I do love the chunky superstructures of the Takao class. Fine ships, both in looks and in combat.
Good looking does not always equals functionality, as the heavy large superstructure was a major cause of top heaviness on these ships, causing it not to be repeated in the next classes of cruisers (Mogami class and follow on), being replaced by smaller less tall structures. Besides that, the large superstructure makes it ideal to catch enemy fire, causing all sorts of problems in combat.View attachment 684799
I do love the chunky superstructures of the Takao class. Fine ships, both in looks and in combat.
I wonder how useful a more heavily armoured Renown class (instead of all the Revenges) like an up-gunned Tiger might be? Tiger herself had three inches of belt on Renown (only thinning to much less before the magazines so...) and half an inch more deck armour. Say 10in belt, 3.5in deck with 5in over magazines after Jutland. How much slower? Lower in the water? Displacement? I assume an aft super-firing turret is precluded.View attachment 684667
HMS Tiger WW1 looks right from any angle.
View attachment 684799
I do love the chunky superstructures of the Takao class. Fine ships, both in looks and in combat.
Good fire power, weak armor. They could be chewed up by USN CL's. Even 5" shells could do serious damage.View attachment 684799
I do love the chunky superstructures of the Takao class. Fine ships, both in looks and in combat.
Changing the 13.5" guns for a new design 14" twin turret wouldn't be worth the high cost. The 13.5" was fine for anything you really needed to shot.Are you not getting very close to HMS Hood?
I have always been partial to swapping Tiger for Iron Duke as the RN gunnery training ship in the LNT and then doing a British 'Kongo' to her.
Also give her the 14" as for KGV. Very useful for killing PB's and fairly good for taking on at least one of the twins.
If done by 1938, could deputise for Hood whist she was rebuilt in 1938/40
To be fair thats a criticism that can be leveled at virtually all treaty era cruisers. Where the Japanese made mistakes is that their cruisers were almost universally over the treaty limits by at least 10% and yet their ships still had paper armor and lousy subdivision. If you are going to cheat and lie about the size of your ships you should be able to get a better end product, not a slightly overweight but generally comparable cruiser to everyone else.Good fire power, weak armor. They could be chewed up by USN CL's. Even 5" shells could do serious damage.
We are 100ft or so shy of that length. More like 160ft shorter for the 3x3 turret KGV-class that has an inch thicker 13in belt (albeit tightened somewhat). A less escalatory design. (added to my software's dictionary)Are you not getting very close to HMS Hood?
The new 14" twin turret was designed to fit Iron Duke's 13.5" twin turret rings* for testing purposes, so not as expensive as you'd think. You gain the option of modern targetting and higher elevation.Changing the 13.5" guns for a new design 14" twin turret wouldn't be worth the high cost. The 13.5" was fine for anything you really needed to shot.
Look at your drafts. Can these rebuilds and new builds and refits use existent British harbors and berths? There are historical reasons why these did not happen.I wonder how useful a more heavily armoured Renown class (instead of all the Revenges) like an up-gunned Tiger might be? Tiger herself had three inches of belt on Renown (only thinning to much less before the magazines so...) and half an inch more deck armour. Say 10in belt, 3.5in deck with 5in over magazines after Jutland. How much slower? Lower in the water? Displacement? I assume an aft super-firing turret is precluded.
The Revenges/Renowns (the Re-class) Have 42 bulky boilers as they are a wartime rush job. If they are much slower with all that extra armour putting them lower in the water then a machinery refit after the war is strongly recommended. They have the length to make it worthwhile. One or two incomplete hulls might be adapted as beltless aircraft carriers, setting a refit/finish standard for the overly light Courageous Class. The logical progression to reuse the twins of decommissioning QE-class for further heavy battlecruisers and replacing the battleships with more 3x3 fast battleships as the military and political climate merits.
Re-class 760ft pp (804ft oal) , 10in belt sloped out 23° , 3.5-5in deck , aiming for 30-31 knots (draft?)
3x3 fast battleships 700ft pp (745ft oal), 13in belt sloped out 17° , 4-6in deck , aiming for 27-28 knots (KGV)
Beams 90ft (1931 onwards bulged out to 102ft by two extra torpedo bulkheads each side. Inner 3ft wide spaces plumbed for fuel oil, outer sluiced for counter flooding)
1930s Engine/boiler room refit for Small tube boilers from 112,000shp to 160,000shp, deck armour replaced with 1in thicker over vital areas.
Secondary gun refits (1933 onwards): 10x to 12x 4.7"/40 (12 cm) Mark X in half inch thick turrets elevating to 70°. Approx weight 15ton single, 27ton twin. Electric train and elevation initially 15° per second later boosted to 20° with a rear mounted back-up generator set.
Casemates for 6in secondary and torpedo tubes removed. Citadel removed. Increased crew accommodation space post-Invergordon.
All of these builds, rebuilds, and refits were physically possible in British shipyards.Look at your drafts. Can these rebuilds and new builds and refits use existent British harbors and berths? There are historical reasons why these did not happen.
In @CV(N)-6 s interest naval game I bought the ship as the Netherlands and used her as a flagship, even refit her. @Virginia Liberal made an awesome render of the ship as well even.I imagine a rebuilt Tiger would be a useful ship and worth sacrificing one of the R's to keep in the treaty negotiations.
View attachment 685020
Yes Renown was pretty small draft compared to battleships. The military ports can usually manage 29-32ft and anchorages to ferry to/from are possible for those that are deeper in the water. Not that changes would be that great.All of these builds, rebuilds, and refits were physically possible in British shipyards.
The problem (and it is a significant problem) is squeezing the money for them out of the Treasury.
So ugly, it does not float, just repels the water!I meet that challenge sir.The Carnot.
View attachment 683967
The ocean doesn’t want it.So ugly, it does not float, just repels the water!
Poor Bouvet didn't get the memo.The ocean doesn’t want it.
C'mon, now, be nice. It's not even certain the ports make it worse - I give you the Eyeless Terror, Neptune.So ugly, it does not float, just repels the water!
Am I the only one who likes this ship and its appearance? Perhaps my French blood is at play. 🧐I meet that challenge sir.The Carnot.
View attachment 683967