WesWorld

The Thrissur class charavaahaa will begin construction in 1943. This escort is configured primarily for defence of civilian and fleet train vessels from submarine and aircraft.

This is the first unit to ship the Mangus ASW rocket launcher system, a device that has been tinkered with on and off for years (early experiments took place aboard the old light cruiser Jaipur). The system mounts nineteen rockets in a launcher in "Anton" position and are fired in one near-simultaneous salvo by remote control. 15 tonnes has been allocated to the loaded system, and 1 tonne to each reload salvo. As with the historical Hedgehog, it is assumed that the system can be manually reloaded in a few minutes.

Consideration was given to equipping the ship with 6x57mm rather than the various 125mm, 35mm, and 15mm, but it was felt that this compromised the vessel's ability to duke it out with a surfaced submarine or merchant raider.

As no torpedos are shipped (primarily due to lack of deck space) the unit is not considered a paritraataa like most other ocean-going escorts.

Production of two to three units per year is anticpated, and one would expect to see them operating in pairs with a Kudligi-style paritraataa or in two pairs as an escort squadron.

Thrissur, Bharati escort laid down 1943

Displacement:
1,182 t light; 1,236 t standard; 1,628 t normal; 1,942 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
288.22 ft / 278.87 ft x 36.42 ft x 12.47 ft (normal load)
87.85 m / 85.00 m x 11.10 m x 3.80 m

Armament:

2 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns in single mounts, 59.59lbs / 27.03kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
4 - 1.38" / 35.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 1.31lbs / 0.59kg shells, 1943 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm guns (1x4 guns), 0.10lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1943 Model
Machine guns in deck mount
on centreline aft, one raised mount Weight of broadside 125 lbs / 57 kg
19 – Mangus ASW rockets in single mount
Tube carriage
on centreline forward
Shells per gun, main battery: 300

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 14,000 shp / 10,444 Kw = 24.93 kts
Range 10,000nm at 15.00 kts (Bunkerage = 706 tons)

Complement:
127 - 166

Cost:
£0.688 million / $2.751 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 16 tons, 1.0 %
Armour: 11 tons, 0.7 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 11 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 362 tons, 22.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 673 tons, 41.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 446 tons, 27.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 120 tons, 7.4 %
-40 t: Weight reserve
-20 t: Rails, throwers, and 60 depth charges
-10 t: Radar
-10 t: Sonar
-10 t: Miscellaneous other electronics
-18 t: Mangus ASW system (15 t) with three reload salvos
-12 t: Blast-shielding aft of, and deck reinforcement below, Mangus ASW system



Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,663 lbs / 1,208 Kg = 44.7 x 4.9 " / 125 mm shells or 0.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 1.6 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 12.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.22
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.34

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak
Block coefficient: 0.450
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.66 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.70 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 64 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.64 ft / 6.90 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.70 ft / 5.70 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.70 ft / 5.70 m (10.83 ft / 3.30 m aft of break)
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.83 ft / 3.30 m
- Stern: 10.83 ft / 3.30 m
- Average freeboard: 15.08 ft / 4.60 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 88.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 140.5 %
Waterplane Area: 6,478 Square feet or 602 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 166 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 55 lbs/sq ft or 269 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.86
- Longitudinal: 4.21
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

This is the first unit to ship the Mangus ASW rocket launcher system, a device that has been tinkered with on and off for years (early experiments took place aboard the old light cruiser Jaipur). The system mounts nineteen rockets in a launcher in "Anton" position and are fired in one near-simultaneous salvo by remote control. 15 tonnes has been allocated to the loaded system, and 1 tonne to each reload salvo. As with the historical Hedgehog, it is assumed that the system can be manually reloaded in a few minutes.

Hmm,
On the one hand I felt the vehemence of the arguments against Red Admiral's attempts to field similar devices was a bit much.

And perhaps folks have started fielding such things (ranged ASW) and I've missed it.

But the consensus used to be such weapons could not be introduced without some wartime experience to show the need. Which hasn't happened.

Overall the conversation led me to introduce the Dutch cluster spigot mortar batteries for land use, because that was a fun idea and nebelwerfers were not out yet, but the tech and land assault role was clearly there, and so that I'd have justification for moving to Hedgehogs once they were "ok" for use.

So...what have I missed here ?

I'll also use this as a little soapbox to say we need a list of misc weight categories and ranges. Everyone seems to have their own.

I did a drive-by and got the impression Italy, Germany, and France (as a minimum) had introduced such systems already. If there's a discussion you can refer me to, though, that'd be useful to see.

Can't disagree on the miscellaneous weight, but that came up in the radar thread without much indication consensus was possible.

I know one of the Italian ships has ASW rockets (Ascari) and looking around I ran across the Chilean Colocolo launchers ASW rockets... there might be more around...

