WesWorld

I'm looking at the next cruiser class for Bharat. My baseline assumption was that I'd use the automatic 150mm in twin mounts (figure it's easier to develop than a triple). But Foxy's cruiser competition got me thinking about something with automatic 210mm twin turrets.

So now I'm torn between three designs with the following broadsides:

A: 4x2 - 150mm, on 11,200 t: 8 x 50 kg shells x ROF 12 = 4,800 kg per minute
B: 5x2 - 150mm, on 11,900 t: 10 x 50 kg shells x ROF 12 = 6,000 kg per minute
C: 3x2 - 210mm, on 12,500 t: 6 x 140 kg x ROF 10 = 8,400 kg per minute

ROF is based on the historical American Mk 16 8" and Mk 16 6". A 150mm ROF of 17 would give Design B similar throw-weight to C.

So I ask you - given that most Bharati cruisers will be used in carrier screening duties or independent squadron commands - what do you think makes the most sense? Cost is not a strong deciding factor given the above tonnages...

IMHO, the two operational doctrines you've outlined our mutually exclusive.

Carrier screening duties demands heavy AAA and speed and endurance to keep up with carriers during flight ops as well as close on any incoming enemies. It also requires a main battery capable of defending against DDs. Fast is more important than heavy, as long as it's heavy enough. 6"/150mm is still heavy enough for DD defense, but 210mm/8.2" is too slow, even w/ RF guns to decisively hit fast moving DDs.

Independent operations requires endurance and the ability to engage like targets, well..independently. A 6"/150mm cruiser is a nice 'wave the flag' type ship, but if the only immediate force available to defend some far flung island base..it leave a little to be desired.

Once again, all is IMHO and we all know what opinions are like. I'm sure others will chime and with their own, and critique mine as well.

I disagree with the suggestion that task force screening and independent operations are mutually exclusive, though I do agree that the screening role calls for a good antiaircraft suite and the fire control to match. I also adhere to the school that believes that hostile surface forces are not going to deliberately seek out and engage major carrier task forces, except in extreme cases (in which category I place the Battle off Samar). Therefore, I feel either of the 6-inch gun vessels is preferable to the 8.1-inch option.

A single vessel is not in a position to defend a far-flung base from hostile forces - a single vessel is not in a position to do much except show the flag. Therefore, I feel putting too much tonnage into a secondary role (which I consider trade protection to be) is wasteful. Of the three options, I would choose the 11,200 ton vessel with eight 150mm automatics. I could even accept such weapons as being DP, given the timeframe we are discussing, though I have reservations on automatic guns of any larger caliber.

This said, it is my opinion.

Personally, I would go with the 5x2 version because it is different. I should note that the RAN's doctrine is actually to force surface engagements against enemy carrier forces.

Quoted from "Desertfox"

Personally, I would go with the 5x2 version because it is different. I should note that the RAN's doctrine is actually to force surface engagements against enemy carrier forces.

I did not realize that Paul Kersey had been promoted to command of the Royal Australian Navy.

Given the speed differential between aircraft and surface vessels the carrier task force will sink you or just dance away from you.

Well so far in WW the only major carrier vs surface action ended in the carrier being sunk by a battlecruiser. Australia sees carriers as support ships, their job is to protect your own ships from enemy carriers and blind the enemy by taking out their scouts, allowing the surface ships to close and destroy the enemy carriers. Will it work? As far as the Australians know it has.

Quoted from "Desertfox"

Well so far in WW the only major carrier vs surface action ended in the carrier being sunk by a battlecruiser. Australia sees carriers as support ships, their job is to protect your own ships from enemy carriers and blind the enemy by taking out their scouts, allowing the surface ships to close and destroy the enemy carriers. Will it work? As far as the Australians know it has.

And the occasion where a pair of carriers sank a battleship and one of its escorting destroyers, which shows the exact opposite result...

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

I disagree with the suggestion that task force screening and independent operations are mutually exclusive, though I do agree that the screening role calls for a good antiaircraft suite and the fire control to match. I also adhere to the school that believes that hostile surface forces are not going to deliberately seek out and engage major carrier task forces, except in extreme cases (in which category I place the Battle off Samar). Therefore, I feel either of the 6-inch gun vessels is preferable to the 8.1-inch option.

A single vessel is not in a position to defend a far-flung base from hostile forces - a single vessel is not in a position to do much except show the flag. Therefore, I feel putting too much tonnage into a secondary role (which I consider trade protection to be) is wasteful. Of the three options, I would choose the 11,200 ton vessel with eight 150mm automatics. I could even accept such weapons as being DP, given the timeframe we are discussing, though I have reservations on automatic guns of any larger caliber.

This said, it is my opinion.

I'm generally assuming that the 150mm automatic is not adequately DP at this time (if at all), so a 125mm DP battery is going in as the secondary armament.

The 5x2 variant allows full firing arcs for all five turrets; does that change your preference on the two 150mm variants?

Well, if the 150mm automatic is not DP, and therefore a decent secondary battery has to be carried, I would still plump for the 4x2 layout myself. Potential problems with deck space and top hamper would be avoided by not squeezing a fifth main turret onto the hull. I realize it means a substantially lesser broadside for a surface engagement, but it favors the AA screening role - and that it what I see its principal role to be.

I think my preference might also go towards the 4x2 version for much of the same reason Bruce mentions: elimination of top hamper and improvement of firing arcs, particularly if the main role is carrier escort. And in the event of surface action, the ships probably would be very well-suited for disrupting enemy destroyer attacks, given their rapid gunnery performance.