Hard and firm limits on manufacturing 1900-1940 (Reference)

[perfectgeneral]

Leafing through Graces Guide (great wiki) I found that Vickers had a 66 foot lathe for turning guns. So a 15" gun would be limited to 52 calibers long. So a 15in/50 was probably the most they could build without a huge new machine tool order. A 16in/50 gun would be half a calibre too big. Alt histories should take such things into account so I propose this reference thread to "keep it real".

Given the limited length of the six pounder tank gun, I expect there were many limits imposed by the available equipment.

During both wars WS Universal Turret lathes No. 3, 4 & 5 did a lot of the work. How many lathes were in the UK, Canada and USA? What spans and maximum chuck diameters?

Hydraulic drop forging presses were required to form thick steel armour-plate. What was lost in the depression and what was left?

 

[perfectgeneral]

On estimating the warmaking potential of the world's regions - Page 8 - Axis History Forum

Relative and absolute war-making potential of major economies.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Lovely book published in 1916 on marine, aviation, automobile and static motor engineering:

Practical Hand Book of Gas, Oil and Steam Engines Stationary, Marine, Traction; Gas Burners, Oil Burners, Etc.; Farm, Traction, Automobile, Locomotive; A simple, practical and comprehensive book on the construction, operation and repair of all kinds

www.gutenberg.org

 

[RY1985]

Lovely book published in 1916 on marine, aviation, automobile and static motor engineering:

Practical Hand Book of Gas, Oil and Steam Engines Stationary, Marine, Traction; Gas Burners, Oil Burners, Etc.; Farm, Traction, Automobile, Locomotive; A simple, practical and comprehensive book on the construction, operation and repair of all kinds

www.gutenberg.org

On estimating the warmaking potential of the world's regions - Page 8 - Axis History Forum

Relative and absolute war-making potential of major economies.

Leafing through Graces Guide (great wiki) I found that Vickers had a 66 foot lathe for turning guns. So a 15" gun would be limited to 52 calibers long. So a 15in/50 was probably the most they could build without a huge new machine tool order. A 16in/50 gun would be half a calibre too big. Alt histories should take such things into account so I propose this reference thread to "keep it real".

Given the limited length of the six pounder tank gun, I expect there were many limits imposed by the available equipment.

During both wars WS Universal Turret lathes No. 3, 4 & 5 did a lot of the work. How many lathes were in the UK, Canada and USA? What spans and maximum chuck diameters?

Hydraulic drop forging presses were required to form thick steel armour-plate. What was lost in the depression and what was left?

This is a great resource and perfect for those who need a guide into what is possible when crafting ATL stories and writings about alternate war machines (artillery, tanks, cannons).

 

[Riain]

I love a good reference thread, I did one on British cold war stuff because the subject kept coming up and the facts had to be rediscovered over and over again.

 

[Riain]

I learned today that the Bismark had to be limited to 42,000t because of the turns and other limits in the Kiel canal and other civil engineering limits. Since displacement drives gun calibre (given the other 2 drivers of battleship construction speed and protection) Bismark could not have 16" guns so was 'limited' to 15".

 

[phx1138]

This is a fabulous, invaluable thread.

Thx to eveeybody for the links and info.

 

[jsb]

I learned today that the Bismark had to be limited to 42,000t because of the turns and other limits in the Kiel canal and other civil engineering limits. Since displacement drives gun calibre (given the other 2 drivers of battleship construction speed and protection) Bismark could not have 16" guns so was 'limited' to 15".

I'm not sure if they are willing to go with a more tonnage efficient design they should easily get 16" guns on 42"? Going for 4 main twins and a none DP 6"/105mm battery and high speed without a transom is about the worst possible weight saving? Are the 15" not just as much due to the French and Italians also going for 15" at the same time (and GB going for 14" on KVG) so it looked less threatening and less like the first 16" European ship (post 1 Jan 37 ignoring N&R as they are slow)?

 

[Riain]

I'm not sure if they are willing to go with a more tonnage efficient design they should easily get 16" guns on 42"? Going for 4 main twins and a none DP 6"/105mm battery and high speed without a transom is about the worst possible weight saving? Are the 15" not just as much due to the French and Italians also going for 15" at the same time (and GB going for 14" on KVG) so it looked less threatening and less like the first 16" European ship (post 1 Jan 37 ignoring N&R as they are slow)?

Perhaps if the Germans had won WW1 and kept their big navy they could have made such innovations between the wars. I suspect with the Treaty of Versailles limitations Germany dropped out of the ranks of naval innovators, so was stuck with obsolescent ideas such as 2 types of secondary guns and an obsolescent main gun calibre.