Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: After 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old December 31st, 2011, 11:43 AM
Astrodragon Astrodragon is offline
Coffee-seeking Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK - Oxfordshire
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by David S Poepoe View Post
This is complete BS regarding the British and their supposed 'battlewagon' centric view. The Royal Navy ended the Great War with probably the most advanced naval aviation branch in the world. You apparently are not aware of their planned attack, by carrier launched aircraft, on the High Seas Fleet at Wilhelmshaven in early 1919. This same plan was the genesis for the air strike on Taranto and, since many of their airmen went on and trained Japanese pilots in the 1920s, probably influenced Pearl Harbor.
The RN was battleship-centred, as was every other major navy (the US and the japanese were worse!), which was a sensible conclusion in the 1930's. Planes still couldnt easily sink carriers, and air operations in the North Sea and Atlantic (a major concern of the RN) were iffy at best.
The RN had the strongest support for airpower as part of the fleet, and at the time it was a sensible conclusion. It would be 7-10 years and a couple of generations of aircraft before the BB really started to be obsolete.

Much of what I have written is actually LESS air-friendly than what was being proposed by the RN during the 30's! The difference is, with their own shiny FAA, and an obvious desire(as a result) to reevaluate some stuff and have a 'new start' at some things, they are pushing a little harder.
So far (after 4 years), the only real difference is to move carrier purchases forward by one year (I assumed that the new FAA would give that little extra push that didnt happen in OTL, although they'd been after the carriers since 1923..!), and to risk a single engine fighter (again, there were lots of arguments in OTL, and the 2-seater fighter actualy had valid reasoning behind it) due to looking more at what the US was doing and less at the fears and, basically, laziness of the RAF.
The new aircraft development, although driven now by the FAA rather than the RAF, is only as much as was done in OTL (3 prototypes for the radial fighter, one divebomber), although this time its been split 2:2.
The changes in doctrine are a result of looking at what they will have available soon, but again there is nothing new, just a slight change of emphasis due to having a different force structure.
The carriers are of a slightly different design, but the 24-25kt Ark Royal is actually what they wanted (I NEVER understood why the government crippled the design for a treaty that MIGHT happen....), and that 13% increase in displacement actualy buys you a fair bit more of fighting power; 10 more aircraft, 4 shafts (whicjh, with the added displacement, gives an easier and more robust ducting system), a little better TDS (as the ship is a bit wider), and slightly thicker armour, as well as a litle bit more allowance for changes and additions). All this is things they did studies on...as they got the second carrier sooner, they just copied the Ark Royal (the reasoning for the armoured deck carriers fell out of the no displacement limits of the 1937 treaty - this time they are just going to give the next series of carriers thicker hangar floor protection)
__________________
The Whale Has Wings, a shiny new Fleet Air Arm in WW2. Book 3 now out.
http://www.astrodragon.co.uk/Books/TheWhaleHasWings.htm
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old December 31st, 2011, 11:48 AM
Astrodragon Astrodragon is offline
Coffee-seeking Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK - Oxfordshire
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsmart111 View Post
I'm not sure the U.S. Navy would be as cooperative as they seem in this time line. The 'special relationship' didn't develop until very late in the 30s (maybe even after the beginning of the war) so I don't think they would be willing to share technology that gave them a competitive edge
They arent being, actually. Officially the RN is still a rival, and they arent giving anything away. However the lower level, informal relationship was in many cases better, and much of what is being learnt is probably people like pilots chatting and talking to each other. They arent giving anything away, but they are giving the FAA ideas to look at. The only thing the RN was interested in was the better radios (which they were going to pay for), but this time Pye did what the did for tank radios and built them a better, lighter one in-house.
The general results of the USN exercises arent terribly secret, they get discussed openly (not enough to use them, but enough to go hmm, thats interesting, maybe we shoudl examine that)
__________________
The Whale Has Wings, a shiny new Fleet Air Arm in WW2. Book 3 now out.
http://www.astrodragon.co.uk/Books/TheWhaleHasWings.htm
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old December 31st, 2011, 12:10 PM
bsmart111 bsmart111 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Central Maryland USA
Posts: 261
I was thinking about the navigation and homing beacon technology.
This morning I did think of another question. Exactly what is the extent of the FAA? In the USN there are extensive land based (and flying boat) patrol squadrons. This would be a pretty close analogy to RAF Coastal Command. So would FAA take over all Maritime Air functions or just ship based?
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old December 31st, 2011, 12:38 PM
Astrodragon Astrodragon is offline
Coffee-seeking Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK - Oxfordshire
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsmart111 View Post
I was thinking about the navigation and homing beacon technology.
This morning I did think of another question. Exactly what is the extent of the FAA? In the USN there are extensive land based (and flying boat) patrol squadrons. This would be a pretty close analogy to RAF Coastal Command. So would FAA take over all Maritime Air functions or just ship based?
the RN had its own homing beacon, they didn use the US one till late during the war
The FAA doesnt include Coastal Command, that still belongs to the RAF, although the issue of operational control is still an issue.
__________________
The Whale Has Wings, a shiny new Fleet Air Arm in WW2. Book 3 now out.
http://www.astrodragon.co.uk/Books/TheWhaleHasWings.htm
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old January 1st, 2012, 10:21 AM
Astrodragon Astrodragon is offline
Coffee-seeking Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK - Oxfordshire
Posts: 1000 or more
1936 (cont)
In January, the Air Ministry had organised a series of trials between various calibres of aircraft weapons, basically .303, .5 and 20mm cannon. These tests showed the .303 calibre would be an inadequate weapon for future air combat, and that the .5 calibre wasnt much better (and weighed more). The best solution was the 20mm cannon. The results of these tests were passed on to the Navy.

