Best British interwar fleet?

[marathag]

Not till far later I cant see a 20s DP 6"....... (no need or ability)

Shooting at aircraft wasn't the goal, getting a 130 pound AP to 26,000 yards was.
Later with the improvents to the Directors, increased elevation from 40 to 60 degrees, and the final piece of VT fuses made them true DP Mounts

 

[jsb]

Shooting at aircraft wasn't the goal, getting a 130 pound AP to 26,000 yards was.
Later with the improvents to the Directors, increased elevation from 40 to 60 degrees, and the final piece of VT fuses made them true DP Mounts

We are still through talking about,

- 130lb shell forced by limits on CA v CLs in LNT (1930)
6"/47 (15.2 cm) Mark 16
Date Of Design 1932
Date In Service 1937

- DP 6" due to need against very fast aircraft and DP guns to save originally treaty weight
6"/47DP (15.2 cm) Mark 16
Date Of Design 1943
Date In Service 1948

I don't see any relation to a no WNT 20s super CA....?

 

[SsgtC]

Are those 10" guns reasonably modern ones, or old short-barreled, wire-wound ones designed for brown powder propellants?

Any ship built in the 1920s with 10" guns would be a new design. The US hasn't mounted a 10" gun on a ship since 1906. And that gun had been designed in 1899. So any new 10" gun will be a new design probably 50-55 caliber verses the 10"/40 Mark III

 

[marathag]

I don't see any relation to a no WNT 20s super CA....?

So you don't think the 6" from the Omaha cruisers and SD Secondary wouldn't be improved, but go right to 10"

That isn't happening.

 

[jsb]

So you don't think the 6" from the Omaha cruisers and SD Secondary wouldn't be improved, but go right to 10"

That isn't happening.

What 6" cruiser did USN built between Omaha and LNT forcing them to do it? USN did not lay down a 6" CL between 1920 and 1935....

Without the treaties USN will spend its money on larger cruiser with big guns and long Pacific range as they are not happy with the 6" or the Omaha cruisers in general be it a 8" or later larger 10"/12" ones.

 

[SsgtC]

So you don't think the 6" from the Omaha cruisers and SD Secondary wouldn't be improved, but go right to 10"

That isn't happening.

The USN did not like 6" gun cruisers. They went 25 years without building a single one, and retried them immediately after WWII. Most US light cruisers had service lives of 5 years or less. As an example of the regard in which the USN held their 6" ships, care to guess how many were recommissioned for service in Korea? None. Despite the USN rapidly remobilizing, not a single light cruiser was returned to service. Please note, I am not including the CLG conversions that were done as they so thoroughly altered the ships that they bore no resemblance to what they were before.

The only country that was really in love with 6" armed cruisers was the UK. And that was because they were so cash strapped that they were trying to economize everything they could. Both the US and Japan far preferred 8" gun cruisers

 

[Spencersj345.346]

The USN did not like 6" gun cruisers. They went 25 years without building a single one, and retried them immediately after WWII. Most US light cruisers had service lives of 5 years or less. As an example of the regard in which the USN held their 6" ships, care to guess how many were recommissioned for service in Korea? None. Despite the USN rapidly remobilizing, not a single light cruiser was returned to service. Please note, I am not including the CLG conversions that were done as they so thoroughly altered the ships that they bore no resemblance to what they were before.

The only country that was really in love with 6" armed cruisers was the UK. And that was because they were so cash strapped that they were trying to economize everything they could. Both the US and Japan far preferred 8" gun cruisers

In fairness to the USN gun cruisers main combat role during the Korean War and Vietnam wars was shore bombardment where range mattered far more than rate of fire

 

[CV(N)-6]

The USN did not like 6" gun cruisers. They went 25 years without building a single one, and retried them immediately after WWII. Most US light cruisers had service lives of 5 years or less. As an example of the regard in which the USN held their 6" ships, care to guess how many were recommissioned for service in Korea? None. Despite the USN rapidly remobilizing, not a single light cruiser was returned to service. Please note, I am not including the CLG conversions that were done as they so thoroughly altered the ships that they bore no resemblance to what they were before.

