Royal Navy Big Cruiser Designs

[Tzoli]

For these cruisers I got most of my data from Norman Friedman's British Cruisers Two World War and After as well as from the forum member Smurf and parts from his book: A Directory of British Cruiser Designs. In case of Friedman's book it wasn't always clear what data was connected to what proposal.

This is Part 1, the 1938 series of cruiser studies:

Soon after the 2nd London Naval Treaty of 1935-36, the Royal Navy, DNC and the prime cruiser architect W. G. John (Could not find what names W and G stood for) started thinking in larger sized and larger calibre cruisers mostly due to the potential threat of the German Deutschland class Big Gun Cruisers / Pocket Battleships / Heavy Cruisers / Convoy Raiders / Panzerschiffe (whatever name you prefer) as well as new cruiser constructions in potential hostile nations. Against these threats the standard 6" or 152mm cruisers deemed inadequate to counter so the RN looked into larger calibre weapons, 8" 9,2" 10" (for export) and 12".

The first proposals and calculations came from early 1938, January to see what is required for a high speed, long range well armed and armoured cruiser to counter the Deutschalnds and the Japanese equivalents the Chichibus which both the RN and USN though (falsely) Japan was building at that time. These first calculations showed very big ships with more then twice the displacement of the maximum allowed for Treaty Cruisers, the 10.000ton limit with various armour and armament layouts including 3x3 and 3x4 9,2" and 3x3 8". Again these were theoretical proposals based on early requirements and calculations not on detailed design study

Here are my drawings based on the available data on them:

The January Series
Design I Armoured Cruiser:

Royal Navy 1938 Design I Armoured Cruiser by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The designs had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 213,36m(wl) x 26,21m x 7,26m
Displacement: 20.750tons (Standard)
Engines: 132.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines
Speed: 58km/h (31,5knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 102mm, Deck, 203mm Belt
Armaments:
3x4 9,2"/50 (234mm/50) BL Mk XVI Cannons
6x2 4,5"/45 (114mm/45) QF Mk III DP-AA Guns
4x8 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
4-8x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns

Note:
Originally no torpedo tubes and light AA was envisioned but I've added 8 quad 0,5" MG's the usual light AA of the RN at the time.
Eventually the required speed was too high for the engine weight so later designs had more realistic speeds. As the required speed was 33knots the engine power and displacement only allows based on calculations 31,5knots speed some 1,5 knots short of the desired value!

Design II Armoured Cruiser:

Royal Navy 1938 Design II Armoured Cruiser by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The designs had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 222,5m(wl) x 26,21m x 7,26m
Displacement: 23.700tons (Standard)
Engines: 132.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 76mm over machinery, 102mm over magazines Deck, 178mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 9,2"/50 (234mm/50) BL Mk XVI Cannons
6x2 4,5"/45 (114mm/45) QF Mk III DP-AA Guns
4x8 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
4-6x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x Floatplanes

Note:
Design II was a refinement of the previous Design I proposal while trying to get closer to the DNC's requirements of high speed and long range. W. G. John tried to reduce armament weights and to increase speed lengthen and somewhat widen the hull resulting a better hydrodynamic value for the ship but even these changes were not enough to reach the desired speed. Despite this he had to even reduce armour to gain enough weight for the engines. It is not clear from Friedman's text but likely the larger hull's surface area which required larger tonnage associated with armour actually increased the displacement from the three quad version by almost 3.000tons!
I've calculated at least 7x 20.000shp boilers were needed, 4 in the forward, 3 in the after engine rooms or 8x 16.500shp ones.

Here I've chosen a more Town class or Belfast type appearance with shorter bridge aft placed tilted funnels and boilers and the shorter UD type 4,5" gun mountings.
As the required speed was 33knots the engine power and displacement only allows based on calculations 32knots speed some 1 knots short of the desired value!

The February Series:
Design A Armoured Cruiser:

Royal Navy 1938 Design A Armoured Cruiser by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The designs had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 222,5m(wl) x 25,6m x 7,62m
Displacement: 21.750tons (Standard)
Engines: around 150-160.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 61km/h (33knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 64mm over machinery, 89mm over magazines Deck, 229mm over magazines, 203mm over machinery Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk IX Cannons
6x2 4,5"/45 (114mm/45) QF Mk III DP-AA Guns
4x8,2x1 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
4-6x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
4x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
2x Floatplanes

Note:
After the January series of armoured cruiser proposals and calculations (3x3 and 3x4 9,2"), in February DNC asked what could be done with three triple 8" (Design A) or 9,2" (Design B) main armament, 33knots speed 10.000nm range and other armament of 6x2 4,5", 4x8, 2x1 40mm pom-poms and 12 torpedo tubes. Protection should defend against own shells at 90° inclination of the worst case between 7-23km, deck protection against 500 pounds bombs and underwater protection against 750 pounds charge.
These requirements meant that most of the hull tonnage had to be allocated purely for protection which drove up the displacement eventually drove up the engine power to provide the required speed. The protection scheme basically the same as what the USN adopted to it's capital ships and the designs shows how large would be a heavy cruiser needs to be protected against own shells at basically any range and with a high sustained speed. The thick armour plates were backed up by probably at least 5inch Bulkheads for battleship type underwater protection (Design had bulges where the hull is 26,82m wide)

Design B Armoured Cruiser:

Royal Navy 1938 Design B Armoured Cruiser by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 213,36m(wl) x 25,6m x 7,01m
Displacement: 20.500tons (Standard)
Engines: around 160.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 61km/h (33knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 64mm over machinery, 89mm over magazines Deck, 267mm over magazines, 241mm over machinery Belt
Armaments:
3x3 9,2"/50 (234mm/50) BL Mk XVI Cannons
6x2 4,5"/45 (114mm/45) QF Mk III DP-AA Guns
4x8,2x1 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
4-6x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
4x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
2x Floatplanes

Note:
The same requirements were applied here as well: 33knots speed, 10.000nm range, Belt protection against own weaponry at 7-23km range, deck protection against 500 pounds bombs and underwater protection against 750 pounds charge. Based on the description in Friedman's book the hull was shorter and required 182.000shp engine power to reach the desired speed but what seems to be contraversal was the lighter displacement compared to Design A despite the heavier weaponry and thicker armour belt. I could only reach this lower displacement value via calculations by reducing the armour belt area of the ship to only 2m above the waterline compared to the 3,5+1,8m of the previous proposal.


