Micronaut Only Thread

battlewagon · Post by **battlewagon** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:47 am

Re: The Royal Oak problem - I have hit the exact same problem on that kit, and a few others in my GHQ fleet. My solution has been to break out my trusty #11 X-acto knife and enlarge the hole for the turret peg towards the bow. I would stop as soon as I could get the turret to fit in front of the superstructure. In some instances, I have also taken a small file to the superstructure directly behind the turret to buy myself a little extra room and not have half of "B" turret overhanging "A" turret.

I hope this helps.

Matt

kiasutha · Post by **kiasutha** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:00 am

All this makes one wonder why in the on-line catalogue photo of the WW1 Royal Oak "B" turret seems to fit OK without overhanging the barbette...
GHQ?

Unfathomable · Post by **Unfathomable** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:19 pm

Thanks a lot, battlewagon, um, Matt. (Do you have a preference?!?) That seems like a common sense solution. And true to form I hadn't thought of it.

But in extending the peg's hole forward, does that not reproduce an overhang similar to having removed the turret peg entirely and positioning it forward by hand? The protruding position would be the same, only now without a niche in the barbette cuff.

Sanding the superstructures peak would be fitting, no pun intended, but that's quite a deal of sanding. Perhaps I could split the difference - an enlarging of peg hole and a little superstructure trim.

Then again, if you say that when looking at your model you're happy with the resultant forwards overhang, what am I missing in simply chopping the turret peg right off? (Because in essence you're saying that the model, by however means, can tolerate having the turret shifted forwards enough to clear the SS).

Alternatively, I could replicate a magazine fire with a can of WD40 and a Zippo lighter ...

Cheers!

piersyf · Post by **piersyf** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:08 pm

Try swapping the turrets around. You might find that one is cast different to the others to fit in that position. In the photo it looks like the raised thing on top is closer to the turret rear on 'B' turret than on X and Y. If they are all the same the photo suggests a very close fit, so maybe file back the rear of the turret a little, clear the front of the upper works a little, and widen the turret pin hole a little... split the difference three ways. I can't remember which model it was but I had a similar frustration with a micronaught until I swapped the turrets around and then it all fit.

Brigade Commander · Post by **Brigade Commander** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:35 pm

Had the same situation with "C" turret on one of my Brooklyn's. Switched turrets until I got one that just fit. I glue the turrets in so it wouldn't be noticeable but if they were left loose to rotate them it would be obvious it was a tight fit. The other two ships didn't have that problem.

Brigade Commander · Post by **Brigade Commander** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:43 pm

In one of those "Things that make you go hmmmm." topics does anyone know why the first, forward, main turret is lettered "A" but the last, aft, main turret is lettered "Y" and not "Z"? And how did they resolve to use "Q" for a center-mount turret? I've wondered about these over the years and while I find them lettered that why in many sources I have never seen an explanation. I'm sure it was universally understood when the convention came about and I suspect no one will actually know the answer because when the convention came about no one would have thought to document it. But I just had to ask, anyway.

Sorry about the run-on sentences!

Donald M. Scheef · Post by **Donald M. Scheef** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:27 pm

re: letter designation of turrets

I can't really give an explanation of the pattern of 'A' and 'B' for forward turrets, 'Q' for midships and 'X' and 'Y' for aft turrets except to state that this was British practice. Why 'Y' for the aft-most rather than 'Z' - I don't know, that's what the British did.

Other countries used different patterns. Germans identified turrets by alphabetical first names; Anton, Bruno, Ceasar, etc. - forward to aft. US turrets were usually numbered; No. 1, No. 2, etc. Does anyone know the pattern used by other countries; France, Italy, Japan?