Edit: The Lance roquettes anti-sous-marin on French ships.

Edit2: and on German ships Ahead-thrown antisubmarine weapon as well as stand-off antisubmarine weapon, though it does not specify whether any of those two would be something like the hedgehog.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
I did a drive-by and got the impression Italy, Germany, and France (as a minimum) had introduced such systems already. If there's a discussion you can refer me to, though, that'd be useful to see.

To be precise, Germany is in the process of fielding an antisubmarine standoff weapon, which has been under test and development for some time.

Whoops! Edited too late.

What about the "Ahead-thrown antisubmarine weapon"?

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Whoops! Edited too late.

What about the "Ahead-thrown antisubmarine weapon"?

Details will be published soon; things have been a bit crazy here in the last few weeks.

Keeping it a secret a little longer.

I'm wondering if the Chilean, French and Italian ASW rockets are something along the line of the Mousetrap...

.. though it actually makes me think more of this...

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
I did a drive-by and got the impression Italy, Germany, and France (as a minimum) had introduced such systems already. If there's a discussion you can refer me to, though, that'd be useful to see.

Can't disagree on the miscellaneous weight, but that came up in the radar thread without much indication consensus was possible.

Those discussions were years ago, wouldn't know where to start looking.

I continue to be preoccupied with other things so I haven't been paying much attention to other folks builds as much as I used to, so missed that folks are doing this.

From the other posts, sounds like it's a non-issue now.
Guess the Dutch will just convert their land-based spigot mortar into an ahead throwing ASW weapon...seeing as they aren't that good at rocketry.

Playing with SubSim for the new I-36 class submarine. The intention's for a boat that can reach and interdict the various entry points into the Indian Ocean, with a reasonable underwater speed/range for evading ASW units.

I-36 Class Submarine
Date: 1943
Coastal (Official classification); Oceanic (as simmed)
Armament:
- Guns: 1x105mm LA, 1x35mm AA, 2x15mm MG
- Torpedoes: 8x550mm (6F/2A) + 12 reloads (simmed as 24 mines)
- Mines: 0
Electric HP: 5,500 hp
Diesel HP: 4,000 hp
Crew: 55
wt fuel&batts: 530
Light Displacement: 1,320 t
Loaded Displacement/Kerb Weight: 1,574 t
Full Displacement: 1,848 t
Reserve buoyancy: 15%
Max Surf Speed: 16.0 knots
Max Sub Speed: 12.1 knots

Length: 84.0 m
Beam: 8.0 m
Draft: 5.5 m
Crush depth: 300 m
Tons Oil: 230 t
Tons Battery: 300 t
Cruise speed: 12 knots
Submerged speed: 6 knots
Surface Range: 5,227 nm @ 15 knots; 8,168 nm @ 12 knots; 11,761 nm @ 10 kts
Submerged Range: 8 nm @ 12 knots; 22 nm @ 9 knots; 74 nm @ 6 knots

Other Features:
-Snort Mast (10 t miscellaneous weight)
-Sonar (10 t miscellaneous weight)
-Basic surface-search radar (5 t miscellaneous weight)
-35mm and 15mm guns (1 t miscellaneous weight)
-Weight reserve (4 t miscellaneous weight)

While the Panipat class will serve the niche of high-speed personnel transport, the Khanwa class will fill the complementary role of high-speed vehicle/equipment transport.

The ship is intended, like the Panipat, to make cross-oceanic runs in eight days - only with 2,000 t of vehicles and dry cargo, and up to 300 personnel aboard. The ship has no amphibious capability, but is designed and built to allow the vehicles to be driven from the ship to dock in short order. She will be built to civilian standards.

Khanwa was laid down in Q1/43; a second unit is tentatively penciled in for 1944.

Thanks to Walter for the sim.

Khanwa, high-speed transport, laid down 1943

Displacement:
5,530 t light; 5,798 t standard; 8,778 t normal; 11,162 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
489.49 ft / 475.72 ft x 65.62 ft x 16.40 ft (normal load)
149.20 m / 145.00 m x 20.00 m x 5.00 m

Armament:
4 - 4.92" / 125 mm guns (2x2 guns), 59.59lbs / 27.03kg shells, 1943 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1943 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
16 - 0.59" / 15.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 0.10lbs / 0.05kg shells, 1943 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all aft, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 285 lbs / 129 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 540

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 37,438 shp / 27,929 Kw = 25.45 kts
Range 5,000nm at 25.00 kts (simmed as 7,000 nm @ 25 kts)
Bunker at max displacement = 3,831 t (5,364 tons simmed)