I've include here two other proposals, the British Big Gun Cruiser eg the Deutchland Hunter and the proposal for Greece which you could read more here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/greek-large-cruiser-design-1939.20802/

The Large Cruiser:

The British Large Cruiser by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: Unknown, I've chosen 213,36m(wl) x 26,12m x 7,62m
Displacement: 20.000tons (Standard)
Engines: Unknwon around 140-155.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 59-61km/h (32-33knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 76mm Deck, 178mm Belt
Armaments:
3x2 12"/50 (305mm/50) BL Mk XIV Cannons
6x2 4,5"/45 (114mm/45) QF Mk III DP-AA Guns
4x8,6x1 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
2x Floatplanes

Note:
In 1939 DNC (Director of Naval Constructions) asked for an Alaska like Large Cruiser based on the calculations of the previous year. DNC asked for six 12" cannons in twin turrets on 20.000tons with 7" belt and 3" deck armour. Not much serious work was done but the hull size was based on the 3x3 9,2" cruiser the previous February. Based on this limited data I've come up with this drawing showing a capital ship armed cruiser on relative light displacement but with traditional British styling. Using Springsharp to help with the calculations it isn't possible to construct such a ship on that hull. The 12" cannons were the new type designed in 1933 while the DP-AA turrets are the same used for the HMS Charybdis and HMS Scylla


And the Proposal for the Greek Hellenic Navy

DNC Design for Greece by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The designs had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 205,74m(pp) x 23,16m x 7,31m
Displacement: 18.550tons (Standard)
Engines: 140.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 61km/h (33knots)
Range: Unknown, likely 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 76mm over machinery, 102mm over magazines Deck, 229mm over magazines, 203mm over machinery Belt
Armaments:
3x2 10"/50 (254mm/50) BL Mk VIII Cannons
6x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
6x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
4x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x Floatplanes

Note:
At the end of January 1939 Vice-Admiral Alexandros Pilatos Sakellariou of the Royal Hellenic Navy asked the British Naval Attaché Captain Herbert Annesley Packer who forwarded the request to the DNC (Director of Naval Constructions) for a cruiser about 18.000tons displacement 10" main gun armament and high speed to effectively fight the nimble 10.000ton Italian Heavy Cruisers and to keep the Aegean Sea safe. Based on the various cruiser designs of the time as well as the previous year, DNC offered a large 18.550ton cruiser with 3x2 10" guns, 6x2 4" DP-AA armament and apparently no torpedo tubes, the cruiser might had used recently developed 10" guns (from early-mid 1930's) as it's main armament to outrange the Italian counterparts.
While the LNT forbid the construction fo such vessels the worsening political situation around the world and the withdrawal of Japan from the treaties could ha allowed the construction of such vessels for foreign navies.
I've decided to mimic the look of the Town class cruisers with their angled funnels and the enlarged hull of the Crown Colony class.

Data on the proposed new guns and designs:
i.imgur.com/fMQKN1b.png

 

[Tzoli]

While the the 1938 series were more like pre-designs or aspect studies the 1939 proposals were more detailed as even a sketch drawign too was created together with a number of weight calcuations.

Now Part 2, the 1939 series or 10.000ton cruiser studies:

After the 1938 studies of large cruisers ( both 9,2" and 8" ) DNC asked what could be done on 10.000tons and 8" gun armament with 32knots speed and adequate protection. While the Controller and the Board envisioned a partial breakdown of the Naval Treaty system essentially resurrecting the heavy cruiser type into fleet construction plans DNC rejected any excess above 10.000tons. This was rather funny as all the proposals were above the desired 10.000ton limit. DNC preferred the 3x3 turret layout and asked if 6" belt armour was possible. 4 pre-designs were drawn up:
a - Protected against 11" gun fire at fine angles (probably 6-7-8" belt armour! )
b - Nelson or Tone style all forward armament
c - Well protected against 8" gun fire ( probably 6-7" belt armour )
d - No heavy and light AA armament at all
From these studies came 7 proposals (Designs A through G ) all came somewhat above 10.000tons and except the last one in pair with 80.000shp engines and 32knots speed or 58.000shp and 30knots. Armaments varied with 3x3, 4x2 or 2x3,1x2 layouts. All except G had the same hull possible for ease of comparison

These drawings were based on this official sketch made by W. G. John
Official sketch drawings:
i.imgur.com/VRK69r1.jpg
Data table:

https://imgur.com/a/woLcwu5

View: https://imgur.com/a/woLcwu5


Design A:

Royal Navy Design A Heavy Cruiser 1939 by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 176,78m(wl) x 20,12m
Displacement: 10.445tons (Standard)
Engines: 80.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 51mm Deck, 127mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk IX Cannons
4x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
4x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
4x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
2x Floatplanes

Note:
Friedman said: "In June DNC asked for studies of a 10.000ton cruiser armed with 8in guns, in effect a 'County' using current technology"
My friend said: "In June DNC asked for studies of a 10.000ton cruiser armed with 8in guns, in effect how to squeeze three modern triple 8in turrets into a Southampton hull

Myself used the hull of the Crown Colony as a basis.

Design B:

Royal Navy Design B Heavy Cruiser 1939 by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 176,78m(wl) x 20,12m
Displacement: 10.090tons (Standard)
Engines: 58.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 51mm Deck, 127mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk IX Cannons
4x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
4x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
4x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
2x Floatplanes

Note:
Design B of the 1939 series of Heavy cruiser proposals created for the requirements of DNC. While A was a 32knot design with a standard 80K shp powerplant but almsot 500tons heavier then the desire 10.000tons displacement, in design B the engine power and thus the maximum speed was reduced to 58.000shp and 30knots speed. This smaller powerplant saved around 350tons of weight only, but the the desired displacement now come much closer to the desired value.
Essentially Design B sacraficed speed for reduced displacement.

Design C:

Royal Navy Design C Heavy Cruiser 1939 by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 176,78m(wl) x 20,12m
Displacement: 10.358tons (Standard)
Engines: 80.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 51mm Deck, 127mm Belt
Armaments:
4x2 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk IX Cannons
4x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
2x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
4x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
2x Floatplanes

Note:
Design C of the 1939 series of heavy cruiser proposals changed the armament distribution from the 9 gun 3 triple layout to the 8 gun 4 twin layout while this meant the belt and deck armour had to cover a larger (longer) surface area, the reduced number of gun barrels, associated shell weight and the fact that the twin turrets expected to weight 218tons compared to the 328 of the triple which let alone (3x328=984 > 4x218=872tons) saved considerable weight was not enough the seriously push down the desired tonnage.
As I don't have any access for a possible description of the 4 turret variants I've used the base A and B designs and modified their superstructure elements to fit in the 4 turrets.