Some sidelights on this in British practice:
- Ships with multiple mid-ship turrets identified these turrets by 'P' and 'Q'. Ships with a single mid-ship turret identified this by 'Q' rather than 'P'
- HMS Agincourt had seven turrets. These were commonly referred to by the days of the week rather than by a letter designation.
- Dido class cruisers of WWII had three turrets forward, identified by 'A' 'B' and 'Q' Why 'Q' rather than the more logical 'C'? I'm not sure, but it may be related to the fact that an early design had the third turret aft or amidships.

Don S.

piersyf · Post by **piersyf** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:45 am

No reference for this, but it may have to do with language. Early centreline capital ships with two turrets referred to them as the fore and aft 'batteries'. As you add guns and turrets, the forward battery is not a single mount, so becomes A and B turret. The aft battery is designated X and Y. A midships battery has the available letters of P and Q. Therefore all gun turrets mounted forward of the bridge are a part of the fore battery and start from A and go as far as needed. The use of Q for the third turret on Dido I suspect is that it was called that on the plans and never renamed after it was relocated as Donald suggests. It would clearly be under the control of the forward director when under battery control.

Brigade Commander · Post by **Brigade Commander** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:45 am

Donald M. Scheef wrote:re: letter designation of turrets

US turrets were usually numbered; No. 1, No. 2, etc.
Don S.

Alright, now I am confused. I thought the USN also used letters for the main armaments in turrets but used numbers for open mount main batteries (i.e. Mount# 1, Mount# 4, etc.).

kiasutha · Post by **kiasutha** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:18 am

USN system-
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... tions.html
assuming it is correct,of course...

CG2 · Post by **CG2** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:26 pm

I understand that the rear turret on the Nelson/Rodney class was 'X' rather than 'C' too despite being forward of the bridge. Also Agincourt, which had seven turrets, had turrets named after the days of the week, but this may have been unofficial.

Brigade Commander · Post by **Brigade Commander** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:15 am

kiasutha wrote:USN system-
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... tions.html
assuming it is correct,of course...

Thanks kiasutha! After reading it through I am pretty sure it is correct. The section about the secondary battery mount numbering system does sound familiar. The page images seem real but I cannot say that the main battery info seems familiar but it is now the way I will reference the weapons.

I am always being amazed at the information that people will think to post on the Web! Apparently, I should have done a search myself. It honestly never occurred to me anyone would have stored this bit of information and made it accessible. I guess one day I will be used to the Web. No bets though.

kiasutha · Post by **kiasutha** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:36 am

Brigade Commander wrote:
kiasutha wrote:USN system-
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... tions.html
assuming it is correct,of course...
Thanks kiasutha! After reading it through I am pretty sure it is correct. The section about the secondary battery mount numbering system does sound familiar. The page images seem real but I cannot say that the main battery info seems familiar but it is now the way I will reference the weapons.

I am always being amazed at the information that people will think to post on the Web! Apparently, I should have done a search myself. It honestly never occurred to me anyone would have stored this bit of information and made it accessible. I guess one day I will be used to the Web. No bets though.

You're welcome.
Truth is, the question got me thinking- I wasn't sure myself so I looked it up.

Unfathomable · Post by **Unfathomable** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:31 am

Thanks to all who helped with the Royal Oak turret question. I managed to work it out by splitting the difference three ways, as suggested: filing the turret rear, filing the superstructure's peak and moving the barbette hole forwards. That I managed to utterly destroy the remainder of the model during the process is no one's fault but my own - mine and that of my uncoordinated, overzealous, impatient ham fists.Cheers.

kiasutha · Post by **kiasutha** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:00 am

Donald M. Scheef wrote:re: letter designation of turrets

Other countries used different patterns. Germans identified turrets by alphabetical first names; Anton, Bruno, Ceasar, etc. - forward to aft. US turrets were usually numbered; No. 1, No. 2, etc. Does anyone know the pattern used by other countries; France, Italy, Japan?

Don S.

Japan-
Numerical fore to aft with starboard being "odd" and port "even".
See-
http://propnturret.com/tully/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=316
Standard disclaimer applies...