Royal Navy Big Cruiser Designs

I find the all-forward proposal that was rejected a very interesting concept.

Is there any further details about what were these expected to look like? I think I've read from somewhere that they also considered dropping a turret (so 2x3 8") for additional machinery space and armor, but not sure if those are from the same timeframe.

Would be interesting to see if such design can provide 32kt+ ship with adequate protection against 8" shells while remaining well under 10000ton limit (something treaty cruisers couldn't)
 
Last edited:
Your 2x3 8" design is likely the pre design 'a' where extra armour was provided against 11"
Pre design b is likely similar to the all forward County design from the 1920's
And pre design d is maybe a 2x3,2x2 or 3x3 High Angle mount type
 
Julio Garay Terrazas said:
I found this page about british never was cruiser Surrey class.
https://naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/...grAty2FLd0Y-iLbpHA_aem_I4yEx6WdREtclwuV2Kulsw
Click to expand...
I would caution against using naval encyclopedia as a serious source, as that webpage often contains numerous errors, and sometimes uses bad sources

Naval encyclopedia is mostly just for a casual dive into some lesser known topics, for heavy research work there are plenty of books into these topics

If anyone wants I can synthesize some of the passages on the Surrey class from Friedman's British cruisers
 
There was an article in Warship 2017 by David Murfin on the development of the Surrey class.
 
Is there any details on 9.2" guns that Britain planned to use? Would it have been an entirely new gun or would it have been a reuse of older types?
 
Tzoli said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is a screamingly expensive Cruiser... What made it so expensive?
 
Scott Kenny said:
That is a screamingly expensive Cruiser... What made it so expensive?
Click to expand...
Heavy cruisers of this era weren't much cheaper than battleships. They were smaller, but the majority of cost were combined not from hull constructions, but from components; guns, turrets, machinery, armor plates.
 
Dilandu said:
Heavy cruisers of this era weren't much cheaper than battleships. They were smaller, but the majority of cost were combined not from hull constructions, but from components; guns, turrets, machinery, armor plates.
Click to expand...
Still seems an awfully high cost for something a third the tonnage.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Still seems an awfully high cost for something a third the tonnage.
Click to expand...
Tonnage by itself is cheap. But the big cruiser would require the same powerplant as battleship, the same number of large turrets and secondaries (despite main guns being smaller, they still much heavier than 6-inch or 8-inch), and comparable amount of cemented armor plates.
 
MyBirdAreWild said:
Is there any details on 9.2" guns that Britain planned to use? Would it have been an entirely new gun or would it have been a reuse of older types?
Click to expand...
Yes, here:
Page 94.png

9,2"/50 (Expected designation: BL Mark XVI) Design date: 1933
Shell weight: 172,4kg
Muzzle Velocity: 808m/s
Kinetic Energy: 56,28MJ
Twin Gun Turret Rotating weight: 270tons
Triple Gun Turret Rotating weight: 470tons
Quadruple Gun Turret Rotating weight: 610tons
 
A point that may interest some, a scalorama of a 1/600 Scale Belfast to 1/700 works out at 218m
 
Dilandu said:
Tonnage by itself is cheap. But the big cruiser would require the same powerplant as battleship, the same number of large turrets and secondaries (despite main guns being smaller, they still much heavier than 6-inch or 8-inch), and comparable amount of cemented armor plates.
Click to expand...
Same amount of directors, same amount of computers, similar amounts of wiring. We're past the point of the hull determining costs and into the systems determining costs.
 
Tzoli said:
Yes, here:
View attachment 798669

9,2"/50 (Expected designation: BL Mark XVI) Design date: 1933
Shell weight: 172,4kg
Muzzle Velocity: 808m/s
Kinetic Energy: 56,28MJ
Twin Gun Turret Rotating weight: 270tons
Triple Gun Turret Rotating weight: 470tons
Quadruple Gun Turret Rotating weight: 610tons
Click to expand...
I've seen a suggestion that rather than scale down from the 12"/50 Mk XIV, which was scaled up to the 14"/50 Mk VII and 16"/50 Mk II, the 9.2" could have been scaled up from the 8"/50 Mk X, which was under development for the 8" CAs.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom