Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
HMS_Formidable

British Heavy Cruiser Design Notes

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles

1927 PROGRAM (SURREY)


The new (10,000 ton) sketch design showed 1,620 tons of armour, compared to 1,100 tons for the most recent A Cruiser Dorsetshire. Magazines would be protected against 8in fire at all ranges below 20,000yds, and against 6in fire at all ranges. The protected part of the machinery would be protected against 8in fire between 7,000 and 20,000yds, and against 6in fire at all ranges up to 20,000yds.
The other ship, Design Y, cut power to 60,000shp (six boilers, four shafts). Speed would fall to 30kts or perhaps 30.25kts. Length was reduced again, to 570ft. Hull weight was cut by reducing hull depth…
The weight saved in machinery and hull could provide protection for the entire machinery space.
The reduction in power eliminated one funnel, clearing the deck for catapults and HA directors. Controller liked the added protection and the improved arrangement…
Legend and drawings were approved by the Board on 22 November 1928.

 

** More details to come
** Arrangements looked similar to Exeter, which benefited from Surrey design process, except she had four twins.


Source: Friedman, Norman. British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After (Kindle Locations 3688-3692). Seaforth. Kindle Edition.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles

1929 PROGRAM (MODIFIED SURREY)

zdrtKDU.jpg
The A-type Cruiser of 1929, which was aborted by the 1930 London Naval Treaty, introduced important later features which were then incorporated in the modified design of HMS Exeter, the new streamlined bridge, perpendicular masts and funnels, and fixed catapults. A Legend dated 2 July 1928 showed a ship the same size as HMS Surrey (also cancelled: 570ft pp, 600ft loa x 64ft x 14ft fwd and 19ft aft), with a freeboard forward of 30ft 6in, 24ft amidships, and 14ft 6in aft. Her 60,000shp plant was expected to drive her at 30kts at Legend (standard: 10,000 tons) displacement and at 29kts at deep load. Armament was the usual four twin 8in (100 rounds per gun), four 4in HA (200 rounds each), two quadruple 0.5in machine guns, and two quadruple torpedo tubes. She would have 5 ½ in armour on her ½ in shell over her machinery, closed by bulkheads of similar thickness and covered by a 2 ½ in deck on a 1 Véin deck. The most striking improvement over Surrey was in protection to the boiler room fans (necessary for speed): 4 rather than 2in sides, 3in rather than 1in ends, and 2in rather than 1in deck. Magazines and shell rooms were comparable in the two designs: 5 ½ in on ½ in sides with 3in on ⅜ in decks and 3in on ½ in bulkheads. (Norman Friedman)

 

Early in July 1929 DNC asked Lillicrap to investigate restoring the full 80,000shp of the earlier heavy cruisers. On 80,000shp the ship would make 31.5kts at standard displacement and 30.5kts when deep,
In response to an NID paper describing US cruisers, DNC asked for the effect on Surrey of substituting three triples for four twins…
Substituting triples for twins would save 144 tons on the 80,000shp ship, leaving 60 tons in hand. That would restore the deck over the machinery or add ½ in to the belt armour over the machinery. With the same protection as in the 1929 cruiser, a ship with three triple turrets would displace 10,450 tons.

 

Source: Friedman, Norman. British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After (Kindle Locations 3688-3692). Seaforth. Kindle Edition.

 

 

6EEJzM0.jpg

The belt covering the machinery spaces would have extended 9ft belowthe lower deck wich here had 2.25in armour on 0.5in plating, while the closing bulkheads extended fora further 5ft. Ther was 1.5in protection to steering gear, and the platformdeck over the ammunition spaces was to have 3in armour. Most of the defects in the protection of previous 8in cruisers were remedied at the price of 30kts speed, but though 1in trunks were added to the turrets,the armour remained entirely inadequate. There would have been two catapults.

Displacement, 10,000t standard

Dimensions: 600ft oa, 64ft, 21ft6in mean

Speed: Four shaftds driving 30kts

Armour: Box protection to ammunition spaces 5.75in, belt and bulkheads 5.5in, turrets trunks and ring bulkheads 1in.

Armament: 8 8in/50 Mk VIII (4x2), 4x 4in/45 HA (4x1), 2x octuple pom pom, 8x 21in torpedo (2x 4), 2 aircraft

 

Source: Conway's All The World's Warships

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles

1935 PROGRAM (8in BELFAST?)

 

At the beginning of the 1935 London Conference, the Tactical Division laid out a Staff Requirement for a new 8in cruiser based on Surrey.
Replacing the relatively heavy machinery planned for Surrey with the lighter 64,000shp plant developed for the small cruiser Arethusa saved 235 tons on machinery,
The Staff wanted fifty more rounds per 8in gun (70 tons), six twin 4in anti-aircraft guns (as in Belfast) rather than the four singles in Surrey (129 tons, with 250 rounds per gun), and two quadruple pompoms and two quadruple 0.5in machine guns (the current standard light anti-aircraft battery, weighing 53 tons). Aircraft should be as in the Southampton class (a fixed catapult and three TSRs).
A Legend showed a displacement of 10,090 tons. Lillicrap produced no sketch, but presumably the result would have resembled Southampton with twin rather than triple turrets, and with two more twin 4in guns. The ship would probably make 31.1kts on 64,000shp. To some extent this study showed that a large modern cruiser was feasible. It is not clear whether it had any connection with the Belfast design.

 

Source: Friedman, Norman. British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After (Kindle Locations 3688-3692). Seaforth. Kindle Edition.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles

IMPROVED LONDON REBUILDS

EctLQNY.jpg

Sussex would have followed London (expected, in 1939, to complete in August 1940) at Chatham (taken in hand in March 1940). Devonshire would have been rebuilt at Chatham between April 1941 and September 1942, Shropshire being taken in hand (presumably in the same drydock) in March 1942.

In April 1939 it was proposed to improve the deck protection of ships after HMS London (beginning with HMS Sussex) by adding a second layer of 1in D. 1 plating (over the existing 1 ⅜ in) over the machinery spaces (it was soon clear that it would be better to replace this deck altogether). In addition, splinter plating could be worked into the bulkheads between the boiler rooms and between the engine rooms, to localise the effect of hits in one boiler room or in one engine room.

 

Source: Friedman, Norman. British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After (Kindle Locations 3688-3692). Seaforth. Kindle Edition.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles

1938 PROGRAM

 

In January 1938 DNC asked his preliminary cruiser designer, W G John, to sketch a variety of heavy cruisers, beginning with a 20,000-ton ship (700ft x 70ft x 25ft), to make 33kts at standard displacement, with high endurance. Armament would be three quadruple 9.2in turrets, six twin 4.5in and four octuple pompoms, but there would be neither torpedo tubes nor machine guns (0.661in). The ship would have two aircraft and a deck catapult. Armour would be an 8in belt covered by a 4in deck, with underwater protection against a 750lb charge, as in a capital ship. The designer was to try to ‘scrape down’ to not more than 15,000 tons;

 

Study 1 (9.2in gun/20,000t): The design was developed in some detail. 39 The ship would be about the size of a carrier; DNC suggested starting with 132,000shp. DNO provided data on a quadruple 9.2in turret. The belt armour would resist 10in shells 40 ° from normal at 16,000yds; the deck was expected to resist 10in shells and also a 1,000lb AP bomb dropped from 8,000ft. DNC suggested a short forecastle design with a hangar and the usual alternating engine and boiler rooms, the machinery box being pushed well aft (as in Belfast). A cross-section showed a 16ft 6in deep belt extending 11ft 6in above the waterline, with an internal deck below the armour deck but well above water, and a side protective system inboard of the belt. Hull depth would have been 35ft 6in. The belt would have been closed by 6in bulkheads. As in recent much smaller cruisers, the belt armour, rather than armour boxes, would have protected the magazines. The 20,000-ton hull actually proved somewhat small, so John tried a 23,700-tonner as well. 40 To get back down, John tried triple 9.2in guns, but found he did not have enough machinery weight to make 33kts. He had to reduce armour. 41 By early February 1938 this design was being called an armoured cruiser.