At the end of January the government announced an expansion of the shadow factory program. The navy was promised that some of this effort would be allocated to them.

The international situation was getting worse with increasing speed during the year.

On the 7th March Hitler denounced the Rhineland provisions in the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno treaty, and German troops marched in to occupy the Rhineland. This was seen, in the navy at least, as a sign that Germany would only be increasing its naval and anti-shipping capability in the near future, and that the proposed fleet levels and makeup would need to be accelerated. Unfortunately while the government agreed that there was a need for more defence spending, the Treasury was still insisting that this had to be moderate and not disrupt normal commerce. While the Admiralty did make the point that at the present moment the shipyards were still not fully utilised, there were bottleneck (both current and approaching) in a number of areas such as guns, armour and FC systems which would limit the number of hulls that could be sensibly laid down. While there were plans in place to improve this situation, it wasn't going to change overnight.

In addition, the main area of concern to the government was air defence - while it was appreciated that the naval threat was growing, the Royal Navy was still the most powerful in the world. The navy realised that this priority wasn't going to change overnight, but that it would be possible to get some improvements that were connected to the worries about air attack. A Shadow Factory system was being set up for the RAF, and it was pointed out that this would not only be important for the navy, but that in extremis navy planes would also be available to defend British airspace. Secondly, that improvements in the fleets light AA equipment, which they had been looking at for some time, could be developed partly with the (official) aim of improving land based defences. The governmant had already promised a portion of the effort would be forthe navy, but the Admiralty retained certain suspicions of the RAF.

In May the Air Ministry issued specifications for new cannon armed aircraft. Demonstrations of the Hispano 404 cannon had convinced them that this was currently the best gun available. The Navy (who had been invited to the demonstrations as observers) were in agreement, and it was agreed that the 20mm would be developed to fit both RAF and FAA planes. Since this would be an identical fit in RAF and FAA aircraft, the Air Ministry was given full control of the project.

Studies had been ongoing for some time of the problem of close defence. This was intended to stop torpedo bombers and dive bombers - the HA systems were seen as adequate against high level bombing, as it wasn't to shoot them down (although that was ideal), but to disrupt the attack so as to render it ineffective. However torpedo planes had far more opportunities to evade while attacking (and indeed the RN's own exercises had shown how effective they could be), and the speed of a dive bombing attack meant that the HA system just wasnt capable of stopping it.

