12 maximum rpm but 7 rpm was the practical limit
So basically we are giving the Long Lance the credit. It's a great weapon but the accuracy is pretty poor and it's accuracy Ollerton of the dice.
1930s British Sanity Options (Economy, Navy, Airforce and Army)
- Thread starter Sarthak
- Start date
12 maximum rpm but 7 rpm was the practical limit
marathag
Banned
Thing to recall, these aren't to be in the battleline, but trade protection.
Any of the Destroyer Leaders above would have done just as well against Kormoran as Sydney did, for a lot less tonnage and men. You get at least twice the coverage with two ships than one not so useful 6-7,000.ton ship.
If toubare doing things for economic reasons, do it right
Any of the Destroyer Leaders above would have done just as well against Kormoran as Sydney did, for a lot less tonnage and men. You get at least twice the coverage with two ships than one not so useful 6-7,000.ton ship.
If toubare doing things for economic reasons, do it right
The DDs dont have the same range to do trade protection.......
And no the small RN CLs did fight "in the battleline" to keep off DDs in the Med etc.
They are not perfect, but they are the smallest that can do the job of being certain to kill a AMC or DD (assuming no stupidity like Sydney but that not solvable by the ship designer), the main weakness is that since the treaty limit became the defacto minimum for everybody else they are small for CA/CL combat.
If the destroyer leader even had enough fuel to intercept Kormoran, she would’ve sunk sooner simply because she is a destroyer, and destroyers have a history of being hit by 6” shells and being crippled, whereas Sydney managed to fire several half salvoes and crippled Kormoran, as well as taking a little while to sink, albeit with no survivors. A torpedoed destroyer likely goes down in about half the time.
These are not equal guns...... (in a surface fire fight)!
5"/38 (12.7 cm) Mark 12 v 6"/50 (15.2 cm) BL Mark XXIII
3,990 lbs. (1,810 kg) without breech v 6.906 tons (7.017 mt)
Common Mark 32 Mods 1 to 4 - 54.0 lbs. (24.5 kg) v CPBC - 112 lbs. (50.8 kg)
Common Mark 32 - 2.58 lbs. (1.2 kg) Explosive D v CPBC - 3.75 lbs. (1.7 kg)
Average gun: 2,500 fps (762 mps) v 2,758 fps (841 mps)
15 - 22 rounds per minute v 6 - 8 rounds per minute
Angle of fire,
25 degrees 14,804 yards (13,537 m) v 13.1 degrees 15,000 yards (13,720 m)
45 degrees 17,392 yards (15,903 m) v 45.0 degrees 25,480 yards (23,300 m)
TIme of flight
15,000 yards (13,720 m) 43.0 sec v 15,000 yards (13,720 m): 29.4 seconds
USA 5"/38 (12.7 cm) Mark 12 - NavWeaps
United Kingdom / Britain 6"/50 (15.2 cm) BL Mark XXIII - NavWeaps
The problem for the 5/38 is at any range it's going to be very hard to hit anything that ROF is just more misses and no DD can survive many 112lb shells hitting from the cruiser with a more stable hull and better fire-control....
Having a plane is very valuable for trade protection patrols. Either as a search plane or to communicate by way of signal lamp.
Most of the Destroyer Leaders are deficient in terms of cruising speed, range or high speed speed cruising efficiency compared to any cruiser.
Unfortunately it's difficult to police and military at the same time and Sydney got on the wrong side of that taking g shots at point blank range.
marathag
Banned
Are you saying that an 8000 ton Freighter converted into a raider has better damage control than an actual warship?
6" (and bigger) were not instantly crippling on US DDs and DEs off Samar
No? I’m saying that at close range the initial salvoes from Kormoran would’ve done much better against a destroyer than Sydney.
An illustration of why a light cruiser is a better return on an investment than 'super' destroyer was on 28th December 1943 in the Bay of Biscay, when two RN light cruisers curb stomped a German force of four 5.9in armed Z Class Destroyers and six T class torpedo boats.
