1930s British Sanity Options (Economy, Navy, Airforce and Army)

[CV12Hornet]

It's effectively a British equivalent to the Brooklyn. It has one triple 6" turret less, but because of the fifth turrets restricted arcs of fire that's not much of a handicap in practice.

It was you who poo pooed my idea of bringing development of the 4.5" forward 5 years and suggested that I use the 5.1" instead. If it hadn't been for your suggestion the ALT Edinburgh would have been armed with twelve 4.5" in six Mk III UD mountings.

You don't agree with specifically. Aside from that, is there anything about the ALT Edinburgh that you disagree with generally?

I'm going back to having the Admiralty developing the 4.5" gun from 1930 with the resources used to develop the 5.1" gun and some of the extra money that is available ITTL.

No, everything else you suggested is good.

I poo pooed that idea because the drivers that led to the 4.5" don't exist that early. And frankly, given a choice between the 4.5" and 4" I'll take the 4" there, too. At least the 5.1" has a clear performance advantage over the 4", unlike the 4.5", which is has so marginal and advantage it's not worth the extra weight and strain on the loaders.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

'Not great' is damning with faint praise. They were wastes of Steel and Men. They could have built 2500 ton Destroyer Leaders with larger than 4" that would have done as well,and there was no limit on ships that small.

No they couldn't because destroyers that large were prohibited by the First London Naval Treaty and even if they were legal they'd eat into the British Commonwealths destroyer tonnage quota like locusts.

Super destroyers weren't the Royal Navy's style for the good reasons that they couldn't be built in numbers and didn't suite its requirements. They couldn't do a lot of things that proper cruisers could do and that includes the Arethusa class could do.

I'm not a fan of the Arethusas or their successors the Dido class. However, they were adequate ships that did their job and the Royal Navy needed a large number of adequate ships instead of a few "super ships".

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I'm going back to having the Admiralty developing the 4.5" gun from 1930 with the resources used to develop the 5.1" gun and some of the extra money that is available ITTL.

AIUI (and I could well be wrong here) the gun was developed. It was the rate of fire that let it down in its brief trial. That RoF ‘failure’ was down to a powered loading system not being developed as the money wasn’t available for such an in-depth project in the interwar era.

You could either have the ATL RN develop the power loading system (possible if more money is available) or, use the money for a better mount for the 4.7” or 4.5” mounts.

 

[CV(N)-6]

'Not great' is damning with faint praise. They were wastes of Steel and Men.
They could have built 2500 ton Destroyer Leaders with larger than 4" that would have done as well,and there was no limit on ships that small.

The Arethusa's gave good service in the Med, mainly operating from Malta. Were they fragile, at least in terms of mines and torpedoes? Yes. Were cruisers of that time fragile against those things? Also a yes, the British had to scuttle a Town after one torpedo hit(I think it was Glasgow?). The Arethusas outclassed the early Italian CLs and did well with leading destroyers. Using the tonnage they had, the British got four cruisers to work with the fleet instead of 3 Leander’s or 2 Towns, and they needed numbers. A destroyer leader doesn’t have the endurance that the Arethusas possessed-they could be trade protection ships in a pinch, and the 6” guns were enough to deal with any destroyer they came across.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

AIUI (and I could well be wrong here) the gun was developed. It was the rate of fire that let it down in its brief trial. That RoF ‘failure’ was down to a powered loading system not being developed as the money wasn’t available for such an in-depth project in the interwar era.

You could either have the ATL RN develop the power loading system (possible if more money is available) or, use the money for a better mount for the 4.7” or 4.5” mounts.

Developing the 4.5" earlier, i.e. instead of the 5.1" is simpler because we know more about it and I won't have people saying that the 5.1" and its mountings will be more expensive and a lot heavier than the 4.5" and 4.7" guns (and their associated mountings) that it would be substituted for.

 

[PMN1]

ALT Edinburgh class

Displacement still 10,000 tons, but the hull was fully welded, they had high pressure boilers and an AC electrical system with PVC insulated wiring.

The weight savings allowed the OTL secondary battery of twelve 4" in six twin mountings to be replaced by eight 5.1" in four twin mountings or twelve 5.1" in six twin mountings, depending upon how much they weighed. The 5.1" guns would be mounted in open shields similar to the OTl twin 4.5" Mk III and twin 4" mountings of OTL.

Question on the Edinburgh class OTL and TTL....could the 6 twin secondary gun turrets be arranged in a hexagon pattern with two each side, one in Q position superfiring over B and one in P position superfiring over X?

This does require a change in the 4" magazines, especially for the Q 4"

I'm think about having a position for a quad 40mm (Q and P) with a lot of space for ammunition below it at at later date.......

 

[naraic]

'Not great' is damning with faint praise. They were wastes of Steel and Men.
They could have built 2500 ton Destroyer Leaders with larger than 4" that would have done as well,and there was no limit on ships that small.

2500 tonnes under the London naval treaty was a cruiser by definition.

Also there was destroyer tonnage limits.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

and I won't have people saying that the 5.1" and its mountings will be more expensive and a lot heavier than the 4.5" and 4.7" guns (and their associated mountings) that it would be substituted for.

Alright, alright, calm down. Just trying to have a discussion.

I can tell when I’m not wanted.

 

[ArtosStark]

Developing the 4.5" earlier, i.e. instead of the 5.1" is simpler because we know more about it and I won't have people saying that the 5.1" and its mountings will be more expensive and a lot heavier than the 4.5" and 4.7" guns (and their associated mountings) that it would be substituted for.

In regards to DP gun caliber, I would go with Tony William’s suggestion( http://quarryhs.co.uk/MCGWW2.html Also linked earlier by @edgeworthy ) and develop the 4.7”. Put it on the mounts eventually used for the 4.5”. Develop the 62 lb shell that they later developed anyway. Performance not far off the 5.25” but lighter, faster firing and faster train and elevation.