These facts had been addressed some 10 years ago with the development of the multiple pom-pom system. However it was 10 years old (although thanks to the treasury there had been considerable delay in getting it into production), and as the latest trials and input from the FAA showed, it could use improvement. However resources were limited. There were also two foreign weapons available; the Swiss Oerlikon 20mm and the Swedish Bofors 40mm. The Bofors in particular was of interest as it was a much more modern system and had the range and stopping power the fleet needed. 20mm was seen as really too short ranged (although it was at least better than the 0.5" multiple machine guns) to be an ideal defence.

The report recommended 2 main actions. The first was the use of the 40mm bofors in single and double mountings for lighter ships or merchant ships, where heavy mounts and director control were inappropriate or unavailable. Because the gun used clips rather than a belt feed, they were much lighter (and without director control were felt not to need the long firing time of the belt-fed pop-pom). Since it was expected that these mounts would be used without a director, a heavy proportion of tracer was specified for them. It was noted that efforts needed to be made to speed up the manufacture of the guns in the UK, as the demand was seen to be high for both the land and sea based system. The navy would also consult with the army, who needed the single mounts for their own air defence.

The second action was to improve the 4 and 8 barrel pop-pom. Given the shortage of these, any improvements must cause minimal disruption to production for maximum benefit (refit would of course be ideal), and not add to the production time. Three main points were chosen for improvement. First, RPC was recommended for all 8 barrel, and if possible 4 barrel, systems. this would add weight, so new construction and larger ships would be the intended first recipients. Second was improvements in the belt feed, which was felt to be rather too fragile and temperamental. Any improvements or changes should be straightforward to retrofit. The third change was to the guns themselves and the ammunition. Tests seemed to show a considerable advantage to the Bofors over the pom-pom. The gun was longer, and the shells thus had a better range, improving the chances of shooting down at attacker. While the explosive charge was a little lighter, this wasn't thought important as a contact-fuzed 40mm would bring down any torpedo plane or dive bomber currently anticipated. It was therefore suggested that new and existing mounts should be modified to take replacement barrels as per the Bofors (this would be connected to the improvements in the belt feet mechanism), thus giving a notably better performance with the desired minimum changes. Finally some reports from the manufacturer and relevant engineering consultants indicated that the mechanics of the mount could be improved (and the mount itself lightened) by application of current manufacturing methods. Since this would entail changing the production line (which was not practical), it was recommended that some prototypes would be made, and all the improvements rolled into a new version for which new production would be set up (thus helping address the current shortage). The existing production line would then either be modified to produce the new mounts, or used to provide the older ones for air defence of land based targets (for which the deficiencies were not such an issue)

The treasury was not happy at the preference for the 40mm, as they pointed out that there were huge stocks of 2pdr shells available in storage. The navy didn't object on principle to using these, but considered that the value of ships mandated the best possible weapons for them, and that the older 2pdrs would be adequate for shore based defence.

As the treaty limitations were now relaxed, it was expected that at least Courageous and Glorious would be retained for some time (and one of the other carriers as a training carrier, at least for the next few years). It was pointed out that while this was very nice, the original assumption was that the new ships would be replacements, and therefore would use the escort vessels assigned to the older ships. If we were to be deploying more carriers, we needed more escorts.

There was an additional problem regarding the endurance of destroyers. An aircraft carrier had a large fuel load as it was expected that its normal operations would involve more (and higher speed) steaming. While escorting destroyers could refuel from their carrier, this took time and was not currently a well-practised procedure. So ideally destroyers designed to escort carriers should have a longer range. Secondly there was the issue of numbers. The ideal the Admiralty was now aiming for (though it didnt expect to get there before around 1944) was the 8+8 fleet and light carriers. Assuming a reasonable escort of 4 destroyers per carrier, this meant 8 flotillas of destroyers! While the staff appreciated that carriers were important, allocating them over a third of the current destroyer strength as escorts was certainly not possible. The solution was to assume that half the carriers (on average) would be with the fleet or fleet units, and hence would share their escorts (they would need a dedicated ship as plane guard) so 5 flotillas of destroyers would actually serve. This was thought possible to achieve in the 8 year period under discussion.