The RN force sustained two killed and light damage compared to 532 dead, three ships sunk despite a parity in theoretical gun power and overwhelming numbers on the German side. It underscores how important a steady gun platform is in a surface engagement and how bad an idea cruiser scale guns are on a destroyer scaled platform.
The RN force sustained two killed and light damage compared to 532 dead, three ships sunk despite a parity in theoretical gun power and overwhelming numbers on the German side. It underscores how important a steady gun platform is in a surface engagement and how bad an idea cruiser scale guns are on a destroyer scaled platform.
In Defence of the 5.25" and TTLs proposed 5.1 DP gun
In the mid/late 30's 2 things were happening with regards to the requirement for the secondaries on battleships and for that matter ITTL Cruisers
Bombers were getting bigger, faster, flying increasingly higher with bigger bombs.
I need not remind you all that Tirpitz was sunk by 5.4 ton Tall boys in 1944 and Fritz-X sank the Roma a year earlier along with some other high profile targets either sunk or damaged.
Destroyers were getting larger, faster and carrying longer and longer ranged torpedo's
I need not remind you all that the Long lance had the potential range to be fired beyond the horizon!
Therefore it made sense for those planning DP armament to provide guns that could fire a powerful AAA shell to a higher altitude than the current aircraft and a SAP shell to beyond the range of the then known Torpedo range (effectively to the horizon) and shells capable of inflicting crippling damage on the target.
The idea that a smaller faster training gun would be superior would only be borne out with actual experience and as I have said there was still a threat from larger, faster and higher flying aircraft dropping exponentially larger bombs (and guided weapons) which would have been better challenged by a larger heavier gun system capable of firing a heavier shell to a higher altitude.
By 1944 all of the major powers had bombers that could reach altitudes above that of the principle DP AAA systems max altitude - except the 5.25"
In the mid/late 30's 2 things were happening with regards to the requirement for the secondaries on battleships and for that matter ITTL Cruisers
Bombers were getting bigger, faster, flying increasingly higher with bigger bombs.
I need not remind you all that Tirpitz was sunk by 5.4 ton Tall boys in 1944 and Fritz-X sank the Roma a year earlier along with some other high profile targets either sunk or damaged.
Destroyers were getting larger, faster and carrying longer and longer ranged torpedo's
I need not remind you all that the Long lance had the potential range to be fired beyond the horizon!
Therefore it made sense for those planning DP armament to provide guns that could fire a powerful AAA shell to a higher altitude than the current aircraft and a SAP shell to beyond the range of the then known Torpedo range (effectively to the horizon) and shells capable of inflicting crippling damage on the target.
The idea that a smaller faster training gun would be superior would only be borne out with actual experience and as I have said there was still a threat from larger, faster and higher flying aircraft dropping exponentially larger bombs (and guided weapons) which would have been better challenged by a larger heavier gun system capable of firing a heavier shell to a higher altitude.
By 1944 all of the major powers had bombers that could reach altitudes above that of the principle DP AAA systems max altitude - except the 5.25"
A way to "cheat" for a 2,500t destroyer is to have a 1,850t destroyer with much greater range. Fuel oil and water tight compartments along the sides as additional spaced torpedo bulkheads. Something that offers some flex to cut weight later. If Japan is the greatest threat in 1929 that range is fully justified.
If I remember right, fuel/water compartments or what was within it didn't count within Treaty weight, for the UK had argued their commitments required longer ranges than the likes of say, Italy.
Anyway, the arguments around naval forces is a very technical one. If it's not an argument about cost, it's one about Treaty limits. The ones which are neither are usually decisions which I don't think are likely to be taken at the time. It's why I suggested the Navy focusing on improving gunnery skills etc during this period; so they can 'do better with current kit' rather than asking for more kit.
