Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas
- Thread starter sts-200
- Start date
That was my thinking, and as they've got 9.2-inch weapons, there's none of the temptation to put them in a battle line against anything with big guns or heavy armour. They'd be closer to the battlecruiser idea as they could sink a light or heavy cruiser and run from anything bigger.
I don't have Springsharp or know how to use it, but I doubt you'd be able to protect her against 9.2-inch guns and have a good turn of speed (30 knots needed) and 8 x 9.2's on a 15,000 ton hull, you'd probably need an 8-inch belt at least and other protection which is going to drive weight and thus size and cost up (possibly around the 19 - 20,000 ton mark at which point everyone else is yelling about treaties). You'd want protection against 6-inch shells at least though.
Last edited:
That sounds about right, considering the Italians needed 15,000 tons to get 8 8" and an 8" belt and 32 knots - and this with their short range.
I noticed on the earlier shipbucket link that there were some specifications for an RN 9.2" cruiser design with 12 x 9.2" in three quad turrets.
"RN 1939 9.2in cruiser: 20,750tons, 700'wl x 84'; 154,00shp, 33kn; 3x4 9.2", 6x2 4.5in DP, 2x8 2pdrAA; 7" belt, 4" deck"
I wonder when the British started thinking in terms of quad turrets to save weight (probably after Strasbourg and Dunkerque) and if a design with 8 x 9.2" in two quad turrets might save enough weight to make say 15,000 - 17,000 tons? That might stay far enough away from battleships to avoid the treaty issues. Granted, the above specs are for a 20,750 ton ship with only a 7" belt, that in addition uses late 30s machinery. However, dropping a turret and reducing the speed to 30 knots might be enough.
I expect it would look like a smaller Strasbourg, or perhaps an OTL Deutschland with quad turrets depending on the selected layout. Either way, I expect the armor scheme is for a large immunity zone vs 6", a smaller one for 8", and either a very small or no immunity zone against 9.2".
Deleted member 94680
Why not 3x2 9.2” to save weight? It is only meant to be a cruiser-killer after all. Two forward, one aft double turrets with a secondary battery of 4”/4.5” type guns for AA. A broadside of 6x9.2” would be sufficiently weighty compared to 6” cruisers, even 7.5” or 8” opponents.
If anyone produces a 8x8” ship, I imagine the 9.2” would be able to outrun her if needed, but the nines should give her the range over eights anyway?
If anyone produces a 8x8” ship, I imagine the 9.2” would be able to outrun her if needed, but the nines should give her the range over eights anyway?
That's why they could filled perfectly the role of colonial guard
There's an important point, because at this level, honestly guys the battlecruisers are reaching its own classification and actually you would agree with me in a small fixing for the current terminology. I have various ideas that i wrote some time ago, wait for it. But anyway, the thing is that is more easy to build a heavy cruiser with decent displacement ( at 15.000 ton limit) than a battlecruiser that is more of a light battleship ( a useful one, with the correct balance) that is just by now too valuable to spare for other lesser activities, that can be made by cheaper (numerous) and effective task forces, of course maybe am committing a mistake.
Well, for my part i was thinking on the scale of the old armored cruisers (like the Giorgios Averoff or Rurik 1909 version), 7.9 in belt and just on the 10k ton limit.
Yes but actually funny thing was that most of the treaty cruisers were never expected to resist damage beyond the 6in, but as can be seen that didn't stop the building race by any means.
Last edited:
It is interesting that the British, who thought they needed 45 cruisers for trade protection and 25 for fleet work ended the OTL war with 67 light cruisers for the fleet and few if any for trade protection. This suggests the immediate need is for as many trade protection cruisers as they can get, so a batch of 6-10 Arethusas (6 x 6" in a 3x2 configuration), as well as a pair of larger, flagship cruisers for starters. If it tops out around 320,000-330,000 tons of new cruisers, there might be six 15,000 ton 9.2" cruisers and forty 6,000 ton 6" cruisers. That actually meets the numerical requirement for 45 such ships.
They could also sacrifice numbers by building some of the trade cruisers as the more heavily armed Leanders (8 x 6" in 4 twins). A mix of six Warriors (9.2" 15,000 ton hypothetical CA), ten Leanders, and 28 Arethusas would be 333,000 tons and 44 total trade protection cruisers.
That's the entire point, at least for me, and yes 3x2 is sufficient i think, does anyone see it too?
That's a good question, NAVWEAPS!!!
SsgtC
Banned
IIRC, last time I looked it up, the 9.2" had a slight range advantage over the American 8"/55. But it was less than a thousand yards difference. And once the USN developed super heavy shells for their 8" guns, the 9.2" (at least the last model used by the RN) didn't really have much of an advantage. A newly designed gun probably would be better, but it's a question of how much better
Frankly, I think the difference is academic. CA fire control wasn't really up to the task of hitting things past 25,000 yards or so, not even American aimbot systems.
Well, i still think that all can be reduce to elevation but i could be wrong again.
