Let's hope Storeyville can use these new ships to extract some payback from Bismark and Tirpitz.
El Pip said:Admiral Quelch is quite clearly a visionary who's wise words should have been headed in the inter-war years.
Vann the Red said:Splendid to see so much tonnage laid down at once. Long, long past due. It is a testament to the popularity of the crown that there hasn't been more grumbling over the state of the Navy. What game level ships are these, Draco?
Director said:Improving and replenishing the Royal Navy can only be for the better. In our timeline, construction of cruisers and battleships was curtailed because the armor and gun-making capacity were needed for the Army and Airforce. Here, I agree that the Navy is properly due some new construction.
Your technical precis on the new ships is admirable. Do you have a copy of Siegfried Breyer's 'Battleships and Battlecruisers'?
On the new ships:
The Royal Navy tended to prefer large numbers of smaller cruisers, to cover the trade lanes ('Leander', 'Arethusa') with a small number of heavy-hitters ('County' class). These new heavy cruisers (comparable to the American standard 'Baltimore' class heavy cruiser, I would say) are definitely inteded to be heavy fighting units, not light scouts. I do question whether the RN would develop a triple turret - they hated the idea and refused to use it in the 'County' class for various technical reasons. The Japanese went to the extreme of using 5 twin turrets on a heavy cruiser rather than design a triple. Perhaps American success with triple-gun turrets was a factor, and perhaps some technical information changed hands.
8" gunned cruisers were intended for engagements at longer range; 6" gunned cruisers were meant for close-in, rapid fire - especially fine for killing destroyers. 6" ammo, being lighter, simply isn't as accurate as an 8" shell at longer range. The 'City' class (and the 'Colony' class), armed with 12-6" guns in four triple turrets, and the American 'Brooklyn' class, with 15-6" guns, could put out a torrent of shells - more than one shell per second. The 'County' class, with 8-8", could fire about half as many but the 8" weighed twice as much as a 6". Short version: for close engagement use 6" and for long-range (and penetration power) use 8". So the choice of an 8" weapon for these new cruisers tells us how the Royal Navy intends to use them - a classic, open-range gun battle. Here's hoping the weather in the Channel and North Sea co-operates.
As originally designed the '1921' battlecruisers were big, structurally weak, thinly armored and expensive. Your proposed version makes a lot more sense. The development of high-pressure propulsion allowed fast battleships with less tonnage devoted to propulsion plant. The re-built 'Renown' and 'Repulse' saved almost a quarter of the weight when their engines were replaced, as I recall. 'Nelson' and 'Rodney' came along just too early to get the new engines and suffered from slow speed and high maintenance. They also were unhandy - that tall tower bridge, so far aft, acted like a sail. The G3 design, with bridge amidships, is far superior. I do not think the 36-knot speed will make the final design cut; with radar and aircraft, the tactical value of high speed is much degraded, and weather conditions in the North Sea/North Atlantic make it unlikely you could use that high speed in anything but easy seas. 30 to 33 knots would make hull design easier, free up a little tonnage and in no way compromise their fighting power.
At 53,000 tons these four will weigh in roughly at 'Bismarck' tonnage, bigger than anything else in the world except the US 'Iowa' class and the Japanese 'Yamato'. They should be fine ships, and despite the unconventional silhouette they should be fast, seaworthy (high freeboard) and pack a wallop. I predict they will be much beloved by the navy and the nation.
I apologize for the lengthy techno-geek nature of this post; I am a raving fanatic for the minutae of naval technology.
Director said:The London Treaty was one of those compromises intended to give everyone what they most wanted. The Americans got a cap on tonnages and the Royal Navy won the right to build a lot of cruisers by building a lot of affordable small ships. What the authors THOUGHT would happen - a moderation in ship numbers, size and power - did not happen. Given a maximum size, naval planners went immediately to - and over - the Washington Treaty 10,000 ton limit for cruisers and 35,000 tons for battleships. When the cap on size was removed ships began to grow again. Almost none of the 'Treaty' cruisers in any navy actually met treaty limits. Some (like 'Prinz Eugen') were 50% or more over-weight. The few that were close to or on the limit ('County' class) usually kept their weight down by shedding armor, a perilous solution.
The Mogami and Brooklyn classes (and the Cleveland, Colony and City classes) were, as I understand it, designed partly to be 'destroyer-killers' and partly built just because 'the other guy has one so I want one too'. They were intended to be as capable as a heavy cruiser while keeping to the 6" gun size, capitalizing on the faster rate of fire available to 6" guns (the shells are smaller and easier to handle, the guns weigh less so the ship can carry more of them, etc). Being on the receiving end of a cruiser firing flat-out is not fun, as the Battle of the River Plate and the night actions in the Med and Pacific show. At 'hugger-mugger' ranges of 5000-10,000 yards a cruiser can penetrate all but the heaviest battleship plate and shred the unprotected areas. On one memorable (wargaming) occasion I steamed out of the fog with four cruisers and found Tirpitz and Scharnhorst at 8000 yards. I lost some cruisers... but Tirpitz and Scharnhorst were on fire, listing, wrecked topside and had large holes in bow and stern.
I mention this action to point out that ships almost never fight on equal terms. You fight with what you have, where you have it, and a few cheap ships can carry the day against a stronger and more expensive opponent (Battle of the River Plate) or force the enemy to change his plans (Komandorski Islands).
You are correct that these ship designs show that all treaty limits can be circumvented with a little ingenuity. Or, in the case of the Japanese and Germans, with ingenuity coupled to bald-faced lies.
I do think the Royal Navy is not likely to approve a design unless it will perform well in the North Sea/North Atlantic. Home water requirements will always trump their Pacific commitments. At the most they might add airconditioning for tropic service. If these battleships are intended solely for Pacific service they are a criminal waste of resources that should go to carriers. If they are for home waters, or general purpose use, they have some value.
My real point about the 36-knot speed was that it requires too much and returns very little. The 'Iowa' class managed to make 35 but only by adopting an extreme hull form; other US battleships with the same main and secondary armament made 27 knots on 15,000 fewer tons and a hull that was at least 100 feet shorter. Every knot of additional speed means a HUGE increase in horsepower, and/or an increase in ship length (which adds to the soft, unarmored areas open to shell-fire). It is likely that common sense will over-rule the 36-knot idealists and the final design will make 30-32 knots, which is still as fast or faster than contemporaries (Bismarck 29 to 30 knots, King George V 28 to 30, North Carolina 28, Littorio 30, Yamato 28).
I agree that carriers should be the backbone of any WW2 fleet. A possible re-design of these BBs would be to remove the center turret and pack in four extra 5.25" twin mounts plus all the light AA possible. A number of 'County' class light cruisers had a 6" triple turret removed and extra AA added. A second re-design would see all four converted completely to carriers, supported by AA cruisers.
KiMaSa said:In terms of speed... 33 knots is quite acceptable and the real advantage thus in a 33 knot Iowa over a 28 Knot North Carolina is that the Iowa is better suited in speed and range to keep pace with the Fast Carriers. It is noted that the subsequent Montana class would have been a 28 knot design had they been built. I merely meant to note that when sailing the calmer Pacific waters... These Saints might be able to coax out a little more speed than the rough North Atlantic would permit. Certainly speed at the expense of adequate protection is not a good trade off.
No energy drinks for you! One year!caffran said:Yaaa!!! I've had too much CAFFIENE!!! kekekekekekeke!!!
later, caff