Best British interwar fleet?

[SsgtC]

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.

Oh definitely! I'm just basing that off what actually developed. Had the gun remained the standard cruiser armament, I would have been very interested in seeing how it further developed. Especially since the BL 9.2" Mark XI was so unsuccessful

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Oh definitely! I'm just basing that off what actually developed. Had the gun remained the standard cruiser armament, I would have been very interested in seeing how it further developed. Especially since the BL 9.2" Mark XI was so unsuccessful

In essence British cruisers would have had the armament (in both number and size of guns not so much the placement) that the Germans thought that the Invincibles would mount when they designed Blucher. Talk about ironic

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

@Belisarius II

As far as 18" guns go, the RN proposed a L/45 tube, as opposed to the L/40 wire-wound construction for Furious. Furious' fired a heavy shell for the calibre at low velocity, much like the 15"; it fired a heavier shell than the ones used by Yamato's 18.1"/L45 guns. The N3s would have fired a lighter shell at higher velocities. A partial wire-wound and fully built up prototype for the N3s guns were ordered but canceled ahead of completion.

The USN tested an 18"/L48 gun, and was disappointed with the barrel wear, blast effects, slow rate of fire (realistically about a shell a minute), and found that the standard 2900lb projectiles were little better at penetration than a 16" shell, amd thereafter concentrated on superheavy projectiles.

In Japan, sources are conflicted as to whether the gun barrels to be mounted on the No. 13 class would be 45 or 50 calibres long, but all the drawings show them as L/50. None were built or tested.


As for the arrangements, the N3 design was selected because it allowed the shortest possible armoured citadel to protect the magazines and machinery. The turrets were arranged as they were because at the time, it was noted that battleships rarely, if ever, fired their main guns dead astern. If a battleship ever was, something has gone very wrong. It was thought that most angles could be acheived by firing over-the-shoulder if necessary.

Here is a drawing of the G3 and N3:

and another alt British battleship, the L3 design:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=m3+class+battleship&t=brave&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http://i.imgur.com/3tlfkSd.jpg

 

[Athelstane]

and another alt British battleship, the L3 design:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=m3+class+battleship&t=brave&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http://i.imgur.com/3tlfkSd.jpg

Interesting. I'd never seen that before.

 

[Dorknought]

From before 1900 to the end of the big gun era, cruisers tended to be either as big as battleships or 1 fifth the size. Anything in between was uneconomical to build. Why, because it couldn’t fight the battleship size cruiser. The battleship size cruiser traded firepower and armour for a 25% premium in speed, usually by using the best in propulsion technology that was available. This speed advantage didn’t last very long. This process kept going until technology hit 32-35knots and the fast battleship was at 28-30knots at which point super cruisers were a very bad investment. In the early 20’s, the RN would build G3 ships and proto Leander’s, the IJN Amagi’s and Furutaka’s. The US wanted a cheaper version of Lexington but had no fast battleships. Unless proscribed by Treaty (and Fast Battleships stomped out) no one will willingly build a 9.2” or 10” or 12” armed ship to go against a G3 or Amagi

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The US wanted a cheaper version of Lexington but had no fast battleships. Unless proscribed by Treaty (and Fast Battleships stomped out) no one will willingly build a 9.2” or 10” or 12” armed ship to go against a G3 or Amagi

They wouldn't be meant to go against the Battleships, they're raiders and raider killers, not part of the battle line.

 

[MichaelWest]

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

And if I were the British FO I would still ram that bit of paper down the throats of all opponents, knowing full well if the RN deemed it necessary then it is self-serving bunk. I do not recall the UK Government objecting to the USN sinking Japanese merchants based on rule of law. In any event, the RN assumed ASDIC had solved the ASW problem, thus it had no fears about submarines attacking merchants, the only role for submarines is to support the fleet or be mobile minefields versus enemy attacking fleets. Now if by coincidence a long-ranged boat with good loiter and excellent capability to scan and locate ships at sea is built, then I would fund it in light of the shift to see Japan as the most likely foe and an ancillary need to interdict her shipping. But never for such an unfair usage.

