ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 15
Apr 10 10 3:13 PM
Thanks for the update.IIRC, the discussions on the construction of US bases on British territory began pre-war, though obviously without any talk of swapping old destroyers for basing rights. The drivers for such bases still exist from the US point of view, though the British will not be under the same pressure. Has any consideration been given to going ahead with the agreement, but instead of old destroyers, the British receive modern materials in lieu. And not necessarily military hardware, but perhaps a certain number of modern fast tankers or refrigerated cargo ships each year for the duration of the war as payment.My remarks on the 15" mountings were for frefernce only, I was not suggesting disarming TERROR or EREBUS, though I think MARSHAL SOULT will still lost her turret.What is the status of the Future Building Committee?I refered to using the US 8"/55 due to its performance vis-a-vis the 9.2"/45. The heavy shell fired by the US gun has a better performance than the older 9.2" and at the 335 pounds, is not much lighter. While I definately agree that acquiring US built cruisers is a no-go, I think that getting the guns is a possibility. If this is an absolute non-starter as well, what about the 8" mk IX/X. The design was approved in 1941 and I believe one gun was proofed, though I am not on sure ground there. A modern all steel 8" would be better than an old design 9.2", even if updated. (My opinion only and we know the value of opinions.)Another question I have concerns the old Coventry Ordnance Works facility at Scotstoun. It is still in operation run by Harlond Wolff and resumed building gun mountings in 1936. Would it have the capacity to build new turrets for the projected large cruiser, taking the load off of the Vickers plant?Again, thanks for all of the great stories and information. I never fail to learn something from this site.SlainteGator
Share This