Design D:

Royal Navy Design D Heavy Cruiser 1939 by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 176,78m(wl) x 20,12m
Displacement: 10.110tons (Standard)
Engines: 58.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 51mm Deck, 140mm Belt
Armaments:
4x2 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk IX Cannons
4x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
2x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
4x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
2x Floatplanes

Note:
Like how Design C was the 4 turret variant of Design A, the D version was the same 4 turret variant of Design B. But instead of using the saved up weight from the smaller machinery and lighter armament weight to actually go down BELOW the desired 10.000tons displacement the designer John instead used the freed up tonnage to increase belt armour by half an inch to 5,5" or 140mm which even saved 250tons compared to the Design C and a slight 20tin increase over Design B. Otherwise it is the similar companion design of the C proposal.

Design E:

Royal Navy Design E Heavy Cruiser 1939 by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 176,78m(wl) x 20,12m
Displacement: 10.222tons (Standard)
Engines: 80.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 59km/h (32knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 51mm Deck, 127mm Belt
Armaments:
2x3,1x2 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk IX Cannons
4x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
2x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
6x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
2x Floatplanes

Note:
The 3rd pair of the 1939 series of heavy cruiser proposals merge the two aspects of the previous pairs using both triple and twin turrets. Basically by replacing the 2nd turret by a twin with it's associated reduced armament armour engineering and ammo weight John was able to shave off 220tons of weight from the Design A and almost 140 on Design C other aspects remain the same.

Design F:

Royal Navy Design F Heavy Cruiser 1939 by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 176,78m(wl) x 20,12m
Displacement: 10.074tons (Standard)
Engines: 58.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 51mm Deck, 152mm Belt
Armaments:
2x3,1x2 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk IX Cannons
4x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
2x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
6x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
2x Floatplanes

Note:
Utilising the layout of the E proposal aka a twin superfiring over the first triple turret and the the 58.000shp powerplant with a likely reduced armour belt length the displacement was came very close to the desired 10.000ton limit despite the increased thickness of armour to 6" or 152mm on the sides! While this design marks the end of the official 1939 series of 8" heavy cruiser proposals, DNC asked what is required to increase the armour to 3" deck and 7" Belt (1-1" less over Machinery) and thus one more design the G proposal was born before war erupted.

Design G:

Royal Navy Design G Heavy Cruiser 1939 by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 173,74m(wl) x 20,12m
Displacement: 10.256tons (Standard)
Engines: 58.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 76mm over magazines, 51mm over machinery Deck, 178mm over magazines, 127mm over machinery Belt
Armaments:
2x3,1x2 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk IX Cannons
4x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
2x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
6x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
2x Floatplanes

Note:
The last heavy cruiser proposal of the Royal Navy before WW2 engulfed the world in flames. Design G is a modified Design F with reduced hull length and thus hull weight and shorter belt armour while retaining the same turret layout of 8 guns in 2 triple and 1 twin turrets. The weight saved by the shorter hull and armour were put back into armour thickness increasing the magazine protection to 7" belt and 3" deck while machinery remained the same with 5" and 2" respectively. The calculated tonnage being 10.256tons almost the same as the longer and faster but more lightly armoured Design E with the same armament.

 

[Tzoli]

Continuing with Part 3, the 1939/40 Churchill type Large Cruiser Designs:

As WW2 engulfed the world and Winston Churchill returned as First Sea Lord of the Admiralty he almost imminently asked for a cruiser designs to to effectively fight the German Big gun Cruisers of the Deutschland class and the new heavy cruisers of the Admiral Hipper class. As such DNC ordered new design studies to be prepared with 8-9,2" armament, 32-33knots maximum speed and to be protected against 8" weaponry at good inclinations. As the Treaty system collapsed and abandoned, DNC told W. G. John to let the displacement grow as he see fit and soon he proposed designs similar to the previous sketches and proposals of early 1938, meaning 18-22.000tons displacement.

Data table:
i.imgur.com/cuk7x7E.png

Design A:

Royal Navy Churchill Type Heavy Cruiser Design A by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 213,36m(wl) x 25,6m x 7,16m
Displacement: 22.000tons (Standard)
Engines: 154.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 61km/h (33knots)
Range: 18.500km at 28km/h (10000nm at 15knots)
Armour: 102mm Deck, 178mm Belt
Armaments:
3x4 9,2"/50 (234mm/50) BL Mk XVI Cannons
6x2 4,5"/45 (114mm/45) QF Mk III DP-AA Guns
2x8 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
2x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2-3x Floatplanes

Note:
Design A was the first proposal essentially a modified Design I of 1938 February.
I've chosen a modified layout of the 12.500ton 8" variant:
i.imgur.com/rTpkicp.png

Design B:

Royal Navy Churchill Type Heavy Cruiser Design B by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 219,45m(wl) x 25,6m x 7,32m
Displacement: 21.500tons (Standard)
Engines: 160.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 62km/h (33,5knots)
Range: 16.700km at 30km/h (9000nm at 16knots)
Armour: 102mm Deck, 178mm Belt
Armaments:
4x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk IX Cannons
6x2 4,5"/45 (114mm/45) QF Mk III DP-AA Guns
2x8 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
2x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2-3x Floatplanes

Note:
After the late 1939 Design A big gun or armoured cruiser W. G. John offered a somewhat faster more numerously armed version with twelve 8" guns in 4 triple turrets to Churchill's requirements. To increase speed by half a knot the hull was lengthened by 4 meters and the engine power was increased minimally to 160.000shp. Armament wise the main weaponry changed to 8" guns (Likely one of the new ones in development at the time) and to achieve gun superiority over the German and Japanese heavy cruisers their number mirrored that of the Towns and early Crown Colony classes of 12 guns in 4 triple turrets! Other armament and aspects remained the same. These changes resulted in a somewhat lighter hull of a displacement some 500tons lighter then Design A: 21.500tons.

