WesWorld

Overall I like it. I don't really like the move towards 10in cruisers undertaken by most nations since the mid 1930s as I think the RoF is too low and the investment too high. They are neither capable of proper cruiser roles nor reinforcing the battleline (and one day an Admiral might try that). I think 8in is still the best all-round gun and the RN has a 9.2in gun now but its too heavy. The Princess Royals and Iron Dukes are not great.

This is better but expensive. Still if the US has the resources to build them then I say go ahead.
*scurries off to build the world's first automatic 8in turret*

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/image…le/s511-25c.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/image…le/s511-29c.htm

CA-B or CA-C?

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
*scurries off to build the world's first automatic 8in turret*

US was the first to do it OTL. Late 1944 early 1945 if I'm not mistaken. So I guess that WW RN can have that sort of turret by 1943.

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski
US was the first to do it OTL. Late 1944 early 1945 if I'm not mistaken. So I guess that WW RN can have that sort of turret by 1943.

ISD was 1948, though pushed back by the end of the war a bit. Personally I much prefer the RN's 6"/50 QF - much easier to fit onto ships and useful against aircraft. The 8" is only really necessary against heavily armoured ships - though even 3" automatic fire is going to make a real mess of most ships. One of the most interesting was the RN's 5.25"/50 QF Mk III for some late war AA cruisers with a 24rpm rate of fire.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski
US was the first to do it OTL. Late 1944 early 1945 if I'm not mistaken. So I guess that WW RN can have that sort of turret by 1943.

ISD was 1948, though pushed back by the end of the war a bit. Personally I much prefer the RN's 6"/50 QF - much easier to fit onto ships and useful against aircraft. The 8" is only really necessary against heavily armoured ships - though even 3" automatic fire is going to make a real mess of most ships. One of the most interesting was the RN's 5.25"/50 QF Mk III for some late war AA cruisers with a 24rpm rate of fire.

I rather like the 5.25" Mk III myself, probably feelings of inferiority after comparing the RN's 4.5" guns with everyone else's 120mm, 5" and 130mm guns...

More tangibly, I'm not convinced there's much sense using anything between 6" or so and the biggest you can get away with, at least for fleet work. Independent heavy cruisers, IMHO, need enough gun to make short work of anything that isn't a battleship, and to give serious trouble to battleships. It will come as no surprise that I think battlecruisers were a perfectly good idea. I've a suspicion that automatic 8" is probably a bit small for this job, and a bit much for any other job. Of course, the @ County class 8" guns were originally supposed to be capable of 8rpm at 70 degrees for AA fire, which is an alarming concept.

I thought of automising Canada's 9.2in gun with the 510lb shell.

I think the 6in will be the better automatic choice for future cruisers for a DP role. I just hope to debug it a little more than OTL before 1948. Something like Neptune would be good for the RN as a cruiser killer.

I don't think the fad for 10in armed cruisers will outlive the early 1940s myself. Like the solutions to the OTL Sverdlovs the answer came from things dropped from aircraft to attack via above and underwater.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I don't think the fad for 10in armed cruisers will outlive the early 1940s myself.

Chile, having started the fad, agrees. All the Oyamas did was prompt Peru to build the Villar (even if their economics flubbed), and the same runs true around the rest of the world.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I thought of automising Canada's 9.2in gun with the 510lb shell.

I think the 6in will be the better automatic choice for future cruisers for a DP role. I just hope to debug it a little more than OTL before 1948. Something like Neptune would be good for the RN as a cruiser killer.

I don't think the fad for 10in armed cruisers will outlive the early 1940s myself. Like the solutions to the OTL Sverdlovs the answer came from things dropped from aircraft to attack via above and underwater.

I thought about automating a 9.2" gun too, but I figured I'd get way too much flak over it (plus, springsharp maxes out Automatics at 8").

Canada shamelessly plugs it's automated 5.5" DP weapon as the ultimate answer in that bracket.

It needs to be rocket boosted...and radar guided. Then it will be the ultimate answer...

RAP shells?
Good luck with that idea.

Rocket assisted projectiles:
Have low accuracy
have small warhead compeered to traditional ones.
Are more expensive (duh)
Take more volume to store so you will carry less.
Added volume also decreases rate of fire.

Now radar guided RAP shell has even smaller warhead.
The suffice radar target range is low enough that added range of a RAP shell is not needed. AA work?
Hmm ok with radar guidance then Proximity fuse is probably in place already. Still small warhead and low RoF equals a bad idea.

RAP is a cool idea but just like Exocet-ish missile fired from a BB main gun is not practical.

The 5.25" Mk III might have been a nice gun postwar. Probably achievable given the 6"/50 QF. The newer 5"/70 was a fair beast, but likely wouldn't be too reliable in service and very heavy. A 5.25"/50 single to replace the 4.5" twins and singles would have been nice.