 

Study 2 (8in/9.2in 21,750t):  DNC next asked what could be done with nine 8in guns (Design A), or with nine 9.2in (Design B). Speed was set at 33kts and endurance at 10,000nm at 15kts. Other armament was six twin 4.5in, four octuple and two single pompoms, and twelve torpedo tubes. Armour should defeat the ship’s own guns at 90 ° inclination (worst case) between 8,000 and 25,000yds (with an inch less over machinery). The deck over the magazines should defeat a 500lb SAP bomb dropped from 10,000ft (over machinery, a 500lb dive bomb); and underwater protection should, as before, defeat a 750lb charge. For the 9.2in gun, this was more than had been asked for before: 10 ½ in C over magazines and 9 ½ in over machinery, with a 3 ½ in deck over magazines and 2 ½ in over machinery. 42 For 8in shellfire it was quite heavy, too: 9in (8in) belt and 3 ½ in (2 ½ in deck). Deck armour was the same in both cases because it was determined by the bombs, not the shells. This was the sort of protection the US Navy later provided in the Alaska class, not even approached in any conventional cruiser. A sketch showed a ship with a waterline beam of 84ft, bulged underwater to 88ft, so that the battleship-style underwater (side) protective system could be 10ft deep. DNC received the report of this pair of designs on 28 February and in turn reported to Controller on 4 March. The ship with nine 8in guns was expected to displace 21,750 tons and to cost £ 5.5 million.

 

Study 3 (12in/20,000t):  DNC asked for details of an Alaska-like super-cruiser, at 20,000 tons, armed with six 12in guns, with 7in belt and 3in deck, which was what the Japanese were (incorrectly) reported to be building. 43 Unlike the 8in and 9.2in cruisers, it was legal under the 1936 treaty, because it came in above the prohibited cruiser zone (8,000-17,000 tons, 6.1in to 10in guns). The estimate was based on the 9.2in ship reported the previous February (700ft x 84ft x 23ft), the twin 12in turret being comparable to the triple 9.2in. Work on such ships resumed in February 1939, with analysis of an 18,000-tonner armed with six 10in guns and twelve 4in HA/ LA guns, protected against 8in fire, with a speed of 32/ 34kts and a cost of about £ 5 million. Protection was that calculated the previous year, 9in side and 3in deck, offering immunity (against 8in fire) between 8,000 and 25,000yds. The deck could resist 1,000lb AP bombs dropped from 4,000ft and 500lb SAP from 7,000ft.

 

Study 4 (8in/10,000): In June, DNC asked for studies of a 10,000-ton cruiser armed with 8in guns, in effect a ‘County’ using current technology. 44 Presumably Controller (and the Board) envisaged a partial but not complete breakdown of the treaty, so that 10,000-ton 8in cruisers could once more be built under the specific treaty clause allowing a breakout without mutual agreement as to new limits. Hence, as calculations were made, small excess displacements over 10,000 tons were rejected as unacceptable. DNC envisaged a flush-deck ship armed with three triple 8in guns, four twin 4in, four multiple pompoms, and two triple torpedo tubes, plus the usual aircraft and catapult, capable of 32kts, with a 2in deck. Could such a ship have 6in side armour? Variants should be (a) protected against 11in fire (i.e. German ‘pocket battleship’ fire) at fine inclinations; (b) with armament forward; (c) well protected against 8in fire; and (d) without 4in guns and pompoms. The ship would have new heavy 8in shells (290lbs). On DNO advice it was assumed that the 8in turrets would elevate to 60-70 ° and that the guns would be as far apart as in the twin mounts of the ‘County’ class – which guaranteed that turrets would be large. Analysis suggested that a 32kt ship would displace just over 10,000 tons. Data were worked up for both a 32kt (80,000shp) ship (Design A) and a 30kt (58,000shp) ship (Design B), both with 5in belt and 2in deck, Design B coming closer to 10,000 tons, but by surprisingly little. 45 As sketched on 29 June 1939 the ship looked like a cross between Belfast and Fiji, with a substantial gap between her bridge structure and a hangar built around her forefunnel. Like a Fiji, the bridge carried a DCT on its centreline and HADTs on either side. The forward 4in guns were in this gap. The ship was flush-decked, but with cut-outs in the forecastle deck so that the after 4in guns (between the two funnels) and the torpedo tubes were a deck lower. An after superstructure just forward of ‘X’ turret carried a third HADT on its centreline, with the after DCT below and abaft it. This structure also carried the ship’s pompoms.

