Royal Navy Alternate Cruiser designs post WW1

Deleted member 94680

For those better educated in the subject, is there an OTL case of a ship having its hand loaded guns replaced by autoloaders? Is it possible to convert a hand loaded DP gun to autoloading i.e. keeping the gun barrel and performance whilst changing to cased rounds and an autoloading mechanism to improve RoF?
 
For those better educated in the subject, is there an OTL case of a ship having its hand loaded guns replaced by autoloaders? Is it possible to convert a hand loaded DP gun to autoloading i.e. keeping the gun barrel and performance whilst changing to cased rounds and an autoloading mechanism to improve RoF?
Not sure that's really possible, unless you go for a very questionable post war refit with new mounts that just happen to use the same barrels for logistics and cost reasons.... And the mount will be the more expensive part compared to the actual gun.....

I would add that swapping to say 3"OTO from a hand loaded 3" did happen on plenty of old 3rd rate ships but we are talking new mounts and guns......

Edit to add what do you count as autoloaders? If you count 3 and less then it becomes easier...
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk27-33-34.php would work but its still a new barrel....
 
Last edited:
For those better educated in the subject, is there an OTL case of a ship having its hand loaded guns replaced by autoloaders? Is it possible to convert a hand loaded DP gun to autoloading i.e. keeping the gun barrel and performance whilst changing to cased rounds and an autoloading mechanism to improve RoF?

That's a good question, Stenz.

We do have the examples Renown, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant had their hand loaded casemate secondaries replaced by BD mounts that used the 4.5in fixed round, but they were still hand loaded. Comte de Grasse maybe? The original design was for 9 x 6in, but she was completed post-war with autoloader 5in, IIRC...

I'll have to get a better look at hear when I'm close to my sources...

Regards,

Edit: Checked the French 5in Model 1948 on NavWeaps. It was only good for 15-18 rounds per minute, so it was likely hand-loaded as well...
 
Last edited:
The Army 3.7 AAA gun was retro fitted late in the war with the "Mollins Fuze setter" MFS No 11" which automatically set the time fuse and loaded the gun. upping the rate of fire from ten to twenty rounds per minute on the Mk IIIa. If this could be fitted top the naval 4" gun then you have a formidable weight of fire.
 
For those better educated in the subject, is there an OTL case of a ship having its hand loaded guns replaced by autoloaders? Is it possible to convert a hand loaded DP gun to autoloading i.e. keeping the gun barrel and performance whilst changing to cased rounds and an autoloading mechanism to improve RoF?
Automatic guns and mounts didn't appear in traditional DP calibers until the 1950s, and they were very heavy compared to WWII era guns and mounts. The 5"/38 cruiser twins weighed about 50 tons compared to 5"/54 automatic singles that weighed about 60 tons. When you move to automatics, the limiting factors on the design are no longer crew fatigue but overall system weight. A heavier mount will generally fire heavier rounds more rapidly and more reliably, by degrees. It also means that you're no longer limited by what the gun crew can lift, so heavier separate or fixed ammunition can be used. If you want to reuse guns, that would be possible, but manually loaded DP guns might not be the kind of gun you want for an automatic mount and those guns will be the only part of the DP mount you would be able to reuse.
 
If they were going for barrage AA fire it would have made more sense to install more 4" guns with a useful rate of fire, say 12 of them instead of the 4 the counties originally got.

Back to hypothetical 6" example.

With 6" you can engage targets at much longer range. 4" QF Mark V has the range of some 15 000 meters, 6" Mark XXIII some 23300 meters. With an aircraft approaching 500km/h (140m/s) that means some 7800 meters or 56 seconds of additional engagement time. That would mean possibility of some 10 rounds from a twin turret against the aerial target before 4" can even engage. And of course the 6" can fire on shorter range as long as elevation gives you possibilities, which is in case of torpedo bombers quite long time, in case of medium bombers lower. On engagement ranges and demands on rapid training of mounts one has to remember that angular speed of targets coming towards you are rather low, and the same predictor equipment used to direct 4" guns can be used to direct 6" guns just by translating results.

