Best British interwar fleet?

[Jellico]

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.

Call it a case of what you want vs what you can get. USN wanted an "8" cruiser". 8" cruisers didn't work as the US hoped they would until they were allowed over 10,000 tons. The 6" cruisers worked in 1941.

I have a personal theory that US naval ideas in the first half of the century were more theoretical than practical but technology consistently either caught up just in time or was pushed till it did. But that is the benefit of being rich and powerful so they could afford to be ambitious.

 

[michael1]

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

Turns out the 6 inch gun was more useful than the 8 inch gun in many situations. Its faster rate of fire meant it was much more useful in low visibility, confined waters and against fast moving targets. The 8 inch gun was better at long range when visibility was good (by the end of the war radar had solved the visibility issue but not the other issues). Given the actual battles that were fought the 8 inch gun was rarely all that useful, although the ships had good range and often better growth potential.

The weakness of the 6 inch gun was its lack of range and stopping power, particularly against large cruisers and Japanese torpedo carriers. The solution was the automatic 8 inch gun, with its high rate of fire

 

[Spencersj345.346]

I have a personal theory that US naval ideas in the first half of the century were more theoretical than practical but technology consistently either caught up just in time or was pushed till it did. But that is the benefit of being rich and powerful so they could afford to be ambitious.

It didn't hurt that the USN knew they could spit out a whole fleet if given a few years and the money required to do so due to the US's massive industrial output they could afford to be experimental(up to a certain point) with their designs,mind you the USN would have rather not used its capital ships as propulsion experiments in the first two decades of the 1900s but that was Congress was willing(grudgingly mind you) to pay for(it also didn't help that the USN had a decently sized fleet of older cruisers so Congress didn't see the need for new cruisers and you can build WW1 era destroyers very quickly assuming you have the engines and weapons for them)

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

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.

Thanks for your response.

So, the rate of fire favours the US 8" gun, especially after a new version (date?). The US gun also had a marginal advantage in range.

The British 9.2" had the advantage in penetration until the introduction of a super heavy shell (date ?) Which would also have reduced the advantage of explosive power.

Seems that at the start the 9.2" is the better gun in the abstract though the lighter 8" would be useful for its weight advantage. As of course was critical for Treaty limited ships.

And the RN might well prefer to have five 8", or six plus 6", cruisers than three or four super cruisers anyway.

 

[sonofpegasus]

With hind sight IMVHO the RN would have been better off junking the Hawkins class large cruisers in 1919 and going for a 6" gunned cruiser as the treaty standard. Either sell the completed ones to interested friendly client nations or convert them to experimental trade protection carriers/hybrid 6" cruisers. Scrap all 12" dreadnaughts (keep the guns for the RGA) and then go from there treaty wise. many of the smaller sloops were sold off for civil trade, instead lease them to companies as replacement for war losses on the explicit understanding that they are maintained such that in event of wart they can be re militarized as escorts. A couple of dozen extra sloops in 1939 could have been a real boost for the RN.

 

[Hood]

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.

Yes G3s are the answer for the scouting and beating up the enemy battlecruiser line role.
But you've a problem. Similar to having Hood go chase down pocket battleships in the South Atlantic the G3s are too valuable to have off raider killing should also be noted with battlecruisers capable of 33 knots you can bet your ass other nations are going to build the cruiser they intend to be merchant raiders to be much faster. What's the answer? A super cruiser. Powerful enough to kick the shit out of any cruiser but not, like the previous battlecruiser concept powerful enough to that admirals say "battleship guns, shove it into the battleline oh dear it's exploded. The battlecruisers of the mid 20s that would be developed after G3 are almost certainly lying going to be far closer to fast battleships which will 100% be needed in the battleline. That means they can't be spared hunting lone merchants in the middle of nowhere it goes back to the original purpose of the battlecruiser minus the "van of the line" tactic. The cruiser killing tactic.

 

[StevoJH]

How big would a spiritual successor to the Invincible class have to be? 4x2x12 inch guns, all-or-nothing armour against 8" shellfire, engines for 30 knots, VERY limited secondary armaments, though allow space/weight to fit later in order to keep down crew size.

Beam could be reduced without needing wing turrets, however length would need to be increased.

Interestingly the Invincible & Indefatigable class (with Coal fired plant) had similar crew to a County class cruiser, while both being slightly shorter and with a couple of metres more beam.

The issue with a faster (28-30kt) battleline, is that they are in many situations going to be limited by the speed their much smaller escorts can maintain. Sure the Escorts may be quicker in calm waters, but as soon as any sort of weather comes up, your 1,000-3,000t destroyers and even your 10,000t cruisers are not going to be able to keep up.

