Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships
Moderator: Community Manager
-
emperor_andreas
- Posts: 3908
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
- Location: Corinth, MS USA
- Contact:
Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships
Very nice work!
Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships
Impressive!
-
csatahajos
- Posts: 79
- Joined: January 10th, 2013, 10:52 pm
Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships
"but with Smurf's support this thread will go on to catalogue almost every never-built capital ship up to and perhaps including the early Lion designs"
Wohoo is it my birthday or what?! Can'T wait!
COngrats on this series so far!
Wohoo is it my birthday or what?! Can'T wait!
COngrats on this series so far!
Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships
Fantastic work!
Looking forward to see the other "never-weres"!
Looking forward to see the other "never-weres"!
Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships
New additions!
Design F2 November 1921
Design F3 November 1921
Full info can be found on p.1.
Design F2 November 1921
Design F3 November 1921
Full info can be found on p.1.
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships
I like the F3 with the 9x15", more heavily armoured than Hood and packing a better punch on a smaller displacement for the loss of only 1-2 knots of speed.
-
emperor_andreas
- Posts: 3908
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
- Location: Corinth, MS USA
- Contact:
Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships
Very nice work!
Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships
Sounds like something that would've been more useful than the Nelsons that actually got built.Krakatoa wrote:I like the F3 with the 9x15", more heavily armoured than Hood and packing a better punch on a smaller displacement for the loss of only 1-2 knots of speed.
Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships
They were pretty decent designs on the tonnage and are probably the earliest of the fast treaty battleships that were to emerge during the 1930s.
However, note any heavy AA was omitted on these ships. I'm not sure that would have been favourable to the Admiralty, especially in view of the level bomber threat thought to exist at this time.
It probably wouldn't cost too much extra tonnage to put some 4in singles aboard and there is plenty of deckspace, but I'm guessing the 4.7in and 4in were left off because the designs were very marginal at meeting the Treaty limit. Although if they had been built and encountered the same amount of underweight at completion as the Nelsons, it would have been a handy bonus to add them then.
Anyhow we're going to have wait another five years before another capital ship is looked at again. Hopefully it won't take me that long to draw it!
However, note any heavy AA was omitted on these ships. I'm not sure that would have been favourable to the Admiralty, especially in view of the level bomber threat thought to exist at this time.
It probably wouldn't cost too much extra tonnage to put some 4in singles aboard and there is plenty of deckspace, but I'm guessing the 4.7in and 4in were left off because the designs were very marginal at meeting the Treaty limit. Although if they had been built and encountered the same amount of underweight at completion as the Nelsons, it would have been a handy bonus to add them then.
Anyhow we're going to have wait another five years before another capital ship is looked at again. Hopefully it won't take me that long to draw it!
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
Re: Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships
re Hood and Magus:
Things are often clearer in hindsight, but in this case:
The Nelsons were built because it was thought essential to have ships with 16in guns to counter US and Japanese ships.
However, the British 15in fired a 1938lb shell, not far short of the light shell adopted for Nelson, and the extra 6 or 7 knots would have been most useful.
A few 4in or 4.7in AA would have been easy enough to mount, at only around 10tons each, but with no initial provision, the design would have to be expanded a little to carry their ammunition, to armour the magazines, and to provide some form of fire control.
Given the state of AA fire control in 1921, omitting medium calibre AA seems no great loss, as they were not likely to hit anything.
Assuming 60 deg elevation for the 6in, they could provide AA barrage fire.
The other problem is that though 4 pompoms were specified, these did not become available for another 10 years or so. Single 2pdr were usually fitted, but the ships would have no good AA fit as built - in fact not so good as designed.
Things are often clearer in hindsight, but in this case:
The Nelsons were built because it was thought essential to have ships with 16in guns to counter US and Japanese ships.
However, the British 15in fired a 1938lb shell, not far short of the light shell adopted for Nelson, and the extra 6 or 7 knots would have been most useful.
A few 4in or 4.7in AA would have been easy enough to mount, at only around 10tons each, but with no initial provision, the design would have to be expanded a little to carry their ammunition, to armour the magazines, and to provide some form of fire control.
Given the state of AA fire control in 1921, omitting medium calibre AA seems no great loss, as they were not likely to hit anything.
Assuming 60 deg elevation for the 6in, they could provide AA barrage fire.
The other problem is that though 4 pompoms were specified, these did not become available for another 10 years or so. Single 2pdr were usually fitted, but the ships would have no good AA fit as built - in fact not so good as designed.