Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

Since the Italians have the right guns and mounts, fire control, torpedoes you might as well order the entire ships there. Especially because they are fine with payment in metals and industrial minerals. Foreign exchange is hard to come by in these days. 

I think we should order the flying boats in Italy too. Performance wise the latest version of the Wal and the S.55 are similar, though the latter can carry bombs and torpedoes. And we could most likely get a good price if we also order the ships from Italy. 

 

PS: Sorry to bother you again but the accountants would like to point something out:

 

A twin 10cm LA/HA mounts weights 15 tons and each barrels has a RoF of eight to ten RPM.

For three mounts that amounts to 45tons, 48 to 60 RPM and a broadside weight of 662 to 828 kilos.

 

A single 12,7cm/25 mount(with no shield) weighs ten tons and has a RoF of 15 to 20 RPM.

For three 12.7cm/25 guns you are looking at a total weight of 30 tons(w/o shields), 45 to 60 RPM, and a broadside weight of 1,098 to 1,464 kilos.

Edited by Markus Becker
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are a number of routes possible with our requirement;-

  1.  British - They have no gun/mount that meets our requirement. At this juncture they only have single, manually worked 4"/45 DP HA guns. Could we commission a new gun and mount from the UK? I think it is entirely possible, especially if we do not insist on the intellectual rights which are generally the most often abrogated in this field.
  2. Italian - We could go to OTO and have them design us a whole new mount for the 10cm with all our requirements. 
  3. Swedish - Bofors has let it be known that they are doing a 10.cm/50 twin for the Finnish coast defence ship. It is power rammed but it needs RPC and does not have director control. (rate of fire is 15rpm claimed)
  4. American - 5"/25 singles, require gun shields and is two piece ammunition.

American builds would be the most challenging to maintain in the long term. British or Italian built would be much easier, since we just really need to send them into the Mediterranean for either. I would prefer the British myself for a number of reasons, including the fact that we have a bunch of ex-RN types in the Navy which will make the whole process a little less culturally challenging. 

The Bofors gun is a solid fall back position if the British cannot deliver on the guns (which is obviously the MkXVI on the twin MkXIX mount). We can also justifiably get the damned things because we essentially bankroll the development. 

For some or all of these we could chamber for our existing 10cm as well. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They sell very little in the 20s as the Soviet Union was a mess and they needed everything for rebuilding internal state power. In the 30s, they do, but usually for political and ideological reasons, e.g. Spain.  China is the other big recipient based on the disputes with Japan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Simon Tan said:

They sell very little in the 20s as the Soviet Union was a mess and they needed everything for rebuilding internal state power. In the 30s, they do, but usually for political and ideological reasons, e.g. Spain.  China is the other big recipient based on the disputes with Japan. 

Did not know about China. Thanks for the new information. What did they sell and what did they donate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with pre-creating a Hunt class DD/DE in the early 30s is that the QF 4-inch Mk XVI doesn‘t become available until 1936 IRL(date of design 1934 per navweaps). That would change the numbers to 50 tons, 90 to 120 RPM and 2,600 to 3,500 kilos. What to do?

 

1. Going to the British or Italians and paying them for a 4”/10cm gun with all the bells and whistles of the 5”/25. But that will take some time. WAG: The Mk XVI might become available slightly earlier if Tankovia kickstarts the development. PS: see below

 

2. Or buying off the shelf. The Swedish/Finnish gun has good firepower. 90 RPM, 1440 kilo broadside but the mounts are very heavy. 65 tons for three of them. That is 1,4 rounds per ton. Slightly better than the IRL Italian guns at their best RoF(1,3). Were the gunshields armored? I don’t think the Russians have anything to offer in the early 30s. They were being helped by the Italians at the time.

 

If the ships are wanted in the fist half of the 1930s you have a choice between the Bofors and the 5”/25. We all know what I’d prefer but I have another idea:

The late 1920s naval rearmament plan founders on the cliffs of the Great Depression! Sorry navy, not enough money in the budget for your new toys! Overhauling the sloops and buying R-boats is the most the treasury can pay for.

 

PS: OTOH, the Italians already have a mount that meets all requirement except RoF. If they could increase that to at least 15 it would be ok.

Edited by Markus Becker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...