Complement:
453 - 589

Cost:
£2.349 million / $9.396 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 36 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 24 tons, 0.3 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 24 tons, 0.3 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 967 tons, 11.0 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,968 tons, 33.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,248 tons, 37.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1,536 tons, 17.5 %
-2,000 t: Vehicles and cargo (includes 1,533 t simmed as bunkerage) (say, 20 x 40 t medium tanks, 40 x 10 t light tanks, 60 x 5 t trucks, 50 x 2 t jeeps/light trucks)
-600 t: Accomodation for 300 vehicle personnel
-400 t: Vehicle loading equipment/ramps
-49 t: Weight reserve
-20 t: Radar suite

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
23,464 lbs / 10,643 Kg = 393.7 x 4.9 " / 125 mm shells or 3.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.41
Metacentric height 4.8 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 12.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.06
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.64

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.600
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 21.81 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 31
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 26.90 ft / 8.20 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Stern: 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
- Average freeboard: 23.28 ft / 7.10 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 59.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 220.5 %
Waterplane Area: 22,830 Square feet or 2,121 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 232 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 85 lbs/sq ft or 414 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.14
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

I'm not entirely sold on using Ro-Ro in the 1940s, but if nobody else has a problem with it, I guess I'll buy in and use it myself...

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'm not entirely sold on using Ro-Ro in the 1940s, but if nobody else has a problem with it, I guess I'll buy in and use it myself...

Conceptually, roll-on, roll-off is not that different from vehicle and train ferries, ship types that were well established by the middle 1940s.

During the Second World War the US Maritime Commission contracted for a series of tank carriers as the C4-S-B1 design, to be built by Sun Shipbuilding in Philadelphia. Unfortunately for the design, much difficulty was encountered in arranging the vehicle ramps - both the interior ramps from deck to deck and the exterior ramps for loading and unloading. The time taken to resolve the difficulties caused the design to be overtaken by events and the ships, with one exception, were recast and completed as troop transports.

In terms of the proposed design however, I have reservations about the tonnage assigned to the vehicle ramps and loading gear - I think it could be too low, but that is more a gut-check than something I can document.

If, however, the player base has no problem with the concept, I too might buy into it.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
During the Second World War the US Maritime Commission contracted for a series of tank carriers as the C4-S-B1 design, to be built by Sun Shipbuilding in Philadelphia. Unfortunately for the design, much difficulty was encountered in arranging the vehicle ramps - both the interior ramps from deck to deck and the exterior ramps for loading and unloading. The time taken to resolve the difficulties caused the design to be overtaken by events and the ships, with one exception, were recast and completed as troop transports.

Mm, wasn't aware of that. I suppose it's not all that big a deal. I've certainly flirted with the idea of introducing Ro-Ro ships myself, but always decided to shy away from it since I see it as a 1950s/1960s idea. But if there's reasonable justification to introduce it in the 1940s, then I guess I'll accept it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
During the Second World War the US Maritime Commission contracted for a series of tank carriers as the C4-S-B1 design, to be built by Sun Shipbuilding in Philadelphia. Unfortunately for the design, much difficulty was encountered in arranging the vehicle ramps - both the interior ramps from deck to deck and the exterior ramps for loading and unloading. The time taken to resolve the difficulties caused the design to be overtaken by events and the ships, with one exception, were recast and completed as troop transports.

Mm, wasn't aware of that. I suppose it's not all that big a deal. I've certainly flirted with the idea of introducing Ro-Ro ships myself, but always decided to shy away from it since I see it as a 1950s/1960s idea. But if there's reasonable justification to introduce it in the 1940s, then I guess I'll accept it.

I too have shied away from introducing it, as the first successful naval applications date from the later 1950s. But the concept and technology was there if the investment was considered worthwhile. In 1942, waiting for work the kinks out of a tank carrier took second priority to producing ships for the short term.

The monitor Chandragupta was selected to serve as the testbed for two new intermediate gun mountings co-developed by the RSAN and the BNS. She spent nine months undergoing a 75% refit in the SAE for this purpose.

The mountings in question are:

-An automatic rapid-fire 25 cm twin turret (simmed as a triple) for use on large cruisers. Given the general lack of modern historical guns in this size range, a ball-park firing rate of 5-6 rounds per minute is estimated. This compares with the 2 RPM rate of the late twenties Bofors 254/45 and the 10 RPM rate of the historical American 8"/55RF (figures from Navweaps.com). No AA capability has been included.

This particular unit has rather limited ammunition stowage, reflecting limitations associated with Chandragupta herself. Still, 67 shells * 3/2 lets the ship shoot off a hundred rounds per barrel at a time - certainly sufficient for testing purposes.

-An automatic rapid-fire 15 cm twin turret (also simmed as a triple). This would be broadly similar in capability to historical auto 6" mountings. It has DP capability, though it is not likely to supplant 125mm guns in the BNS, at any rate.