Yeah... putting that aside, actually we should be talking about rate of fire rather than range, because the battle ranges will be determine from now on by the torpedo. So is a question of fight or run.
Last edited:
RE quadruple turrets the French quad turrets were kind of a 'cheat' as they basically mounted two dual mounts next to each other on a single separate housing, it was the plan for the Lyon/Normandie type ships but you'd need a beamy ship to mount such a turret. More beam = reduced speed, and you then need a longer hull to counteract the beam which will then require more machinery as your longer, wider hull is now heavier= more cost and larger docks.
Quad turrets in the early 20's are not what the RN needs. It needs dual mounts and not ones with silly HA requirements that never worked.
Re the range of the 9.2 you're either going to need new guns or start making and using the http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-51_mk12.php weapons which were good, very long ranged weapons, give them sufficient elevation and you could use them at longer ranges than most cruisers could dream of shooting at. If you'd be hitting at those kinds of ranges is a different matter entirely of course.
Otherwise you'd be relying on stocks of http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-50_mk11.php which are an older, heavier weapon. A newer gun might be lighter and suffer less barrel erosion (the mk11 was a pretty high velocity gun which wore out rather quickly) but making guns is very expensive, one of the most expensive parts of making a warship as they have to be cast and everything in a very specific way which takes time and can only be made in certain places and then have to be transported to the ship. Leaving the RN with 3 options
1 - The cheap option. Use the stocks of older heavier guns and have, at best an adequate weapon thats going to get old fast and need replacing in the future.
2 - The More pricey option. Use the Mk12 but you'd have to make more at extra cost
3 - The expensive option. Create a new gun that's lighter and probably better than the other two weapons, but is very expensive.
Quad turrets in the early 20's are not what the RN needs. It needs dual mounts and not ones with silly HA requirements that never worked.
Re the range of the 9.2 you're either going to need new guns or start making and using the http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-51_mk12.php weapons which were good, very long ranged weapons, give them sufficient elevation and you could use them at longer ranges than most cruisers could dream of shooting at. If you'd be hitting at those kinds of ranges is a different matter entirely of course.
Otherwise you'd be relying on stocks of http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-50_mk11.php which are an older, heavier weapon. A newer gun might be lighter and suffer less barrel erosion (the mk11 was a pretty high velocity gun which wore out rather quickly) but making guns is very expensive, one of the most expensive parts of making a warship as they have to be cast and everything in a very specific way which takes time and can only be made in certain places and then have to be transported to the ship. Leaving the RN with 3 options
1 - The cheap option. Use the stocks of older heavier guns and have, at best an adequate weapon thats going to get old fast and need replacing in the future.
2 - The More pricey option. Use the Mk12 but you'd have to make more at extra cost
3 - The expensive option. Create a new gun that's lighter and probably better than the other two weapons, but is very expensive.
Last edited:
SsgtC
Banned
Particularly in this ATL. Stavanger has shown the need for more turrets, not less (considering the sheer number of turrets that were burnt out in the battle)
Indeed, the French also started looking at quad turrets because of their small drydock/slipway sizes, they limited how long the French ships could be and its why they started development on the quad turret. If not for WW1 the Lyon/Normadie types would have probably seen service with 12 and 16 x 13.5 inch guns respectively.
And the French quad thing initially (pre WW1) was more out of a need to overcome the limitations of their dockyard sizes and was certainly a novel approach to the problem. That and they were unwilling/unable to get the Government to try and push for bigger weapons (considering how often the French Govt changed and anyone in charge that the Admiralty changed its kinda expected) so instead of bigger guns, MOAR on a fairly small hull. Because I doubt that any ship afloat would like to have 16 x 13.5 inch guns firing at them.
Last edited:
Certainly they won't exist in their OTL form, although a big cruiser/light battleship may still have some appeal.
German warship development will be going down a very different path - still with limits, but rather different ones.
She is interned, yes.
However, she ran aground following battle damage, and won't be salvageable until the end of the war - by which time she'll have spent some months rusting on a mudbank.
Repairable - quite possibly.
Worth repairing? - Hmmm.
If the British don't think it is worth it, I wonder if somebody else might be interested. Maybe the Dutch buy it for scrap and see what they can do, sort of like the Chinese experience OTL with their ex-Soviet carrier?
On second thought, probably not. I expect there are bound to be a lot of surplus warships available and in better condition, although not as new. Although I doubt the German fleet is getting eliminated as in OTL, I expect it is getting cut so there will be ex-British and ex-German ships for sale, although maybe not any as new as Glorious. although thinking about the Dutch some more, given the main reason for their navy is defending the Dutch East Indies, they would probably prefer British ships since they have more fuel and can steam farther.
The big problem with everyone assuming that the Lexingtons will have their otl armor is very simple, in otl they only had
Hmmm maybe pay the Dutch to float her out to a drydock where she can "properly" interned. On the other hand with Britain less broke than otl and treaties almost bound to happen building a purpose built carrier instead of converting her would probably be a much more effective use of limited allotted carrier tonnage