Britain's bergship: A 1/350 scale HMS Habakkuk "ice" aircraft carrier.

[seadude]

Long ago back in 2009 on these forums, I started a 1/700 scale HMS Habakkuk model ship project.
But now, I've been kinda in a modeling binge or "busy beaver" mode the last few weeks trying to keep myself busy working on various modeling projects during cold winter days when it's too cold, etc. to go outside and do much or go anywhere.
For those not familiar with Project Habakkuk, let me give you a few sample references to check. Pictures of each reference are below.

1. "Churchill's Iceman" by Henry Hemming. (An alternate U.S. title of this book is "The Ingenious Mr. Pyke. Inventor, Fugitive, Spy" by the same author.)
2. "Code Name Habakkuk, A Secret Ship Made of Ice" by L.D. Cross.
3. "My Tank Is Fight" by Zach Parsons, Chapter 17, Pages 185 to 195
4. Article titled "Habakkuk" by William J. Wallace in WARSHIP magazine (Vol.5, No.18, 1981, Pgs. 80-85)
5. WWII History magazine, September 2011 issue, Pages 14 to 19, Article titled "Project Habakkuk" by Stephen D. Lutz.
6. DIVER magazine, Vol.37, No.4  (Look for the issue that has James Cameron on the front cover.)
7. "The Canadian Habbakuk Project" by Lorne W. Gold. (This is the ULTIMATE scientific/engineering book that explains almost everything concerning pykrete and Project Habakkuk. Highly recommend it.)

Posts/updates in this thread may be sporadic. I may not get a decent start on this project until after the 2022 holiday season is over. So anything I post now in December 2022 will be a few "bits and pieces" as I'll be busy for the holidays. It should also be said that this is a very big project and could take quite a long time to build/finish. Could be a few years. Hard to say. A real proposed Habakkuk vessel was designed to be 2,000 feet long x 300 feet wide x 200 feet high. The height was only the bottom of the hull to flight deck level.
In 1/350 scale, that approximates to almost 69 inches long x 10 1/4 inches wide x about 7 inches high. Or to put it simply, the hull would be about 6 feet long. 

It should be noted that as I build this model, there will be times when I'll use a lot of American carrier systems and equipment instead of British stuff. The reasons for this are many.
Now, I do realize the Habakkuk is a vessel of British origin that was designed and proposed by British inventor Geoffrey Pyke. So what's with the talk about having it built by mostly the Canadians and Americans, and having mostly American equipment on board? Am I biased towards American equipment, etc.? No, I am not. Do I hate the British and what they've invented? No, I do not. So why can't the Habakkuk have British weaponry, aircraft, and other equipment on board? Why can't there be a British name and designation number for the ship? Well, the Habakkuk could certainly have these things. There's nothing that says it can't. But for various economic, military, manufacturing, etc. reasons, it is more preferable to use American and/or Canadian equipment on the Habakkuk than it is to have British armament, British radar systems, British island type superstructure, etc. on the vessel.

You have to understand a few things. The battle in the Atlantic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic
.....between Allied transport convoys and the limited amount of warships that were escorting them vs. the German uboats that were sinking the convoy ships, was taking a heavy toll on merchant shipping and the Allies plans for helping to defend Britain and send vital military supplies to other countries. The Germans weren't just sinking merchant ships traveling eastward to Europe with supplies, but they were also sinking ships going back to Canada and America too. So it probably wouldn't have made much sense for Britain to send merchant ships full of supplies to Canada and America to build the Habakkuk if the Germans were sinking ships going westward. If a Habakkuk vessel was to be built as originally planned in 1943 or 1944, then all available speed would have been necessary to use whatever materials and equipment were ALREADY in existence. This would have included already proven and dependable designs of American ESSEX class aircraft carrier components and equipment to be used on the Habakkuk. In fact, if you read any of the sample references I listed further above, there are mentions that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was quite enthusiastic about Project Habakkuk and he had wanted the vessel to be built and in service as expediantly as possible.

You have to understand that the Allies were desperate to stop the Germans in the Battle of the Atlantic. Anything which could have been done or used to help quickly build the Habakkuk and get it into service as fast as possible to stop the German uboat threat was paramount. The Habakkuk was to be built in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Canada which is just northeast of the American eastern coast. It makes far better sense economically, militarily, etc. to just ship extra American components and equipment, especially those of ESSEX class carrier design, up the U.S. eastern coast from factories and shipyards, and transport them to Corner Brook in Newfoundland.

