ITL the E class look like they might be prime candidates for modification as AA cruisers to accompany the fleet carriers in the late 1930's.
Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas
- Thread starter sts-200
- Start date
Good stuff! WIth those open backed turrets the RN's gone back to the same turret design that was last used aboard Fisher's flagship the Renown. Her dual 10-inch mounts had turrets that had no backs either. Obviously not ideal especially for the waters the RN tends to sail in (North sea etc) but a good stepping stone here for a true Leander esque turret 
Oh, yes! The Fleet Problems tended to have Saratoga gallivanting about going for some independent objective, while Lexington and the Scouting Fleet, often tied to the battle line, played defense. If the US Navy had had more than two large fleet carriers at the time they almost certainly would’ve started grouping up the ships.
Deleted member 94680
Considering they’re cruisers (armour-wise) with extremely long-range guns (airplanes) that makes a lot of sense.
They'd have learned something from the Monmouth class (1901), which had twin 6" turrets fore and aft.Good stuff! WIth those open backed turrets the RN's gone back to the same turret design that was last used aboard Fisher's flagship the Renown. Her dual 10-inch mounts had turrets that had no backs either. Obviously not ideal especially for the waters the RN tends to sail in (North sea etc) but a good stepping stone here for a true Leander esque turret
They turned out to be cramped, and the guns were in one cradle which made them harder to work - both not to be repeated.
Oh dang it I knew I forgot to mention the early Counties
Yep your 100% right Those unsuccessful turrets put the RN off using smaller turrets for quite some time. IIRC the turrets on the Monmouth's were also trained by steam pressure and were quite jerky in their rotations meaning it was harder to aim with them.I'm sure they would too.
Pretty much anything you can do with a carrier was thought of during the war - even if some of it wasn't done until well afterwards.
I'm sure I recall references to the USN in the 30s practicing working two together. The RN certainly started practicing using their carriers together almost as soon as they had them (i.e. very early 30s).
I believe you are spot on with the aiming problems, but I think they were electrically powered (according to Conways, which is usually fairly reliable)Oh dang it I knew I forgot to mention the early Counties
As built, Invincible had another attempt at such a system, and that didn't work well either - an example of British industry being behind the times in that respect - c.f. German or American electric (or part-electric) turrets had fewer problems.
Oh that was it I need to get my mittens on conway I couldn't recall if it was steam pressure which resulted in somewhat jerky rotation/aiming or electric, which I imagine, owing to the tech of the time was sure as hell not that precise in providing the steady draw of power needed to rotate a fairly heavy mass.
I need to get my mittens on conway I couldn't recall if it was steam pressure which resulted in somewhat jerky rotation/aiming or electric, which I imagine, owing to the tech of the time was sure as hell not that precise in providing the steady draw of power needed to rotate a fairly heavy mass.They also had a lot lot less written about them (and generally not in triplicate) and fired far fewer salvos in battle than the British did
There is a absolute gold mine of data on British turrets that makes it very easy to determine the foibles of said gun systems
Not so much for the other nations
I therefore remain sceptical that other nations did not experience similar issue under similar conditions - as very little information is accessible compared to the British experiences.
I hope that made sense.
That was already mention before as an option, and I still think that is the best option, it offers even odds for everyone in the treaty. The trick here would be if someone can really build (the will, that is) such ships.
Maybe (if treaty condition, is the only option), but as everyone had point out, is better to built a new ship, but...
Although expensive, in principle I agree with you on account that it would keep running the industries and the economy, besides, as station flagships those would be better options than the old 12" ships.
that would have to be seen, but yeah as artificial bolsters for the fleet they may prove valuable, at least until there are better options available going out of the slips.
I agree, but the thing is that nobody wants cruiser-killers but real Battlecruisers and Battleships (a.k.a capital ships in the full sense). And the 12" are phased out so just 4 cats available for the job means that there should be assigned to carrier escort or to the Asiatic stations or both ( this last would rise suspicion from the japs, of course).
Last edited:
Deleted member 94680
Hopefully their near-obsolescence will enforce that message. OTL they were meant to do that as well, but certain idiots (I'm looking at you, Beatty) got ideas above their ship's ability due to gun size.
Ironically, ITTL, the battlecrusier may well actually fulfill it's originally intended role. Hopefully, we get to see some 'proper' fast battleships as well...
No nobody wants to build new 18000 ton cruisers, but rebuilding older ships to get round treaty restrictions and at the same time irritate the German navy is a wise use of resources.
Are you sure? If the US wanted to really stuff the RN they would build two or three 15-20,000, 30 knot, long range super-panzerschiff commerce raiders and watch as the RN is forced to spend 5 or 6 times as much to counteract.
No, the US would build a pair of long-range battlecruisers. Money is tight, a large cruiser that can do nothing but raid isn't an efficient buy, but a BC that can go raiding or support the fleet is at least a better way to spend money
I'd say it was fairly unlikely the US would try anything so provocative as an 'unsinkable commerce raider'. Other nations ... may have other ideas.
Yes, agreed, although a large high speed scout (like Glorious - there were plenty of similar designs available) is perhaps an alternative.
Even so, that wouldn't be so threatening, as it has a obvious place in a fleet.
More generally, I've long felt that 18,000 tons is a bit of a 'useless zone' for ships of this period.
- It's too big for a cruiser - you can fit 9.2" guns, or a dozen 8" etc..., but that doesn't allow the thing to do any more than any other cruiser.
- It's too small for a capital ship - c.f. I-class, which could have been a lot better on ~22,000tons, or perfectly decent armoured cruisers on ~14,000t.
Treatys can certainly do weird things, but bear in mind that these old 12" ships look 'old and limited, but still with a bit of life' in 1920 - much like armoured cruisers at the start of the war.
In any world where new construction is possible, by 1925, they'll look like pre-dreadnoughts look in 1920.
I understood what you mean, but what I was referring was that a full refit of the Cats would make them essentially smaller duplicates of Renown, which means that are too big and important to spare on secondary missions, and just partially "multipurpose"(escort missions).
Undoubtedly that's true and the idea of a heavy refit to prolong the service life of the 12" Battlecruisers is only viable in a very narrow set of circumstances, the 13.5" ships are of more use but only if they fit within any treaty limitations without taking up tonnage that could used in a WNT type scenario.
The 13.5" battlecruisers based out of Singapore would be good counters to the new Dutch ships based in the east indies.