本文節(jié)選自諾曼·弗里德曼的《British cruisers：from WWII and after》第七章最后一部分。英國大型巡洋艦計劃。 中英文對照，渣翻，發(fā)現(xiàn)錯誤請評論區(qū)指出。 正文部分： 1-1.Although prohibited by the 1936 treaty, larger cruisers remained interesting, not least because there were continual rumours that the Japanese were building 20,000-ton super?cruisers, and because it was considered entirely possible that the Germans would do much the same thing. In January 1938 DNC asked his preliminary cruiser designer, W G John, to sketch a variety of heavy cruisers, beginning with a 20,000-ton ship (700ft x 70ft x 25ft), to make 33kts at standard displacement, with high endurance. Armament would be three quadruple 9.2in turrets, six twin 4.5in and four octuple pompoms, but there would be neither torpedo tubes nor machine guns (0.661in). The ship would have two aircraft and a deck catapult. Armour would be an 8in belt covered by a 4in deck, with underwater protection against a 750lb charge, as in a capital ship. The designer was to try to ‘scrape down’ to not more than 15,000 tons; cost should be about ￡5 million. Admiralty Board minutes do not suggest any interest in building such ships, but in January 1938 it was just becoming clear that Japan could not be enticed to abide by the new treaty restrictions (the British thought the Japanese were designing ships only slightly above the allowable tonnage), and the design may indicate British interest in a cruiser escalator agreement. The design was developed in some detail. 1-1.盡管被1936年第二次倫敦海軍條約所禁止，但是海軍依然對于大型巡洋艦保有興趣，尤其是不斷有關(guān)于日本人正在建造20000噸的超級巡洋艦的傳聞，同時也因為德國人被認為完全有可能做類似的事。在1938年一月，DNC(Director of Naval Construction)(海軍建造總監(jiān))咨詢了它的巡洋艦初步設(shè)計師W G 約翰先生(此人資料不可找)以為一系列重型巡洋艦繪制草圖。初步方案是一條20000噸(213.4m，長21.3m寬，7.62m吃水)，標準排水量下33節(jié)航速，適航性較強的巡洋艦。裝備三座四聯(lián)裝9.2吋(234mm)主炮，六座雙聯(lián)裝4.5吋(114mm)副炮以及四座八聯(lián)裝40mm砰砰炮，但是該草案未配備任何魚雷以及機槍。方案有兩架水機和一座甲板彈射器。8吋(203mm)側(cè)舷主裝甲帶，4吋(102mm)水平裝甲，水下部分的防護可以如主力艦一樣抵擋750磅(340kg)炸藥。設(shè)計師試圖去將其削減到15000噸。方案的造價預(yù)估為500萬鎊。海軍部的會議記錄顯示他們對這個方案沒有興趣，然而在1938年1月無法說服日本接受這份條約限制(英國人認為日本人僅僅是在設(shè)計略高于所允許噸位的船)，這個方案表明英國海軍對超出條約的巡洋艦的興趣。該方案的具體設(shè)計細節(jié)依然在后續(xù)發(fā)展。 1-2.The ship would be about the size of a carrier; DNC suggested starting with 132,000shp. DNO provided data on a quadruple 9.2in turret. The belt armour would resist 10in shells 40° from normal at 16,000yds; the deck was expected to resist 10in shells and also a 1,000lb AP bomb dropped from 8,000ft. DNC suggested a short forecastle design with a hangar and the usual alternating engine and boiler rooms, the machinery box being pushed well aft (as in Belfast). A cross-section showed a 16ft 6in deep belt extending 11ft 6in above the waterline, with an internal deck below the armour deck but well above water, and a side protective system inboard of the belt. Hull depth would have been 35ft 6in. The belt would have been closed by 6in bulkheads. As in recent much smaller cruisers, the belt armour, rather than armour boxes, would have protected the magazines. The 20,000-ton hull actually proved somewhat small, so John tried a 23,700-tonner as well.To get back down, John tried triple 9.2in guns, but found he did not have enough machinery weight to make 33kts. He had to reduce armour.By early February 1938 this design was being called an armoured cruiser. In mid-February John reported to DNC, who asked about the effect of substituting triple for quadruple 9.2in turrets. The docket and drawings were sent to Controller on 17 February 1938. As reported, the ship with three quadruple turrets would displace 20,750 tons and would cost ￡5.2 million, while the alternative with three triple turrets would displace 23,500 tons and cost ￡6 million. 1-2.這艘船的尺寸會達到航母級別，DNC建議動力系統(tǒng)以最低132000馬力開始設(shè)計。DNO(Department of the Director of Naval Ordnance)(海軍軍械署)則提供了四聯(lián)裝9.2吋炮塔的數(shù)據(jù)。主裝甲帶可以抵御16000碼(14.6km)外40°航向角的10吋(254mm)炮彈以及從2438m投下的1000磅(453.6kg)穿甲航彈。DNC建議采用有機庫以及通常的交錯式引擎和鍋爐，舵機像城級一樣移動到艦尾的短艏樓。橫截面圖顯示16英尺6英寸(約5m)的裝甲帶在水線上延伸11英尺6英寸(約3.5m)。內(nèi)部甲板低于裝甲甲板但是遠高于水線與在裝甲帶內(nèi)部的側(cè)舷防護系統(tǒng)。型深35英尺6英寸(約9.2m)。主裝甲帶其余部分為6吋(152mm)。與近期的的許多更小的巡洋艦一樣，彈藥庫被主裝甲帶而非裝甲盒所保護。事實上，這個20000噸的船體被證明小了，所以WG 約翰也做了23700噸的方案。為了縮減排水量，他嘗試了三座三聯(lián)裝3.2吋主炮，然而他發(fā)現(xiàn)動力艙的重量不足以將其推進到33節(jié)的航速。他不得不縮減裝甲防護。在1938年的2月初，這個方案被命名為“裝甲巡洋艦”。在二月中旬，約翰先生向DNC做了匯報。DNC詢問了用三聯(lián)裝炮塔替換四聯(lián)裝炮塔的具體效果如何。案卷與圖紙在1938年2月17被送到委員會。根據(jù)他的匯報內(nèi)容，裝備三座三聯(lián)裝炮塔的方案排水量20750噸，造價約520w鎊；另一個三座三聯(lián)裝炮塔的方案排水量23500噸，造價約600w鎊。 1-3.DNC next asked what could be done with nine 8in guns (Design A), or with nine 9.2in (Design B). Speed was set at 33kts and endurance at 10,000nm at 15kts. Other armament was six twin 4.5in, four octuple and two single pompoms, and twelve torpedo tubes. Armour should defeat the ship’s own guns at 90° inclination (worst case) between 8,000 and 25,000yds (with an inch less over machinery). The deck over the magazines should defeat a 500lb SAP bomb dropped from 10,000ft (over machinery, a 500lb dive bomb); and underwater protection should, as before, defeat a 750lb charge. For the 9.2in gun, this was more than had been asked for before: 10?in C over magazines and 9?in over machinery, with a 3?in deck over magazines and 2?in over machinery. For 8in shellfire it was quite heavy, too: 9in (8in) belt and 3?in (2?in deck). Deck armour was the same in both cases because it was determined by the bombs, not the shells. This was the sort of protection the US Navy later provided in the Alaska class, not even approached in any conventional cruiser. Cutting the number of guns in Design B had little effect; the ship would still displace about 20,500 tons and would require 182,000shp to make the desired speed, probably using eight 25,000shp boilers. A sketch showed a ship with a waterline beam of 84ft, bulged underwater to 88ft, so that the battleship-style underwater (side) protective system could be 10ft deep. DNC received the report of this pair of designs on 28 February and in turn reported to Controller on 4 March. The ship with nine 8in guns was expected to displace 21,750 tons and to cost ￡5.5 million. 1-3.DNC隨后詢問了能否裝備9門8吋(203mm)炮(即DesignA),或者裝備9門9.2吋(即Design B)。速度達到33節(jié)，在15節(jié)下續(xù)航10000海里(18520km)。次級武裝為六門雙聯(lián)裝4.5吋炮，四座八聯(lián)裝，兩座單裝砰砰炮，以及12根魚雷發(fā)射管。裝甲應(yīng)當可以在最壞的情況下，即90°傾角時在8000碼(約7.3km)到25000碼(約22.86km)(機械艙的防護少1英寸(即25.4mm))足以防御其自身的主炮。覆蓋彈藥庫的裝甲應(yīng)當可以防御10000英尺(約3km)投下的500磅(約226.8kg)半穿甲航彈。(對應(yīng)的機械倉段可以抵御500磅俯沖投彈)。水下防護部分應(yīng)當?shù)钟?50磅炸藥的沖擊。