You have to think which is faster and easier:
a) Shipping British components and equipment from Britain to the U.S./Canada to be used on the Habakkuk, or.....
b) Retooling American/Canadian factories to make British armament and equipment to use on the Habakkuk, or......
c) Using already proven and designed components and equipment from American aircraft carriers which could be readily shipped from shipyards and factories up the eastern U.S. to Corner Brook?

The clear winner in my opinion is Option C. So if the Habakkuk uses mostly American armament, equipment, etc. on the vessel, then does that make it an American ship instead of a British designed ship? I don't know. Not necessarily I wouldn't think. So if any British people are worrying that I am taking the Habakkuk away from them and turning it into an American design/ship instead, I am not. Yes, the Habakkuk is a British design of a proposed British ship. But for various reasons which I've mentioned in getting it constructed and operational, it is going to look somewhat more American than British. This does not mean that I and/or other Americans hate the British, their designs, or their equipment. It just means that you have to think realistically what would have been the fastest and most economical way in WWII to get this ship operational to beat the Germans in the Battle of the Atlantic.

If people want to draw sketches, artwork, make models, etc. that show a Habakkuk vessel with British armament, equipment, structures, etc., then that is fine. There's nothing wrong with that. If somebody wants to do the same, but with American equipment and such on the vessel instead, then that is fine also. It can go either way: a British Habakkuk vessel, or an Americanised Habakkuk vessel. But for all intents and purposes, I strongly and firmly believe that a Habakkuk vessel if realistically built in WWII, would have had more American equipment and systems on board than of British stuff. The "basic" British design of the Habakkuk would probably stay the same such as hull shape, external engine nacelles/pods, and maybe a few other things, but all radars, armament, island superstructure configuration, searchlights, lifeboats, flight deck arresting wires and barricades, and other assorted systems would be American.

 
 
 

[seadude]

A few other notes about this modeling project:
As I build this insanely huge project in future weeks, months, and/or years, I will add in the posts extra commentary and information about the real Project Habakkuk and my thoughts on how I think it could have been built and so forth.
And probably lastly, if anybody has any questions, concerns, opinions, etc. they want to add, then feel free and I will answer to the best of my ability.

So, to start with, I got bored tonight and started building some 1/350 scale American 5"/38 twin gun mounts. See picture below.
Oh, before I forget, I'm also using four 1/350 scale Trumpeter USS Franklin ESSEX class carrier model kits for spare parts. See picture below.
So according to various references, the Habakkuk was to have about forty 4.5" dual purpose gun mounts (80 guns total), plus other numerous lighter anti-aircraft armament. There is no specific information about what types of armament or the amounts the Habakkuk was to have. What I mentioned is just a vague reference mentioned in various books and other sources.
If the Habakkuk was fitted with British type armaments for defense, it probably would have had the following types. But these are just guesses.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_45-45_mk1.php
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12.php
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_2pounder_m8.php
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_2cm-70_mk234.php
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_5-62_mk3.php

Although the Habakkuk was to have British armaments as originally designed, it is more likely that American armaments (and other carrier systems) would have been used instead. With the Habakkuk being constructed along the eastern Canadian coast in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, it makes better sense to manufacture and ship extra American armaments (and other systems) from factories up the eastern coast of the U.S. to Corner Brook. This would save time, money, and other resources when trying to get a Habakkuk ship expediently built in order to deal with the German u-boat menace.
Armament (If added by Americans):
Forty 5"/38 (12.7 cm) Mark 12 twin mounts (80 guns total)  http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.php
Bofors 40 mm/56 Mark 1 twin gun mount and/or Mark 2 quad (4-gun) mount.  http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12.php
Oerlikon 20 mm/70 (0.79") Marks 2, 3 & 4  http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_2cm-70_mk234.php

[NARSES2]

Glad to see you've picked this up again 

[seadude]

