Royal Navy Alternate Cruiser designs post WW1

Sorry if this has been covered already, but is the initial sticking point the Hawkins class with 7.5" guns? Could these be replaced with BL6" Mk.XII guns, encouraging a cruiser definition of a ship armed with up to 6" guns? Resulting in an earlier proto-Leander design replacing the Counties. And how do the triple 6" and twin 8" turrets compare in size and weight? I can imagine the York class with three triple 6" turrets as an earlier Crown Colony?
Well, the twin 8” is actually a fair bit heavier than the triple 6”. However, I don’t think anyone is going to go for this. 6” was just considered not enough gun for a 10,000-ton ship. Navies didn’t go for big light cruisers until the London Naval Treaty meant they had no choice, and the Brits in particular were only dragged into it by the US and Japan.
 
Something valuable I’d like to add, not sure if is been covered already.

The British weren’t looking at 6” armed cruisers because they really wanted them, they were looking into them because it was the bare minimum they surmised would be able to do the job of a cruiser somewhat effectively. They were a complete compromise because it was the only possible way Britain could conceivably come out of the LNT with more cruisers than any other large signatory power, aka the US and Japan.

They tried (successfully) to convince Japan and America on the fact that while Britain would get more cruisers, a higher percentage of those ships would be less capable and lower tonnage 6” armed warships while both other nations would get less cruisers but a larger percentage of those ships would be the more useful 8” armed ships, therefore it would be fair.

Any serious planning before the LNT for 6” cruisers was largely based on the optimistic assumption that they would be able to convince everybody else to be onboard with a CL/CA tonnage split in such a way in the upcoming negotiations.
 
Something valuable I’d like to add, not sure if is been covered already.

The British weren’t looking at 6” armed cruisers because they really wanted them, they were looking into them because it was the bare minimum they surmised would be able to do the job of a cruiser somewhat effectively. They were a complete compromise because it was the only possible way Britain could conceivably come out of the LNT with more cruisers than any other large signatory power, aka the US and Japan.

They tried (successfully) to convince Japan and America on the fact that while Britain would get more cruisers, a higher percentage of those ships would be less capable and lower tonnage 6” armed warships while both other nations would get less cruisers but a larger percentage of those ships would be the more useful 8” armed ships, therefore it would be fair.

Any serious planning before the LNT for 6” cruisers was largely based on the optimistic assumption that they would be able to convince everybody else to be onboard with a CL/CA tonnage split in such a way in the upcoming negotiations.

Something odd is mentioned here: 8 inch gun cruisers being called "Useful", which they were certainly not. The 8 inch gun was simply a political choice, rather than a practical one. The gun was too big to allow rapid fire and therefor was similar to the even bigger clumsy and slow rate of fire battleship guns, unable to effectively engage targets at short ranges, which was the cruiser's domain. The cruiser's weapon of choice (Until treaties came into play) was the QF gun type of calibers up to 6 inch, or around. This made these ships multi purpose in their nature, capable of doing a variety of jobs, unlike the 8 inch cruiser, which basically was limited in a role, due to its lack of capabilities. Most navies, except the Royal Navy, considered the 8 inch cruiser a substitute for the battleship, which was not allowed to be constructed due to treaty demands.

The Royal Navy in the interbellum demanded a large number of cruisers, which was restricted to allowed tonnage, so the British were not at all happy with the big maximum sized heavy 8 inch cruiser, which took up too much of the tonnage allowed to build. What was wanted was a multi purpose vessel capable of operating on its own oversea and in a trade protection role, something the Heavy cruiser could hardly perform in, due to its larger size and slower rate of fire guns. In reality the County's were deployed as such, but did nothing more a smaller cruiser could do as well, so the point is the allowed tonnage was not used wisely.
 
It sounds like what they needed was a large number of 15,000 ton cruisers with mixed batteries of intermediate calibre and 6 inch guns along the line of the Minotaur class Armoured Cruisers.
 
It sounds like what they needed was a large number of 15,000 ton cruisers with mixed batteries of intermediate calibre and 6 inch guns along the line of the Minotaur class Armoured Cruisers.
Mixed batteries are a bad idea because of the implications for fire control. Hawkins was supposed to carry 2 x 9.2-inch and 6 x 6-inch until plans for directors were added (this was new for cruisers). The larger guns of ships like Hawkins and Furutaka, which were still thoroughly light cruisers, was simply part of a main battery arms race that the British thought the Germans had started. Once 8-inch guns came into widespread use, the range and power (shells were twice the weight) was not something you could reasonably give up.
 

