Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I've seen claims of 10 rounds per minute for the USN 6in/47 triple turret and thus a 6 second firing cycle.Some of it depends on the range but the British cruisers look like they had about 75% of the fire rate of the Americans, which is not bad compared to 8in guns
US guns had power ramming up to 20 degrees and the British used had ramming, since everybody had to lower the guns to load/ram elevation/range had an influence on rate of fire.
Japanese 5.5s depended on how far the crews had to lug the shells.
Agano may have been at 5-6 rpm and the Oyodo was lucky to hit 5 rpm.
I've seen claims of 10 rounds per minute for the USN 6in/47 triple turret and thus a 6 second firing cycle.
This is from Wikipedia regarding the Belfast and Fiji class 6in turrets:
"A RN gunnery officer on HMS Bermuda gave details of the loading cycle which could be attained in the Mk XXIII turret with a well trained crew: "...a loading cycle of four and a half to 5 seconds was attained at low elevation, another two to three seconds being required with the guns elevated for long range. The time would lengthen as fatigue set in, but was creditable..."[4 - Brook, Alarm Starboard]"
I managed to find the entire quote:I've read those claims about the Brooklyns as well, but I think they might be a little overenthusiastic. And I'm sure I've read somewhere about Jamaicapulling off fire-rates nearly as fast, which is why I asked Ewen.
We are into the Butterflies againAlso, one can assume that most of the troops, shipping and planes OTL aimed at the Phillipines (and places like Guam and Wake) will in this ATL be aimed at the british/french/dutch etc.
I have checked two ships(PoW and Belfast) and it seems accurate for the length of time on slipway, laying down to launch. Fitting out can take another year or two.Here is a diagram i found elsewhere showing the major shipyards and the major RN ships built on them, from cruisers upwards. Not sure how accurate it is but it's very interesting nonetheless.
perhaps the French and Dutch would have been little more than speed bumps but the whole Japanese attack of Dec 1941-March of 1942 of hanging by shoe strings, frayed knotted shoe strings at that. A couple of weeks of delay might have broken one or more of the shoe strings.
Ki-43 Production in 1941 was 157 aircraft, 43 of them in Dec, they built another 113 in the first 3 months of 1942.
Zero Production totaled 507 by the end of 1941, the first 100 or so were being used as trainers (they had a few limitations) and they built another 152 in the first 3 month of 1942.
If the Japanese do NOT start in French Indo china and have to take it over? Yes they can do it, but how much longer to take Malaya and Singapore? A few weeks? a month?
If the British had more equipment to give the Indian troops in Malaya? To heck with more troops, just give them 1/4 to 1/3 of the artillery and anti-tank and AA guns that an equivalent number of of Troops in NA had. The troops in Malaya were lacking just about all heavy weapons.
Lets Remember that the Japanese have said that if the British did not surrender at Singapore when they did the Japanese would have had to surrender or face starvation in just another few weeks.
`A few more Dutch destroyers (3?) and submarines (Dutch were building 8 in 1939-40, 3 escaped to England) ?
Japanese win the naval battles but loose more transports during the invasions of the DEI.
How long do the land battles last?
Can the Japanese afford to loose either the time needed or the planes and troops needed to overcome the French/Dutch defenses?
They can/will win but what happens to the time table/s?
Maybe with more carriers supporting the DEI invasions (not attacking Pearl) the Dutch planes are wiped out in the first two days, who knows?
I think you may not be realizing the enormous amount of "stuff" that used up in the first 2 1/3 years of war in west.True, but Ki-27 (army fighters) seemed to do quite well against most of the Colonial aircraft in Malaya etc., and they had plenty of those. The A5Ms were also pretty capable though there weren't quite as many.
I think you may not be realizing the enormous amount of "stuff" that used up in the first 2 1/3 years of war in west.
Hawker and Gloster built 3770 Hurricane Is through June of 1941 (Gloster, Hawker had stopped Feb)
Hurricane IIs were started in Aug/Sept of 1940 by Hawker, they built 418 of them through April of 1941, although they had started production of the IIBs in Feb 1941, Gloster switched over in June 1941 and the IICs started showing up in March 1941
I don't have total as of Dec 31st 1941 but I think were can estimate at least several thousand more than the MK Is
Now the question becomes if there is NO war in Europe how many aircraft do the British produce?
Low tension?
High tension?
German invades Poland and stops?
Germany Invades France and the low Countries and is stopped in Northern France?
Germany takes France but it takes until Sept and the Bob is delayed?
and so on.
and lets face it, it doesn't actually take a whole lot to triple or quadruple the supply of aircraft, artillery, tanks and AA guns to the Far east over what was sent with the Battles in Greece and North Africa being much reduced or eliminated.
