Hosted by autogun
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 2:46 by graylion
Latest 2:25 by Refleks
Latest 4-Mar by stancrist
Latest 4-Mar by poliorcetes
Latest 2-Mar by larrikin2
Latest 2-Mar by tidusyuki
Latest 28-Feb by stancrist
Latest 27-Feb by larrikin2
Latest 27-Feb by Refleks
Latest 26-Feb by poliorcetes
Latest 26-Feb by autogun
Latest 25-Feb by autogun
Latest 24-Feb by autogun
Latest 22-Feb by gatnerd
Latest 21-Feb by autogun
Latest 20-Feb by gatnerd
Latest 19-Feb by autogun
Latest 18-Feb by autogun
Latest 17-Feb by Red7272
Latest 16-Feb by Refleks
Latest 16-Feb by Greybeard (Greybeard8)
Latest 15-Feb by stancrist
Latest 14-Feb by Farmplinker
Latest 12-Feb by autogun
Latest 12-Feb by autogun
Latest 12-Feb by autogun
Latest 11-Feb by roguetechie
Latest 11-Feb by roguetechie
Latest 11-Feb by mpopenker
Latest 10-Feb by tidusyuki
Latest 9-Feb by nincomp
Latest 6-Feb by gatnerd
Latest 5-Feb by JPeelen
16-Feb
Is there a list of existing infrastructure (how many slips capable of what tonnage) that can be used as a reference to come up with an idea of how many ships of a particular weight class can be built over what time scales?
17-Feb
So, if you are scrapping the Revenges, what are your thoughts on keeping and modernising Tiger in similar manner to the Repulse, Renown and Hood?
She's fast and should be reasonably punchy with 8x 13.5" guns firing the heavy (1400lb) projectiles. With her original strange armour layout revised a la Renown, higher main gun elevation, modern fire control and new boilers/turbines she would presumably make for another useful fast hull.
I know the 13.5" is yet another calibre to deal with. However, there should be plenty of spare barrels and ammunition already kicking around the supply system after all the Iron Dukes are removed from service and scrapped. Enough to keep one ship operational, surely.
17-Feb
Tiger was a good ship, but had already been scrapped before Don Erlang arrived in 1934, so can't feature in the world of TFW!
17-Feb
By the way, if you are interested in the whole question of the interrelationship between warship design and the interwar naval limitation treaties then I recommend a pair of books by John Jordan: Warships After Washington and Warships After London.
17-Feb
Refleks said:Is there a list of existing infrastructure (how many slips capable of what tonnage) that can be used as a reference to come up with an idea of how many ships of a particular weight class can be built over what time scales?
A detailed source is The Battleship Builders: Constructing and Arming British Capital Ships by Ian Johnston and Ian Buxton.
An idea of the physical facilities may be gained from looking at what work was actually done, where:
What I've been able to piece together from Conway's Fighting Ships is this:
Devonport:
Malaya Oct 34-Dec 36
Valiant Mar 37-Nov 39
Portsmouth:
Warspite Mar 34-Mar 37
QE Aug 37-Dec 40
Renown Sep 37-Sep 39
Repulse Apr 33-May 36
New build: commercial firms (dates from laying down to launching):
KGV Jan 37-Feb 39 (Tyne-VA)
PoW Jan 37-May 39 (Birkenhead-CL)
DoY May 37-Feb 40 (Clyde-JB)
Anson Jul 37-Feb 40 (Tyne-SH)
Howe Jun 37-Apr 40 (Clyde-Fair.)
Vanguard Oct 41-Nov 44 (Clyde-JB)
Ark Royal (1) Sep 35- Apr 37 (Birkenhead-CL)
Illustrious Apr 37-Apr 39 (Barrow-VA)
Victorious May 37-Sep 39 (Tyne-VA)
Formidable Jun 37-Aug 39 (Belfast-H&W)
Indomitable Nov 37-Apr 40 (Barrow-VA)
Implacable Feb 39-Dec 42 (Clyde-Fair.)
Indefatigable Nov 39-Dec 42 (Clyde-JB)
Audacious/Eagle Oct 42+ (Belfast-H&W)
Ark Royal (2) May 43+ (Birkenhead-CL)
The conclusions from this seem to be as follows:
All reconstructions were carried out by RN Dockyards which were able to handle one (Devonport) and two (Portsmouth) capital ships at any one time. Each reconstruction took between two and three years (approx).
All new builds were carried out by private firms in seven different locations, which c23-Feb
In regards to aircraft carriers it wasn't armoured flight decks per se that were the problem, but the armoured box hangars with 4" of side armour to resist cruiser gunfire.
Post war every US carrier design has had an armoured flight deck, including those initially drawn up during the war, as did Britain's proposed "Malta" class.
By using the tonnage that went into the sides of the box but retaining the armoured flight deck you get a much more survivable carrier with the ability to take a bigger airgroup.
And of course, getting Glorious, Courageous, and Furious in for a quick trip to the dockyards to have their flight decks rebuilt without the fore and aft round downs would also help.
Then all Don has to do is win the fight with the RAF over number of aircraft and training actual navigators.
23-Feb
larrikin2 said:Then all Don has to do is win the fight with the RAF over number of aircraft and training actual navigators
Yes indeed: I have nothing against the RAF, but Don would not be very popular with them... with their 4-engined heavies mostly pinched for MR duties!
Thanks for the tip on the flight decks. I recall reading that in smaller (WW2) carriers, the strength deck is below the hangars, so the flight deck is added weight on top. But by the time we get to the big postwar carriers, the obvious place for the strength deck is higher up, where the flight deck happens to be, so a flight deck with considerable girder strength comes free!