Deleted member 94680

Something odd is mentioned here: 8 inch gun cruisers being called "Useful", which they were certainly not. The 8 inch gun was simply a political choice, rather than a practical one.

What do you mean by “political choice”?

Didn’t the 8” come into service because it was “better” than the 7” or 7.5”? I mean, once the British built the Hawkins-class with their 7.5”s all it took was one class of 8”-armed cruisers built by a Peer, and technically the Hawkins are outclassed. It was always going to happen, given the nature of naval arms race building patterns. Your 7.5” cruisers may well hoover up all the 6” cruisers and destroyers they can find, but an 8” cruiser will have them on the ropes.
 
8" isn't the UK's choice by doctrine. It is the US and Japanese choice. Clearly the UK choice is 7.5".

The UK response to a cruiser caliber race pre WNT is a battle cruiser. The mid sized guns are filling a gap in between and there would probably be little need for them.

Once the WNT exists 8" is the only acceptable caliber for a 10k cruiser no matter how it is armoured or engined. That is purely political.
 

Deleted member 94680

8" isn't the UK's choice by doctrine. It is the US and Japanese choice. Clearly the UK choice is 7.5".

The UK response to a cruiser caliber race pre WNT is a battle cruiser. The mid sized guns are filling a gap in between and there would probably be little need for them.

Once the WNT exists 8" is the only acceptable caliber for a 10k cruiser no matter how it is armoured or engined. That is purely political.

Do you mean a choice enforced by the politics of having the WNT?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jsb
Yes. Very much so.

What reason would the British have otherwise to choose 8". It is such a weird size for them. If they were looking for a sub-battle cruiser reply to the planned Japanese and US 8" cruisers some sort of 15k cruiser with 9.2" or a further developed 7.5" would make sense.
 
Does anyone think the Hawkins were better with 5 (actually 7 )handworked 7.5" guns than with 4 x twin handworked 6". Without radar and powered mounts hitting at more than virtually point blank was a lottery especially in any kind of sea. A 6" hit is better than a 7.5 or 8" miss
 
Last edited:
the Hawkins were better with 5 hand worked 7.5" guns than with 4 x twin handworks 6"

Hawkins_class_cruiser_diagrams_Brasseys_1923.jpg

OTL, 7 (6 broadside) single 7.5" replaced with 5 twins 6"? With the side mounts removed to save weight? Maybe move farward the 4" to the sides?
 

Deleted member 94680

A, what, Air Cruiser? Colonial Seaplane Carrier?

I like it though, but what drives the decision to build so many flattops so early?
 
Kill the heavy cruiser before they get built and concentrate on large numbers of light cruisers. Britain's problem is raiders not real warships.
 
Kill the heavy cruiser before they get built and concentrate on large numbers of light cruisers. Britain's problem is raiders not real warships.
And when someone inevitably sends a real warship out as a raider, what then?

The advantage of the 8” gun is in shooting up other cruisers. Particularly on the 10,000-ton limit it was practically impossible to provide a ship that could withstand the gun. It also meshed well with director fire control, enabling 8” ships to practically as well as nominally outrange 6” ships. On the trade routes, Britain’s focus in the 1920s due to the mass of C and D-class cruisers for fleet work, the 8” cruiser makes sense, and in fact the Royal Navy spent a lot of energy to get more affordable 8” cruisers for a Navy people keep saying didn’t like it.
 
Last edited:
At the time of the Washington treaty the answer is Hood, Renown, Repulse and Tiger with CVs as scouts.
 
Last edited:
At the time of the Washington treaty the answer is Hood, Renown, Repulse and Tiger with CVs as scouts.
That’s four ships, a number which at the time was expected to become woefully inadequate in a hurry. The Royal Navy had intelligence on US Navy cruiser-building plans in 1920-1921, and the thought of the US ordering thirty 8” cruisers was quite alarming. And yes, the US Navy tried to get that authorized. Even the reduced plans had eighteen 8” cruisers over three years.
 
Top