Design C:

Royal Navy Churchill Type Heavy Cruiser Design C by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 219,45m(wl) x 25,6m x 7,32m
Displacement: 21.500tons (Standard)
Engines: 160.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 62km/h (33,5knots)
Range: 16.700km at 30km/h (9000nm at 16knots)
Armour: 102mm Deck, 178mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 9,2"/50 (234mm/50) BL Mk XVI Cannons
6x2 4,5"/45 (114mm/45) QF Mk III DP-AA Guns
2x8 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
2x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2-3x Floatplanes

Note:
Using the same hull as Design B, on Design C W. G. John offered 3 triple 9,2" gun turrets while every other aspect like speed, armour, range and other armament remained the same. To look somewhat different from Design B I've changed the 4,7" DP-AA turrets to the UD type and modified the aft superstructure.
Sketch drawing:
i.imgur.com/3SLiEW6.gif

Design D:

Royal Navy Churchill Type Heavy Cruiser Design D by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 185,93m(wl) x 21,95m x 5,64m
Displacement: 12.500tons (Standard)
Engines: 96.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 60km/h (32,5knots)
Range: 16.700km at 30km/h (9000nm at 16knots)
Armour: 76mm Deck over magazines 64mm over machinery, 127mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk X Cannons
4x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
2x8 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
2x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x Floatplanes

Note:
Early 1940 the 8" armed cruiser design development was still under way and the first design of that year was the smallest among the ones shown to Churchill a 12.500ton 8" armed cruiser. Still no torpedo tubes and a hull smaller then the much earlier Counties. Likely this proposal was a request of what could be the smallest hull be for a balanced ship. The standard 3x3 8" armament remained maximum speed and thus engine power decreased to 32,5knots and 96.000shp, only 20%more then the standard cruiser powerplant of the RN at that time: 80.000shp which would either mean 5x 20.000shp boilers or 4x 24.000shp ones. AA armament reduced to only 4 twin 4" and 2 octuple 40mm Pom-pom guns the latter being on a a separate platform connecting the bridge and the hanger which shows that war experience still not effected the design. To increase survivability against underwater damage the hull height especially on the bow was increased to provide a larger volume and to reduce wetness in rough waters.

Sketch drawing:
i.imgur.com/eY6dZbA.gif
The sketch drawing seems to contain a number of errors, for example the hanger(s) are too short and there isn't enough space next to them for the 4" twin DP-AA mounts.

Design E:

Royal Navy Churchill Type Heavy Cruiser Design E by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 204,22m(wl) x 23,62m x 6,10m
Displacement: 15.500tons (Standard)
Engines: 125.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 61km/h (33knots)
Range: 16.700km at 30km/h (9000nm at 16knots)
Armour: 76mm Deck over magazines 64mm over machinery, 152mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk X Cannons
6x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
2x8 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
2x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x Floatplanes

Note:
Design E was a modified version of the previous D variant where both speed, Armour and Anti-Air armament was increased. To thicken the belt armour to 6" or 152mm and increase the maximum speed to 33knots or 61km/h alone required both a larger power plant and a larger hull which alone allowed more deck space for another pair of twin 4" AA guns. All these changes resulted in a hopping 3.000 extra displacement and 20m extra hull length.
Superstructure wise the hull height was increased and the hanger got separated and mirrored, and now stands as a separate structure both from the forward bridge and aft sections.
This was also the last of the 1940 series of heavy cruiser designs as war progressed other objectives took priority and manpower and resources were diverted to different naval projects.
Sketch drawing:
i.imgur.com/3SLiEW6.gif

 

[Tzoli]

Part 4 the 1941 Admiral Class Heavy Cruiser Designs:

Between the last heavy cruiser design of the Chruchill types and the new series of 1941 almost a year had passed showing that the RN design teams needed elsewhere to conduct their work. Considerations for construction of new type of cruisers again raised in early 1941. At the beginning of the year, three basic types were drawn up: An improved Crown Colony with 3x3 6" Design A, a modified Belfast with 4x3 6" Design B, and a heavy cruiser with the usual 3x3 8" armament, Design C. While Design A was discarded, Design B was evolved into the Neptune class light cruisers aborted by the end of the war and Design C evolved into the Admiral class Heavy cruiser or 1941 series of heavy cruiser studies of the RN.
The 1941 March series show that an extra deck level was added to the typical cruiser hull increasing their height altogether, but on the largest Design II which was chosen for further development the freeboard too was quite high possibly showing the experience of the vessels operating in the North Atlantic and in bad weather conditions. Another unusual aspect of these designs are the forward oriented Light AA Armament.

The names approved by King George VI for the Admiral class as follows:
i.imgur.com/A4uEHKH.gif

HMS Benbow later changed to Albermarle
HMS Blake
HMS Effingham later changed to Cornwallis
HMS Hawke

Data tables:
i.imgur.com/dUnfGUs.gif
i.imgur.com/QVv0Kwg.jpg
i.imgur.com/JHYuLoV.png

The 1941 January Pre-Design C:

Royal Navy Heavy Cruiser Design C by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 198,12m(wl) x 24,38m x 6,25m
Displacement: 15.000tons (Standard)
Engines: Unknown probably around 100.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 58km/h (31,5knots)
Range: 22.200km at 30km/h (12000nm at 16knots)
Armour: 102mm Deck over magazines 51mm over machinery, 114mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk X Cannons
4x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
4x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
6x4 12,7mm/60 MG Mk III AA Guns
2x Floatplanes

The 1941 March designs:
Design I

Admiral Class Heavy Cruiser Design I by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 192,02m (pp) x 198,12m(wl) x 24,38m x 6,25m
Displacement: 16.100tons (Standard)
Engines: 110.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 60km/h (32,25knots)
Range: 22.200km at 30km/h (12000nm at 16knots)
Armour: 102mm Deck over magazines 51mm over machinery, 114mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk X Cannons
4x2 4,5"/45 (114mm/45) QF Mk III DP-AA Guns
4x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
8x2 20mm/70 Oerlikon Mk II AA Guns
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
15x Depth Charges
2x Floatplanes

Note:
The first design in the 1941 series of heavy cruiser proposals labelled as Admiral class cruisers. It uses the same hull as the Design C from the 1941 series of cruiser designs but the the entire catapult deck and thus everything on it risen one deck leveld higher, Heavy AA guns changed to the the 4,5" guns in BD mountings as was required by the Admirality. Light AA guns was standard in the first 4 proposals as 4 quadruple 40mm Pom-Pom's and as many 20mm Oerlikons as deemed necessary for the size of the ship I've chosen 8 twin mountings.

