An Admiralty Design Request

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Dave Bender	Better to have and not need than to need and not have.	#11	[-]
Posts: 6173 (19-Feb-2008 16:46:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That's true if cost is no object. In the real world that assumption does not hold true. Building additional AA capability into convoy escorts means fewer convoy escorts will be constructed. Personally I would skip the heavy AA in the initial construction but leave deck space so that additional flak can be added later if it proves necessary. That way you get the best of both worlds. I don't think that Britain had additional modern 5.25" or 4.5" naval DP guns available in 1939 so this might be the only possible solution to the AA issue.
Joshua Kintner		#12	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 342 (19-Feb-2008 19:20:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Well if you do keep the 12" and 9.2" then at least modernize the turrets to increase elevation and thus increase their maximum range to some degree. But I would think the 9.2" would be needed more as coastal guns, or would be more sought after as such. Perhaps a compromise could be reached were-in the single 9.2" gun could be removed, and a swivel catapult and crane installed, with one-two floatplanes on each side. Thus an eight gun broadside is still in effect, and you now have floatplane capability, for either sub-hunting and scouting.
Cross648	RE: The Kintner plan mk 2	#13	[-]
Posts: 50 (19-Feb-2008 20:49:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	This is an agreeable idea. This would give the heavy escort a formidable weight of fire. In addition the 9.2 inch guns could be modified to be like those of the coast defence battleships Gorgon and Glatton, they had an outstanding range.
1Big Rich		#14	[-]
Posts: 1824 (19-Feb-2008 21:11:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I can't see the RN putting major efforts into ships over 30 years old. I'd say they'd be given modest refits, including a better bridge arrangement with fire control. At very least, the single 9.2 would be landed. If 5.25in or 4.7in etc. are available, there are far more valuable units that are only getting twin 4in for AA work. Therefore, I think the AA will be four twin 4in, such as the cruisers and Rs have. Without a treaty environment, the ships might still be around. I've quickly sketched a 'maximum effort' drawing, what I think would be done if they were being rebuilt for a minor power. Essentially a cruiser bridge, HACS and modern fire control, 4 twin 4in with a catapult and bulges. Might be useful for coast defense work for a power like Greece or Mexico. Of course, without the treaties, the UK would be free to sale far more powerful but also obsolete ships in place of the predreadnoughts... My thoughts, Your Text Signature ...
Dave Bender	Far more valuable units that are only getting twin 4in AA	#15	[-]
Posts: 6180 (19-Feb-2008 21:47:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3.75_inch_AA I tend to agree. If you later need some quick and cheap heavy AA guns then bolt some British Army 3.7" AA guns to the deck. They are light enough that you will not need a turret barbette or other special mount that costs extra. You could even bolt them on top of existing 9.2" gun turrets The 9.2" turret would be rendered inoperable. But you could use it for AA ammo storage.
Cross648	RE: Big Rich	#16	[-]
Posts: 51 (19-Feb-2008 22:18:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That is...superb! And just what was required!
1Big Rich		#17	[-]
Posts: 1825 (20-Feb-2008 01:31:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Cross648 wrote: That is...superb! And just what was required! No, this is Superb And rebuilding her presents an entirely different set of problems... ;-}) Glad you find her helpful. I'll try a sim in the next few days... Regards, Your Text Signature ... Last Edited By: 1Big Rich 20-Feb-2008 02:05:28. Edited 1 times.
McAvoy		#18	[-]
Posts: 20 (20-Feb-2008 09:32:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I always wondered if the pre-dreadnoughts would have been an effective deterent against the German raiders. The pre-dreadnought speed is perfect for convoy duty as well. They don't need the extra speed to hunt down the raiders or even chase them away, merely scare them off. I am willing to bet the 12" guns are more than enough to deal with the pocket battleships even if there are only four guns per ship. I'd remove all guns except the 12" guns, replace them with either th 5.25" if available, the 4" if all else fails or even the US 5"/38 weapon. That's a good secondary armament and heavy AA fire. How many ships by the late 30's and 40's still had enough coal burners to make it worthwhile to retain the coal burning Lord Nelsons coal burning?
borys68		#19	[-]
Posts: 2422 (20-Feb-2008 12:42:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Ahoj! Most merchants were coal burners. And UK coal was still plentifull. For the UK-Canada run coal burning is excellent. Borys
Cross648	RE: Rich	#20	[-]
Posts: 52 (20-Feb-2008 16:08:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	threatens with doom for that joke... although it did make me smile You wonder the same as me McAvoy, I reckon like you that although very old, they could at least do something. Sure they are not battle line material, but for pootling across the atlantic as a heavy escort a Pre-Dread would be a fine ship.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

An Admiralty Design Request

Quick Reply