Te destroyer building program for this year was quite high, but current plans had only one flotilla of J/K class building over the next two years. It was therefore decided to build 2 additional flotillas, one each year, then take a closer look at the problem. Fortunately the treaty had also removed limits on 'light warships' under 3,000 tons. By now, the naval designers were heavily loaded; they were looking at a new generation of capital ships and cruisers, and there was not much effort available to design new destroyers. A compromise of a modified Tribal class destroyer was designed. One of the twin 4.7" guns was removed to save weight for a heavier close in AA suite (it was assumed a destroyer acting as a carriers guard would draw unwelcome attention from enemy planes. Four twin 4" guns was considered to give a better AA performance, but this was rejected due to concerns as to the suitability for low elevation fire, and the ability to protect the carrier from enemy light units was considered more important. Removing the 4.7's allowed the ships to carry an octuple pom-pom in its place, and 2 quads forward, making them very heavily protected. This was also to allow them to engage dive bombers (and, if rather suicidally, torpedo bombers) attacking the carrier. The navy was quite confident that the seamanship of its destroyer captains was up to the close manouvering required (even if some of the carrier captains were a little nervous at the idea). They would also, of course, be able to act as close in AA escorts for other ships, depending on the circumstances. While the general policy was to carry the armament on the ships, there were bound to be times when this ability to reinforce defences would be useful. The ships beam was widened, and the internal fuel tanks made somewhat larger (as a result of losing the 4.7" magazine); in addition the machinery was slightly modified to give better economy at the expense of a small loss of speed. The net result was a ship with 50% more range than a Tribal, at the expense of a couple of knots of speed. Given the high speed of the Tribal class, and the fact that the main purpose was escort, this was deemed acceptable, although it was noted that later ships should have more powerful machinery.

In June the situation in Europe took another turn for the worse, one which againt involved the navy. The Spanish Civil War broke out, and the Navy was tasked to undertake neutrality protection patrols. Both Hitler and Mussolini sent aid to Franco, and both the RAF and the FAA watched the introduction of modern types of German and Italian planes with interest.

In September, negotiations on licensing the Hispano cannon designs began. With prompting from the Navy (and an allocation of some funding to help), the Air Ministry gave funding to some British arms companies to test and evaluate the design in detail, and to start looking at what would be needed to change the specifications to Imperial measurements

After seeing the way in which Italy and Germany were cooperating in Spain, it came as no surprise that in late October an official Rome-Berlin Axis was announced. It did however worry the navy; up until now Italy had been seen, if not as an ally, then at least as a neutral. Now Italy moved to the status of a potential opponent, which meant more ships and resources had to be allocated to the Med. Despite the recent increases in spending on the navy, due to the time taken to build ships these resources would not be available for some years
__________________
The Whale Has Wings, a shiny new Fleet Air Arm in WW2. Book 3 now out.
http://www.astrodragon.co.uk/Books/TheWhaleHasWings.htm

Last edited by Astrodragon; January 1st, 2012 at 01:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old January 1st, 2012, 11:07 AM
PMN1 PMN1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1000 or more
On the gun issue, Tony Williams has some interesting points here

