Shipbucket

I too, like the 10 inch gun idea, though the superfiring mounts at this date for the RN are a tad early. The USN were the only ones using that scheme, and from what I understand, that gradually evolved from experience with those horrid double-decker turret configurations on some of our Predreads. I was wondering, since some RN ACs used turreted 7.5" guns, couldn't one just reduce those to 6-inch for secondary weapons?

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

The RN considered the 10in gun for the Minotaurs, comparing the latest 50 calibre 9.2 [muzzle velocity 3030ft/sec penetrating 10.1in Krupps steel plate at 3000yards] with the USA 10in in Tennessee [mv2800ft/s piercing 13.5in Harvey steel] and the 10in in HMS Swiftsure (originally for Chile) [mv 2920ft/s 11.3in Krupps steel at 3000yards].
The 9.2 gun was in production (with stocks of 9.2in shells) and was thought to be comparable.

Basically an interesting idea but not feasible due to the leap to Inflexible and Invincible. As Krakatoa states you have to go to a bigger gun since the Italian, Russians and US have ACRs with 10' main guns. Then there are four IJN ACRs with 12" main guns ! There was a plan for a BC with 12" main battery and 9.2 secondaries (sort of a Lord Nelson BC) One must ask what would Fisher say(after he got through laughing). Might be able to sell it to a South American country or Spain. Most likely surplus turrets would have gone to a coast fort or for a monitor after the war started.
Regarding technique - your hull looks good but you need some more work on the superstructure. A little shading and more detail is needed. Stay at it!

I figured time to put my 10" where my mouth is. Armament is 8x10", 10x4". Nothing excessive, enough to do the job. Armour 8" belt, 2" deck. The 10" is the new weapon produced for the Japanese (by Vickers) which has an advantage of being able to elevate to 30 degrees for 26,900 yard range with a 520lb AP shell. Compare that with the 12" Mk X which fired its 850lb shell 20,450 yards. Speed is normal BC range with 44,000shp for 25-26 knots.



I have cribbed a bit with the superfiring turrets aft a couple of years earlier than when they did appear on the Neptune type. But they do not appear out of place.

This is a bit more like it, especially taking into account the Rurik. However, there was a same generation 12" gun - the Armstrong-Vickers MarkXI with a range of 27,600 yds at 33'. Range is more dependent on the gunners eyesight and optics (not to mention weather) than the test-firing range of a gun. Fisher didn't like raised turrets so the best you could do would be a turret layout like Indefatigable. Not as neat and subject to firing damage but increases the ahead fire for pursuit. The RN doesn't need aft-firing guns! History and reason aside - I like it.

I like your ships Krakatoa,

But I don't see any point building less than full powered BCs (Ideally I think hindsight says you should build fast BBs) unless they come cheap with 2nd hand guns (such as the guns build pre dreadnought for my ship).

JSB

well.....
this time area is not my expertise, but wasn't the biggest problem with battlecruisers the fact that they were used in the battle line? a ship with similar qualifications but smaller guns would still be capable as a scout cruiser, the falklands battle would be the same, but they would not have been sacrificed at jutland...... while they would not have been omnipotent ships, neither were the battlecruisers.

also, wasn't the dreadnought a fast BB when build

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I don't think we are not really talking about a scout cruiser, anything with 9.2+ guns will be expensive and used as the main force of any fast taskforce, the problem is that you end up with a ship that still risks Jutland re HMS_Black Prince and cant fight other BCs, SMS Blücher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Black_Prince_(1904) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Bl%C3%BCcher

Not sure that Falklands would be the same (I think its harder for the RN but they may still win) and they might still die if they go to Jutland.

Yes Dreadnought was faster than PDs.

I think all 1/2 measures are bad value, but if you have paid for the guns already you might be worth it...

JSB

One of the most interesting side stories on the BC -v- AC question was the pursuit of the Goeben across the Mediterranean. An Armoured Cruiser Squadron was in position to intercept Goeben, the Brit Commander (Troubridge) had 4 armoured cruisers (HMS Defence, Black Prince, Warrior, Duke of Edinburgh) which he considered were inferior as a group to Goeben.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of ... nd_Breslau

This reminds me about quotes saying Alaska cost 2/3 of an Iowa class with less than a 1/3 of the power....