Anyway, the arguments around naval forces is a very technical one. If it's not an argument about cost, it's one about Treaty limits. The ones which are neither are usually decisions which I don't think are likely to be taken at the time. It's why I suggested the Navy focusing on improving gunnery skills etc during this period; so they can 'do better with current kit' rather than asking for more kit.
The single biggest problem with the 5.25 was the turret design. This design was compromised by the Naval Treaty's. I would add that the biggest problem the Royal Navy faced was the London Naval Treaty's. The original turret was 77tons yet the Vanguard turret was 95 tons. This 20 tons was used to provide a better design and it still was not good enough. The gun itself was fantastic with a huge blast radius against aircraft and excellent long range. The biggest problem was poor train rate(this could be fixed by more powerful motors for traverse and elevation, this is only capable if space is provided for it. The fact that the 5.25 was so slow at reloading was and is the reason I favour the 4 inch over it. The American 5 inch was one of those special weapons that just seemed to be in the perfect niche. It had a great development path which went 5 inch 51 cal to 5 inch 25 cal to the 5 inch 38 cal and finally to the 5 inch 54 cal. The incremental improvement keeping a good ballistic shell was probably the single biggest difference.
The Royal Navy was massive and supported enough guns of different calibre to allow a convoluted development path. If the RN had said say for example 4.7 is our future calibre and then worked on improving the loading mechanism and the shell design. An on mount power rammer would have made a huge difference in Cruiser and Battleship mounts.
As far as sanity goes I agree with the refurbishment of the QE class ships.
The R class needed to be replaced as nothing can fix them. Remove the turrets and upperworks. Slide a new hull underneath and give same name.
The Battlecruiser force was extremely limited in size. All 3 needed full refits and only one got it.
The KGV design should have been a 9 15 inch design with 5 twin 4.7 per side. And a 40,000 ton displacement with bulges added (preplanned) after breakdown of treaty's.
The Royal Navy was massive and supported enough guns of different calibre to allow a convoluted development path. If the RN had said say for example 4.7 is our future calibre and then worked on improving the loading mechanism and the shell design. An on mount power rammer would have made a huge difference in Cruiser and Battleship mounts.
As far as sanity goes I agree with the refurbishment of the QE class ships.
The R class needed to be replaced as nothing can fix them. Remove the turrets and upperworks. Slide a new hull underneath and give same name.
The Battlecruiser force was extremely limited in size. All 3 needed full refits and only one got it.
The KGV design should have been a 9 15 inch design with 5 twin 4.7 per side. And a 40,000 ton displacement with bulges added (preplanned) after breakdown of treaty's.
I agree. However, according to NavWeapons, the 5.25” had a maximum ballistic range of 46,500 feet. Assuming a bomber cruising altitude of 25,000 feet (and not taking ballistic arcs into question which I know is a big exclusion) and assuming my trigonometry is correct, the 5.25” could engage bombers 39,208 ft out from the ship. That’s 7.4 miles. At maximum elevation of 70 degrees it should be able to keep engaging until they are within 1.7 miles.
It seems like they could afford to lose a little range and still be effective.
Cheat! That isn't cricket!
Having written that, the "Sixteen Percent Rule" allowed the British Commonwealth to have thirteen 1,850 ton destroyers out of it's quota of 150,000 tons.
The Admiralty decided to use this rule to build 13 scout-type destroyers to supplement the cruisers. They wanted 70 cruisers consisting of 25 to scout for the fleet (on the ratio of 5 cruisers for 3 capital ships) and 45 for trade protection. However, the British Government and 1930 London Naval Treaty allowed them to have 50. The 13 scouts would displace 13 fleet cruisers which would become trade protection ships and leave the Royal Navies 7 ships short of requirements instead of 20 ships short.
The scouting destroyers required a heavier gun armament and a lighter torpedo armament than normal destroyers. The result was the Tribal class. 13 were planned, but the abolition of the tonnage quotas at the end of 1936 allowed 16 to be built to form 2 flotillas of 8 ships. The abolition of the tonnage quotas and the loosening of the purse strings meant they were no longer required for their designed role because the British Commonwealth had the legal right to possess as many cruisers as it wanted and the British Government had sanctioned an increase to 70 cruisers.