The US pulled its CA's out of the Solomons once there were enough CL's around to take care of things, because CA's were too slow firing, for what that's worth.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

The US pulled its CA's out of the Solomons once there were enough CL's around to take care of things, because CA's were too slow firing, for what that's worth.

Not to mention that PacFleets heavy cruiser force had taken a beating in during late 1942/early 1943 with most of the survivors needing months of repairs.

 

[MichaelWest]

Ignored or was told in no uncertain terms not to open that box for fear of the consequence?

In fairness every fleet seemed to eschew commerce warfare, the submarine was an adjunct to the decisive battle, through the interwar period it was back to cruiser rules and submarines are scouts until aircraft come aboard. For the RN I think you might be right, it preferred that the submarine never be a commerce raider, but it could not be rid of it as fleet scout.

 

[sts-200]

... snip

The only country that was really in love with 6" armed cruisers was the UK. And that was because they were so cash strapped that they were trying to economize everything they could. Both the US and Japan far preferred 8" gun cruisers

Economy and numbers. The UK was the only one of the three that primarily wanted cruisers for trade protection (with important secondary duties as fleet scouts, destroyer leaders and raiders). A 6" cruiser was good enough for any of that.

IMO the other two (particularly Japan) wanted 'pocket battlecruisers' to supplement their fleets.

 

[jsb]

In fairness every fleet seemed to eschew commerce warfare, the submarine was an adjunct to the decisive battle, through the interwar period it was back to cruiser rules and submarines are scouts until aircraft come aboard. For the RN I think you might be right, it preferred that the submarine never be a commerce raider, but it could not be rid of it as fleet scout.

This has nothing to do with the legality/wisdom of publicly planing unlawful actions?

1LNT
Part IV
Article 22
The following are accepted as established rules of International Law:

1. In their action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules of International Law to which surface vessels are subject.
   
   
2. In particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured, in the existing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board.

The High Contracting Parties invite all other Powers to express their assent to the above rules.

 

[Jellico]

The big English merchant stopper wasn't cruisers or submarines. It was Loyds of London. Yet in practice they seemed quite capable of using the other two as well.

Because the Brits were deathly afraid of American 8" cruisers menacing their sea lanes and wanted something that was cheaper than a battlecruiser but could reliably clobber one of those 8" cruisers. But yes, the money is the biggest fly in the ointment here, especially for the British. If anything's going to blow up a nascent cruiser arms race, it'd be that.

If only the Brits had a bunch of fast heavily armed ships lying around in reserve they could use against those 15,000 ton 10" cruisers. Oh wait. They do.

The tougher question is in 1935 when the battle cruisers get uneconomically old. On one hand there are the usual all weather problems with carriers, on the other these are Pacific cruisers in the Pacific. The weather is less of a problem for carriers and the RN doesn't play there anyway.[/QUOTE]

 

[CV12Hornet]

Obviously not in the initial builds. I think they'll stabilize around 10-12k tons for the first few classes. But they'll jump pretty soon after I think. If for no other reason, because of mission creep. Admirals assigned to Command CruDivs are going to want better and larger flag facilities for one. Then you'll get the occasional, "we really should armor these things better," complaints. Then a suggestion that, "more range would really be a good thing to have." Followed by, "everyone has 9 guns on their cruisers, we really should have 12 to overpower them. But don't lose the range speed or armor to do it!" That alone will push an unrestricted cruiser to 15,000 tons pretty quickly.


Obviously, they can bring a 10" gun back into service. I just seriously question whether they would want too. Particularly for what's likely to be a limited amount of hulls.