Ok, so the forty 5"/38 gun mounts are all assembled. They'll be painted much later on when I eventually get to painting the main ship hull, island superstructure, plus other odds and ends. Unfortuneately, all these 5" gun turrets are a mixture of different turrets from different ship kits I have at home. Can't be helped as I really don't have the money to go and buy a ton of 3D printed turrets and/or other aftermarket accessories. But if you think they won't look good on the model, then just wait and have a little patience. I'll make them work.
So how will forty 5" dual purpose gun mounts be positioned/distributed on the Habakkuk hull? A sample black and white diagram below shows angled cutouts circled in red along the edge/circumference of the Habakkuk hull. The areas circled in red show pairs of 2 gun turrets in each circled cutout area similar to what some World War II British aircraft carriers had. If a real Habakkuk were built, I'm willing to bet it would have the same/similar configurations. So how many 5" gun mounts per side? Well, since there's forty total, it would be 20 on the starboard side and 20 on the port side as shown in an example pic below.
NOTE: The black and white diagram below is NOT what a real Habakkuk vessel would have looked like. It is only an artists's conception of what it "might" look like.

[seadude]

Continuing with my use of American armament and systems.............

So all the 5" guns need directing. And the system for that is the Mk.37 gun director used by the US Navy during World War II. However, there were a few varieties of different Mk.37's built and used during WWII as well as afterwards. If a Habakkuk vessel were constructed and entered service back in WWII without any delays or major hiccups, I'm guessing it would be late 1944, or maybe early 1945 at the latest. About that same timeframe, the US Navy was using the Mark 37 "square-back" Fire Control Director as configured to carry Mk.12/Mk.22 radar antennas.  This director featured two small boxy extensions on the rear of the director to accommodate radar equipment and/or extra electronics.  This Mk.37 director configuration appeared on ships built from about late 1941 through 1944. The US Navy Mark 37 Director was used to control the fire of the 5"/38 caliber dual purpose batteries against both aircraft and surface targets, to direct the fire of starshells for the illumination of surface targets and to position the searchlights. The Mk.12 radar on top of the Mk.37 director was the larger rectangular radar, while the smaller "orange peel" radar on the right side was the Mk.22.

The Mk.37's I built are what I call "Frankenstein directors". I'm not thrilled with them, but it's all I could do with whatever extra kits and spare parts I had. Even the smaller Mk.22 radars on the right sides of the directors don't have that orange peel shape to them. If I were rich or had a winning lottery ticket, then yeah, I could afford better ones. But I can't. I have to make do with what I got. Not every modeler in the world is rich and can afford 3D printers, tons of photoetch and aftermarket accessories, etc., etc.

So, where do these directors go? Since the Habakkuk was proposed to have forty 4.5" gun mounts, it's hard to say how many gun directors would be needed and where they would all go. There is no information for this. Anything mentioned would be a guess. I don't know how many 5" gun mounts can be controlled by a single Mk.37 director. For my model with forty 5" gun mounts, I'm going to use eight Mk.37 directors spaced accordingly as shown in a below black and white diagram. Eight seems like a decent number to me. If it's wrong, I don't have extra parts to make more.

Forty dual gun mounts was just a proposal for a real Habakkuk vessel. There was no final design, decision, etc. for what armament the ship was to have, where they would all go, how many gun directors to have, and so forth. I'm just taking one big guess with my model. Everybody else's mileage will be different should anybody else build a model.

[NARSES2]

Impressive 

[Gondor]

Your Type 22 height finder radar, my assumption from seeing similar devices while in the RAF, could be made by drawing a Diamond on the back of the aerial then redrawing the line slightly curved or maybe not as the difference might not be apparent in that scale.

Gondor

[seadude]

Your Type 22 height finder radar, my assumption from seeing similar devices while in the RAF, could be made by drawing a Diamond on the back of the aerial then redrawing the line slightly curved or maybe not as the difference might not be apparent in that scale.

Gondor

Right now, I'm not too worried about it. It does bug me, but not to the point I'm going to go crazy over it. At some point in future months as I build this model, if I can afford better Mk.37's and build them, then I'll add them. We'll just have to wait and see.

[seadude]

Everything (or almost everything) that anybody (including me) ever thought they knew about Project Habakkuk...............is wrong.

