Post-1906 Battleships with Large Calibre Secondary Batteries

[World B4]

Battleships/battlecruisers with secondary guns 7" or larger

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/soviet-naval-gun-projects.38420/page-2

on this page is shown soviet postwar projects for pocket battleships with 180mm and 220 mm secondary guns
I recall a proposal for a Brazilian battleship with 16" and 9.4" guns
Plus, I've heard about the larger H class superbattleshipsbeing planned to have 9.4" secondaries

 

[drwells42]

I recall a proposal for a Brazilian battleship with 16" and 9.4" guns

Something like this? Sorry I don't have a better resolution scan.

DRW

 

[alexi]

Aye, that crazy one and i happen to read "Aidan Dodson's The Windfall Battleships" a couple weeks ago, but i wouldn't know these projects without reading Stefphano's blog either.

Plus, I've heard about the larger H class superbattleshipsbeing planned to have 9.4" secondaries

Ah yes the infamous and mythical H-45, which happen to be on @drwells42 website.

 

[Tzoli]

Battleships/battlecruisers with secondary guns 7" or larger

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/soviet-naval-gun-projects.38420/page-2

on this page is shown soviet postwar projects for pocket battleships with 180mm and 220 mm secondary guns
I recall a proposal for a Brazilian battleship with 16" and 9.4" guns
Plus, I've heard about the larger H class superbattleshipsbeing planned to have 9.4" secondaries

I would not call the Project 45 battleships as pocket battleships. More like Battleship killers or hunters, certanly not in league with the Deutschlands, D class and other proposals.

 

[Brickmuppet]

I'm confused by the rationale of the proposed Brazilian ship's secondary armament. With a broadside of only 4 240mm guns they are probably going to have a lower aggregate firing rate than the 406mm rifles, and that, combined with their lower hitting power seems to indicate they wouldn't contribute much to any "hail of fire". Is there any record of the reasoning behind this?

 

[DWG]

I'm confused by the rationale of the proposed Brazilian ship's secondary armament. With a broadside of only 4 240mm guns they are probably going to have a lower aggregate firing rate than the 406mm rifles, and that, combined with their lower hitting power seems to indicate they wouldn't contribute much to any "hail of fire". Is there any record of the reasoning behind this?

My secondary's bigger than your (Argentina's) secondary is entirely possible.

 

[Tzoli]

Well when that battleship designed in 1912 most navies had 12" cannons but transition begun to 13,5-14" cannons. It is likely expected that such large calibre at that time would mean slow firing rate say close to 1 shell per minute hence the necessary larger secondary guns which could fire faster but still has a decent penetration ability.

 

[alexi]

There are likely two factors into Bacellar decisions for arming 234mm guns on No.686, the battle ranges which he expect to be relatively close to medium ranges and the average armor thickness of Chile and Argentinian battleships (Rivadavia have shallow main belt, upper belt can be defeated by Armstrong proposed 234mm, assuming the battle would fall under 10km of course).

 

[00-PureEvil-00]

Battleships/battlecruisers with secondary guns 7" or larger

What I can remember on the topic (besides what've been already talked about in the thread):

Ansaldo Design UP41 for USSR carried 180mm/57 B-1-P guns in four triple turrets as secondaries.


Japanese "Super-Yamato" in its ultimate form allegedly was to be armed with 203mm secondaries.


Also from Italy, there were General Edgardo Ferrati's designs from 1915, some of which carried 170mm secondary guns in twin turrets. The main question is, what these guns would be, as no guns of such caliber ever existed in Italy.


Junkers' diesel battleship designed in 1912 carried 19cm/45 secondary guns in casemates (although again, no guns of this caliber were ever used by German Navy).

Plus, I've heard about the larger H class superbattleshipsbeing planned to have 9.4" secondaries

Never heard of this.

 

[alexi]

Junkers' diesel battleship designed in 1912 carried 19cm/45 secondary guns in casemates (although again, no guns of this caliber were ever used by German Navy).

Here's his 24500t variant which have 21cm secondaries from bunderachiv.

 

[COLDOWN]

I'm confused by the rationale of the proposed Brazilian ship's secondary armament. With a broadside of only 4 240mm guns they are probably going to have a lower aggregate firing rate than the 406mm rifles, and that, combined with their lower hitting power seems to indicate they wouldn't contribute much to any "hail of fire". Is there any record of the reasoning behind this?

The main battery of 406mm/45cs of the Brazilian superdreadnought design "Rio de Janeiro" would have faced the 2 (or 3*) argentine battleships "Rivadavia" under construction, but the function of the 239mm/50cs as a secondary battery was to discourage and face the 4 armored cruisers (Garibaldi, Belgrano, San Martín and Pueyrredón) and the 4 protected cruisers (Patagonia, Veinticinco de Mayo, Nueve de Julio and Buenos Aires) of Argentina.
The Argentine armored cruisers "Garibaldi/San Martín" had 6 254mm/40cs guns and 4 203mm/40cs guns that could support their fleet of battleships between 11 and 13 kilometers. This is a type of ship that Brazil did not have in existence or in plans and for which Bacellar thought of the technological solution of a large secondary battery that would act in addition to the tertiary battery of 152mm/50cs.
Among the Argentine protected cruisers there were 2 210mm/35cs guns, 2 203mm/45cs guns and several 152mm/45cs and 152mm/40cs guns, but these were not ships that threatened the integrity of a battleship such as the one presented here.

*The third one tied its existence to this very Brazilian battleship (later ordered as "653", reordered as "690A" and finally sold).