If the TTL Tribal class had had AC electrics with PVC wiring, welded hulls and high-pressure boilers the weight saved could be used to carry more fuel, which would increase their range. The high-pressure boilers aught to be more economical than the OTL boilers, which would increase range further. AIUI contemporary American destroyers had double-reduction gears as well as AC electrics with PVC wiring, welded hulls and high-pressure boilers. If some of the weight saved was used to fit the Tribals with double-reduction gears as well there would be a further increase in range.
Last edited:
I can’t back it up but I seem to recall hearing that American high pressure steam plants with double reduction gearing weighed more all together than contemporary British machinery. The advantage, AIUI, was in range but with an associated disadvantage in surge speed. Which might not be as good a trade for the RN as it was for the USN.
Of course, I can’t remember the source so this all may be the ravings of an addled mind.
The summary of what I want to do economically is:
- Increase the capacity of the coal mining industry;
- Increase the capacity of the steel industry;
- Increase the capacity of the shipbuilding industry (merchant ships and warships);
- Increase the capacity of the motor vehicle manufacturing industry. That is all types of motor vehicles including lorries and motor cycles, not just cars;
- Increase the capacity of the electronics industry;
- Increase the capacity of the aircraft industry, including aero engines and aircraft equipment;
- Improve inland transport, i.e. the roads, railways, inland waterways, ports and domestic civil aviation;
- Improve the Merchant Navy;
- Expand the overseas airlines.
What you wrote may be true.
When I tried to work it out from published sources the weights seemed to be the the same or greater. However, the British and Americans might have calculated their weights differently and if correct that would account for some of the difference.
Also the British were reluctant to fit double-reduction gears and arrange the machinery on the unit principle because it would have produced an unacceptable increase in length. A longer destroyer would also displace more which would mean fewer hulls could be built from the tonnage quota, which was unacceptable as well.
OTOH the British destroyers of the A to I type displaced 1,350 to 1,400 tons and had machinery producing 34,000 to 36,000 tons. (That doesn't include the leaders which were larger and had more powerful engines.) The contemporary Farragut and Mahan classes displaced 1,395 and 1,488 tons respectively so they were slightly larger and they had engines producing 42,800 and 49,00 shp respectively. Therefore, the extra weight might be due to the extra power. (Source: Whitley, Destroyers of World War Two.)
I also think that making the main armament dual purpose and fitting a HACS would be a better way to use the weight saved.
Contemporary USN destroyers were also longer and beamier, that is, if beamier is a word.
Last edited:
I would love a table of costs if you can find them? I suggest that RN ships were also designed to be much cheaper......
I would go for something larger based off the Tribal class come 36 you are not limited so something with 4 twin 4.5" DP guns (simply the open guns from Ark would do as fitted to the 'toothless terrors' Scylla and Charybdis with more 40mm light AA as well on say 3500 with the rest as OTL class apart from more shock tested back up generators like all RN ships.....
I don't get this, DDs did not have TDSs, Extra tanks still count in standard it's just the contents (that are free), the extra size will require larger engines, the extra size will make nobody will believe your weights......RN would not be allowed to cheat until very late (post 36 where it did not matter numbers wise)?
Unlike USN the RN does not actually need that huge range as it would fight IJN north along the coast (or rather within a couple of 1000 miles) on the west of the Pacific with only individual cruiser doing blockade work out west?
Last edited:
British warships cheaper according to my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1939. However, American warships might have been better, e.g. welded hulls, more advanced machinery, AC electrical systems, the 5" DP gun in its various forms and more accurate AA fire control systems. The greater sophistication may be a reason for their greater cost.
Also the Americans had different requirements for their ships and that might account for some of the cost differences.