Last week Thursday, I sent an email to the Canadian National Research Council in hopes of inquiring if they had any blueprints/schematics for a final design of a Habakkuk vessel which might help me with my modeling project. Below is the reply I got back:

Greetings Eric,
 
My name is Steven Leclair and am the archivist for the National Research Council, I was passed your query regarding the Habbakuk .
Lorne Gold's book is by far the best reference you could use for the model.  Unfortunately, once the project was cut, it seems that much of the material was lost or destroyed as it was considered to be a top secret project.
While we do not have blue prints or schematics, the one's in Gold's publication are by far the best examples I have so far seen from my understanding, there never would be a "final design" since the construction at Lake Louise was the experimental stage, never to be finished.  The NRC Habbakuk collection consists of photos of the work being done, experiments on pykrete, various bits of data and correspondence.  There really is nothing showing a final model or photograph but I have included a photo of the closest they came to completion.
Please do feel free to contact me directly for any questions or concerns.

Have a great day!
Steven

Let me break down his email bit by bit and give you my thoughts which are in red below.

1. "Lorne Gold's book is by far the best reference you could use for the model."
The Canadian Habbakuk Project by Lorne W. Gold (Picture below.). You can't get any better of reference material than that. Not even websites and Youtube videos come close.

2. "Unfortunately, once the project was cut, it seems that much of the material was lost or destroyed as it was considered to be a top secret project."
Bummer. Project Habakkuk was cut due to financial, technical, and military reasons. The main reason being that the tide was turning in the Allies favor in the Battle of the Atlantic against German uboats in 1944 and 1945.

3. "While we do not have blue prints or schematics, the one's in Gold's publication are by far the best examples I have so far seen from my understanding, there never would be a "final design" since the construction at Lake Louise was the experimental stage, never to be finished."
No blueprints? Double bummer.   The diagram below from Lorne Gold's book is a schematic of a "proposed" Habakkuk vessel shape. Proposed does not in any way mean the design is final. But this is probably as close to a final design as we'll ever get. Lake Louise was not the construction site of any sort of Habakkuk prototype. It was actually Patricia Lake near Jasper, Alberta instead. The Habakkuk "prototype" actually resembled a small house (Picture below.). This structure was used to test building materials and construction techniques for possibly building a full size Habakkuk vessel. The prototype "houseboat" so to speak used regular blocks of ice cut from the lake. No pykrete mixture was used in it's construction. Once the prototype was built and tests were carried out on it's effectiveness, then that was it. Project Habakkuk never went any further than the prototype houseboat.

4. "There really is nothing showing a final model or photograph........"
Again, there is no final design configuration for a full size Habakkuk vessel anywhere.

5. ".......but I have included a photo of the closest they came to completion."
The photo Steve included with his reply to me was similar to the prototype houseboat picture posted below. As I said before, this was as far as Project Habakkuk ever came to completion. Just the prototype houseboat only. Nothing further.

[PR19_Kit]

The plus point to the lack of finite information is that no-one can say you're wrong once you've built it. 

[NARSES2]

The plus point to the lack of finite information is that no-one can say you're wrong once you've built it. 

Another plus point is that they bothered to send you a decent reply 

[seadude]

The plus point to the lack of finite information is that no-one can say you're wrong once you've built it. 

That's true I guess to a certain degree.
Somewhere out in the world, there will probably be some ship/naval engineer who will say I shouldn't have done this or added that because X will make Y non-functional which will lead to Z being inoperable or some other nonsense. 
*sigh*  That's what happens in the world of Top Secret information. Things get lost, misplaced, shredded, mishandled, destroyed, and any other number of terms to describe information that can't be found. That's military bureaucracy. It sucks. It really does. I wish there really were final plans for a Habakkuk vessel so I could make a thorough and totally believeable and historically accurate model. But there isn't. All I have to work with is just guesswork and to try and put myself in the minds of Geoffrey Pyke and/or any other dozens of people who worked on this project back in WWII and try to think as they did. What would they do in this situation and such? How would this part of the Habakkuk look? How would that part of the Habakkuk look? How would this work and how would that work and so on.

[seadude]

Doing some pre-planning on the Habakkuk's island superstructure.