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCGWW2.html

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RNCIWS.html

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Vickers25.4.htm
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old January 1st, 2012, 11:49 AM
Astrodragon Astrodragon is offline
Coffee-seeking Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK - Oxfordshire
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMN1 View Post
I'm familiar with his articles, and some of the short range systems could indeed have been inproved, but really that would have required starting a few years earlier... I'm trying to avoid too much foresight!
The improvements to the 2pdr seem quite reasonable if someone had donw a study around 1935-6, and the driver here is the RN's better aircraft (at least on the drawing board), and the assumption that rival powers will match these. So there was a review of the 2pdr.
The RPC was something they did introduce later, as it was a clear improvement for the heavy mount. There were issues with the reliability of the belt feed (and cartridge separation), which can be relatively easily addressed. Commonising on the 40mm round probably solves the separation issue, and a better barrel for the gun increases the muzzle velocity giving a longer engagement range.
All these are relatively minor mods, and all but the RPC should be amenable to retrofitting.
Older unimproved 2 pdrs and their ammo go ashore, where a number of the issues are les relevant.
The need for a lighter weight mount (single and twin) was again rather obvious, and since these would usually be on small ships or merchant ships which wouldnt have a director (they were very short on FC directors), they need tracer to aim. Note that at the moemnt they arent planning on a heavy tracer load for the larger mounts, they are still making that mistake.
__________________
The Whale Has Wings, a shiny new Fleet Air Arm in WW2. Book 3 now out.
http://www.astrodragon.co.uk/Books/TheWhaleHasWings.htm
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old January 1st, 2012, 12:00 PM
sharlin sharlin is offline
Kicked
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
The DD escort is it armed purely with pompoms or has it still got some LA guns mounted, and I love the idea of an 8 barreled bofors..
__________________
Operation Sealion. Ambitious. But rubbish.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old January 1st, 2012, 12:32 PM
Astrodragon Astrodragon is offline
Coffee-seeking Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK - Oxfordshire
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharlin View Post
The DD escort is it armed purely with pompoms or has it still got some LA guns mounted, and I love the idea of an 8 barreled bofors..
It still has 6 4.7's and torpedo tubes, it is also the surface protection ship.
They wont all build with a octuble; due to shortages they will end up with 12 40mm, not 16 (either 2x2 and 1x8, or 3x4)

They will also be upgrading the 2 Ark Royal class to 8x8 once supply of mounting allows, and in the war will probably add more singles or twin 20mm. But the bottleneck at the moment is the supply of weapons
__________________
The Whale Has Wings, a shiny new Fleet Air Arm in WW2. Book 3 now out.
http://www.astrodragon.co.uk/Books/TheWhaleHasWings.htm
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old January 1st, 2012, 01:06 PM
sharlin sharlin is offline
Kicked
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1000 or more
Thats still a formidable AA punch for the DDs, always liked the Tribal class myself. And the Ark mk 2s will have one hell of a throw weight for AA guns if you factor in the 4.5s and any smaller weapons be they MGs or 20mm's that are mounted.
__________________
Operation Sealion. Ambitious. But rubbish.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old January 1st, 2012, 01:12 PM
PMN1 PMN1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrodragon View Post

Removing the 4.7's allowed the ships to carry an octuple pom-pom in its place, and 3 quads forward, making them very heavily protected.
3 quads forward?
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old January 1st, 2012, 01:14 PM
Astrodragon Astrodragon is offline
Coffee-seeking Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK - Oxfordshire
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMN1 View Post
3 quads forward?
Sorry, thats a typo - should have been 2. Sadly, equipment shortages mean they will only get 12, not 16, 40mm, but they will still be very heavily armed for a DD - the extra beam for fuel helps a lot
__________________
The Whale Has Wings, a shiny new Fleet Air Arm in WW2. Book 3 now out.
http://www.astrodragon.co.uk/Books/TheWhaleHasWings.htm
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old January 1st, 2012, 02:16 PM
PMN1 PMN1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrodragon View Post
Sorry, thats a typo - should have been 2. Sadly, equipment shortages mean they will only get 12, not 16, 40mm, but they will still be very heavily armed for a DD - the extra beam for fuel helps a lot
So do they still have 4.7" as the way its written makes it look like all have been removed to give 2 quad AA guns forward and an octuple aft.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old January 1st, 2012, 02:43 PM
merlin merlin is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius Vogel View Post
On a related note, has anyone attempted a TL where say Australia sets up an equivalent Commonwealth Aircraft Company earlier than 1936?
I'm working on something like this - all too slowly!!
Not earlier but different aircraft and other 'butterflies' !!
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old January 1st, 2012, 02:50 PM
merlin merlin is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 848
Astrodragon:
"In May the Air Ministry issued specifications for new cannon armed aircraft. Demonstrations of the Hispano 404 cannon had convinced them that this was currently the best gun available. The Navy (who had been invited to the demonstrations as observers) were in agreement, and it was agreed that the 20mm would be developed to fit both RAF and FAA planes. Since this would be an identical fit in RAF and FAA aircraft, the Air Ministry was given full control of the project."

