has your navy ever built machine gun 8" guns?nope
>>65329071#notmnavy
Love the Des Moines classalso the 6" DP Worcester-class cruisers
>>65329187There were some plans to build an improved 6” mount based more off the Des Moines’ loading system that iirc were targeting something around a 20rpm. Tragically the writing was on the wall for large all gun ships at that point so it ended up cancelled before it could amount to anything
>>65329199checked, yea dedicated AA gun cruisers were pretty much dead after the 1940s
>>65329202Too bad missiles couldn’t have come just a decade later, we’d have seen some crazy guns. Alternatively, the naval treaties never materializing probably would’ve had a similar effect, as world navies would’ve had more than a token developmental budget through the 20s and possibly early 30s depending on how the depression looks in that timeline.
>>65329218I just like the twin 3"/50 cals as replacement for quad Bofors
>>65329218It is the tragic nature of technologies to reach an alluring apex at the eve of their demise. Late steam locomotive tech, for instance, achieved wild levels of sophistication just as it became a dead-end economically, compared to other traction. (Of course electricity was superior decades before, and still is, but who the fuck is dumb enough to invest into actual, efficient infrastructure instead of short-term profits running re-re-re-re-overhauled stone-age crap? /'tism-rant)
>>65329071Kind of crazy to see how fucking screwed Japan was as a naval power.Their newest fanciest heavy cruiser was basically a refined Mogami class, a glorified inter-war cruiser on steroids.Meanwhile America was building autoloaded 8 inch heavy cruisers with even more armor, they could throw out as much lead per minute as the fucking iowa class battleships.
>>65329071>almost as expensive as an Iowa>nearly as many crew required Cruisers were obsolete by the 30's, outside of being AAA picket
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my1ByZh4rEk
>>65330036>38 million vs 100 million >1700 crew vs 2700 crewmath is hard
>>65329368very based weapon, too bad they never evolved it into something like OTO Melara
>>65330077>couldn't even actually check his chatgpt numbersThere's a reason everyone stopped making cruisers to destroyermaxx. For about half the cost of a BB and over 50% of the crew, you get a boat with far less than 50% of the capability that isn't significantly cheaper to actually operate or maintain.
>>65330334>You get a boat with far less than 50% of the capabilityDes Moines actually could stop modern destroyers before they come into torpedo range, unlike Iowa's
>>65329187My best friend and I gave his wife a 6 inch DP, if you know what I mean.
Writing an alternate history world, is there a way to nerf missiles and jets so these monsters can be built?
What if they made naval 8" nuke shells
>>65331019>this ship could do something this other ship was never intended to do!>checkmate atheists!The Iowas got tomahawks and battle stars while your three gay little cruisers rusted away until 2/3 were scrapped and one somehow made into a museum despite her having missed WWII entirely and then never firing a shot in anger during her 10 year (topkek) "career".It was obsolete the moment it entered trials.
>>65331959Make the British not give the soviets western jet engines, that could make a reasonable difference for enough time to allow gun cruisers to take off. The missiles will still be a problem, though. Guided missiles have existed since ww2 (at least) so it is hard to make them obsolete in such a timeframe. Maybe make the ships have some sort of intercept radar which allows the guns to at least try shooting down the missiles, it should be possible, even with 50's technology.
>>65332020Guns had mixed success engaging props, were deemed next to useless against jets, and even modern guns have difficulty and low success rates engaging missiles. There's nothing they could have done during the 50's to somehow make gun cruisers relevant, hence why they quickly decommed them.
>>65331959Change the volatility of propellants to the point non gun weapons become infeasible. Have the naval treaties never come to pass to justify larger and more advanced ships at the start of WW2. As for getting rid of jets I don’t know
>>65332029In the 1960s the swedes were behind the curve on AA missile tech, so they built this thing as a stop-gap solution for dealing with cruise missiles and low-flying jets.With modern radar systems, a network of guns like these could potentially be cost-effective option for dealing with drone-spam.Yes, there were naval turret versions of these guns too. The navy guns being the only ones that actually make it into some kind of serial production, with a grand total of 6 such guns being built.
>>65329831>electrcity was superior decades before the end of steamNot even close. The power generation and motor efficiency required for high speed long haul didn't even start to exist until the late 30s. By the time EMDs started to make a serious appearance on the market they were nowhere near close to the power output and speed of steam. The sheer ridiculous amount of maintenance steam engines require, as well as the sheer amount of time it takes to perform that maintenance, is what killed them. Nobody is going to want to run a piece of equipment that spends a minimum of 2 months a year out of service without any mechanical failures when you can run something that spends less than a week down in the same condition. Repair is also vastly simplified on an EMD. Bad drive set? Lift engine and slide a new set underneath, rebuild at leisure out of chassis so it's ready to use when needed. Railroads did everything they could to maximize profits, they didn't keep steam around out of some sense of nostalgia, they kept it because it was the best at what it did until it suddenly wasn't and they all switched to modern style engines so fast Baldwin went from a premier engine maker to ceasing operations within five years.
