16 inch stead of 15 inch

Anderman

Donor
Sorry that i didn´t make myself clear :-( but was more thinking more about the ramification for RN and the UK after the war and the later the WNT.
 

Peg Leg Pom

With 13 Battleships and Battlecruisers armed with 16 inch guns already in service the Royal Navy does not get the option of Building the Nelson Class in the Washington Treaty. They may lose all of the 13.5 inch gunned ships straight away as well if the total tonnage limit doesn't take into account the increased size of ship need to carry the 16 inch guns.
 

Jellico

Get fewer Queen Elizabeths because a bigger hull is needed for the bigger gun and parliaments are cheap bastards*. Fewer Rs ordered. Fewer 16" barrels produced. Puts a question mark over R&R and the Follies.

*Or the navy demands 4(5) hulls and the fast battleship is pushed back another generation? What does this mean for the Nagatos eg?
 
Kalga

Kalga

Peg Leg Pom said:
With 13 Battleships and Battlecruisers armed with 16 inch guns already in service the Royal Navy does not get the option of Building the Nelson Class in the Washington Treaty. They may lose all of the 13.5 inch gunned ships straight away as well if the total tonnage limit doesn't take into account the increased size of ship need to carry the 16 inch guns.
Click to expand...
The entire WNT might be different, possibly with more tonnage allowance for everyone (which really only benefit Japan, although that's more of any limitations in general benefits Japan as it nullify UK & USA's industrial advantage (well, in the sense of making it less obvious, which actually might have been a bad thing since it gave Japan the delusion that they could actually take on the big boys), and no one cares about the French or Italians besides themselves).

Of course the navies by the time of the conference themselves might have been bigger, so the pain of cuts would still be... painful.
 
NHBL

NHBL

The Royal Navy's 15" gun was a fantastic weapon. Would the 16" come out as good? It might hit harder, but would it be as overall good?
And--Queen Elizabeths:
1. same displacement: Either only 6 guns, slower, or thinner armor
2. greater displacement, otherwise similar--fewer ships, or fewer of the follow on class
 

Astrodragon

I'm not really sure why they would have gone to 16".
The 15" was in response to the Germans mounting 12" guns, and heavily overmatched it.
16" just increases the displacement and cost of the ship for no clear reason
 

Schlock

The major problem the RN is going to encounter is that the 15in was built using the same lathes that were used to construct the previous generation of guns, and the 42 calibre barrel length was the largest that could be fitted on those lathes. Basically, if you're going to 16in without some serious concurrent investment at the foundries, you're going to end up with a 39 calibre barrel, which is going to have a low muzzle velocity.

While the 15L42 was one of the most successful guns the RN ever fielded, I'm not sure the Admiralty would be willing to accept that performance penalty.
 

Cryhavoc101

Peg Leg Pom said:
The 5th Battle Squadron murders Hipper's ships at Jutland. Assuming they can hit the broad side of a barn.
Click to expand...

I thought 5 BS hitting things wasn't the problem - it was the 2nd and 3rd BC squadrons that were dire on the accuracy front?

5 BS put more iron on ships than any other squadron IIRC
 

steamboy

I do recall seeing one fan design, may have been on wolf's shipyards, but it was an upscaled R class ship with 8 x 16-inch guns, visually the same, just a bigger ship.
 

Astrodragon

Schlock said:
The major problem the RN is going to encounter is that the 15in was built using the same lathes that were used to construct the previous generation of guns, and the 42 calibre barrel length was the largest that could be fitted on those lathes. Basically, if you're going to 16in without some serious concurrent investment at the foundries, you're going to end up with a 39 calibre barrel, which is going to have a low muzzle velocity.

While the 15L42 was one of the most successful guns the RN ever fielded, I'm not sure the Admiralty would be willing to accept that performance penalty.
Click to expand...

Yes.
The 15" was capable of penetrating any german ship at the expected engagement range (the poor shell issue would have affected a 16" shell as well, as it would likely just have been a bigger 15" shell)
So no need for 16". That came in at the end of the war, as did the 18", to handle the thickness of armour expected by late/end of war designs.
There is also the issue that, basically, the bigger the shell the slower the rate of fire. You can get more weight of fire on a target with a 15" than a 16".
 

CV12Hornet

Astrodragon said:
Yes.
The 15" was capable of penetrating any german ship at the expected engagement range (the poor shell issue would have affected a 16" shell as well, as it would likely just have been a bigger 15" shell)
So no need for 16". That came in at the end of the war, as did the 18", to handle the thickness of armour expected by late/end of war designs.
There is also the issue that, basically, the bigger the shell the slower the rate of fire. You can get more weight of fire on a target with a 15" than a 16".
Click to expand...
Practically speaking, rate of fire for battleship guns really doesn’t change. There were some issues with slow firing rates on the Nelson and Colorado classes, but that was a mount issue, not something inherent to the bigger guns, given the Japanese 16” gun and later American guns (including the 16”/50 Mk. 2) did not share the problems. Further proving that point is that the modernized guns for the Colorado’s had the same issues despite being much newer.
 
MatthewB

MatthewB

Banned
Could the RN have skipped the 13.5" and gone straight from 12" to 15" for the Orions onwards? Essentially Orion, KGV and Iron Duke classes become Revenge class. That might have led the Germans to go with 16" for the Bayerns, and perhaps then leading the British to consider a size up for what would become post WW1 ships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top