Calling all Royal Navy G3 Battlecruiser fans

[Edward Pinniger]

A seriously impressive piece of scratchbuilding! It always amazes me how much talent there is in the ship modelling world.
I have to agree with some other posters on the actual appearance of the ship , though (this is definitely not a criticism of the model itself, or the modeller's choice of subject, just the original design of the ship). The combination of the weird asymmetric turret layout with the minimal superstructure and closely spaced funnels gives it a rather "unbalanced" look to me.

Does anyone know the reason for the third turret being fitted amidships (so it can only fire sideways) rather than aft? There doesn't seem to be any possible advantage to this configuration.

[Laurence Batchelor]

Does anyone know the reason for the third turret being fitted amidships (so it can only fire sideways) rather than aft? There doesn't seem to be any possible advantage to this configuration.

This was to reduce the overall length of hull needed to be included the armoured box. This arrangement with the 3rd turret in Q position was a design compromise. It meant a smaller length warship could be built, but also that more tonnage could then be devoted to a strong armoured deck and main belt to protect the ships vitals.
It was also suggested that a Royal Navy capital ship would never engage a foreign contemporary on a direct aft bearing, so tactically the disadvantage (limited fire arcs of Q turret) was seen as minimal.
Q turret could still fire aft, but only on port quarter or starboard quarter bearings. Though their would likely have been blast damage to the aft superstructure and to any on-deck fittings such as boats etc.

For further reading on this please see British Battleships by Raven & Roberts and a 4 part article by N J M Campbell in Warship which explains all in great detail.

[MartinJQuinn]

Do you have any idea why he chose the name Anson?

Click here for the whole article. I know Wikipedia can be unreliable, but I read somewhere else that the G3 ships were to be named after the WW1 battlecruisers.

Among the names speculated for the four ships planned were Invincible, Indomitable, Inflexible and Indefatigable from the World War I battlecruisers, and for the N3 battleships under consideration at the same time St George, St Patrick, St Andrew and St David after the patron Saints of the four nations of the UK.

[Laurence Batchelor]

That was the reason why I asked as the 1906 Invincible's would have been scrapped by the time the G3's were commissioned and often I've heard and read the G3's referred to as the 1921 Invincible class with the names Wikipedia puts forward.

Furthermore the Admiral's name of Anson was not initially at the forefront of the Royal Navy's names to apply to the next capital ship as the 4th and 5th WW2 KGV class were initially to be named Jellicoe and Beatty.

I was just merely curious as I've never seen any source give these ships the name of Anson I was wondering what made the builder choose the name?
Of course as it is a 'never was' no one can ever say with any conviction the model has the wrong name.

Cheers
LB

[Admhawk]

Seventh photo down, above the 2 whalers, there is a pole with two black and white swing arms. What is it?

And yes, I agree that it is an awesome piece of work, but also think it's is a rather ugly ship.

Darren

[JIM BAUMANN]

That is a semaphore signalling mast!

found on most British Ships I believe

HTH

JIM B

[Andy G]

Somehow they capture the adventurous, future-orientated spirit of the 1920s much more like any other ship I know - as if they are out of a Fritz Lang movie...

Jorit

Nah...You just need to spend a little more time gawping at Dino's Barham to see the best that the 20's and 30's could offer. Now THAT's what I'd call a ship. ...And one not as restricted as the G3's in terms of firing arcs.

Andy

[Guest]

Ok, so throw something at me, but I think these are actually much more beautiful than Nelson or Rodney.

Jorit

While I personally think it is the other way around, I have to admit it is possible for a ship to be much more beautiful than Nelson or Rodney and still be indescribably ugly. And G3 and N3 were spectacularly ugly, rather like a blocks of seaside factory buildings that somehow detached themselves from land and drifted out to sea.

[Guest]

Perhaps another reason for the Q turret was the desire to shorten the propeller shafts and the vulnerable section of side protection pierced by the shaft ally.

As a matter of fact, can anyone point me to any instance when a capital ship was compelled to engage an enemy on a dead astern bearing for any significant period of time? Swinging the guns around the stern while the ship turns does not count.

[JWintjes]

Perhaps another reason for the Q turret was the desire to shorten the propeller shafts and the vulnerable section of side protection pierced by the shaft ally.

As a matter of fact, can anyone point me to any instance when a capital ship was compelled to engage an enemy on a dead astern bearing for any significant period of time? Swinging the guns around the stern while the ship turns does not count.

Chuck,

that's an interesting point indeed - the only examples that spring to my mind are Doggerbank and some parts of Jutland.

I'd guess that if you have superior armament, you wouldn't need a X/Y turret group.

Jorit

[Foeth]

IIRC, scharnhorst fired with C-turret dead astern when hit by DoY.

[1Big Rich]

An incredibly impressive model. An outstanding effort!!

I'd only dispute the name, but perhaps the incomplete Admirals (Hood's near sisters) were carried over.

As a matter of fact, can anyone point me to any instance when a capital ship was compelled to engage an enemy on a dead astern bearing for any significant period of time?

I don't know if it was exactly bearing 180, but at Second Guadalcanal, South Dakota fired over her stern, setting her aircraft afire. Her second salvo blew them overboard...

S&G also were firing over their stern in the course of escaping from Renown in the Force 9 gale off of Norway in 1940.

Regards,

[Andy G]

...the only examples that spring to my mind are Doggerbank and some parts of Jutland.

Much of Doggerbank occurred with the British forces at long range off the German's starboard stern quarter.

What does strike me as odd with regards to that battle - given the Blucher's low speed - was that a reduction in speed and a turn to starboard by the German forces would have aided the Blucher, and given them better control over the chase. If not crossing the T, at least forcing the British battlecruisers to turn to the right and trade blows between the battlelines.

And if that had happened, and British weaknesses in the battlecruisers had remained as they were (Lion was nearly lost, for example) then the outcome could have been wholly different.

Andy

[Guest]

Gentleman,

I was interested in G3 desighn for some time and tried to gather information about these ships, however I never managed to find any kind of ships' plans. Can anyone give me an idea about the source of such drawings? I guess they should exist - construction actually started anf masterpiece discussed was built based on something.

Thank you in advance

[Longshaor]

Gentleman,

I was interested in G3 desighn for some time and tried to gather information about these ships, however I never managed to find any kind of ships' plans. Can anyone give me an idea about the source of such drawings? I guess they should exist - construction actually started anf masterpiece discussed was built based on something.

Thank you in advance

Commercially? No. The only plans available are reproductions of the originals from the NMM. I purchased a set from them in the early 1990s and they were, IIRC, somewhere in the �150-200 range. Not cheap. And, frankly, there's more information there than you'd need to build a model, as well as details that would have changed between the plans and production - like the 6-barrel 2pdr mountings. I started redrawing the plans to make them more modeler-friendly, but work & life haven't been cooperating and that project's on the back burner for now.

[Tamenga]

Wow Impressive.
I love the detail

Now if somebody could make a Model of Design K3.

[Sauragnmon]

I have to admit, I personally love the G3's and N3's - I have the IHP 700 N3 kit, in partial construction, you can see a few pics of her in my "Children of what if" thread over in the Works in Progress forum. I'd love to get the G3 to add in beside her and my other RN Battleship Whifs eventually, though I seem to be on a Japan fix right now.

[able]

[Sr. Gopher]

Whoa. What's that??!!!?!?!?!

(I'm sorry, I don't usually go into detail with other navies. Go US!!!!!)

[Sr. Gopher]

Well, the past 8 months have shown a lot of info about these ships. One question I do have: What would their names have been?