The Butterfly Effect: A British AAR

**Sir Humphrey** · 17-07-2009 08:50

Interesting, never thought of that. Didn't they also have short barrel lives as well?

**El Pip** · 17-07-2009 08:51

Carlstadt Boy - It's a fairly popular combo, seeing those two face-off? And who doesn't want to see Zeroes and *New FAA toy* clashing over the South China Sea while *Different new FAA toy* make torpedo runs on the Combined Fleet?

Sir Humphrey - Italian 8" were all about range, accuracy was bad and wear rates were worse.

Now for a shore installation range is key while accuracy slightly less important (after all the gun isn't moving so it's not as tricky as pure naval gunnery). Sadly even with their long range an 8" is just too short, any decent BB will out-range it and pummel the installation with impunity. That alone kills it even before all the logistical and maintenance issues.

EDIT: I see you beat me to some of that.

**Sir Humphrey** · 17-07-2009 08:51

Quick slip of the fingers old chum.

**El Pip** · 17-07-2009 08:54

One of life's spooky coincidences clearly.

**gaiasabre11** · 17-07-2009 09:57

Originally Posted by Sir Humphrey

Interesting, never thought of that. Didn't they also have short barrel lives as well?

I suppose that since the Italian guns have higher muzzle velocity compared to their British counterparts, their barrel wear should be worse than the ones on the British CAs.

Originally Posted by El Pip

Sir Humphrey - Italian 8" were all about range, accuracy was bad and wear rates were worse.

I'd say their guns are pretty potent in terms of destructive power, since they fire a heavier shell at a higher velocity than the British 8". (However, it is also true their shells' burst charges are smaller.) Accuracy was bad because the guns were too close together. (bad design

)

Originally Posted by El Pip

Now for a shore installation range is key while accuracy slightly less important (after all the gun isn't moving so it's not as tricky as pure naval gunnery). Sadly even with their long range an 8" is just too short, any decent BB will out-range it and pummel the installation with impunity. That alone kills it even before all the logistical and maintenance issues.

EDIT: I see you beat me to some of that.

I'm not too sure about having 8" guns as coastal guns in the first place if the shore is likely to be bombarded by battleship-sized ships. But as you all might know, installing naval guns as coastal guns usually mean the range of the guns will be extended by at least some 30%? using different shells and/or propellants. The guns on the Zara have a range of around 31.5km. With the added 30% it will be like 41 km, which actually outrange the KGVs' 14", the South Dakotas' 16" and the Iowas' 16".

But anyways, it's not like those coastal guns can hit anything out that far in the first place without proper fire control. And 8" guns won't damage BBs significantly.

**Carlstadt Boy** · 17-07-2009 10:33

Is Cunningham vs. Yamamoto being popular a good thing, or you mean you wont use it because it has been seen too many times?

**Vann the Red** · 17-07-2009 19:52

Lovely update, Pippy. Splitting the fleet is scary, but the point is well-made that without the spectre of a joint German/Italian navy, the force in the home waters is sufficient. Not entirely sure that the eastern force is, though. Looking forward to the next one.

Vann

**El Pip** · 17-07-2009 20:37

Carlstadt Boy - It's popular because it's the obvious choice, Cunningham was one of the outstanding British admirals of the war. If your sending your best and brightest East he'd have to be on your short list.

Therefore I'll probably do it as it's one of those times when 'cool alt history to see' coincides with 'What people would actually do'

Vann the Red - If something has to be under-resourced, it's not going to the Home Fleet so the East had to get less than it 'needs'. Certainly the Admiralty will be agreeing with you and looking to re-unite the fleet as soon as they can. That or pushing for even more tonnage so they can have two fleets that are big enough.

**Bafflegab** · 17-07-2009 20:42

Originally Posted by El Pip

That or pushing for even more tonnage so they can have two fleets that are big enough.

Always the best resolution when people are making decisions regarding the RN

**Duritz** · 18-07-2009 04:41

It better get beefed up, otherwise the IJN will squeeze that Eastern Fleet until El Pip squeaks!

Dury.

**El Pip** · 19-07-2009 01:22

Bafflegab - Huge fleets are the answer to almost every question, except those starting 'How does the Treasury save money'.

