WNT allows cruiser weapons to go up to 12’

aaronupright

What POD do we need for the WNT to have a carve out for vessels with cruiser hulls and capital ship batteries. Basically, think Alaskas a generation earlier. An actual cruiser-destroyer (like the Torpedo boat destroyer was for Torpedo boats).
12’is by the 20’s too small for a main battery for a ship expected to be in the battleline.
Everything else remains the same.
 
CV(N)-6

CV(N)-6

An Alaska is the size of a small battlecruiser (I won't get into the argument over what they should be classified as), nobody is going to build ships like them unless they can't afford a proper 16" battlecruiser on only 5,000ish tons more. Not to mention everyone is broke (everyone but US/UK) and/or doesn't want to start yet another naval arms race (US/UK) so they aren't going to add a category for expensive white elephants.
 

jsb

aaronupright said:
Everything else remains the same.
Click to expand...
Well, it depends on are "cruisers" limited under your "WNT" (/LNT) rules?

OTL WNT did not limit anything under 8" and 10,000t so nobody would want that to increase as it simply leads to an even larger cruisers arms race, but if cruisers are limited in some way? But then you hit in what way and USN/IJN/RN/MN/etc will all want very different ratios.....
 
SealTheRealDeal

SealTheRealDeal

marathag said:
12" on 10,000 is pretty hard to do, unless you plan on the old school protected cruiser armor scheme
Click to expand...
Sticking with Brit ships for consistency, a twin 12"/45 gun turret weighs 450 tons, and a twin 8"/50 gun turret weighs 205-220 tons. The weight difference between a 12" mount and two 8" mounts is negligible. In fact the 12" mount actually weighs less once you factor in the additional structure required to raise the second 8" mount to a super firing position. So something like a County Class with 2x2 12"/45 guns instead of 4x2 8"/50 guns should be doable.

A pocket Courageous.
 

Jellico

SealTheRealDeal said:
Sticking with Brit ships for consistency, a twin 12"/45 gun turret weighs 450 tons, and a twin 8"/50 gun turret weighs 205-220 tons. The weight difference between a 12" mount and two 8" mounts is negligible. In fact the 12" mount actually weighs less once you factor in the additional structure required to raise the second 8" mount to a super firing position. So something like a County Class with 2x2 12"/45 guns instead of 4x2 8"/50 guns should be doable.

A pocket Courageous.
Click to expand...
Six barrels is considered a minimum for accurate shooting by most. In the British case it means you can put out ladders of three shells. Eight was considered optimum by many until the end.
You could make four work but it is not ideal.
 

Tom_B

12" armament doesn't make sense on a 10,000 ton hull What might be interesting though if the RN did press for allowing armament up to 9.2" as they had some excellent weapons of that caliber
 

CaptainCalvert

Hmm would the weight difference mean 3x twin 9.2" in place of 4 x twin 8"?
Then is the extra destructive power of the 9.2 enough to materially affect the battle of the River Plate if the 8" hits were replaced by 9.2" hits?
I suspect the overall outcome would be the same (one less commerce raider and some badly shot up cruisers).
Edit. I should have checked before posting (though a fourth turret on Exeter would have been nice). And since there were only two 8" hits on Graf Spee, a 9.2" probably wouldn't have done much more. I suppose there is the possibility of firing at longer range with the 9.2" and getting an early hit.
 
Last edited:

naraic

Tom_B said:
12" armament doesn't make sense on a 10,000 ton hull What might be interesting though if the RN did press for allowing armament up to 9.2" as they had some excellent weapons of that caliber
Click to expand...
Im not sure you could call the British 9.2 inch guns as excellent weapons. They hadn't been used on a new ship since the Lord Nelson predreadoughts.
 

Peg Leg Pom

naraic said:
Im not sure you could call the British 9.2 inch guns as excellent weapons. They hadn't been used on a new ship since the Lord Nelson predreadoughts.
Click to expand...
Because secondary batteries of that size had been discarded to improve gunnery on battleships and Jackie Fisher cocked up the Dreadnought Armoured Cruiser concept by putting battleship guns on them.
 

Dorknought

aaronupright said:
What POD do we need for the WNT to have a carve out for vessels with cruiser hulls and capital ship batteries. Basically, think Alaskas a generation earlier. An actual cruiser-destroyer (like the Torpedo boat destroyer was for Torpedo boats).
12’is by the 20’s too small for a main battery for a ship expected to be in the battleline.
Everything else remains the same.
Click to expand...
It was GB knowledge of French plans for 12,000 ton cruisers that lead to the cap at 10,000 tons and that this displacement was supposed to be a limit not a target. GB would walk away and just build G3's to stop this nonsense of 'limitation' as this is a clear threat to global trade.
 

CarribeanViking

The problem with the 9.2" was not anything to do with the gun- it was good to 29,000 yards or 38,500 in the rare monitor version, mostly accurate, and threw a shell that proved absurdly good, NavWeaps uses the phrase "sweet spot", for armour penetration: it's problem was that there were none in service (except the tiny number of mk.XIV) in a decent, smooth tracking modern turret with a modern hull under them. They might however neither been fish or fowl, gun tube weighing 24 to 28 tons depending on mark, with the 8" mk VIII weighing 18, the alternative manually worked 7.5" mk VI at 14 tons and most of the 12" marks being around 50.
 

alspug

Personally the best cruiser guns in History should be the 8in 55RF mk16 in the Des Moines class the literal auto-fire 10 rounds per minute per gun. anyway the turrets for those gun weigh 451 tons. The British County class had a 221 ton turret but only doing 6 to 8 rounds per minute from a 2 gun turret. At the same time as a County on it's best day fires a total of 32 rounds a minute the Des Moines fires that many from each of the three turrets.

The 9.2 inch is pound for pound the best gun of it's class. It was probably the best hole puncher in history, if you wanted a super Cruiser from the British then it is your go to gun. If setup properly your not going to exceed 4 rounds per minute, however with a modern 3 barrel turret and firing 380lb shells. 12 rounds per turret is going to make even a Battleship take you seriously due to the Mission kill possibility.

If your guns allowed go up to 12 inch then the British may decide to use the 12 inch guns that in 1920 they had 85 available. A twin 12 inch turret is at least 450 tons.

To build a cruiser with at least 4 twin or three triple turrets and armour that is functional against your own guns is interesting. you are looking at a 20,000 ton ship that is too big for many to be constructed and needs significant escorts.

I could see the cruiser limits being 10 inch guns and 15,000 tons or even 18,000 tons. 12 inch is way too close to Capital sized weapons.
 

Paul_Sussex

In 1930-32 Charles Lillicrap roughed out some paper design for light battlecruisers - http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5937

If earlier limits were set at 10" guns on 15,000 tons, something like this may have been the result? Although with earlier secondary armament. Perhaps single 4.7"? (From Shipbucket - original drawings as credited)
temp2.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top