Besides, 6" DP would not have replaced secondary armament, but supplement it.

But, back to more interesting calculations, what were the comparative costs of a County, Leander, Arethusa and Tribal classes? Could there have been possibilities of rationalization here?

EDIT:

With theoretical 28000 meter range of 8" Mark VIII the engagement time advantage compared to 4" against a target flying towards you at 500km/h increases to some 140 seconds. Of course, if you wanted to engage a target coming at you flying at 500km/h you would have to detect it some 30km's out.
 
Last edited:
The Army 3.7 AAA gun was retro fitted late in the war with the "Mollins Fuze setter" MFS No 11" which automatically set the time fuse and loaded the gun. upping the rate of fire from ten to twenty rounds per minute on the Mk IIIa. If this could be fitted top the naval 4" gun then you have a formidable weight of fire.

Quite a complicated looking beast it might not have survived a life at sea.
2c-37-inch-gun-edit by Stuart, on Flickr
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

Not sure that's really possible ...

We do have the examples Renown, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant had their hand loaded casemate secondaries replaced by BD mounts that used the 4.5in fixed round...

I'll have to get a better look at hear when I'm close to my sources...

Automatic guns and mounts didn't appear in traditional DP calibers until the 1950s ...

Thanks guys, good information from people better educated than I.

Seems like it wasn’t a reasonable proposition, OTL. I hadn’t managed to find anything in my brief research but it seems there wasn't anything to find.

I suppose the best chance is to have a new mount, broadly similar in weight, with the same turret ring size and replace the old with the new.
 
upload_2019-7-2_19-45-31.jpeg
upload_2019-7-2_19-45-42.jpeg

If you go complicated why not full Green mace?
 
Back to hypothetical 6" example.

With 6" you can engage targets at much longer range. 4" QF Mark V has the range of some 15 000 meters, 6" Mark XXIII some 23300 meters. With an aircraft approaching 500km/h (140m/s) that means some 7800 meters or 56 seconds of additional engagement time. That would mean possibility of some 10 rounds from a twin turret against the aerial target before 4" can even engage. And of course the 6" can fire on shorter range as long as elevation gives you possibilities, which is in case of torpedo bombers quite long time, in case of medium bombers lower. On engagement ranges and demands on rapid training of mounts one has to remember that angular speed of targets coming towards you are rather low, and the same predictor equipment used to direct 4" guns can be used to direct 6" guns just by translating results.

Besides, 6" DP would not have replaced secondary armament, but supplement it.

But, back to more interesting calculations, what were the comparative costs of a County, Leander, Arethusa and Tribal classes? Could there have been possibilities of rationalization here?

EDIT:

With theoretical 28000 meter range of 8" Mark VIII the engagement time advantage compared to 4" against a target flying towards you at 500km/h increases to some 140 seconds. Of course, if you wanted to engage a target coming at you flying at 500km/h you would have to detect it some 30km's out.
Should I bring up the white elephants of the British Cruisers?

1024px-Engels_vlootbezoek_aan_Rotterdam_De_Engelse_kruiser_Tiger_loopt_binnen%2C_Bestanddeelnr_915-5467.jpg
 
Well, I suppose one could fit it within a turret :)

It could have been fitted with a gunhouse but it was still a very complicated beast and might not have fared well at sea. The RN with some exceptions seemed to value reliability and simplicity above automation partly from getting stung by overcomplicated mountings that didnt fare well in service however well they worked in trials.
 
Should I bring up the white elephants of the British Cruisers?