Ah. See, the thing is, I don't think the timing works for that. The delays induced by Congress' insistence on finishing the 1916 ships before building new cruisers mean that the US Navy isn't going to be getting their new 8" cruisers until around the time they actually did OTL. By the time a follow-on (OTL the New Orleans class) is being considered the intelligence will be out about any 10" cruisers, and then it's up to 12" immediately. And yeah, that means I do agree the US Navy isn't going to touch 10" guns. The only way I see the US Navy going to 15,000-ton cruisers is if nobody builds 10" cruisers at all, and I don't find that likely.

Japan I think would go 10" if there are no restrictions on cruisers. They're one of those navies with a bad habit of one-ups-manship, their cruiser doctrine demands their heavy cruisers fight past American heavy cruisers, and they're going to be building at least 12 of the damn things if they hold to their OTL Kantai Kessen plan. The Brits? About 50-50, either cost or tactical desires winning out.

The USN did not like 6" gun cruisers. They went 25 years without building a single one, and retried them immediately after WWII. Most US light cruisers had service lives of 5 years or less. As an example of the regard in which the USN held their 6" ships, care to guess how many were recommissioned for service in Korea? None. Despite the USN rapidly remobilizing, not a single light cruiser was returned to service. Please note, I am not including the CLG conversions that were done as they so thoroughly altered the ships that they bore no resemblance to what they were before.

The only country that was really in love with 6" armed cruisers was the UK. And that was because they were so cash strapped that they were trying to economize everything they could. Both the US and Japan far preferred 8" gun cruisers

That the Clevelands saw very little postwar service was not due to any merits for or against the 6" gun. It was entirely due to the Clevelands' status as economy ships, and their subsequent lack of growth potential and stability, which was also mostly independent of what gun they mounted. And when the Navy had 20 8" cruisers without those problems just lying around, why recommission the Clevelands?

Now, the US Navy did generally prefer 8" cruisers, but after the Washington regime took hold and ended the monomaniacal focus on battleships the US Navy did consider a need for 6" cruisers. It was a consideration in the 1920s, it was thrust back into the forefront after First London, and well into WWII conventional 6" cruisers (a 13,000-ton development of the Clevelands) were still being considered. Why didn't they actually build anything until First London forced them to? Well, the same reason the British abandoned the 6" cruiser for a solid decade themselves: 8" cruisers were better for independent action, 6" for fleet work, and both navies needed the former a lot more than the latter.

If only the Brits had a bunch of fast heavily armed ships lying around in reserve they could use against those 15,000 ton 10" cruisers. Oh wait. They do.

The tougher question is in 1935 when the battle cruisers get uneconomically old. On one hand there are the usual all weather problems with carriers, on the other these are Pacific cruisers in the Pacific. The weather is less of a problem for carriers and the RN doesn't play there anyway.

Okay, first of all, I was not talking about 15,000-ton 10" cruisers for the US Navy. I was talking about 10,000-ton 8" cruisers. Of which the US Navy was planning, at one point, to get thirty of. Against which the Royal Navy could muster all of six battlecruisers (the Is were first-gen turbine ships and they needed re-engining by 1920). I do hope you see the problem here.

 

[edgeworthy]

That would be the endpoint, but I think there’d be at least a couple of intermediate steps.

First would be 8” cruisers in the ballpark of 10,000 tons. The USN was very enthusiastically for this type in the early 1920s, and there were plans for 30 of them. There won’t be that many, thanks to Congress being unwilling to fork over that much dosh, and being unwilling to fork over that much dosh before the 1916 build program finishes, but I would expect a significant number built.

Second would be large 10” cruisers. That 8” build program scared the living daylights out of the Royal Navy, and serious thought was given to a 19,000-ton ship with 10” guns in OTL 1921. No Washington limit means they’re likely built, and a Japanese equivalent, which only gives more incentive.

Then, and only then (First ships probably in the early 30s) does the US leap to that 12” cruiser - and from there, money and politics intervene and who knows where things go from there.