 

[Jellico]

Yes G3s are the answer for the scouting and beating up the enemy battlecruiser line role.
But you've a problem. Similar to having Hood go chase down pocket battleships in the South Atlantic the G3s are too valuable to have off raider killing should also be noted with battlecruisers capable of 33 knots you can bet your ass other nations are going to build the cruiser they intend to be merchant raiders to be much faster. What's the answer? A super cruiser. Powerful enough to kick the shit out of any cruiser but not, like the previous battlecruiser concept powerful enough to that admirals say "battleship guns, shove it into the battleline oh dear it's exploded. The battlecruisers of the mid 20s that would be developed after G3 are almost certainly lying going to be far closer to fast battleships which will 100% be needed in the battleline. That means they can't be spared hunting lone merchants in the middle of nowhere it goes back to the original purpose of the battlecruiser minus the "van of the line" tactic. The cruiser killing tactic.

We saw the result in WWI. Battle cruisers were scattered across the world till the heavy raiders were contained.

Super cruisers are very very seductive. But they only work for challenger navies. Leading navies are better off with full sized ships.

 

[SsgtC]

Thanks for your response.

So, the rate of fire favours the US 8" gun, especially after a new version (date?). The US gun also had a marginal advantage in range.

The British 9.2" had the advantage in penetration until the introduction of a super heavy shell (date ?) Which would also have reduced the advantage of explosive power.

Seems that at the start the 9.2" is the better gun in the abstract though the lighter 8" would be useful for its weight advantage. As of course was critical for Treaty limited ships.

And the RN might well prefer to have five 8", or six plus 6", cruisers than three or four super cruisers anyway.

The Mark 16 got introduced I think in 1944/45.

Super heavy shells were introduced in the early/mid thirties. This same program developed new shells for pretty much every major gun system in the USN. For example, the 16" AP shell went from 2,200 pounds to 2,700 pounds. The 8" went from 260 to 335. The 12" went from 870 pounds to 1,140 while the 14" went from 1,400 to 1,500 pounds.

And as you mentioned, in a weight limited ship, the lighter gun has a huge advantage. A theoretical British cruiser armed with 8x9.2" has to devote 224 tons of weight allotment for the main battery. An American cruiser armed with 9x8" only has to devote 153 tons to is armament. The weight is such a huge advantage that the American ship could mount 12x8" and still only have 204 tons devoted to it's main battery.

 

[Hood]

We saw the result in WWI. Battle cruisers were scattered across the world till the heavy raiders were contained.

Super cruisers are very very seductive. But they only work for challenger navies. Leading navies are better off with full sized ships.

Yeah, and what happened after the raiders were killed? They had BB guns so you stick them in the battleline. We saw the results in ww1 as you said.
If they don't have BB guns they wouldn't be stuck in the battleline. Battlecruisers ala G3s can't afford to be off hunting raiders as I said before because they are no longer battlecruisers but fast battleships they are needed to kill enemy battleships.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Yeah, and what happened after the raiders were killed? They had BB guns so you stick them in the battleline. We saw the results in ww1 as you said.

So you don't give the Super Cruisers Battleship calibre guns, restrict them to under 12".

 

[Hood]

So you don't give the Super Cruisers Battleship calibre guns, restrict them to under 12".

12 inch guns or under yes.
After that you really are just wasting your money on something that has battleship guns but can't stand up to a battlecruiser and would need a lot more tonnage devoted to running away from it.
I support the super cruiser concept but it is a narrow window in terms of size, guns and armour, and obviously cost that must be taken into account which is admittedly why the concept is difficult because you have to get the right balance

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

With hind sight IMVHO the RN would have been better off junking the Hawkins class large cruisers in 1919 and going for a 6" gunned cruiser as the treaty standard. Either sell the completed ones to interested friendly client nations or convert them to experimental trade protection carriers/hybrid 6" cruisers. Scrap all 12" dreadnaughts (keep the guns for the RGA) and then go from there treaty wise. many of the smaller sloops were sold off for civil trade, instead lease them to companies as replacement for war losses on the explicit understanding that they are maintained such that in event of wart they can be re militarized as escorts. A couple of dozen extra sloops in 1939 could have been a real boost for the RN.

At 565' LOA × 65' abeam, I think the 6" conversion would be the most desirable. The 7.5" guns were arranged in 7 single mounts with hoists- perhaps they could be re-armed with either new 6" guns or secondaries from the Iron Dukes, in newly built twin 6" turrets, and the number of mounts reduced from 7 to 5 or 4, which would give either 8 or 10 barrels. The Hawkins class also mounted two different types of 3" gun, the 12pdr 12cwt (3"/L40) in low-angle mountings and the 3" 20 cwt (3"/L45) in high-angle mountings. Perhaps, the class could also trial experimental single DP mounts- the 12pdr 18cwt (3"L/50) could also be used this way.