Design II

Admiral Class Heavy Cruiser Design II by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 199,95m(pp) x 204,22m(wl) x 24,38m x 6,25m
Displacement: 16.500tons (Standard)
Engines: 110.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 60km/h (32,25knots)
Range: 22.200km at 30km/h (12000nm at 16knots)
Armour: 102mm Deck over magazines 51mm over machinery, 114mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk X Cannons
8x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
4x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
8x2 20mm/70 Oerlikon Mk II AA Guns
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
15x Depth Charges
2x Floatplanes

Note:
Design II was a larger proposal of the 1941 March series of Admiral class heavy cruiser designs. The Heavy AA Armament was considerable: eight twin 4" AA guns and an unusual placement of 40mm Pom-pom AA guns preferring the forward arc or ahead fire over the ship having two quads on the roof of the Hangers and two directly forward below the bridge and behind the 2nd 8" turret. This provides very good forward firing arc but rather bad aft arc hence I've provided more 20mm Oerlikons in that part of the ship.
Drawing based on this sketch:
i.imgur.com/MUPZ8TY.gif

Design III

Admiral Class Heavy Cruiser Design III by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 196m(pp) x 200,25m(wl) x 24,38m x 6,25m
Displacement: 16.200tons (Standard)
Engines: 110.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 60km/h (32,25knots)
Range: 22.200km at 30km/h (12000nm at 16knots)
Armour: 102mm Deck over magazines 51mm over machinery, 114mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk X Cannons
6x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
4x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
8x2 20mm/70 Oerlikon Mk II AA Guns
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
15x Depth Charges
2x Floatplanes

Note:
Design III looks like a suggestion to save weight and thus costs by reducing the number of heavy AA guns to 6 twin mounts the data table shows that apart from a shorter hull and reduced number of such guns no other aspect of the design changed, no change in engine power or armour thickness thus this design was more like an alternative to show to the Admiralty to what a 6x 4" gunned design would look like. It is basically an intermediate proposal between the 4x2 4,5" and 8x2 4" designs.

Design IV

Admiral Class Heavy Cruiser Design IV by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 192,02m(pp) x 196,29m(wl) x 24,08m x 6,25m
Displacement: 15.800tons (Standard)
Engines: 110.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 60km/h (32,25knots)
Range: 22.000km at 30km/h (12.000nm at 16knots)
Armour: 102mm Deck over magazines 51mm over machinery, 114mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk X Cannons
4x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
4x4 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
8x2 20mm/70 Oerlikon Mk II AA Guns
2x3 533mm Torpedo Tubes
15x Depth Charges
2x Floatplanes

Note:
Design IV was the smallest of the 1941 March proposals with only 4 twin 4" heavy AA guns, the standard of RN cruisers. To look somewhat different from the other designs I've moved the Heavy AA guns at the ends of the ship, moved aft and turned the Hanger 180 degrees, making the bridge section somewhat different looking.

The April Design XY

Admiral Class Heavy Cruiser Design XY by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 199,95m(pp) x 204,22m(wl) x 24,38m x 6,25m
Displacement: 17.500tons (Standard)
Engines: 110.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 60km/h (32,25knots)
Range: 22.200km at 30km/h (12000nm at 16knots)
Armour: 102mm Deck over magazines 51mm over machinery, 114mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk X Cannons
8x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
5x8 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
16x2 20mm/70 Oerlikon Mk II AA Guns
2x4 533mm Torpedo Tubes
15x Depth Charges
2x Floatplanes

Note:
By April some internal changes were made, by moving the the 4in magazines under the bridge and between the forward turbine and aft boiler rooms. By October the design evolved to include 5 octuple Pom-pom's and a larger number of 20mm Oerlikon Light AA guns (I've chosen 16x2) and quadruple rather triple torpedo tubes. Likely due to the extra light AA as well as the octuple mounts and internal strengthening the design grew 1.000tons being now comparable in size to the Des Moines class of the USN some 2 years later.

Final Design as likely looked like when cancelled in 1942 March

Admiral Class Heavy Cruiser Final Design by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The design had these characteristics:
Dimensions: 201,31m(wl) x 25m x 6,40m
Displacement: 18.740tons (Standard)
Engines: 120.000shp Parsons Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 58km/h (31,5knots)
Range: 11.100km at 44km/h (6000nm at 24knots)
Armour: 102mm Deck over magazines 51mm over machinery, 114mm Belt
Armaments:
3x3 8"/50 (203mm/50) BL Mk X Cannons
8x2 4"/45 (102mm/45) QF Mk XVI DP-AA Guns
5x8 40mm/39 QF Mark VIII Pom-Pom AA Guns
16x2 20mm/70 Oerlikon Mk II AA Guns
2x Floatplanes

Note:
This is my interpretation on how would had looked like the Admiral class Heavy Cruiser design in it's final form when cancelled in 1942 march. Tonnage distribution for aircraft shows scout aircraft at this time was still considered important, I've also included more modern Range Finder and Director equipment for the DP-AA and main guns. The torpedo tubes seems to be discarded or not included in the data table.
Data table:
i.imgur.com/BAVTBdT.png

 

[Volkodav]

As usual, outstanding!

Thanks for this I have been interested in these ships for some years.

 

[CNH]

Scrap the R class and keep HMS Tiger.

 

[Dilandu]

Extremely interesting!

 

[Dilandu]

Scrap the R class and keep HMS Tiger.

I always was puzzled, why Royal Navy scrapped the Tiger & saved Iron Duke as training ship? It would be much more practical to do the opposite. After all, treaties may fail, and having the big, fast capital ship hull available for reconstruction back into warship would be a wise precaution...

 

[DWG]

Scrap the R class and keep HMS Tiger.

Tiger was razor blades by the time these designs were being looked at - sold for breaking-up in 1932.

 

[DWG]

Scrap the R class and keep HMS Tiger.

I always was puzzled, why Royal Navy scrapped the Tiger & saved Iron Duke as training ship? It would be much more practical to do the opposite. After all, treaties may fail, and having the big, fast capital ship hull available for reconstruction back into warship would be a wise precaution...

There's only about 3,500t between them (25ktons vs 28.5ktons), and I suspect Iron Duke would be the better option for conversion to a training ship - less space devoted to engines = more space for classrooms etc.

And being the flagship at Jutland would be a definite point in Iron Duke's favour even if it didn't show in a strict comparison of stats.

 

[CNH]

Scrap the R class and keep HMS Tiger.

