don’t know how much to read into the fact that Immortal was never used
HMS Immortalité - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
don’t know how much to read into the fact that Immortal was never used
Surprisingly, all of the above never sank. I think we have a winner, ladies and gentlemen.HMS Immortalité - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
While not really a Royal Navy name, I have to admit that I like the idea of HMS International, so that you can have everything that could/does go wrong with these ships happen to it and have it pick up the informal name of "The International Incident"
She'd have to sail under the Red Ensign, rather than the White.
Why would a Royal Navy ship sail as a British merchant ship?
Red Ensign - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I don't think the British would feel comfortable settling for anything less than 15" guns, especially considering their requirement for the ship to be able to "safely fight" enemy capital ships at long range. Both the 1924-B/3 and 1924-C/2 designs mentioned earlier used 15" guns, and one of the main reasons brought up regarding the use of twin turrets over triples in the previously favored B3 was the extreme weight of the latter and the increased R&D cost. The idea to limit turret armor necessitates the latter, and removes the first problem entirely, thus the stigma against using triple 15" guns was likely alleviated. Then again, the 13.5" gun (especially if it is an improved version) would be more than enough to give cruiser captains around the world severe indigestion, as well as giving battleship and battlecruiser captains ample reason to worry.If they are rules lawyering I'm guessing they've got an improved 13.5" built to the same standard as the 16" Mk.2* throwing a heavier shell at higher velocities and are getting around the treaty ban on new guns by claiming that this is simply an updated version of the BL 13.5" MkV made with modern manufacturing techniques, to do that they would have to stick with a 45 calibre barrel which is unfortunate but unavoidable. I wonder if they gave any consideration to copying R & R and going for a 6 guns of a larger calibre.
The need to fire all the weapons in a turret at once is going to play merry Hell with targeting. Surely that can be modified?
Expendable turrets? Meh. Never really bothered the cruisers in WW2.
The Deck-Armoured Battlecruiser
Well that's an interesting scheme. Leaving your turrets vulnerable is brave but the shell handling system does seem to reduce the risk of a magazine explosion, how that will work in practice I'm not sure, it's easy to imagine that a near miss could jar the flash doors and then should a shell set off the charges in the hoist you'd lose the ship.
The main calibre is still unclear, the previous post said these ships have three turrets and your image suggests they have 3 gun turrets meaning 9 guns so even with this armour scheme I can't see how they could have the weight to carry 16" Mk.2*'s. If they are rules lawyering I'm guessing they've got an improved 13.5" built to the same standard as the 16" Mk.2* throwing a heavier shell at higher velocities and are getting around the treaty ban on new guns by claiming that this is simply an updated version of the BL 13.5" MkV made with modern manufacturing techniques, to do that they would have to stick with a 45 calibre barrel which is unfortunate but unavoidable. I wonder if they gave any consideration to copying R & R and going for a 6 guns of a larger calibre.
Still with that armament and assuming the armour scheme works this ship will definitely be able to destroy all of the other BCL designs and cause some damage to 1st rate battleships as they run away.
The need to fire all the weapons in a turret at once is going to play merry Hell with targeting. Surely that can be modified?
Expendable turrets? Meh. Never really bothered the cruisers in WW2.
I don't think the British would feel comfortable settling for anything less than 15" guns, especially considering their requirement for the ship to be able to "safely fight" enemy capital ships at long range. Both the 1924-B/3 and 1924-C/2 designs mentioned earlier used 15" guns, and one of the main reasons brought up regarding the use of twin turrets over triples in the previously favored B3 was the extreme weight of the latter and the increased R&D cost. The idea to limit turret armor necessitates the latter, and removes the first problem entirely, thus the stigma against using triple 15" guns was likely alleviated. Then again, the 13.5" gun (especially if it is an improved version) would be more than enough to give cruiser captains around the world severe indigestion, as well as giving battleship and battlecruiser captains ample reason to worry.
Edit: I'm also pretty sure that this last update is missing a threadmark.
Was this armoured shell hoist proposed OTL?
Only 4"? I hope they add more, else these boys will be tasting AP shells bombs quite a lot in WW2. That's less than armored CVs.