1024px-Engels_vlootbezoek_aan_Rotterdam_De_Engelse_kruiser_Tiger_loopt_binnen%2C_Bestanddeelnr_915-5467.jpg

Several years ago on the Warships1 boards, a gent named Peter Parkinson posted about having served on Tiger. He had mentioned on several occasions the 6in armament was very effective IF well maintained. He offered this example:

Peter Parkinson said:
At the subic bay practice area we were invited to do a surface shoot with a USN Baltimore cruiser against a disused monastry on a hill side.
The USN cruiser fired for nearly an hour with 8 inch shells. All the hillside was covered in explosions and smoke. When the smoke disappeared the monastry was still there.
We fired four sighting rounds from one barrel on A turret. The fourth round hit the target. We then fired 9 more rounds and destroyed the target.
THis was at over 20000 yds range at a speed of 16 knots using the optical sight in A system director and an AFCB 10 in A TS.

As to the ships themselves, in my opinion the helicopter conversion was a mistake and shouldn't have been undertaken. Let the gun cruisers be gun cruisers and have their escorts provide the helicopters.


Regards,
 
Should I bring up the white elephants of the British Cruisers?
Can RN say yes please can we have it off Crete, May 1941 should impress LW....?
If this could be used for AA... (152/45 Canet model 1892). QF Mark N5 was a perfect example of goldplating with +80 elevation, 20rds ROF etc.
There is a huge difference for land AA fire to disturb high altitude bombers and actually protecting ships... just how good was the Finish AA at actually shooting anything down?
As to the ships themselves, in my opinion the helicopter conversion was a mistake and shouldn't have been undertaken. Let the gun cruisers be gun cruisers and have their escorts provide the helicopters.
Lets face it they should have simply kept more light fleets for the same price and never built them.....
 
There is a huge difference for land AA fire to disturb high altitude bombers and actually protecting ships... just how good was the Finish AA at actually shooting anything down?

6" artilllery disturbing high altitude bombers and torpedo bombers coming at you would have been very useful for RN in many situations during the WW II. Considering even historical RN Mark XXI turrets onboard Leanders and Arethusas had +60 degrees elevation, that would have been good enough for supplementary AA use with mechanical time fuzes and predictor equipment. Might be even better all-around guns than 5,25", which had maximum elevation of +70 and disappointing ROF compared to what was expected. Basically Arethusas instead of Didos, a good trade? Could engage targets farther with 6" guns and closer with 2x 2 4" DP guns (on one side)?

Canets, operating just with manual calculating devices, and igniferous fuzes, managed to shoot down a few Soviet bombers and one fighter, which is pretty good success rate for improvisation. In general Finnish AA was fairly good for equipment it had to use, for example Bofors 40mm needed 392 shots per downed aircraft (128) during the Winter War, of course the Soviet aircraft were flimsy compared to Luftwaffe ones.

And, as mentioned many times, only Kamikazes need to be shot down, rest have to be disturbed enough to throw off their aim.
 
Last edited:
Lets face it they should have simply kept more light fleets for the same price and never built them.....

I'll reiterate, if you want a good account of the light fleets in combat, read John Landsdown's With the Carriers in Korea (an editor had to add the "South East Asia" to the title; Mr Landsdown knows quite well where Korea is!)
It's an eye opener, good insight into RN carrier operations postwar.

The light fleets, with their larger elevators compared to the wartime armored deck carriers, should have been a place-holder for the RN until they could have gotten the financials together and built some CVAs in the 50s.

As for the cruisers, the wartime built hulls were just too d@mn small. They should have never been utilized, the three Swiftsures commissioned should have been the last of them. What they should have built to bridge the gap between conventional light cruisers and guided missiles was one of the Minotaur designs

Gw7RSLz.jpg


They would have provided the fleet with real AA firepower and large ships suitable for showing the flag on foreign stations and task force flagships. Let the light fleets and the CVAs focus on aviation; put the admirals on another ship so they can focus on fleet command.

But RN finances and decision making postwar is mostly a comedy of errors, poor decisions and good money thrown after bad, not something a financially strapped nation needed at the time.

My additional thoughts,
 
Top