Tiger was razor blades by the time these designs were being looked at - sold for breaking-up in 1932.

Tiger was broken up as a consequence of the naval treaties of the 1930s. We could have scrapped a R class instead.

 

[CNH]

Scrap the R class and keep HMS Tiger.

I always was puzzled, why Royal Navy scrapped the Tiger & saved Iron Duke as training ship? It would be much more practical to do the opposite. After all, treaties may fail, and having the big, fast capital ship hull available for reconstruction back into warship would be a wise precaution...

There's only about 3,500t between them (25ktons vs 28.5ktons), and I suspect Iron Duke would be the better option for conversion to a training ship - less space devoted to engines = more space for classrooms etc.

And being the flagship at Jutland would be a definite point in Iron Duke's favour even if it didn't show in a strict comparison of stats.

Iron Duke could make 21 knots on a good day. No use as a cruiser substitute. Tiger? 28 knots.

 

[CNH]

PS - and the R class were neither use nor ornament in WWII. They spent months swinging around their anchors in Kilindini.
Waste of resources and man power.

 

[DWG]

Iron Duke could make 21 knots on a good day. No use as a cruiser substitute. Tiger? 28 knots.

You're trying to argue we should have kept Tiger for a mission that didn't exist when she was scrapped - Graf Spee wasn't launched until two years after she went to the breakers. And even in 1938 it was a mission for which we had Repulse, Renown and Hood, and would soon have five KGVs and six Lions.

 

[CNH]

Iron Duke could make 21 knots on a good day. No use as a cruiser substitute. Tiger? 28 knots.

You're trying to argue we should have kept Tiger for a mission that didn't exist when she was scrapped - Graf Spee wasn't launched until two years after she went to the breakers. And even in 1938 it was a mission for which we had Repulse, Renown and Hood, and would soon have five KGVs and six Lions.

So we should have kept on slow lumbering behemoths? KG Vs - you're going to suggest them as 'big cruisers'?

 

[Dilandu]

You're trying to argue we should have kept Tiger for a mission that didn't exist when she was scrapped - Graf Spee wasn't launched until two years after she went to the breakers. And even in 1938 it was a mission for which we had Repulse, Renown and Hood, and would soon have five KGVs and six Lions.

Well, my argument was that it was more... practical, to save the bigger, faster capital ship hull just in case. While "Iron Duke" obviously would not worth restoration, "Tiger" was as capable as "Renown" and "Repulse", and in case of Treaty system collapse (which essentially happened in 1930s), her restoration may be worthwhile.

 

[Tzoli]

Guys! Calm down! This is a thread about the cruisers not about Iron Duke and Tiger

 

[DWG]

"So we should have kept on slow lumbering behemoths?"

Refit and Repair : 30.5kts
Hood : 30kts
KGV : 28.5kts
Lion : 28.25kts

"KG Vs - you're going to suggest them as 'big cruisers'?"

You're suggesting a 28.5kton battlecruiser as a 'big cruiser', so the KGVs and Lions are definitely in the frame. The mission is actually cruiser-killer, and a fast battleship is definitely capable - as Vizeadmiral Graf Von Spee found out at the Falklands.

It's pointless to argue about reasons for retaining Tiger that didn't exist when the decision was taken to scrap her. There was a continuing requirement for a gunnery training ship that would persist even in wartime and Iron Duke was likely a better candidate for that role than Tiger. You don't need 85,000hp and 39 boilers for day cruises out of Scapa or Rosyth.

As for Tiger vs the Rs, the Rs would have had a better war with completed refits, and were capable of engaging enemy battleships even without, they just couldn't run them down (a problem equally faced by the 24kt QEs, but no one calls them useless). The problem with Tiger was she was fast enough she might have succeeded in running something down, and with 1.5" deck armour and 13.5" guns she just wasn't the equal of a modern or refitted battleship.

 

[DWG]

Guys! Calm down! This is a thread about the cruisers not about Iron Duke and Tiger

I agree, we're in danger of a decision taken 7 years earlier about entirely different ships in a different strategic situation derailing an interesting thread. OTOH the pending availability of the 28.5kt KGVs in 1938/39 does undermine the case for a 9.2" cruiser-killer.

A point that occurred to me in looking at the designs and their sequence is that I'd suggest the sparse data for the 12" cruiser should probably be read in conjunction with the initial DNC request for a 20kton cruiser - if someone has just looked at a 20kton 3x4x9.2" design for you and you tell him to look at a 20kton 3x2x12" design then you know he will look at just switching armament unless you give him precise instructions otherwise, and DNC didn't. It would be very interesting to know how the estimated roller path diameter of a 9.2" quad turret compares to the roller path diameter of the WWI era 12" turret design.

And picking up on the guns, it might not be clear to the casual reader that the 9.2" and 10" designs didn't exist in hardware, but the RN had an excellent 14" design that was intended to be scaled up or down as needed, so they could have been built if required. If the RN had gone ahead with the 9.2" design I suspect the Greeks would have happily traded 10" twins for 9.2" triples or quads rather than pay for a 10" development programme.

 

[Tzoli]

I've posted the rest of the designs

 

[Dilandu]

Guys! Calm down! This is a thread about the cruisers not about Iron Duke and Tiger

Sorry...

 

[Dilandu]

a - Protected against 11" gun fire at fine angles (probably 6-7-8" belt armour! )
b - Nelson or Tone style all forward armament
c - Well protected against 8" gun fire ( probably 6-7" belt armour )
d - No heavy and light AA armament at all

Hm. So, "all-forward guns" concept was not chosen for more detailed development? Wonder why; it looks like a reasonable way of squeezing more guns in limited size hull.

 

[Tzoli]

Guys! Calm down! This is a thread about the cruisers not about Iron Duke and Tiger

I agree, we're in danger of a decision taken 7 years earlier about entirely different ships in a different strategic situation derailing an interesting thread. OTOH the pending availability of the 28.5kt KGVs in 1938/39 does undermine the case for a 9.2" cruiser-killer.

A point that occurred to me in looking at the designs and their sequence is that I'd suggest the sparse data for the 12" cruiser should probably be read in conjunction with the initial DNC request for a 20kton cruiser - if someone has just looked at a 20kton 3x4x9.2" design for you and you tell him to look at a 20kton 3x2x12" design then you know he will look at just switching armament unless you give him precise instructions otherwise, and DNC didn't. It would be very interesting to know how the estimated roller path diameter of a 9.2" quad turret compares to the roller path diameter of the WWI era 12" turret design.

And picking up on the guns, it might not be clear to the casual reader that the 9.2" and 10" designs didn't exist in hardware, but the RN had an excellent 14" design that was intended to be scaled up or down as needed, so they could have been built if required. If the RN had gone ahead with the 9.2" design I suspect the Greeks would have happily traded 10" twins for 9.2" triples or quads rather than pay for a 10" development programme.

I've created the drawings to show the evolution of the proposals as well as to visualise them. These 1938 proposals were quite light on data but I can post the relevant parts from Friedman's book.

As for the weapons, according to David Murfin's (Smurf) book: A Directory of British Cruiser Designs:

https://imgur.com/fMQKN1b

View: https://imgur.com/fMQKN1b


Vickers developed new guns and mountings in the early 1930's including 9,2" 10" and 12" so I used these weapons as well as the 8" Mark IX and X of the late 1930's early 1940's

Here are the relevant parts from Friedman's book: (See attachments)

 

[Tzoli]

a - Protected against 11" gun fire at fine angles (probably 6-7-8" belt armour! )
b - Nelson or Tone style all forward armament
c - Well protected against 8" gun fire ( probably 6-7" belt armour )
d - No heavy and light AA armament at all

Hm. So, "all-forward guns" concept was not chosen for more detailed development? Wonder why; it looks like a reasonable way of squeezing more guns in limited size hull.

Probably the RN disliked the Nelson arrangement. or too much sacrifices had to be given. Note the proposalwith absolutely no AA armament at all!

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Wasn't there also a design with four triple (4x3) 9.2" gun turrets made for Churchill's request along with the better known versions with three quadruple (3x4) and three triple (3x3) turrets?

I also thought I had read somewhere that the final design for the new 8" heavy cruisers was going to use a 4.5" secondary battery instead of the 4" used on previous RN heavy and light cruisers.

 

[Tzoli]

Wasn't there also a design with four triple (4x3) 9.2" gun turrets made for Churchill's request along with the better known versions with three quadruple (3x4) and three triple (3x3) turrets?

I also thought I had read somewhere that the final design for the new 8" heavy cruisers was going to use a 4.5" secondary battery instead of the 4" used on previous RN heavy and light cruisers.

No such design existed to my knowledge the only 4x3 cruiser proposal (Which isn't a 6" or 5,25" one) was the 4x3 8" Churchill Design B.
4,5" guns yes, were considered but the sources I had shows 4" guns. (Don't take any of Wargaming's World of Warships real designs as accurate representations at all as they tend to alter them to fit into the game)

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I think the WoWS UK 1941 heavy cruiser is just their rendition of the Neptune class with the four 6" triple turrets swapped out for three 8" triples, and they're probably not even using the right model of 8" gun. I definitely wouldn't use that game as a reference for anything related to actual naval combat of the era even though it looks pretty.

I'll try to find where I read about a 4x3 9.2" gun variant but I could easily be misremembering.

Considering the vast number of ships the 4"/45 caliber twin was used on I'm surprised the UK never developed a fully enclosed mounting.

It seems that by the end of the war the RN and USN had come to rather opposite conclusions about the question of 8" or 6" gun cruisers.

 

[lordroel]

Continuing with Part 3, the 1939/40 Churchill type Large Cruiser Designs:

So this design began when Winston Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty but was dropped when he became Prime minster, did he not care anymore about this project ore just forgot about it.

 

[Tzoli]

Continuing with Part 3, the 1939/40 Churchill type Large Cruiser Designs:

So this design began when Winston Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty but was dropped when he became Prime minster, did he not care anymore about this project ore just forgot about it.

Costs
It was told that to build 4x 9,2" armed cruisers would be equivalent to build 3x Vanguard class Battleships. And as the war situation escalated other ships became a priority.

 

[DWG]

Continuing with Part 3, the 1939/40 Churchill type Large Cruiser Designs:

So this design began when Winston Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty but was dropped when he became Prime minster, did he not care anymore about this project ore just forgot about it.

Winston was actually pretty good at fighting for whichever ministry he represented at the moment and changing his views to suit their needs, even at the cost of opposing things he'd previously favoured. He'd already gone from being a radically pro-Navy First Lord (first time around) to a military cost-cutting Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As PM he both had greater concerns than just the navy, but also a larger staff, including people who could contain his excess enthusiasms.

 

[DWG]

a - Protected against 11" gun fire at fine angles (probably 6-7-8" belt armour! )
b - Nelson or Tone style all forward armament
c - Well protected against 8" gun fire ( probably 6-7" belt armour )
d - No heavy and light AA armament at all

Hm. So, "all-forward guns" concept was not chosen for more detailed development? Wonder why; it looks like a reasonable way of squeezing more guns in limited size hull.

Probably the RN disliked the Nelson arrangement. or too much sacrifices had to be given. Note the proposalwith absolutely no AA armament at all!

There was a definite reason for abandoning the all-forward layout, which escapes me at the moment. It's probably covered in the Friedman chapter on the KGVs.

 

[lordroel]

Continuing with Part 3, the 1939/40 Churchill type Large Cruiser Designs:

So this design began when Winston Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty but was dropped when he became Prime minster, did he not care anymore about this project ore just forgot about it.

Costs
It was told that to build 4x 9,2" armed cruisers would be equivalent to build 3x Vanguard class Battleships. And as the war situation escalated other ships became a priority.

Continuing with Part 3, the 1939/40 Churchill type Large Cruiser Designs:

So this design began when Winston Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty but was dropped when he became Prime minster, did he not care anymore about this project ore just forgot about it.

Winston was actually pretty good at fighting for whichever ministry he represented at the moment and changing his views to suit their needs, even at the cost of opposing things he'd previously favoured. He'd already gone from being a radically pro-Navy First Lord (first time around) to a military cost-cutting Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As PM he both had greater concerns than just the navy, but also a larger staff, including people who could contain his excess enthusiasms.

Like many of his other projects and operations he toughed of.

 

[DWG]

And picking up on the guns, it might not be clear to the casual reader that the 9.2" and 10" designs didn't exist in hardware, but the RN had an excellent 14" design that was intended to be scaled up or down as needed, so they could have been built if required. If the RN had gone ahead with the 9.2" design I suspect the Greeks would have happily traded 10" twins for 9.2" triples or quads rather than pay for a 10" development programme.

Vickers developed new guns and mountings in the early 1930's including 9,2" 10" and 12" so I used these weapons as well as the 8" Mark IX and X of the late 1930's early 1940's

D K Brown, Nelson to Vanguard page 84, rather skips over these designs, but explicitly notes that no work had been done on a 9.2" or mount, whereas it had been done for an 8".

 

[Tzoli]

And picking up on the guns, it might not be clear to the casual reader that the 9.2" and 10" designs didn't exist in hardware, but the RN had an excellent 14" design that was intended to be scaled up or down as needed, so they could have been built if required. If the RN had gone ahead with the 9.2" design I suspect the Greeks would have happily traded 10" twins for 9.2" triples or quads rather than pay for a 10" development programme.

Vickers developed new guns and mountings in the early 1930's including 9,2" 10" and 12" so I used these weapons as well as the 8" Mark IX and X of the late 1930's early 1940's

D K Brown, Nelson to Vanguard page 84, rather skips over these designs, but explicitly notes that no work had been done on a 9.2" or mount, whereas it had been done for an 8".

I'm not so sure about that! If by 1945 there was a new 15" cannon under development as well as a 16"/50 were under consideration for the Lions I can clearly seen other such calibres were created in the early 1930's!

 

[Volkodav]

Continuing with Part 3, the 1939/40 Churchill type Large Cruiser Designs:

So this design began when Winston Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty but was dropped when he became Prime minster, did he not care anymore about this project ore just forgot about it.

Winston was actually pretty good at fighting for whichever ministry he represented at the moment and changing his views to suit their needs, even at the cost of opposing things he'd previously favoured. He'd already gone from being a radically pro-Navy First Lord (first time around) to a military cost-cutting Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As PM he both had greater concerns than just the navy, but also a larger staff, including people who could contain his excess enthusiasms.

Very true and they are also the most difficult people to work with or for, there is no balance or common sense, it is all about winning the argument, building the most splendid empire, banishing the most enemies. I think the best word is mercenary, they completely transfer their loyalty to their new team and will, if it serves them, totally betray their old team.

 

[ajvanmarle]

A big problem with Design I and II would be the tight clustering of the anti-aircraft defenses. One bad hit near the aft bridge, and half the AA guns are gone. Something like that happened with the Dutch light cruiser de Ruyter, which had the same design problem.

 

[Tzoli]

A big problem with Design I and II would be the tight clustering of the anti-aircraft defenses. One bad hit near the aft bridge, and half the AA guns are gone. Something like that happened with the Dutch light cruiser de Ruyter, which had the same design problem.

That was the standard RN Cruiser practice. Look at Belfast:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/42/44/5542442ef503c61f2defd8f56f100f7f.jpg

Or the last of the RN Standard cruiser series the Swiftsure class:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1d/31/0b/1d310bdbf5d4dc66549aa48c22c0bb3d.png

 

[YourChair]

a - Protected against 11" gun fire at fine angles (probably 6-7-8" belt armour! )
b - Nelson or Tone style all forward armament
c - Well protected against 8" gun fire ( probably 6-7" belt armour )
d - No heavy and light AA armament at all

Hm. So, "all-forward guns" concept was not chosen for more detailed development? Wonder why; it looks like a reasonable way of squeezing more guns in limited size hull.

Probably the RN disliked the Nelson arrangement. or too much sacrifices had to be given. Note the proposalwith absolutely no AA armament at all!

There was a definite reason for abandoning the all-forward layout, which escapes me at the moment. It's probably covered in the Friedman chapter on the KGVs.

I remember reading on the (ru) Wargaming wiki page for the Project 21 Soviet battleships that the all-forward layout was awkward in terms of the position of the machinery (the boilers and engines were placed in the wrong orders I think), which led to a decrease in maneuverability. I can't find where it says that now, but the page does say "When discussing the sketches of battleships, after heated debates that had been repeated many times, the "Nelson" layout was rejected by the majority of fleet experts "for tactical reasons", as well as for reasons of survivability." I also remember seeing somewhere that the firing angles of such a layout were judged as too poor and tactically awkward/situational.

I'll reply again if I find further information.

(On the other hand, it shortened the armored citadel, which reduced armor weight.)

 

[Tzoli]

I would disagree on the bad firing angles as the placement of the bridge allows quite nice aft angle firing:

The Sovietskiy Nelsonski by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

The issue was the thicker armour, higher speed with both more poweful engines and larger hull and a much higher freeboard compared to Nelson, yet this should be achieved on the same 35.000tons displacement which was not possible, but on much more like on 52.000tons.

 

[YourChair]

Guys! Calm down! This is a thread about the cruisers not about Iron Duke and Tiger

I agree, we're in danger of a decision taken 7 years earlier about entirely different ships in a different strategic situation derailing an interesting thread. OTOH the pending availability of the 28.5kt KGVs in 1938/39 does undermine the case for a 9.2" cruiser-killer.

A point that occurred to me in looking at the designs and their sequence is that I'd suggest the sparse data for the 12" cruiser should probably be read in conjunction with the initial DNC request for a 20kton cruiser - if someone has just looked at a 20kton 3x4x9.2" design for you and you tell him to look at a 20kton 3x2x12" design then you know he will look at just switching armament unless you give him precise instructions otherwise, and DNC didn't. It would be very interesting to know how the estimated roller path diameter of a 9.2" quad turret compares to the roller path diameter of the WWI era 12" turret design.

And picking up on the guns, it might not be clear to the casual reader that the 9.2" and 10" designs didn't exist in hardware, but the RN had an excellent 14" design that was intended to be scaled up or down as needed, so they could have been built if required. If the RN had gone ahead with the 9.2" design I suspect the Greeks would have happily traded 10" twins for 9.2" triples or quads rather than pay for a 10" development programme.

I've created the drawings to show the evolution of the proposals as well as to visualise them. These 1938 proposals were quite light on data but I can post the relevant parts from Friedman's book.

As for the weapons, according to David Murfin's (Smurf) book: A Directory of British Cruiser Designs:

https://imgur.com/fMQKN1b

View: https://imgur.com/fMQKN1b


Vickers developed new guns and mountings in the early 1930's including 9,2" 10" and 12" so I used these weapons as well as the 8" Mark IX and X of the late 1930's early 1940's

Here are the relevant parts from Friedman's book: (See attachments)

Sorry to revive this thread, but do you have any info on this 203mm Mark X gun?