two ships swapped into the Hawkins refits. Would have avoided design and construction delays with the Scylla.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Krakatoa, Hood; you both raise valid points. I really like Krakatoa's 4.5" version but, I think, based on the 5.25" mountings mediocraty as an effective dual-purpose weapon, such a re-arming would have been a failure in that it would not have achieved the best result.

Here is my premise for my US Rebuild proposal:

If I'm the First Sea Lord and I'm going to send a Hawkins class cruiser to the USA for conversion to an anti-aircraft cruiser, I will have to be assured that such a conversion will meet my minimum requirements, as per my revised drawing below. Otherwise, I'd be scrapping the whole idea.

Based on the armament carried by the much smaller Atlanta and Dido class cruisers I 'think' this just 'might' be doable.

The final kick at the cat: (click for full size)

_________________
Keep well and keep drawing,

Monty

The only question I have is on the torpedoes you state in your Data. 6x21", but I cant see a triple mounting. I can see a couple of 'fixed beam' doors under the aft mk37, should there be another door there?

As to the drawing, I am always a fan of using US resources to re-arm British ships. The 5"/38 is more acceptable to Admiralty on cruisers than the 4" or 4.5" which may actually be better AA guns but as always the "bigger is better" mindset is hard to get past.

The Hawkins AA proposal has certainly produced some interesting designs. It is probably up to Smurf with his greater knowledge of cruiser plans of the time to pronounce judgement on what might have been 'never-were' drawings for addition to the archive. The rest will just become footnotes in history.

Of the drawings I have done for this thread these are the two that I would select as never-weres, plus BCRenowns V2 of the US rearmament.

5.25" version with 6 turrets.


4.5" version with eight twin turrets.


BCRenowns 5" US rearmed version

The Hawkins class carried 4 abovewater and 2 underwater torpedo tubes. Some of the class had some of the tubes removed during demilitarisation and modernisation. I decided to keep all six anyway.

It had been planned to re-arm the class with three twin 8" turrets. Barbette length meant that the aft turret would have been installed in a raised position. That, the re-arming of Effingham with 9 - 6" guns and a review of the internal layout gives me no reason to think that the US refit would not have been technically possible. Having not compared various mounting weights, there may be an issue there but, I doubt there would be.

_________________
Keep well and keep drawing,

Monty