Any ship built in the 1920s with 10" guns would be a new design. The US hasn't mounted a 10" gun on a ship since 1906. And that gun had been designed in 1899. So any new 10" gun will be a new design probably 50-55 caliber verses the 10"/40 Mark III

The RN is more likely to go back to the BL 9.2-inch Mk X gun, probably the most successful piece of ordnance ever built. It was introduced in 1900 and remained in service until 1998!
(The gun itself is actually lighter than the 8"/55 Mark 9. And assuming that no one is daft enough to try and design an AA mount the turret should be a reasonable weight.)
Just for the hell of it I Springsharped a version.

Spoiler: HMS Hawkins 2, Royal Navy Heavy Cruiser laid down 1931

HMS Hawkins 2, Royal Navy Heavy Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
11,187 t light; 11,768 t standard; 12,593 t normal; 13,253 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(624.38 ft / 612.00 ft) x 66.00 ft x (22.00 / 22.84 ft)
(190.31 m / 186.54 m) x 20.12 m x (6.71 / 6.96 m)

Armament:
8 - 9.20" / 234 mm 45.0 cal guns - 392.67lbs / 178.11kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1931 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring

8 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.28lbs / 14.64kg shells, 300 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread

16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 39.0 cal guns - 1.85lbs / 0.84kg shells, 1,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
4 x 2 row quad mounts on sides, evenly spread

Weight of broadside 3,429 lbs / 1,555 kg

Main Torpedoes
6 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m torpedoes - 1.524 t each, 9.146 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.00" / 127 mm 410.04 ft / 124.98 m 9.75 ft / 2.97 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 103 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.50" / 38 mm 410.04 ft / 124.98 m 19.21 ft / 5.86 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 55.00 ft / 16.76 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 5.00" / 127 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 5.00" / 127 mm
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3.50" / 89 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 78,792 shp / 58,779 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 8,700nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,485 tons

Complement:
593 - 772

Cost:
£4.492 million / $17.970 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 764 tons, 6.1 %
- Guns: 746 tons, 5.9 %
- Weapons: 18 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 3,159 tons, 25.1 %
- Belts: 823 tons, 6.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 437 tons, 3.5 %
- Armament: 594 tons, 4.7 %
- Armour Deck: 1,264 tons, 10.0 %
- Conning Tower: 41 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 2,356 tons, 18.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,908 tons, 39.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,406 tons, 11.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
18,230 lbs / 8,269 Kg = 46.8 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 2.4 torpedoes

Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 14.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 44 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.62
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and small transom stern

Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.496 / 0.503
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.27 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.64 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 39
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):

Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 16.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forward deck: 19.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Aft deck: 48.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Quarter deck: 17.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 20.89 ft / 6.37 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 101.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 175.5 %
Waterplane Area: 27,455 Square feet or 2,551 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 123 lbs/sq ft or 603 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.46
- Overall: 1.00

Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

 

[SsgtC]

The RN is more likely to go back to the BL 9.2-inch Mk X gun, probably the most successful piece of ordnance ever built. It was introduced in 1900 and remained in service until 1998!
(The gun itself is actually lighter than the 8"/55 Mark 9. And assuming that no one is daft enough to try and design an AA mount the turret should be a reasonable weight.)
Just for the hell of it I Springsharped a version.

Spoiler: HMS Hawkins 2, Royal Navy Heavy Cruiser laid down 1931

HMS Hawkins 2, Royal Navy Heavy Cruiser laid down 1931

Displacement:
11,187 t light; 11,768 t standard; 12,593 t normal; 13,253 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(624.38 ft / 612.00 ft) x 66.00 ft x (22.00 / 22.84 ft)
(190.31 m / 186.54 m) x 20.12 m x (6.71 / 6.96 m)

Armament:
8 - 9.20" / 234 mm 45.0 cal guns - 392.67lbs / 178.11kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1931 Model
4 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring

8 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 32.28lbs / 14.64kg shells, 300 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread

16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 39.0 cal guns - 1.85lbs / 0.84kg shells, 1,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1931 Model
4 x 2 row quad mounts on sides, evenly spread

