Cressy class cruisers are uniform 9.2"

PMN1

On this thread here

www.tapatalk.com

All the World's Battlecruisers-Alternative Lord Nelsons.

Hello (Sorry, posted this question already in another forum but want to hear some opinions here) The Lord Nelson preliminary desings include a number
www.tapatalk.com www.tapatalk.com

on Alternate Lord Nelsons, John French has noted

In 1897, the DNO, Captain Kane, made a suggestion for the Cressy class cruisers, then being designed, that power loading technology had advanced to a level where a 9.2-inch gun could be utilized as a reliable rapid fire weapon that it could replace the 6-inch in the rapid fire role, allowing the Cressy’s to carry a uniform armament of 9.2-inch guns. This very forward thinking suggestion was rejected,


So what would be the implications of a uniform 9.2" Cressy?

What happens when what would become the Monmouth class get designed?

What does an all uniform 9.2" gun cruiser do for battleships?
 

Peg Leg Pom

PMN1 said:
On this thread here

In 1897, the DNO, Captain Kane, made a suggestion for the Cressy class cruisers, then being designed, that power loading technology had advanced to a level where a 9.2-inch gun could be utilized as a reliable rapid fire weapon that it could replace the 6-inch in the rapid fire role, allowing the Cressy’s to carry a uniform armament of 9.2-inch guns. This very forward thinking suggestion was rejected,


So what would be the implications of a uniform 9.2" Cressy?

What happens when what would become the Monmouth class get designed?

What does an all uniform 9.2" gun cruiser do for battleships?
Click to expand...
All further armoured and protected cruiser class ships would have universal batteries.

The next logical step is for the King Edward VII class battleships to have their single 9.2" secondary guns replaced by single 12".
 
Last edited:

steamboy

The size and weight of the 9.2's of the time would probably mean that you'd end out with a layout more akin to the Defence class, with broadside turrets mounting individual guns, perhaps 3 per side, giving you a 5 gun broadside if there was the room available.

The Monmouth/county's would probably look something more like the Russian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogatyr-class_cruiser but with say a pair of twin 6-inch turrets on each broadside giving you an 8-gun broadside. The problem is that the RN really didn't like the turrets on the Monmouth class, they found that they were too slow to traverse and were difficult to lay onto a target as they didn't rotate smoothly but rather jumped. The experiment with the twin 6-inch mounts on the class could be credited with why the RN didn't really adopt turret mounts again for 6-inch guns until the 20's. Shield mounts are lighter, easier to build, easier to man and move and by their nature, less cramped. Yes the men get wet and are exposed to splinters, but Jack Tar's a tough old thing and what's a little hardship for the men? Can't have them getting soft!

Probably with the Cressy's you might see something akin to the Black Prince layout, 6 guns in individual mounts with one on the bow/stern and wing turrets, giving you a 4-gun broadside, and then 6-inch guns amidships. In the late 1890's the 6-inch gun is far faster firing and at the ranges the ships fought at, you're going to be hitting more often that it makes up for the larger shells bursting charge. And with continuious aim you could fire it far far more often and it was more accurate. One could argue that the 6-inch guns on the pre-dreadnoughts of the time were really their main guns. They'd smother an enemy in Common and AP shells, silencing their guns whilst any 12 or 13.5-inch rifles fired far more slowly and less accurately, but if they hit, they'd do major damage, but the job of silencing and crippling the enemy would be done by the 6-inch guns.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1538439214336974850

This is a 13.5-inch mount for a Royal Soverign class battleship, as you can see these are exposed mountings but you can see how they were loaded and fired, and yes, the deckchair on the left is for the chap doing the spotting for fall of shot. To reload the mount MUST traverse to point forwards, then traverse back to the target. All round firing wasn't introduced on Battleships until they were several ships into the Majestic class. The 9.2's had all round firing but the turrets are, basically like those on the Monmouth, slow to traverse (steam powered) not very accurate for aiming and at the time of service, the gunnery range is still going to be thinking that 4,000 yards is bloody long range and that something like 2,000 yards is far more sensible. And at that range you'd be better off with a larger number of 6-inch rounds being vomited over a target. Its why the RN built the very large https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diadem-class_cruiser because they could absolutely drown a target in 6-inch gunfire.

You're talking 5 - 6 RPM (with 4 RPM being the average) vs 2 RPM being the average for the 6-inch vs the 9.2
 
Last edited:

historyfool

Peg Leg Pom said:
All further armoured and protected cruiser class ships would have universal batteries.

The next logical step is for the King Edward VII class battleships to have their single 9.2" secondary guns replaced by single 12".
Click to expand...
Would they though? I mean the proposal was to replace smaller QF guns with larger QF guns, not quick-firing guns with heavy guns. At this point most navies saw QF guns as just as important for battleships as the heavies, but with different roles. ( post Sino-Japanese war some considered the QF guns actually more important) So it is still a signifcant step from a uniform QF battery (which btw already was a thing with cruisers before this proposal but at.times when the largest QF guns were 6 inchers) to an all heavy battery until the rate of fire for the 12 inch catches up.

OTOH it is possible that some nations build a battleship with a uniform QF battery as intermediate step. E.g. Germany used the largest QF gun they could build (24cm) as main gun for some PDN classes, because some of the naval establishment saw it as good enough for the heavy role and a possibility to avoid wasting tonnage on heavy guns. From there it is a much smaller step to a larger main battery as you don't loose QF guns in exchange for more main battery guns.
 

Peg Leg Pom

historyfool said:
Would they though? I mean the proposal was to replace smaller QF guns with larger QF guns, not quick-firing guns with heavy guns. At this point most navies saw QF guns as just as important for battleships as the heavies, but with different roles. ( post Sino-Japanese war some considered the QF guns actually more important) So it is still a signifcant step from a uniform QF battery (which btw already was a thing with cruisers before this proposal but at.times when the largest QF guns were 6 inchers) to an all heavy battery until the rate of fire for the 12 inch catches up.

OTOH it is possible that some nations build a battleship with a uniform QF battery as intermediate step. E.g. Germany used the largest QF gun they could build (24cm) as main gun for some PDN classes, because some of the naval establishment saw it as good enough for the heavy role and a possibility to avoid wasting tonnage on heavy guns. From there it is a much smaller step to a larger main battery as you don't loose QF guns in exchange for more main battery guns.
Click to expand...
The King Edward VII's would still have a significant secondary battery of 10 x 6" guns if the 4 single 9.2" guns were replaced by 12 " guns and the advantage in spotting the fall of shot of a universal heavy battery would have been proved by the armoured cruisers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top