Surely this should have been ealier than 1936!? In OTL the 4 x 20mm cannon fighter spec originated in '35 - Hawker & Supermarine tendered but the Air Ministry wanted them to concentrate on existing orders, and were looking for new designs - e.g. Boulton-Paul, Bristol & Westland (Whirlwind).
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old January 1st, 2012, 04:12 PM
Astrodragon Astrodragon is offline
Coffee-seeking Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK - Oxfordshire
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMN1 View Post
So do they still have 4.7" as the way its written makes it look like all have been removed to give 2 quad AA guns forward and an octuple aft.
No, it says "One of the twin 4.7" guns was removed to save weight "
That leaves 3 twins, the Tribals originally had 4 twins
__________________
The Whale Has Wings, a shiny new Fleet Air Arm in WW2. Book 3 now out.
http://www.astrodragon.co.uk/Books/TheWhaleHasWings.htm
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old January 1st, 2012, 04:14 PM
Astrodragon Astrodragon is offline
Coffee-seeking Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK - Oxfordshire
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by merlin View Post
Astrodragon:
"In May the Air Ministry issued specifications for new cannon armed aircraft. Demonstrations of the Hispano 404 cannon had convinced them that this was currently the best gun available. The Navy (who had been invited to the demonstrations as observers) were in agreement, and it was agreed that the 20mm would be developed to fit both RAF and FAA planes. Since this would be an identical fit in RAF and FAA aircraft, the Air Ministry was given full control of the project."

Surely this should have been ealier than 1936!? In OTL the 4 x 20mm cannon fighter spec originated in '35 - Hawker & Supermarine tendered but the Air Ministry wanted them to concentrate on existing orders, and were looking for new designs - e.g. Boulton-Paul, Bristol & Westland (Whirlwind).
That Spec was a year earlier, but they hadnt actually licensed the gun.
Also, the Whirlwind mounted them upright in the fuselage, so it didnt have problems.
What they are doing at this point in time is looking for a gun & license for ALL their fighters, not just a specialised one.
__________________
The Whale Has Wings, a shiny new Fleet Air Arm in WW2. Book 3 now out.
http://www.astrodragon.co.uk/Books/TheWhaleHasWings.htm
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old January 1st, 2012, 06:35 PM
PMN1 PMN1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrodragon View Post
No, it says "One of the twin 4.7" guns was removed to save weight "
That leaves 3 twins, the Tribals originally had 4 twins
Ahh, I was reading this as two quads forward of the bridge.....
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old January 1st, 2012, 07:45 PM
Some Bloke Some Bloke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1000 or more
This Tribal Razee you're proposing looks very promising, especially when we get to say 1942. HMS savage was the first destroyer to have the dual purpose 4.5" guns (although this was a traditional 4 gun single mount ship). This could potentially give the RN an effective air defence destroyer 2 years in advance of OTL. Not to mention the fact that going with larger detroyers means that these vessels would be easier to modernise and more useful post war.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old January 1st, 2012, 07:57 PM
bsmart111 bsmart111 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Central Maryland USA
Posts: 261
I've always thought the RN was at a disadvantage with so many Destroyers with single purpose mounts. designing a good DP mount for the 4.7 or 4.5 would be a good route to follow and mounting them in a fully enclosed gunhouse (especially given the North Atlantic weather) would be advantageous. I think the 4" was too light and the 5.25" too heavy. but single purpose mounts are outdated by the mid 30s.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.