 

Source: Friedman, Norman. British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After (Kindle Locations 3688-3692). Seaforth. Kindle Edition.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles

1939  PROGRAM

 

Study 1 (9.2in / 15,000t): Once war broke out, there was no longer any point in a 10,000-ton limit, and Winston Churchill, back as First Lord of the Admiralty, pushed for a powerful ship. John was assigned to develop a new 14,000-15,000-ton cruiser armed with 9.2in guns and protected against 8in shellfire, with a good radius of action, higher speed than the German 8in cruisers (say 33/ 34kts), six twin 4.5in anti-aircraft guns, and four quadruple pompoms; she would have no torpedo tubes. The ship would carry the usual two aircraft and one catapult, and she would be protected against aircraft torpedoes. 49 Given the earlier studies, John chose a 7in belt and 2in deck (3in if possible), considering a 9in belt excessive. Cruisers would generally fight at something other than 90 ° inclination. At 90 ° it took 9in to keep out 8in fire at 8,000yds, but 7in would be enough at 8,800yds at a reasonable 60 ° inclination. The ship quickly grew back to what John had been sketching early in 1938, about 21,500 tons and 700ft long.


Study 2 “The Russian Cruiser”:  In 1939 eight sets of cruiser machinery were being built in Britain under Soviet contract, two already being complete. Since machinery was a bottleneck in warship construction, naturally there was interest in incorporating it in new ships. The proposal was to use them in anti-aircraft cruisers with heavy (3in) armoured decks. 2 Such ships were badly needed, so in May 1940 Controller ordered the project to go ahead, even though it had not yet received Board approval. A Legend (Design C) showed a standard displacement of 5,800 tons (470ft [pp] x 54ft x 17ft 3in deep) and a speed of 29/ 28kts on 48,000shp, which was hardly impressive. Armament was four twin upper-deck 4.5in (as in Scylla and Charybdis), two rocket projectors (UPs), two octuple pompoms and two triple torpedo tubes. Dimensions were determined largely by the need for stability. The project to use the Soviet machinery died because the sets did not include boilers, hence using them would not make for quicker construction.


Source: Friedman, Norman. British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After (Kindle Locations 3688-3692). Seaforth. Kindle Edition.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles

1940 PROGRAM

EahnFzk.jpg
The 15,500-ton (670ft x 77ft x 20ft mean) heavy cruiser as sketched 20 January 1940; a 12,500-ton version was broadly similar. Armament was three triple 8in, six twin 4in HA and four octuple pompoms. Note the two HA directors sided aft, just forward of the after 8in director. There were no torpedo tubes, although later versions of the heavy cruiser had them. Machinery spaces would have been covered by a 2 ¾ in deck, increased to 3in over the magazines and the 4in HA magazine and then the control space forward of the forward boiler room. (Norman Friedman)

nXEIMEh.jpg

Image: Raven & Roberts British Cruisers

 

Study 1: On 8 January 1940 DNC asked for a three-turret 8in ship based on the earlier 21,500-ton design, although he hoped to reduce tonnage to about 15,000 tons by cutting protection to that effective against 6in fire, on the grounds that it would resist 8in fire at the large inclination angles at which cruisers normally fought. Thus it would have a 6in belt covered by a 2 ½ in deck (3in over magazines), and the turrets would have 6in face, 3in roof and 2in sides. DNC hoped the machinery could be more extensively subdivided than in earlier ships. 5 The ship should also have six twin 4in and two octuple pompoms (as in Belfast), as well as a fixed catapult and two aircraft. No torpedo tubes were specified, but provision should be made for them. Speed should be 33kts standard, 31.5kts deeply loaded. Boilers should all be below the lower deck, where they would be fully protected. The ship’s GM should be 4 to 6ft. An alternative ship, which DNC hoped might displace about 10,000 tons, would differ in having four twin 4in guns, a 5in belt, and a speed of 32.5kts at standard displacement and 31kts deeply loaded. GM would be 3 to 6ft.
 