As usual, there are no detailed and final plans for how the main island superstructure is supposed to look on the Habakkuk. The only things that are fairly guaranteed from concept sketches and drawings are: a) Appears to be long and high, b) At least 2 smokestack funnels, c) Appears on the starboard side along the edge of the ship and in the middle, d) Has a slight design configuration similar to British WWII carriers and/or American ESSEX class WWII carriers.
Using the below black and white artist concept sketch below, as well as some proposed blueprints dated from May 1943 (Date is in upper right hand corner.), it appears the island superstructure for the Habakkuk is approximately 400-425 feet long by about 30-35 feet wide. Slightly less wider than the width of the pykrete hull which is 40 feet thick. BUT.........the length is just a guess as not every artist concept sketch and drawing is the same from every reference source. But I'm willing to use the 400-425 measurement for my model as it seems to me like a decent figure/length. Since the Habakkuk is such a big and long ship, I think it would make sense to have a large island superstructure for command & control as well as flight operations. 425 feet is about 14 1/2 inches in 1/350 scale which is what I'll need to scratch build an island superstructure.
Another picture below also shows "approximately" how many levels/decks there are on a modern US Navy aircraft carrier. Not all carriers are the same, but I figure most carriers will have island superstructures that are anywhere from 7-9 decks high. Not only do modern aircraft carriers need high superstructures, but also very large/long cargo ships and oil supertankers. The high superstructure makes it easier to see all around the ship, particuarly straight ahead in front of the bow. This is what the Habakkuk needs due to such a great length of it's hull which is 2,000 feet long.
The last picture shows that I used a tape measure on the floor to give an impression of how long this model will be in 1/350 scale and approximately where along the length the island superstructure will go............which will be in the middle.

[seadude]

Continuing with the island superstructure................

I built an ESSEX class aircraft carrier superstructure (Pic below.) minus details and radar masts. But after looking at it and doing some deciding, it would be too small on it's own for my needs on the Habakkuk model.
I still plan to use ESSEX island superstructures as the basis for the Habakkuk island superstructure, but I'll have to use two of them to do it. And in order to make the Habakkuk superstructure higher and longer, I'm going to use some ESSEX carrier hangar deck bulkhead pieces as shown in another below picture. This will give my scratch built island superstructure the length (Slightly longer than 14 inches.) and the height it needs (Between 3-4 inches) for a proper large scale Habakkuk island superstructure.
Now if you notice on the Essex hangar bulkhead pieces, there are what's known as roller curtain doors. I'm not going to bother removing those or doing anything else to them. Might as well leave them on as part of the island superstructure. Think of it this way: think of them as small garage doors that lead to small alcoves or garages inside the island superstructure for deck vehicles to park in. Makes sense to me.
So let's see...........
Habakkuk island superstructure approximately 425 feet long x 30-35 feet wide = in 1/350 scale would be approximately 14 1/2 inches long x 1 inch wide. Give or take.
And the last picture below gives a rough idea of how many decks high the Habakkuk scratch built island superstructure will be. I'm thinking at least 8 if you look closely at where all the portholes and side door hatches are. It'll be approximately 3 inches high minus radar masts and radars.

[seadude]

And a little bit more for tonight..............

The below picture is a rough interpretation of the width for my Habakkuk model. AND NO, I AM NOT PUTTING f-18 JETS ON MY MODEL! They are just there to give an impression of the size of aircraft that would be on the flight deck.
Anyway............the long wood bamboo skewers on the left and right sides help to denote the edge of the Habakkuk hull. The bridge island superstructure will be on the starboard (Right) side and will be right along the edge of the hull. The island superstructure will be 1 inch wide when fully built. The squares on the cutting mat are 1 inch x 1 inch.
Also shown are sample representations of how I'll have pairings of 5" gun mounts. The blank extra mat space between the pairings might be filled with Bofors 40mm quad anti-aircraft mounts, but I'm not sure yet.
The width of a real Habakkuk hull is 300 feet (340 feet with attached motor nacelles.). In 1/350 scale, 300 feet is approximately 10 1/4 inches. In the picture of the mat below, at least 1 inch on either side (Indicated by yellow lines at bottom of picture.) is dedicated toward the gun emplacements, island superstructure, and any other details along the edge of the Habakkuk hull. The other 8 inches as indicated by the red lines in the picture are dedicated toward actual flight deck space. That 8 inch width should hopefully be adequate for landing and takeoff operations.
Since I said the Habakkuk hull would be 10 1/4 inches wide, what am I to do for the extra 1/4 inch? Good question. According to various sources, the Habakkuk pykrete hull was to be covered with an outer insulation layer made with plywood or some other wood laminate. It's possible for my model I may (Not sure yet.) cover my Habakkuk hull in a 1/8 inch layer of thin basswood or balsawood to replicate that outer insulation. 1/8 inch on each side of the hull will nicely equal that missing 1/4 inch.