 

[Belisarius II]

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

CL vs CA was a matter of contention in the USN. They seemed to like them enough to build so many. The Brooklyn's, & Cleveland's proved to be a match for any Japanese CA. 6" AP rounds had no trouble penetrating Japanese CA armor, and had much higher rates of fire then 8" guns. A 15 gun Cleveland could put out 90 rounds a minute vs a New Orleans putting out about 36. The USN kept the CA's post war because they no longer had surface opponents, and 8" HE rounds were more effective for shore bombardment. The mission had changed.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Interesting. I'd never seen that before.

Her battlecruiser counterpart would have been K3, 3×3 18", 30kn, and over 52 000t standard.

 

[Dorknought]

They wouldn't be meant to go against the Battleships, they're raiders and raider killers, not part of the battle line.

No. In a fleet action there is the preliminary scouting action, the ‘fight for information’. G3 is for this role and then the tactical T crossing and diverting of the enemy line. USN had no answer to IJN Kongos or RN Renowns and Hood apart from turning 180 degrees and engaging on opposite course with the enemy fast wing now at the rear.

 

[SsgtC]

No. In a fleet action there is the preliminary scouting action, the ‘fight for information’. G3 is for this role and then the tactical T crossing and diverting of the enemy line. USN had no answer to IJN Kongos or RN Renowns and Hood apart from turning 180 degrees and engaging on opposite course with the enemy fast wing now at the rear.

That's what they were building the Lexington class for. Against Renown, Repulse or the Kongos, they'd have made Swiss cheese of them. Against Hood or the G3s, they wouldn't fare so well. But the US was not planning to go up against battlecruisers with a heavy cruiser

 

[Spencersj345.346]

That's what they were building the Lexington class for. Against Renown, Repulse or the Kongos, they'd have made Swiss cheese of them. Against Hood or the G3s, they wouldn't fare so well. But the US was not planning to go up against battlecruisers with a heavy cruiser

In fairness we never got to see what battlecruiser designs the USN would have built as part of the 1919 program in response to the Amagis and G3s

 

[SsgtC]

In fairness we never got to see what battlecruiser designs the USN would have built as part of the 1919 program in response to the Amagis and G3s

It probably would have been a 9x16" fast battleship capable of 33kts. Though a 12x16" 30kts ship is also a possibility

 

[Colonel Grubb]

post war because they no longer had surface opponents

The Sverdlov class cruisers would disagree with that

 

[Spencersj345.346]

The Sverdlov class cruisers would disagree with that

Which is why the USN held onto its newer light cruisers and many of its older heavy cruisers(albeit in reserve) and kept much of its heavy cruiser fleet Baltimore class onward in service or reserve for many years.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

It probably would have been a 9x16" fast battleship capable of 33kts. Though a 12x16" 30kts ship is also a possibility

And the Lexingtons would have been significantly uparmored what with the huge amounts of weight saved by using more modern engines being available to do so when( possibly if) they eventually got a rebuild

 

[marathag]

The Sverdlov class cruisers would disagree with that

That was a surface target. Once to 70 nm away, it would eat a Talos if the Carrier guys hadn't nuked it before the sub guys did their thing

 

[CV12Hornet]

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?

I'm assuming the quake halts further capship construction on Japan's part, yes.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

I'm assuming the quake halts further capship construction on Japan's part, yes.

Heck even without the quake I really doubt Japan's economy could sustain production of the Kii class let alone the Number 13s. As it was a third of the national budget was going to the navy pre WNT. That's not by any means sustainable.

 

[Colonel Grubb]

Heck even without the quake I really doubt Japan's economy could sustain production of the Kii class let alone the Number 13s. As it was a third of the national budget was going to the navy pre WNT. That's not by any means sustainable.

I've read it described here before as the "breakpoint Kanto" scenario that gives everyone a bit of opportunity to take stock and slow down - an informal arrangement or understanding rather than a treaty that doesn't cause loss of face and no true building holidays (the latter placing the RN in a much better position I think). The 1920s 8:8 was not any more affordable than the earlier 8:8 had been, but this potentially has a major impact on Japanese internal politics.