Source: Friedman, Norman. British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After (Kindle Locations 3688-3692). Seaforth. Kindle Edition.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles

1941 PROGRAM (ADMIRAL CLASS)

admiral_class_heavy_cruiser_by_tzoli-d73

* This looks to be more of an interpretation of one of the variations than a reproduction of an admiralty drawing


The Board decided to reintroduce 8in cruisers because the US Navy was doing so, because radar made long gun range more usable, and because it was willing to accept the compromise 6in protection (‘ 8in guns on a 6in hull’) to hold down size. Ships would have cruiser speed (32.5kts, corresponding to 29kts in half-oil condition when six months out of dock in the tropics) and the most up-to-date scale of anti-aircraft firepower. Endurance would be 8,000nm ‘deep and dirty’ (six months out of dock) at 16kts or 12,000nm at 16kts in trial condition... Thus the 1941 programme included four 8in cruisers, to be laid down as soon as possible. They would have been given ‘Admiral’ names.
Controller’s instructions in March 1941 led to preparation of four alternative designs, all armed with three triple 8in guns. 15 All had a 4 ½ in belt and 2in deck (4in over magazines), as well as the same speed, aircraft arrangements, close-range armament and torpedo armament.
They differed in long-range anti-aircraft armament:
(i) four 4.5in BD mountings,
(ii) eight 4in twin,
(iii) six 4in twin, and
(iv) four 4in twin (forward pair omitted).
Controller had emphasised the need for a small turning circle, a difficult problem in so massive a ship. Special efforts would be made to improve seakeeping at speed in bad weather... The Staff wanted new higher-velocity close-range weapons (described as 50– 60mm twins, i.e. not Bofors guns), but DNC had no information about them. He therefore provided four quadruple pompoms. The belt would keep out 6in shells at 5,500yds (60 ° inclination) and 8in at 11,000yds (40 ° inclination). The armour deck was the upper deck, offering advantages both in structure and in protection, but heavier than decks in previous cruisers. It might prevent fires started by bombs, which had burned out some British cruisers. The deck would keep out 8in shells below 21,000yds, and 500lb SAP bombs from 2,500ft (level bombing at 200mph). The 4in over the magazines would keep out 500lb SAP bombs from 10,500ft and 1,000lb SAP bombs from 6,000ft, both for level bombing at 200mph. DNC proposed placing thick bulkheads where the 2in and 4in decks met… Legends were dated 25 March 1941.19 The design as approved was for 15,000 tons (635ft). With deck armour all on one deck, and with eight 4in guns, it would displace 15,500 tons (640ft); with eight 4.5in, 16,100 tons (650ft); with twelve 4.5in, 17,000 tons (670ft); and with sixteen 4in, 16,600 tons (670ft).
A sketch design (‘ XY’) for a 670ft ship dated 30 April 1941 showed eight twin 4in guns and four multiple pompoms, two on the hangar roofs and two on a deck forward of the bridge. There were two 4in magazines, one roughly below the bridge under four forward 4in twins, one further aft, just forward of the after boiler room, under the after group of 4in twins.
Design work continued through 1941, a new draft Staff Requirement being framed that October (the March 1941 papers had gone astray). Now the ship was expected to displace about 17,500 tons and to be 670ft long, about the size of the US Des Moines class conceived two years later, but without the latter’s automated 8in guns, and with a lighter anti-aircraft battery. By this time she was to have had five octuple pompoms (rather than four quadruples, a considerable jump, which brought displacement to 17,500 tons), as many Oerlikons as could be fitted in, and two quadruple torpedo tubes rather than triples. Protection and speed were unchanged.

 

Source: Friedman, Norman. British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After (Kindle Locations 7458-7462). Seaforth. Kindle Edition.
 

Displacement: 16,100/18,740t standard

Dimensions 670ft wl x 80ft x 24ft mean deep load

Speed: 23.25kts, four shafts

Armour: Belt 4.5in, bulkheads 4in, turrets 6in-2in, ring bulkeads 3in

Armament:

16,100 variant: 9x 8in/50 MkIX/X, 6x 21in torps, 12x4in twins, 4 quad pom-pom, 3 seaplane

18,750 variant: 9x 8in/50 MkIX/X, 6x 21in torps, 16x4in twins, 12x quad pom pom, 3 seaplane

Source: Conway's All The World's Warships

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles

Here's an extensive walk-around of HMS London edited out of a WW2 propaganda recruitment film (sound removed)

It's not often we get such a good look at a WW2 ship ...

