WesWorld

Gentlemen,

the old battleships of the RSAN Mauritius class are overdue for a life extending or scrap. Due to the war in South America both units suffered extensive damage but received makeshift repairs only so it was decided to chose the more expensive rebuild option.



Above is a drawing of Mauritius general layout. Minor changes might have happened during the war like adding provisional light guns and MGs or an observer platform somewhere.

Stats for Mauritius pre- and post modernization can be found here .

Now, some of you are really good in working with existing drawings or putting together completely new ones. Hence I´d like to know what you think the Mauritius should look like post-rebuild. Personally I envision something like an OTL Queen Elizabeth becuase the original Mauritius was a blend of SMS Bayern and HMS QE. However, I´m open to sugestions and invite you to post here your proposals.

Working form the above picture and knowing the general style of RSAN units, what would the rebuild Mauritius look like?

Thanks in advance and if there are questions, please fire away.

Did the forward casemates get plated over or was the hull rebuilt flush with the rest of the hull side (like QE and Valiant).

What does the SAE ensign look like?

EDIT: The Mauritius is nearly indentical to the QE in size and layout, drawing her to shipbucket standards is proving easy enough as a 'cut 'n' paste' type job BUT your main belt is way too short to cover A to X turret as your drawing shows. At most the belt goes from X to B turret but not A.
Do you want me to ignore the SS report or draw it to the SS report?

I thought of her having all her casemats removed completely with new hull plating that extends to a new, longer and more modern bow.

SS says all is covered so I made the drawing that way originally - ignoreing that, meassured in meters/pixels, her belt would not be long enough. So I´d say ignore it and have the main belt cover all her vitals. Also note her fore, aft and upper belt was removed to gain weight reserve.

Ensign.... No idea, actually. I´d say something with a Protea on it. It´s the Royal Flower like the Lily is in France and it´s also used for seevral medals. On the other hand a flower is not very war-like. *shrug* Any suggestions?

Btw, her secondaries should be like this designs main guns.



I was inspired by the 4.5" the British OTL developed for their Battle-class DDs (IIRC).

Ensign... something like this perhaps?

What about something a tad generic, like this? I created it for a fictional country populated by Boer and Irish immigrants, based off the flag of the Orange Free State.

too complex, methinks.... But thanks. :o)

Something simpler

Probably not what you were looking for, but I did a quick kitbash of SAE parts...



Didn't make it exact to the specs yet, just kind of a concept picture.

Minor update. Trimmed off the end belts, added a new Atlantic bow, and other minor edits.

Are your Springsharp reports accurate when they say you've got sextuple 20mm mounts? or is that supposed to be 6 twin mounts?

Hi Shin,

thanks for this first concept. In general I agree on a relatively blocky supersturcture forward. That fits well into the RSAN design tree. A single large funnel might make sense too. After modernization machinery power is quite increased but it might be okay given new technologies for boilers, turbines, condensers etc. A hangar for 2-3 planes abreast? Probably.

A deck catapult however, the RSAN does not use. Instead, a cat on a turntable might be used with the deck around used as boat deck. However, I´m not sure on the use of a planes on the ship at all. Deck space between barbets B and X might be a problem because of many light guns etc. What does the board think?

Of course casemats would be plated over and her bow lengthened by 8 meters.

I also think her aft superstructure would be increased to gain deck space and room for more equipement and crew quarters (enlarged crew because of more light guns and modern equipement like an early surface search radar etc.).

I'd be tempted to try out a Kongo style superstructure with everything crammed forward and a catapult forward of X turret. Or something a little more simple like a U.S.S. Nevada style rebuild.

Your sim report has 100 tons Misc, but no mention of specifics; Likewise, your other SS reports for ships with aircraft don't specify (and generally have 100 tons), so I assumed aircraft was intended.

The Hangar is intended to be similar to the RN rebuilds; basically, a hangar on each side of the stacks. I know you prefer the turntable catapults, but I just didn't think there was enough room to spare for one (or a pair) midships. Likewise, with the larger forward superstructure the stacks being trunked frees up some room. Both details are more or less lifted off the QE rebuilds, which you said were your inspiration for the class.