That said, the actual caliber used is not the biggest issue. Just getting a good example in service and reducing the proliferation of caliber would be a worthy goal.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Alright, alright, calm down. Just trying to have a discussion.

I can tell when I’m not wanted.

It's not anyone specifically. I decided that it was more trouble than it was worth.

 

[marathag]

2500 tonnes under the London naval treaty was a cruiser by definition.

Also there was destroyer tonnage limits.

Actual tonnage. These are '1849' tons, as permitted.
With Helium in the fuel tanks.. and maybe resting on a sand bar.
UK could build 24,000 tons worth of these sub '1850' ton Destroyers, per Treaty.

 

[jsb]

Actual tonnage. These are '1849' tons, as permitted.
With Helium in the fuel tanks.. and maybe resting on a sand bar.
UK could build 24,000 tons worth of these sub '1850' ton Destroyers, per Treaty.

If they are willing to cheat and spend money unlike OTL then why negotiate the treaty in the first place? Why 2500 not just more 6000t CLs?

 

[marathag]

If they are willing to cheat and spend money unlike OTL then why negotiate the treaty in the first place? Why 2500 not just more 6000t CLs?

Then we circle back to the fact that the light RN CLs were mostly terrible, compared to the Destroyer Leaders that the US, Japanese, French and even Dutch were doing.

 

[naraic]

Then we circle back to the fact that the light RN CLs were mostly terrible, compared to the Destroyer Leaders that the US, Japanese, French and even Dutch were doing.

Well i wouldn't compare RN light cruisers to destroyer leaders however I will acknowledge that average Royal Navy light cruiser did suffer from the attempts of the Royal Navy to get as many hulls in service as they could for a given amount of funds or treaty allowance.

They were comfortably a step above destroyer leaders though.

Actual tonnage. These are '1849' tons, as permitted.
With Helium in the fuel tanks.. and maybe resting on a sand bar.
UK could build 24,000 tons worth of these sub '1850' ton Destroyers, per Treaty.

Also that 24,000 tons would have taken 24,000 tons out of the normal destroyer allowance (which brings us back to the UK preference for as many hulls as possible out of allowances for obvious reasons).

 

[jsb]

Then we circle back to the fact that the light RN CLs were mostly terrible, compared to the Destroyer Leaders that the US, Japanese, French and even Dutch were doing.

Terrible?
Arethusa class or Leander-class?
v
US - none of similar size in the huge gap from Omaha (would lose to leander) to Atlanta (1941 ship very AA focused)?
IJN - What CLs they are all old or huge? Sendai class?
French - La Galissonnière? One more gun for a bit bigger?
Dutch - Java or Tromp class, IMO both would lose?

 

[marathag]

Tromp matches Arethusa at half the tonnage
Le Fantasque stomps.
Somers matches at 1/3rd the tons
Asashio overmatches at half the tons

 

[jsb]

Tromp matches Arethusa at half the tonnage

15mm v 2.25" belt.... no heavy AA v 4" guns... 2 v 4 shafts...

Le Fantasque stomps.

5x 5.5" in open single mounts v 6/8 6" in mounts.....? It's a big DD v CL unless it runs it will die?

Somers matches at 1/3rd the tons

6x 5/38 v 6/8 6".....not going to win a daytime surface fight......

Asashio overmatches at half the tons

Again 127mm v 6" only ends one way?

 

[CV(N)-6]

15mm v 2.25" belt.... no heavy AA v 4" guns... 2 v 4 shafts...
5x 5.5" in open single mounts v 6/8 6" in mounts.....? It's a big DD v CL unless it runs it will die?
6x 5/38 v 6/8 6".....not going to win a daytime surface fight......
Again 127mm v 6" only ends one way?

This. That’s why the Italians built the Giussano and Cardona classes to counter the c-t’s and not Navigatoris on roids, why the USN built Atlanta’s and not repeat Somers’ to counter the late thirties Japanese ships. 6” outclasses anything smaller and a cruiser is a far better shooting platform, as well as being a lot more durable vs a destroyer’s main guns than vice versa, even against the c-t’s.

 

[naraic]

Terrible?
Arethusa class or Leander-class?
v
US - none of similar size in the huge gap from Omaha (would lose to leander) to Atlanta (1941 ship very AA focused)?
IJN - What CLs they are all old or huge? Sendai class?
French - La Galissonnière? One more gun for a bit bigger?
Dutch - Java or Tromp class, IMO both would lose?

I believe it's a failure to appreciate the role of a light cruiser in the Royal Navy and comparing ships of the Leander or Arethusa class to 10,000 ton cruisers or 2.5k destroyer leaders who on paper are similar but majorly lacking for obvious reasons.

15mm v 2.25" belt.... no heavy AA v 4" guns... 2 v 4 shafts...
5x 5.5" in open single mounts v 6/8 6" in mounts.....? It's a big DD v CL unless it runs it will die?
6x 5/38 v 6/8 6".....not going to win a daytime surface fight......
Again 127mm v 6" only ends one way?

Agreed.

I might give the japanese destroyer credit for the Long Lance torpedo. But that's due a single weapon system no one outside japan knew about at the time.

 

[marathag]

Rate of fire is your friend in Naval Combat.
That 2.5" belt won't be doing much, except insure that HE fuzing will detonate.

5"/38 Common penetration good for that, around 10,000 yards. Farther than that, and it's deck armor, and the 5" does the 1" Deck just fine 15 rpm
French 5.5" 12 rpm and slightly better performance.
IJN 120mm not as good, 10 rpm, but thst wasn't the main weapon