| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 PMN1 |
Cruiser guns no bigger than 6" by the time of Washington |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 3467 (22-Apr-2008 12:44:17) |
If cruiser guns had not got any bigger than 6" by the time of Washington, what size ship would you expect to be the maximum?
In 'The Grand Fleet', Brown mentions a possible Raleigh design with fourteen 6" guns but doesn't give its projected displacement. Would the Japanese still look at the 8" for its Furutaka's without a RN 7.5" being in existence?
|
||
|
PMN1 |
|||
|
Posts: 3469 (22-Apr-2008 17:08:01) |
A question based on a reply on Warship Projects..
How would you expect RN cruiser development to progress if 1. The twin 6" on the Monmouth class armoured cruisers had been reliable and not cramped. 2. Following or at the same time as the twin, a single barrel mount had been developed that would resemble the twin or the weatherproof MkXVI later fitted to HMS Diomede.
Last Edited By: PMN1
22-Apr-2008 20:38:53.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
 SeaTurtle Prince |
10k tons | ||
|
Posts: 305 (23-Apr-2008 01:01:30) |
I would still expect the signatories to build cruisers up to the maximum displacement before it became a WT "battleship" and just put more guns on
them. Think Mogami.
|
||
|
Joshua Kintner |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 403 (26-Apr-2008 06:26:39) |
It would be interesting if cruiser, as in any type of cruiser, gun sized hadn't exceeded 6". That means a lot of the armored cruisers and the
battlecruisers would never have existed. Instead we would see probably late war type CLs being built bigger, with more armored protection, and more guns.
Maybe for the British something like a Danae class, but with six twin turrets instead of single turrets. Add in some better armored protection, and maybe a lengthened bow with increased power propulsion to be able to maintain 28 knot speed with the addition of the armored protection. |
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3705 (26-Apr-2008 16:04:58) |
Joshua Kintner wrote: I suspect that armored cruisers (including their descendants, the battle cruisers) evolved quite independently of "light" cruisers, so they would exist under some other name (wasn't the HMS Warrior, arguably the original armored cruiser, rated as a "frigate?"). I also think that, after turbines had been proven in battleships, most navies would see an advantage in faster large, heavily armed ships, so something quite like the "battle cruiser" would have evolved. Instead of the evolution armored cruiser -> battle cruiser, which seems to be what happened with the RN, there would be an evolution battleship -> battle cruiser, which seems to be akin to the way the battle cruiser evolved in the German Navy. In the USN, it seems the battle cruiser (the original designs of the Lexington and Saratoga) sprung, Athena-like, from the collective forehead of the USN's General Board. Similarly, the French Strasbourg and Dunquerque seemed to spring fully formed from the French design bureaux. To further complicate the issue, the USN (at least) had been experimenting with heavier guns on its cruisers for quite a while: the Columbia class carried an 8in gun, when commissioned in the early 1890's, possibly as the USN over-rated its ability to actually hit things with an 8in gun. I'm not sure how the Washington negotiations would have worked out; I suspect that both the USN and IJN had concluded that 8in guns on their light
(i.e., not armored) cruisers were a necessity, while the RN (despite the Hawkins class) had concluded that guns over 6in were a detriment to the cruisers' utility, so the USN and IJN would have
concluded that they needed 8in guns on their (non-armored, non-battle) cruisers, regardless of the existence of the 7.5in guns on the RN's Hawkins class: the USN would have insisted on 8in guns on cruisers, the IJN would have supported this position, and the other
signatories would agree with which ever side offered them a better deal.
|
||
|
Craiglxviii |
|||
|
Posts: 77 (26-Apr-2008 17:07:15) |
emc,
Warrior's rating as a frigate was purely down to her having one gundeck. Otherwise, totally agree!
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
|
||
|
Ed |
|||
|
Posts: 2296 (26-Apr-2008 17:34:16) |
They would be armed with 6.1", 155mm guns, max of 10 guns and restricted to 9000 tonnes.
|
||
|
PMN1 |
|||
|
Posts: 3489 (27-Apr-2008 19:35:49) |
In Nelson to Vanguard, there are 5 drawings of possible designs for the 1929 Fleet Cruiser that led to Arethusa.
The two smallest use single 6" or single 5.5" but the mounts appear to be the same type of shielded mounts used in the earlier C, D and E class. If this is the case, why did the RN go back to these when Diomede had already tested the enclosed Mk XVI and it was found according to Whitley to be 'most satisfactory in service'? If the MkXVI had been developed sooner (say in time for the C class), would the RN be prepared to loose a barrel from these designs and the D's and E's due to extra weight in return for presumably better crew performance in bad weather or would the ships be bigger to keep the same number of barrels? |
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2907 (28-Apr-2008 01:35:25) |
Ed wrote: Can you explain how this minor change in the run-up to the Treaty Conference would suddenly produce a limit on the numbers of guns per ship, where the
historical conference placed NONE?
|
||
|
Ed |
|||
|
Posts: 2299 (28-Apr-2008 02:47:29) |
bager 1968 wrote:
Can you explain how this minor change in the run-up to the Treaty Conference would suddenly produce a limit on the numbers of guns per ship, where the historical conference placed NONE? The reall restriction will be tonnage. For a pre-WWII cruiser, at about 9000 tonnes (9500 tons), 10 155mm guns is the maximum you can have, unless you cut the machinery down to just two engines. |
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3710 (28-Apr-2008 03:40:41) |
Ed wrote: Pensacola. 10-8in guns, roughly 9200 tons, 32+kts. I think that up to 16x6in guns would be possible on 9000 tons, with other characteristics roughly
comparable to the Pensacola.
|
||
