Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

Reader mode

steamboy

So from the sounds of it Furious is pretty much as close as we're ever going to get to HMS Incomparable - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Incomparable the armoured belt sounds about right, covering a dinky part of the waterline and the rest of the hull being largely un-armoured, and the gun size isn't too far off either :D

The RN and KM seem to be approaching the same solution from different angles and it'll be interseting to see what they come up with. Perhaps the Germans won't adopt AoN armour schemes because for them, their armour layout worked.
 

steamboy

Really the 18-inch is too much of a gun for most ships. You'd need to build them very specifically around the gun due to the size and power of the thing, the Furious is probably way too light and something tells me that on he Trials when she fires a full broadside there's going to be 'issues' no only with sheared bolts but possibly cracks and leaks. The Admirals are better built and more solid but still its asking a lot to put multiple 18-inch guns, and besides the 15-inch works fine.
 

Deleted member 94680

steamboy said:
The Admirals are better built and more solid but still its asking a lot to put multiple 18-inch guns, and besides the 15-inch works fine.
Click to expand...

Knowing what we do, given hindsight, the 15”/42 was perfectly acceptable for the remaining life of the battleship*. The development of the 18” was a waste of time and resources, where a 16” (or it should be 16.5”, to soothe my OCD) would probably be the biggest a main battery should go.

*by “life of the battleship” I mean the existence of battleships as a viable surface unit, rather than the particular battleship they were fitted to.
 

steamboy

Stenz said:
Knowing what we do, given hindsight, the 15”/42 was perfectly acceptable for the remaining life of the battleship*. The development of the 18” was a waste of time and resources, where a 16” (or it should be 16.5”, to soothe my OCD) would probably be the biggest a main battery should go.

*by “life of the battleship” I mean the existence of battleships as a viable surface unit, rather than the particular battleship they were fitted to.
Click to expand...

*breaks out the 16.25 to confuse you*

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_162-30_mk1.php

:D
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
One of my personal ideas for an Alternate Admiral Armament is the Vickers 15" A gun, aka 16"/45 Pattern A intended for the Russians 1914 program of battleships. It's available already so would not really slow things down like having to design a new gun would

That said 16.5" just sounds more in sequence with the previous British practice
 

Deleted member 94680

Trevayne said:
Alternatively, the way the US did it: 12", 14", then 16".
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the British already had the 12”, 13.5” and 15” in service.

AFAIK, when they wanted to increase the 12”, a 14” was trialed but lost out to the 13.5”.
 

steamboy

Wasn't it the Armstrong 14-inch that was on the Canada that the RN looked at as their gun but went with the 13.5? Also speaking of the HMS Canada, what's happened to her in this TL, is she still as per OTL design or did she get canned and turned into something else, there's also the Eagle out there too.
 

Deleted member 94680

RamscoopRaider said:
One of my personal ideas for an Alternate Admiral Armament is the Vickers 15" A gun, aka 16"/45 Pattern A intended for the Russians 1914 program of battleships. It's available already so would not really slow things down like having to design a new gun would
Click to expand...

“Available already” is stretching it slightly going by NavWeaps. The article they have on the Vickers 16” makes it sound like by 1914 there was only one gun produced.
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
Stenz said:
“Available already” is stretching it slightly going by NavWeaps. The article they have on the Vickers 16” makes it sound like by 1914 there was only one gun produced.
Click to expand...
Which is better than having to design and test a whole new gun, which was the point, Vickers could from a late 1915/early 1916 order plausibly have enough made in time to equip the Admirals for late 1918/early 1919, whereas having to design and test a new gun is vastly less likely to meet that deadline
 

Deleted member 94680

RamscoopRaider said:
Which is better than having to design and test a whole new gun, which was the point, Vickers could from a late 1915/early 1916 order plausibly have enough made in time to equip the Admirals for late 1918/early 1919, whereas having to design and test a new gun is vastly less likely to meet that deadline
Click to expand...

Fair point, but was the Vickers gun built to Admiralty standards?

There’s also this bit from the NavWeaps article:
The center of gravity of this gun was far forward, which would have meant that the battleship turrets would have been larger than standard British practice.

It doesn’t mean that it’s impossible, but there’s every chance there would be delays introducing this gun to British service.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top