Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Would Warship Design Differ With No Naval Disarmament Treaties?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    One then wonders if this might have left BBs actually more competitive in WW2, if they could mount such an impressive AA armament.
    I think they would have been. As goofy as they look, the G3, N3 classes could have probably mounted something in the range of 10 dual 4.7s on the after deck, and another 20-40 quad Bofors. Plus all those guns would have a roughly 300 degree field of fire......with good radar and direction that could be an absolute AA Blanket.....
    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
      I think they would have been. As goofy as they look, the G3, N3 classes could have probably mounted something in the range of 10 dual 4.7s on the after deck, and another 20-40 quad Bofors. Plus all those guns would have a roughly 300 degree field of fire......with good radar and direction that could be an absolute AA Blanket.....
      This in turn may have played a role in convincing Admirals and naval theorists that the age of the BB was not finished - especially after they'd invested so much more resources into their construction than historically.

      At its most extreme, CVs may have been relegated to a support role as Admiral's focused on the traditional line of battle, confident their AA armament would keep them secure.

      ... though the argument against that would be that it might have taken a significant loss (like the HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse) to convince them to really upgrade the AA armament.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
        This in turn may have played a role in convincing Admirals and naval theorists that the age of the BB was not finished - especially after they'd invested so much more resources into their construction than historically.

        At its most extreme, CVs may have been relegated to a support role as Admiral's focused on the traditional line of battle, confident their AA armament would keep them secure.

        ... though the argument against that would be that it might have taken a significant loss (like the HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse) to convince them to really upgrade the AA armament.
        The British went early on with heavy AA batteries in large part because there was a recognition that the FAA and carriers were not going to do the job in large part because the RAF was miserly with funds and the planes provided were iffy at best.

        The RN also thought that their main opponent, Germany, would be fighting mostly at shorter ranges in the poor weather of the North Sea. Therefore, battleships should be designed primarily for a gun battle at only moderate range.

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X