 

[drwells42]

Japanese "Super-Yamato" in its ultimate form allegedly was to be armed with 203mm secondaries.
View attachment 743356

I'm a little skeptical of this one. I believe I have the source drawing of this in a Koei Military Illustrated book, but that book had plenty of errors in it. Has anyone seen anything from a more reliable source?

DRW

 

[drwells42]

Plus, I've heard about the larger H class superbattleshipsbeing planned to have 9.4" secondaries

Never heard of this.

If you've never heard of it, you must be doing something right. It is from the well-known "hoax" battleship H-45, which never even got onto the drawing board, at least not in the World War II era. Curiously enough, I suspect that the original creator of the design may have been trying to demonstrate the absurdity of such a ship. Sadly, the internet has convinced some people that the design was real.

DRW

 

[Hood]

I've edited the title to make it a little clearer about what is being discussed.

 

[Dilandu]

Battleships/battlecruisers with secondary guns 7" or larger
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/soviet-naval-gun-projects.38420/page-2 on this page is shown soviet postwar projects for pocket battleships with 180mm and 220 mm secondary guns

Well, the Soviet "small battleships" - or as Tzoli defined them quite accurately, "battleship killers" - have very limited number of heavy guns (from 2 to 5, depending on project), and were not supposed to carry DP guns (it was assumed, that they would always operate with DP guns equipped destroyers and cruisers to provide long-range air defense). So they needed some "intermediate" guns to ward off enemy destroyers and light cruisers. Therefore the idea of putting 180-mm - 220-mm battery on them, to dealt with enemies that would be too hard to hit with main guns.

 

[World B4]

If you've never heard of it, you must be doing something right. It is from the well-known "hoax" battleship H-45, which never even got onto the drawing board, at least not in the World War II era. Curiously enough, I suspect that the original creator of the design may have been trying to demonstrate the absurdity of such a ship. Sadly, the internet has convinced some people that the design was real.

My b, I thought it was considered for the H-42/43/44, not just fake lore for the meme ship

 

[World B4]

Imperial German never-weres - Shipbucket

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not sure how I missed this the first time.

Well when that battleship designed in 1912 most navies had 12" cannons but transition begun to 13,5-14" cannons. It is likely expected that such large calibre at that time would mean slow firing rate say close to 1 shell per minute hence the necessary larger secondary guns which could fire faster but still has a decent penetration ability.

That concept was more or less discarded with the dreadnoughts, they went to 5-6" guns for the secondary battery and replaced what used to be the secondary battery of ~9.2" or whatever with more 12" main battery guns.

The US 12"/50 Mk 7, as used in the Wyoming-class, has about a 22sec time of flight to 16,000 yards and a 30sec time of flight to 20,000 yards. That's right at the edge of "waiting for the shells to land" for the nominal rate of fire of 2-3 rounds per minute. Other 12" guns will have a slower time of flight, so the 3 rounds per minute rate of fire would be at even less than 16000 yards.

The US decided on 5"/38s for their DP secondaries, while the Germans went with split AA (88 or 105mm) and surface secondaries (155mm).

Post WW2, the US was looking at 5"/54 secondaries, instead of say, the 6"/47 DP guns used by the light cruisers.

Japanese "Super-Yamato" in its ultimate form allegedly was to be armed with 203mm secondaries.
View attachment 743356

Would not be too difficult, the Yamato class got the triple 155mm turrets from the Mogami class cruisers when the Mogamis were regunned with twin 8" turrets. Though I'd want two more turrets than are appearing on that drawing if possible. 6x2 8" turrets not 4x2.

Also from Italy, there were General Edgardo Ferrati's designs from 1915, some of which carried 170mm secondary guns in twin turrets. The main question is, what these guns would be, as no guns of such caliber ever existed in Italy.

I'd assume Krupp 17cm, but we all know what happens when you ass-u-me things...

 

[Yellow Palace]

That concept was more or less discarded with the dreadnoughts, they went to 5-6" guns for the secondary battery and replaced what used to be the secondary battery of ~9.2" or whatever with more 12" main battery guns.

There's a conceptual difference between a true 'secondary battery' of smaller, but still heavy, guns intended to be used in fighting opposing ships of comparable status, and an 'anti-destroyer battery' of light guns to engage light craft. The dividing line is typically the 150mm/6-inch calibre.

One of the reasons the Royal Navy went to 6-inch guns in the IRON DUKE and later classes of battleship was that they could be effective against opposing battleships. This was regarded by many as a mistake, and a 5-inch gun was thought preferable for anti-destroyer work, but there were too many officers still around who thought a true secondary battery was a good idea.

The 5.5-inch gun the Royal Navy started using later in WW1 was partly a result of trying to backtrack on this decision.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There's a conceptual difference between a true 'secondary battery' of smaller, but still heavy, guns intended to be used in fighting opposing ships of comparable status, and an 'anti-destroyer battery' of light guns to engage light craft. The dividing line is typically the 150mm/6-inch calibre.

One of the reasons the Royal Navy went to 6-inch guns in the IRON DUKE and later classes of battleship was that they could be effective against opposing battleships. This was regarded by many as a mistake, and a 5-inch gun was thought preferable for anti-destroyer work, but there were too many officers still around who thought a true secondary battery was a good idea.

The 5.5-inch gun the Royal Navy started using later in WW1 was partly a result of trying to backtrack on this decision.

I know that if I was designing a post-WW2 battleship, I'd be torn between the 6"/47DP (Worcester class guns) and the 5"/54...