The 57mm guns are the new Bharati AA mounting - simply replacing the previous AA fitting. The RSAN does have a new 57mm installation to test, but indicated they were unable to mount it on the Chandragupta due to technical considerations (such as - Dutch stablization equipment)

Note that the ship's freeboard and superfiring main turret better reflect the drawing than the original ship design did.

The sim below is "as designed"; as noted, both the 250 and 150mm guns are twins-simmed-as-triples.

Chandragupta, India Monitor laid down 1921 (Engine 1943)

Displacement:
3,980 t light; 4,142 t standard; 4,329 t normal; 4,478 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
366.51 ft / 360.24 ft x 62.99 ft x 12.14 ft (normal load)
111.71 m / 109.80 m x 19.20 m x 3.70 m

Armament:
3 - 9.84" / 250 mm guns (1x3 guns), 524.70lbs / 238.00kg shells, 1921 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline forward, all raised guns - superfiring
3 - 5.91" / 150 mm guns (1x3 guns), 110.23lbs / 50.00kg shells, 1921 Model
Breech loading guns in a turret (on a barbette)
on centreline aft
8 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 5.65lbs / 2.56kg shells, 1921 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 1,950 lbs / 885 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 67

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.94" / 100 mm 144.36 ft / 44.00 m 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 62% of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.87" / 200 mm 3.94" / 100 mm 7.87" / 200 mm
2nd: 3.15" / 80 mm 1.57" / 40 mm 3.15" / 80 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.97" / 50 mm, Conning tower: 3.94" / 100 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 6,743 shp / 5,030 Kw = 17.81 kts
Range 4,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 335 tons

Complement:
266 - 346

Cost:
£0.894 million / $3.574 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 223 tons, 5.2%
Armour: 1,212 tons, 28.0%
- Belts: 331 tons, 7.6%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0%
- Armament: 282 tons, 6.5%
- Armour Deck: 577 tons, 13.3%
- Conning Tower: 23 tons, 0.5%
Machinery: 174 tons, 4.0%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,322 tons, 53.6%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 348 tons, 8.0%
Miscellaneous weights: 49 tons, 1.1%
-45 t: Radar and fire-control
-4 t: Weight reserve

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
9,226 lbs / 4,185 Kg = 19.4 x 9.8 " / 250 mm shells or 2.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 3.3 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 14.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.39
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.72 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.98 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 58
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 16.99 ft / 5.18 m
- Forecastle (35%): 10.60 ft / 3.23 m
- Mid (50%): 10.60 ft / 3.23 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 10.60 ft / 3.23 m
- Stern: 10.60 ft / 3.23 m
- Average freeboard: 11.49 ft / 3.50 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 53.1%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 120.2%
Waterplane Area: 15,837 Square feet or 1,471 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 128%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 118 lbs/sq ft or 577 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.93
- Longitudinal: 1.75
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

I have to voice some concern on the Automatic 25cm gun....admittedly because I examined trying to develop automatic 9.2" guns for Canada, and between having no historical basis and springsharp saying NO to anything over 8", did not pursue the project, and developed 7.5" autos as a more reasonable alternative.

I'm unaware of any historical project that even looked at anything bigger than the 8" gun for rapid-fire automatics.

Your points are noted.

Navweaps indicated that the Soviets were working on a 220mm gun in the early fifties. Admittedly, that's only one somewhat futuristic example.

Springsharp limits automatics to 8.66", I think, which I take to mean that the programmer arbitrarily limited the option to the largest historical analogue.

My view is that no major power developed a 25cm gun after the Washington Naval Treaty came into effect. By the time the treaty was moot, wartime expediency mandated continuity with existing calibers. The lack of an auto 250 is more a matter of "it wasn't needed/wanted" than "couldn't be done". Meanwhile, Bofors did develop their 254mm gun, but likely didn't have the kind of market that would be necessary to justify the expense of an automatic program.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I have to voice some concern on the Automatic 25cm gun....admittedly because I examined trying to develop automatic 9.2" guns for Canada, and between having no historical basis and springsharp saying NO to anything over 8", did not pursue the project, and developed 7.5" autos as a more reasonable alternative.

I'm unaware of any historical project that even looked at anything bigger than the 8" gun for rapid-fire automatics.

I'm going to second this opinion. There have been a lot of large-caliber dual-purpose and automatic guns that have shown up in Wesworld - well in advance of the USN 8"/L55, which was something of a technological marvel even in 1949. Why do all of these projects succeed so much earlier than any other historical examples?

FWIW, I have deliberately eschewed developing large caliber automatic guns for the Kriegsmarine - other than some paper studies. When I took over Germany, my predecessor had a 15cm gun design in development, which, AFAIK, it still may be - I have no intention of fielding it in the foreseeable future. I suppose that by 1947 or 1948, it might be a viable weapon presuming the historical development of the US 6-in automatic.

It's a deliberate choice on my part - no one has to follow.