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,483
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,159 posts
10,904 battles

I feel there's a little bit of bad timing on London, going to all the effort to build in a nice Town-style pair of hangars in 1941 when increasingly aircraft were obsolete or not carried is a little awkward.

A lot of the surviving cruisers landed their planes - the London lost her catapult in May 1943. Radar, longer ranged land based aircraft, more available escort and fleet carriers - all made it increasingly redundant. I think the hangar's made a nice cinema for the crew at least!

Suffolk and Cumberland had a hangar added in 1936, but in a much less extensive change than London they had it added aft. Cumberland even had the whole hangar as well as the catapult removed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles
2 hours ago, mofton said:

I feel there's a little bit of bad timing on London, going to all the effort to build in a nice Town-style pair of hangars in 1941 when increasingly aircraft were obsolete or not carried is a little awkward.

A lot of the surviving cruisers landed their planes - the London lost her catapult in May 1943. Radar, longer ranged land based aircraft, more available escort and fleet carriers - all made it increasingly redundant. I think the hangar's made a nice cinema for the crew at least!

Suffolk and Cumberland had a hangar added in 1936, but in a much less extensive change than London they had it added aft. Cumberland even had the whole hangar as well as the catapult removed.

Very true. The same argument applies to the Crown Colony class. But these hangars did offer one advantage - space for command-and-control rooms for the exploding radar outfits, fighter control etc. One hangar would be devoted to several levels of this activity. The other would be used as a recreation space. 

And the catapult mechanism was removed, allowing space - and weight - for bigger light AA mounts.

The Swiftsures abandoned the hangar space during construction: essentially they were cut-down and more closely integrated with the main control space from the outset. Something similar could/would have happened with the London class conversions IMHO. But it is of course speculation (though you can see this trend in the concept drawings for new designs above anyway).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles
On 6/9/2018 at 5:45 AM, Shadewe said:

This is all great. Have you looked at the York Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York-class_cruiser or the Hawkins Class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkins-class_cruiser

I'm posting here  the heavy cruiser projects, the design studies that were not completed, not funded - or not built due to the war emergency.

It's to show that there are plenty of historical 'paper' RN designs to "fill the gaps" in a dedicated heavy cruiser tree. (Besides, London is one of my favourites!)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21
[RST]
Members
176 posts
15,988 battles
18 minutes ago, HMS_Formidable said:

I'm posting here  the heavy cruiser projects, the design studies that were not completed, not funded - or not built due to the war emergency.

That is cool. Then I posted mistakenly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[SAA]
Members
50 posts
6,194 battles

Nice topic! American CAs were sort of a relief for me when they came out (I can't stand the squishyness of CLs) and I started to imagine a British split as well. I gathered all considerations about a split into one graphical scheme in form of a techtree (which also contains my considerations for a battleship/battlecruiser split being discussed here: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/173283-wip-rn-battlecruiser-arc/?tab=comments#comment-4145937)

For the heavy cruiser line, I followed much of what has been explained here https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/91id3t/proposal_royal_navy_heavy_cruisers_overview/

 here https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/96lr3j/proposal_royal_navy_heavy_cruisers_t57/and here https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/97cobs/proposal_royal_navy_heavy_cruisers_t810/

 

 

T4: HMS Monmouth (last British protected cruiser. And who doesn't like a cruiser from the pre-dreadnought era? Love my USS St. Louis and Bogatyr)

T6: HMS Kent

T7: HMS Surrey

T8: 1940 study (adpoted name suggestion made in reddit)

T9: 1941 program (took the name o an admiral whose name isn't associated with another ship, as Hood, Rodney, Nelson, Anson etc.)

T10: 1939 "Treaty Cruiser Killer"  and her 9.2in guns. A British version of Kronshtadt/Alaska

 

British_techtree_alt_dez2018.jpg

Edited by Brooklin82
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
591
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,522 posts
4,805 battles

Very nice. Interesting stuff.

Personally, I just can't hold out for HMS London (rebuild). But, I'm just one vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×