Here is the 12pdr 18cwt deployed in the AA role off Salonika in 1916, a late addition aboard the pre-dreadnought HMS Agamemnon

 

[Spencersj345.346]

12 inch guns or under yes.
After that you really are just wasting your money on something that has battleship guns but can't stand up to a battlecruiser and would need a lot more tonnage devoted to running away from it.
I support the super cruiser concept but it is a narrow window in terms of size, guns and armour, and obviously cost that must be taken into account which is admittedly why the concept is difficult because you have to get the right balance

In many way a slightly larger(and faster with a bit more armor) Des Moines class cruiser with a fourth turret is the best super cruiser design since it will bury its foes in shells at realistic battle ranges and can still be built and maintained in reasonable numbers.

 

[CV12Hornet]

At 565' LOA × 65' abeam, I think the 6" conversion would be the most desirable. The 7.5" guns were arranged in 7 single mounts with hoists- perhaps they could be re-armed with either new 6" guns or secondaries from the Iron Dukes, in newly built twin 6" turrets, and the number of mounts reduced from 7 to 5 or 4, which would give either 8 or 10 barrels. The Hawkins class also mounted two different types of 3" gun, the 12pdr 12cwt (3"/L40) in low-angle mountings and the 3" 20 cwt (3"/L45) in high-angle mountings. Perhaps, the class could also trial experimental single DP mounts- the 12pdr 18cwt (3"L/50) could also be used this way.

They actually did have plans to rearm the Hawkins class with 6” guns, though only Effingham was rearmed before the war broke out. She had 9 6” guns in singles hauled off C-class cruisers either decommissioned or rearmed as AA cruisers, arranged three forward superfiring, a pair of wing mounts amidships, and four aft, plus four twin 4” AA.

 

[MichaelWest]

With hind sight IMVHO the RN would have been better off junking the Hawkins class large cruisers in 1919 and going for a 6" gunned cruiser as the treaty standard. Either sell the completed ones to interested friendly client nations or convert them to experimental trade protection carriers/hybrid 6" cruisers. Scrap all 12" dreadnaughts (keep the guns for the RGA) and then go from there treaty wise. many of the smaller sloops were sold off for civil trade, instead lease them to companies as replacement for war losses on the explicit understanding that they are maintained such that in event of wart they can be re militarized as escorts. A couple of dozen extra sloops in 1939 could have been a real boost for the RN.

My understanding is that the Admiralty was dissatisfied with their 8-inch and the 10k ton cruiser, preferring a lighter less costly ship, the gun prompting a play to eliminate it but the USN was ecstatic with its gun so a mismatch of doctrine, expectation and desire. With a rapid fire 6-inxh I agree but it is hard to foresee given the RN built Hawkins and created the type. And the Treaty cemented things. But in reality both IJN and USN need the size for ops is the Pacific while the RN was not as bound but appears in envy so keeps at it. A classic problem of building in mirror of others rather than unique needs. Interesting had they acknowledged your dead end and just built the lighter cruiser they wanted. But does that counter the new standard?

 

[Spencersj345.346]

The USN's love of the 8" gun cruiser is really ironic when you consider they ended up making the best 6" gun system(especially in terms of rate of fire) of WW2 in the form of the triple 6"/47 gun turret.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

I'm curious to see the direction the IJN would take with cruisers. Prior to OTL WNT, the preference was for small (by displacement if not dimensions) but very fast cruisers, designed to operate as scouts and destroyer flotilla leaders. IJN CLs also typically carried lighter gun armament but much heavier torpedo armament than their contemporaries.

IJN heavies subscribed to the "qualitative superiority in the face of quantitative inferiority" principle, and almost every class suffered from excessive topweight and poor stability in a bid to mount more guns and achieve higher speeds than USN heavies.

Also, regarding Kanto, one of the reasons Amagi was so heavily damaged is that work on her was halted, and then she was being prepared for carrier conversion. Had Amagi been more complete, depending on how complete, she would have been structurally stronger and sustained less damage.

That also leaves the question of what the IJN would convert to carriers...

 

[Spencersj345.346]

I'm curious to see the direction the IJN would take with cruisers. Prior to OTL WNT, the preference was for small (by displacement if not dimensions) but very fast cruisers, designed to operate as scouts and destroyer flotilla leaders. IJN CLs also typically carried lighter gun armament but much heavier torpedo armament than their contemporaries.

IJN heavies subscribed to the "qualitative superiority in the face of quantitative inferiority" principle, and almost every class suffered from excessive topweight and poor stability in a bid to mount more guns and achieve higher speeds than USN heavies.

Also, regarding Kanto, one of the reasons Amagi was so heavily damaged is that work on her was halted, and then she was being prepared for carrier conversion. Had Amagi been more complete, depending on how complete, she would have been structurally stronger and sustained less damage.

That also leaves the question of what the IJN would convert to carriers...

Heck Amagi might have been launched before the quake had she not been undergoing the beginning stages of her conversion.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Heck Amagi might have been launched before the quake had she not been undergoing the beginning stages of her conversion.

She was scheduled to be finished in November 1923, so going by previous classes she would have been launched