Ooh! Battleships! (love the pictures trekaddict - were they from alt-naval?)
Just to be really picky, I'll have to point out that Warspite didn't get new secondary armament in her rebuild (note the picture shows the old 6" casemates), though Valiant and Queen Elizabeth did.
I'd be surprised at the RN planning to drop Renown any time soon - hadn't they just finished rebuilding her?
Yay for the KGVs! (which are the obvious thing to build if you want more battleships - I hadn't realised the design was ready so early). I'd still go with 9x15" if time and resources permit, rather than the historical 10x14" or even 12x14" with reduced armour (the 14" quad was a pig). Re-using 15" barrels from the "R"s makes sense, the trouble is that re-using the mounts restricts the ships to 8x15" (undergunned by late '30s standards) or some awkward bodge with "Q" turrets.
Or, if you want battleships on a budget, how about repeating the Nelson design, with re-used 15" replacing the 16" (which were too much for the hull), proper DP secondary armament and using the weight/space saving to fit better engines?
Agree that the FAA needs better planes more than the RN needs better carriers. The only problem is that the FAA were still on their multi-purpose aircraft fixation, if they did order new fighters, they'd probably insist on a second crewman, long range for scouting and the performance of a wounded goose (Fairey Fulmar, anyone?)
For the US election, set an end-date and don't worry if it takes the AAR a bit of time to catch up. More time to fix ^H^H^H react to the outcome.
Oh, and if the States' Rights Party hasn't won South Carolina, something's wrong with the universe. Fix it.
Just to be really picky, I'll have to point out that Warspite didn't get new secondary armament in her rebuild (note the picture shows the old 6" casemates), though Valiant and Queen Elizabeth did.
I'd be surprised at the RN planning to drop Renown any time soon - hadn't they just finished rebuilding her?
Yay for the KGVs! (which are the obvious thing to build if you want more battleships - I hadn't realised the design was ready so early). I'd still go with 9x15" if time and resources permit, rather than the historical 10x14" or even 12x14" with reduced armour (the 14" quad was a pig). Re-using 15" barrels from the "R"s makes sense, the trouble is that re-using the mounts restricts the ships to 8x15" (undergunned by late '30s standards) or some awkward bodge with "Q" turrets.
Or, if you want battleships on a budget, how about repeating the Nelson design, with re-used 15" replacing the 16" (which were too much for the hull), proper DP secondary armament and using the weight/space saving to fit better engines?
Agree that the FAA needs better planes more than the RN needs better carriers. The only problem is that the FAA were still on their multi-purpose aircraft fixation, if they did order new fighters, they'd probably insist on a second crewman, long range for scouting and the performance of a wounded goose (Fairey Fulmar, anyone?)
For the US election, set an end-date and don't worry if it takes the AAR a bit of time to catch up. More time to fix ^H^H^H react to the outcome.
Oh, and if the States' Rights Party hasn't won South Carolina, something's wrong with the universe. Fix it.
- 1