This is what I meant by shoe strings. The Japanese invaded using the number of planes that a European country could make in 1 or 2 months in 1940-41.
If the Germans don't actually attack France until 1941 and they stall, the British could send 1/10 of the Hurricane Is the far East while reequipping with Hurricane IIs and still send 4 times the number of Buffaloes sent. Send bombers to suit.
They can't do much worse than the Buffaloes. Maybe the Japanese still "win" but it is going to take a lot longer. And gives the British/allies more time to send more stuff.
That diagram is a very simplified account of the activity in these yards and omits much. I've looked at some of the Clyde yards and H&W at Belfast in some detail (down to what ships on what slips & when and the changing priorities) but still not managed to pin everything down.Here is a diagram i found elsewhere showing the major shipyards and the major RN ships built on them, from cruisers upwards. Not sure how accurate it is but it's very interesting nonetheless.
Note the greatly decreased number of major ships laid down after 1940, presumably in our ATL those slipways would mostly still continue to build major combatants such as BBs, cruisers and some CVs, at least until 1942, when i assume the war against Japan (which i expect to go quite badly at fiorst for UK) would compel different, more urgent, priorities.
1938 ProgrammeGetting back a bit to the potential UK shipbuilding program if no war in Europe (at least not with UK involved in it yet), do i understand correctly that if not for the war they would have probably continued to build 1-2 CV, 2 BBs, 7 cruisers and 2-3 DD flotillas in both 1940 and 1941? As i understand they wanted at least another pair of Implacables in 1940 but this was not done due to the war situation. Also, when was Vanguard supposed to be laid down if not for the war situation, perhaps 1940? Do you think they have the capacity to lay down all 6 Lions by 1942, or they would have to pare down the number anyway (maybe 4 plus Vanguard?).
Regarding carriers, apart from the 8 armoured ones, iirc at some point they wanted 6 smaller "trade protection" carriers, presumably something akin to Unicorn or the later Colossus CVL? Don't know if they will start building some of these in 1940 or 1941, would be interesting what more informed folks know on the subject.
As a sidenote, without the war in Europe, many of the lessons RN (with significant impact in ship design) and UK as a whole learned the (very) hard way would not have been learned yet when going against Japan in this ATL. So at first i think many of those lessons will be learned the hard way against the japanese. I would not be surprised in the least if a lot of equipment sent in FE initially would still be second rate even if there is no war in Europe, since the british and western powers in general were looking down on the japanese.
Octuple 2pdr mountsSouthampton and followers 10 ships
1937-39 completion dates. About 9100-10,550 tons 32-32.5ts
12 X 6in guns, 8 X 4in AA guns, 8 X 2pdr AA (by the spring of 1942)some smaller, 6 X 21 tubes.
View attachment 733395
Some lost X turret to fit more AA. Belfast and Edinburgh both got a lot heavier armor and 12 X 4in AA guns and quintuple 2pdr AA mounts. There was no sense keeping to the treaty limits at this point. Originally 3 aircraft but they traded aircraft for more AA as the war went on. Again note the somewhat more powerful AA armament compared to the Japanese ships. The USS Wichita completed at about the same time had 8 5in/38s with the 5 gun broadside.
This is something that most in the US do not understand, believing that the "British Empire" is some single entity run from London. That was far from the truth.I think we can assume that the UK would have built up the overseas manufacturing capabilities to a greater extent than in the OTL, but how far was possible the practical sense is a very big question to my mind.
Sorry but the tank in the photo is in fact Type 97 Shinhōtō Chi-Ha, armed with a 47 mm cannon, max armour 33 mm (turret front), otherwise 20 - 26 mm. Its contemporary was A15 Crusander III, armed with 57 mm cannon and max armour 51 mm (turret front), otherwise 20 - 40 mm....Sure, but if we are talking about British made tanks and artillery, there are some limitations. Cruiser tanks with 2 pounder guns (no HE) and Matilda infantry tanks with the same, are not necessarily going to pose a huge problem for the Japanese.
View attachment 733390
Type 97 Chi-Ha looks like a pretty challenging opponent for an A13. They did pretty well at Khalkhin Gol against similar BT-7, and they were used with success in Malaya and Singapore, and in the Philippines where they outgunned the US M3 light tanks. They built over 1,000 of them.
The type 13, type 91 or 96 howitzers looks pretty good to me compared to the 25 pounder. The type 92 cannon looks downright scary.
I see the point, I think the Japanese were ready though.
You are correct, brainfart. I will correct.Octuple 2pdr mounts