I think GB would buy anything in 1939 (even if they had a production line for them they would want more than they could possibly make).
I would go for something like the 4.5"/45 (11.4 cm) QF Mark V
or as close as I can get in the 30s.JSB
| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| RN with crystal ball http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5478 |
Page 3 of 8 |
| Author: | JSB [ August 6th, 2014, 11:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RN with crystal ball |
I'm thinking I will need to get a parts sheet together of what weapons are developed and when. I have a few question to anybody very knowledgeable. 1) For my gun mix I'm going, 15 - BBs (+ 16 - N&R) 8 - CAs 6 - CLs 4.5 - DP gun, in twin and maybe a single as well. 4 - twin and single. then it gets interesting what should I have as my AA mix, 4'-40mm ? do I need anything 3/3.7 inch or 57mm ? 40mm do I update the 2pdr or just go for the Bofors 40mm (and what mounts 1/2/4/8 ?). 20mm do I use the Oerlikon or Hispano and do I share with my fighters ? (and do I develop mounts 1/2/4 or just go for single 20mm and then 40mms). I will of course still use a lot of older guns, due to production limits on AMC/old ships/ 2nd class ships. 2) Does anybody have any good information about why they chose the size of different CLs ? I can decide on what mix of Cls to build. (all 10,000t or all 6000t or in between or a mix etc. Leander · Arethusa · Town · Dido · Crown Colony ?) Thanks JSB |
|
| Author: | erik_t [ August 7th, 2014, 12:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RN with crystal ball |
I admit I'm not 100% clear on the premise, but I'd think a RN with a crystal ball would strongly consider buying into the 5/38 as a joint venture with the USN. |
|
| Author: | Krakatoa [ August 7th, 2014, 2:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RN with crystal ball |
erik_t Why would they want to buy into an inferior weapon as the US 5"/38? The 4.5"/45 with split ammunition outperforms the 5"/38 in both range and height. |
|
| Author: | JSB [ August 7th, 2014, 8:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RN with crystal ball |
Would the 4.5 fit in the 5/38 mount ? would that give you the best of both worlds ? If not a full turreted 4.5 twin with split ammo should be very good. (after all that's what they still had in service in 1982 aparantly it worked better than the full auto single on the newer ships). JSB |
|
| Author: | erik_t [ August 7th, 2014, 3:57 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: RN with crystal ball | |
erik_t
Other than the historical fact that the British bought as many 5/38 as they could, and in fact were prevented from using the 5/38 as much as they wanted, as (among other things) it fired the same shell at about a 50% higher rate of fire?Why would they want to buy into an inferior weapon as the US 5"/38? The 4.5"/45 with split ammunition outperforms the 5"/38 in both range and height. No reason, I guess. |
||
| Author: | JSB [ August 7th, 2014, 4:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RN with crystal ball |
I think GB would buy anything in 1939 (even if they had a production line for them they would want more than they could possibly make). I would go for something like the 4.5"/45 (11.4 cm) QF Mark V or as close as I can get in the 30s.JSB |
|
| Author: | BCRenown [ August 7th, 2014, 7:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RN with crystal ball |
If you are planning on building a cruiser whose main armament is 4.5" guns, I think your crystal ball is blind and you'd be better off building Arethusas. Think about it. |
|
| Author: | Hood [ August 8th, 2014, 2:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RN with crystal ball |
I'm not entirely sold on the premise of this AU. It's not crystal ball gazing as such. Had there been no London Treaty limits or had Britain ignored them then the KGVs would probably have had three triple 15in guns of some new model and similar if not identical armour. KGV could not take any further up-gunning without compromising armour, interestingly DK Brown in his choice would have gone for more firepower at the expense of 1in or more of belt armour. He considered the KGVs to have been the best armoured of the interwar battleships. Your idea though is interesting and not beyond the realms of fantasy, though there may well have been design issues with the magazines etc. The Admiralty had considered 4.5in guns for an AACL during the development of the Didos but it was not really an option because the gun power was inferior to any adversary with a 6in battery. It could have fought off a destroyer but probably very little else without taking serious damage in return. Scylla was an expedient to use an otherwise useless hull until 5.25in production caught up. If anything a crystal ball exercise would have been far less spectacular - a decent AA HA director system, better light AA guns, a decent DP 4.5in or 4.7in DP gun for destroyers (none of various complicated marks and mountings really worked out well until the 4.5in came about later in the war), double-checking those stability calculations on the Hunts, magnetic torpedo pistols that worked... in short various technical elements rather than ships. |
|
| Author: | JSB [ August 10th, 2014, 12:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RN with crystal ball |
So With airpower obviously going to take over what CVs should we build ? My thoughts are that we need to start laying down 2 types, 1) a 27kt modern fleet CV (hum what type to build Ark Royal/Illustrious/Implacable/or Centaur class  ).2) a smaller CVE (a prototype designed for mass production to merchant standards) But first what can we do in the mean time with the CVs we have ? Courageous x 3 (Furious(1/2 sister can she be rebuilt as the others to carry more planes ?), Courageous and Glorious these are the biggest and most useful) Eagle (medium slow) Hermes (small slow) Argus (small very slow, but can carry RAF planes) So it is decided to concentrate on improving the 3 fast CVs and work on them starts in the early 30s before the treaty's allow us to build anything new. (hum will HMT agree ?) ![[ img ]](http://www.majhost.com/gallery/JSB/Shipbucket/cvglorious39au.png) JSB |
|
| Author: | JSB [ August 10th, 2014, 12:08 am ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: RN with crystal ball | |
I'm not entirely sold on the premise of this AU.
I think with a look at the future you build tanks and invade the Rhineland but that doesn't let me design ships It's not crystal ball gazing as such. If anything a crystal ball exercise would have been far less spectacular - a decent AA HA director system, better light AA guns, a decent DP 4.5in or 4.7in DP gun for destroyers (none of various complicated marks and mountings really worked out well until the 4.5in came about later in the war), double-checking those stability calculations on the Hunts, magnetic torpedo pistols that worked... in short various technical elements rather than ships.  .JSB |
||
| Page 3 of 8 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|