Duritz - True words, but the fleet wont be on it's own as you shall soon see...

**KiMaSa** · 19-07-2009 01:36

Originally Posted by El Pip

Bafflegab - Huge fleets are the answer to almost every question, except those starting 'How does the Treasury save money'.

Duritz - True words, but the fleet won't be on its own as you shall soon see...

Then I take it that the RAF will be making serious deployment of assets to the Far East? Especially long range reconnaissance bombers and fighter aircraft?

**Nathan Madien** · 19-07-2009 05:04

Originally Posted by KiMaSa

Then I take it that the RAF will be making serious deployment of assets to the Far East? Especially long range reconnaissance bombers and fighter aircraft?

If that happens, perhaps the Repulse and Prince of Wales might live to see another day.

**DonnieBaseball** · 19-07-2009 14:16

I wonder if the success of torpedo carrying a/c in the Italian campaign will see the RAF with a greater emphasis on land-based torpedo bombers like the Beufort--a wing at Singapore would be v.useful and a great help to an inferior (in numbers) RN fleet.

The fact that there are multiple carriers on station gives the fleet organic air cover, much better than trying to coordinate same from land. Hopefully we'll soon hear what the FAA is getting in terms of fighters--hopefully a competitive single-engined monoplane...

**trekaddict** · 19-07-2009 14:18

Originally Posted by DonnieBaseball

I wonder if the success of torpedo carrying a/c in the Italian campaign will see the RAF with a greater emphasis on land-based torpedo bombers like the Beufort--a wing at Singapore would be v.useful and a great help to an inferior (in numbers) RN fleet.

The fact that there are multiple carriers on station gives the fleet organic air cover, much better than trying to coordinate same from land. Hopefully we'll soon hear what the FAA is getting in terms of fighters--hopefully a competitive single-engined monoplane...

THat in fact is a very interesting proposition. As it happens, I was wondering the same thing, mainly because I could see especially Coastal Command with a torpedo Beau, as it would give them an better anti-ship capability even against heavier units, especially in the far east.

**Nathan Madien** · 20-07-2009 04:27

Originally Posted by trekaddict

THat in fact is a very interesting proposition. As it happens, I was wondering the same thing, mainly because I could see especially Coastal Command with a torpedo Beau, as it would give them an better anti-ship capability even against heavier units, especially in the far east.

I wonder how the torpedo Beau will stand up to the Imperial Japanese Air Force.

**trekaddict** · 20-07-2009 09:48

Well, in the case of the AAO Singapore, they would be escorted by Spitfires as far out as possible.

**Duritz** · 21-07-2009 08:31

Spits in Malay?!? I'll believe it when I see it... and I expect that to be after 1944!

**trekaddict** · 21-07-2009 08:36

Originally Posted by Duritz

Spits in Malay?!? I'll believe it when I see it... and I expect that to be after 1944!

Oh, they are there already... in March 1941.

**El Pip** · 21-07-2009 09:20

KiMaSa - Given the Air Staff hasn't changed much I imagine they'll want to send long range heavy bombers to level Japan and as little else as possible. I imagine this is not what everyone else wants to hear though,it will be interesting to see what they're forced to send.

Nathan Madien - It wouldn't have taken much to save those two ships, hell even a little bit more luck for the PoW might have been enough. If war comes I imagine any RN force will be far larger, though that could just mean more targets!

DonnieBaseball - The FAA update is seemingly popular, I'll have to fit it in alongside the Army one after the Amsterdam Conference. There are plans though.

As to torpedoes, they are now officially sanctioned as 'the big threat' so will be on the table. I can say it will be in the next update, but no more.

trekaddict - Coastal Command may have a slightly high profile, but they will have to fight hard against everyone else with their own priorities. Pretty much the entire RAF has it's eyes on new toys and there's only so much budget.

Nathan Madien - Not very well I'd imagine, Beauts were relatively slow and not exactly bristling with guns. Their OTL record against even Italian fighters wasn't special. Still the South China Sea is a big old place and a long way from any pre-war Italian airbases.

Duritz - Your just bitter that Australia lost the second test, gone 1-0 down and that Ponting has become a Whinging Aussie.

Thread: The Butterfly Effect: A British AAR

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions