USN 10"/50

[40902nd]

In Norman Friedman's 'U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History', he makes reference to a proposed 10"/50 gun in The Post-Treaty Generation section of the book. He states that when the Deutchlands appeared, there was a proposal to arm USN CA with twin 10-inch guns in place of their triple 8-inch turrets. Later in the same chapter, when discussing the CA 2 designs, he states that a 10"/50 firing heavy shells was used as a stand-in for German 11-in guns when calculating Immunity Zones, which leads me to believe there must have been some sort of preliminary data for such a weapon (such as shell weights, muzzle velocities, penetration values at ranges, ect).

Does anyone have any information on this hypothesized weapon or know where I might find more information on it?

 

[Tzoli]

Only info is from Friedman's book as you find. It's a theoretical gun though calculations likely exists or existed at some point. My friend said at least two shell designs were calculated by enlarging 8" or downsizing 12" shells.
If any official papers were made those could be found in naval historical centres though the United States seems to lack such institutions like the British Vickers and Brass Foundry archives or in the gun manufacturers archives again if such exists: Bethlehem Steel Corporation and the Naval Gun Factory / Washington Navy Yard

 

[SSgtC]

AIUI, the US liked the 10" design to a point, but then someone realized that with new shells and a new barrel, they could get a 12" gun to deliver the same armor penetration as the 14" guns on their battleline and that was that for the 10" proposal.

 

[40902nd]

According to Friedman, the 12" was favored because that diameter was already in service (aboard Wyoming and Arkansas), and if an enemy made a cruiser-killer with a gun beyond 8-inch, the 10-inch wouldn't be powerful enough.

I believe I read somewhere within the same book that it would also be faster to get the 12" made, but I may be confusing it with why they didn't go with an 11"/50, which was discussed elsewhere.

At any rate, I now have a place to start, so thank you kindly.