The casemates are plated over, but I didn't build any structure over the hull indentations (except for one to support the midships catapult). To the best of my knowledge, none of the extensive interwar rebuilds did this (including the IJN, RN, and US examples) Except the more drastic Italian modernizations...which also had much more prominent indentations. I added a new bow, but I had a little trouble working out the scale of the drawings, so I winged the lengthening; That can be adjusted if it's wrong.

If you're generally happy with how it's shaping up, I can keep fiddling with it; I'd just like some comfirmation on the AA fit

A slightly different take, without a cross-deck catapult, and a bit more 'living room' in the superstructure.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I'd be tempted to try out a Kongo style superstructure with everything crammed forward and a catapult forward of X turret. Or something a little more simple like a U.S.S. Nevada style rebuild.

A Kongo style layout I´ve never tried on one of my designs.... Dita for a Nevada. What would it look like?

Shin,

thanks for your input. There are a few things that spring to mind to me when looking at your proposed layout.

Her bow now is a bit too long and too flared, methinks. Not blaming you, it´s easy to understand you´ve troubles with my scale. To help I added a pic below where I not only added some of my template stuff (2cm and 4cm guns up right, rangefinders, lights etc. left and so on) but also two black lines below your proposed solution. Measured from the ships stern she original has a length of 190m (old SS file, so length over all). The rebuild variant now has a length at waterline of 194m and 198m overall. So the two lines are at 194m (where the bow should hit the designed waterline) and at 198m.

From her top view you can also see that simply extending her bow forward without removing the cut in section where the casemats where will not give a good result. She´ll be quite a wet girl when going at 27kn with such a cut in bow. Hence I really think her forward section needs to be plated to the outer shell of her hull. Your opinion?



You may also note that on your proposed solution her aft rangefinder cannot turn. it´s a stereoscopic device with a base length of about 12m.

I´m not sure if the gab between superstructure and X turret is suffice to handle planes. There might be enough room left and right only a top view could reveal.

What is this aft of her stack? A platform of some sort? For boats?

What does the board think about her secondary battery layout? Aren´t those turrets too close to each other? Can a single hit wipe out 50% of the ships secondaries?

Thanks,

Stephan

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Something simpler

I think it´s better but somehow I´m still not satisfied. Can´t even say why. That flag just looks too colorful as a pennant, doesn´t it?

I think ShinRa was on the right lines with the first one.

The turnable catapult doesn't make sense hedged in between superstructures, you'd be better with a fixed one really or going for a very low after superstructure. The after CT could be moved backwards a bit more.

Really you have the deck space to make all the secondaries on the same level without superfiring.


I liked Brock's flag very much, it looked workable for some kind of similar flag.

Does it make sense to move a CT at all? Removing yes, but moving?

From the stats of my planned rebuild there no longer is a heavy CT at all. Only 50mm anti splinter plating is used.

I tend to say Shins second shot (split secondaries, new bow albeit not yet newly plated) got closed to what I had in mind. That deck cat is what I am not really satisfied with. Deck space aside the RSAN never used such type of catapult before and most likely will not in the future. Simply looks too British or German to me. Even though it is a familiar look....

Regarding light AA the new vessel should have

4x4 4cm
2x6 2cm
12x1 2cm

Positions for these mounts are open to sugestions although the RSAN usually places those sixtuple mounts abreast funnel or forward superstructure.

I honestly felt the same way at first about cross deck catapults, but I found with limited length it acctually takes up less space. One downside I suppose is not being able to turn the catipult towards the wind but was that an issue on the Bismarck and rebuild British ships?

Rather than a full hanger what about one similar to the Scharnhorst only countersunk into the upper deck (acctually at fore deck level)?

Work on my version is progressing, will take a day or so more I think given the mods required and other bits of details.

I've gone for a turntable catapult and hangars.