Originally posted by Ithekro
I wonder why some of us have a fasination with the 14,000 - 24,000 ton range and others find it a total waste of time and resources?
I can see it as a waste of hulls in the limited by treaty sense, but without that restriction, or for a power that wants to invest in the as least materially cheaper vessels for hulls, why not build large cruisers and heavy armored cruisers?
Its not like we'll have anyone fighting another Jutland or anything....right?
Well basically as Roger say's the CT distorts disigns.
If the limit is 13,000 tons and 8" guns for a CA you want to build up to that limit as much as possible to compete with other similar designs. In the case of BB's its the same but with BB's the size difference is much more accentuated, would you want to face a 40,000 ton Mennon or PEdS with El-Cid or this design?
Even facing superior numbers of inferior designs is a risky prospect as there is a chance that one of the enemy's ships may manage to survive making the loss of the 20,000 ton AC much more severe given the resources needed to build a replacement for either design. Losing a 10,000 ton CA hurts less.
The only reason larger navy's would build this type of design would be to reach both Hull number and agregate tonnage limits in the CT. Barring that there are much smaller cruisers and much more capable BB designs that can do some of the same tasks more efficiently.
Smaller navy's would love this design but the resources needed is a burden. A 25,000 ton Osmaneih is enough of a burden for Turkey, building her with 9.5" guns would make for a less potent design.