Weight of broadside 3,429 lbs / 1,555 kg

Main Torpedoes
6 - 21.0" / 533 mm, 23.00 ft / 7.01 m torpedoes - 1.524 t each, 9.146 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.00" / 127 mm 410.04 ft / 124.98 m 9.75 ft / 2.97 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 103 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Additional damage containing bulkheads:
1.50" / 38 mm 410.04 ft / 124.98 m 19.21 ft / 5.86 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 55.00 ft / 16.76 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 5.00" / 127 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 5.00" / 127 mm
2nd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -
3rd: 0.50" / 13 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 3.00" / 76 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3.50" / 89 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 78,792 shp / 58,779 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 8,700nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,485 tons

Complement:
593 - 772

Cost:
£4.492 million / $17.970 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 764 tons, 6.1 %
- Guns: 746 tons, 5.9 %
- Weapons: 18 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 3,159 tons, 25.1 %
- Belts: 823 tons, 6.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 437 tons, 3.5 %
- Armament: 594 tons, 4.7 %
- Armour Deck: 1,264 tons, 10.0 %
- Conning Tower: 41 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 2,356 tons, 18.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,908 tons, 39.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,406 tons, 11.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
18,230 lbs / 8,269 Kg = 46.8 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 2.4 torpedoes

Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 14.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 44 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.62
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.01

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and small transom stern

Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.496 / 0.503
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.27 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.64 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 39
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):

Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 16.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m
- Forward deck: 19.00 %, 22.00 ft / 6.71 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Aft deck: 48.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Quarter deck: 17.00 %, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m, 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Average freeboard: 20.89 ft / 6.37 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 101.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 175.5 %
Waterplane Area: 27,455 Square feet or 2,551 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 117 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 123 lbs/sq ft or 603 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.46
- Overall: 1.00

Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

I agree that the UK would likely go with the 9.2". But by the time the US goes to the 8"/55 Mark 12, they're getting equal if not better performance from a gun that weighs only 17 tons verses the 28 tons of the British gun.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

I agree that the UK would likely go with the 9.2". But by the time the US goes to the 8"/55 Mark 12, they're getting equal if not better performance from a gun that weighs only 17 tons verses the 28 tons of the British gun.

Not doubting your statement but in which sense do you mean better performance? Range? Penetration? Rate of fire I can see as probable.

Explosive weight definitely not. Or am I missing something?

 

[jsb]

Japan I think would go 10" if there are no restrictions on cruisers. They're one of those navies with a bad habit of one-ups-manship, their cruiser doctrine demands their heavy cruisers fight past American heavy cruisers, and they're going to be building at least 12 of the damn things if they hold to their OTL Kantai Kessen plan.

The delays induced by Congress' insistence on finishing the 1916 ships

How is Japan paying for any of them without a halt to its battleship building that will take first priority on the very limited funds post quake?

 

[SsgtC]

Not doubting your statement but in which sense do you mean better performance? Range? Penetration? Rate of fire I can see as probable.

Explosive weight definitely not. Or am I missing something?

The American 8"/55 had a maximum range between 30,050 yards for the Mark 12, 15 and 16 and 31,860 for the Mark 9 and 14. The BL 9.2" Mark X maxed out at 29,200 yards. So the American gun had a slight advantage in range, but not enough to truly matter. Penetration, using the 335 pound supper heavy shell for the 8" gun was about the same and rate of fire slightly favored the American gun until the Mark 16, then ROF jumped to 10 rounds per minute.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The American 8"/55 had a maximum range between 30,050 yards for the Mark 12, 15 and 16 and 31,860 for the Mark 9 and 14. The BL 9.2" Mark X maxed out at 29,200 yards. So the American gun had a slight advantage in range, but not enough to truly matter. Penetration, using the 335 pound supper heavy shell for the 8" gun was about the same and rate of fire slightly favored the American gun until the Mark 16, then ROF jumped to 10 rounds per minute.

Of course it's highly likely that there would be further improvements of the 9.2" guns during the 20's and 30's if they are the standard gun for British heavy cruisers.