對于其9.2吋主炮，防護比先前的更強，彈藥庫為10.5吋(266.7mm)，機械艙段為9.5吋(241.3mm)，彈藥庫段水平裝甲為3.5吋(88.9mm)機械艙段頂甲為2.5吋(63.5mm)。8吋炮防護同樣也十分重，9吋(機械艙段8吋)，水平裝甲為3.5吋(機械艙段2.5吋)。裝甲甲板的規(guī)格是相同的，因為其厚度取決于航彈而非艦炮。這就是美國海軍隨后的阿拉斯加級的防護，在任何常規(guī)巡洋中均從未有過這種設(shè)計。Design B削減主炮得到了一定的成效，它仍然為20500噸，要求有182000馬力來達到設(shè)定航速，可能需要8座25000馬力的鍋爐。草圖顯示水線橫梁寬84英尺(約25.6m)，在水下擴展至88英尺(約26.8m)，這樣讓船可以有10英尺深(約3m)的側(cè)面防護系統(tǒng)。DNC在2月28日收到了這些設(shè)計的報告，然后在3月4日向管理者(應(yīng)該是第三海軍大臣)報告。裝備9門8吋炮的方案排水量21750噸，造價約550w鎊。 ?1-4.Based on this work, in December 1938 DNC asked for details of an Alaska-like supercruiser, at 20,000 tons, armed with six 12in guns, with 7in belt and 3in deck, which was what the Japanese were (incorrectly) reported to be building. Unlike the 8in and 9.2in cruisers, it was legal under the 1936 treaty, because it came in above the prohibited cruiser zone (8,000-17,000 tons, 6.1in to 10in guns). The estimate was based on the 9.2in ship reported the previous February (700ft x 84ft x 23ft), the twin 12in turret being comparable to the triple 9.2in. Work on such ships resumed in February 1939, with analysis of an 18,000-tonner armed with six 10in guns and twelve 4in HA/LA guns, protected against 8in fire, with a speed of 32/34kts and a cost of about ￡5 million. Protection was that calculated the previous year, 9in side and 3in deck, offering immunity (against 8in fire) between 8,000 and 25,000yds. The deck could resist 1,000lb AP bombs dropped from 4,000ft and 500lb SAP from 7,000ft. On 10 February John reported to Lillicrap that a ship with six 10in guns, otherwise armed as Belfast and protected against 8in shell, with a speed of 33kts, could be built on 18,000 tons (weights added up to 18,550 tons). The ship had 9in belt armour over her magazines and 8in over her machinery, covered by 3?in and 2?in decks respectively. References in the Notebook suggest that there was still interest in 9.2in main armament. Presumably 10in guns, which no major navy used, was interesting because it was the smallest calibre permissible for a capital ship (i.e. not a prohibited heavy cruiser) under the 1936 treaty. Estimated shell weight was 500lbs, roughly twice that of the 8in cruiser gun. ?1-4.基于此，在1938年12月，DNC咨詢了類似阿拉斯加級一樣的超級巡洋艦，排水量約20000噸，裝備有6門12吋(305mm)主炮，7吋(177.8mm)主裝與3吋裝甲甲板，也就是報告中宣稱的日本人正在建造的(事實證明，情報并不正確)。與8吋與9.2吋大型巡洋艦不同，這一設(shè)計在1936年條約下是完全合規(guī)的，因為其超過了巡洋艦重量的限制(8000-17000噸，裝備6.1吋(155mm)到10吋(254mm)主炮)。預(yù)估方案是基于先前2月報告中的9.2吋巡洋艦，雙聯(lián)裝12吋效能也與三聯(lián)裝9.2吋主炮相當。1939年2月此類船只的研究繼續(xù)。分析得到排水量18000噸裝備有6門10吋主炮，12門4吋(102mm)高炮，足以抵御8吋火炮的火力，航速32/34節(jié)，預(yù)計造價500w鎊的船。防護在去年已經(jīng)經(jīng)過計算，9吋側(cè)舷主裝，3吋裝甲甲板，足以在8000到25000碼具有對8吋炮的免疫區(qū)。水平裝甲可以抵抗在4000英尺(約1.2km)投下的1000磅(約453.6kg)穿甲航彈，在7000英尺(約2.1km)投下的500磅半穿甲航彈。在2月10日，約翰先生向利利克拉普(查爾斯·斯威夫特·利利克拉普爵士(1887-1966)，1944-1951年DNC的領(lǐng)導者)報告了裝備有6門10吋主炮，防護布局類似城級第三批次，可以防護8吋火炮，航速33節(jié)，可以在18000噸(排水量被加到18550噸)排水量下建成。方案彈藥庫段側(cè)面裝甲為9吋，水平裝甲3.5吋，機械艙段側(cè)面裝甲8吋，水平裝甲2.5吋。筆記中的參考資料顯示，海軍對9.2吋火炮仍然有興趣。想必是因為10吋這一并非是海軍慣常使用的口徑是因為它是1936年條約下允許在主力艦上使用的最小口徑。預(yù)估中的炮彈重500磅，大約是8吋火炮彈重的兩倍。 1-5.In June, DNC asked for studies of a 10,000-ton cruiser armed with 8in guns, in effect a ‘County’ using current technology. Presumably Controller (and the Board) envisaged a partial but not complete breakdown of the treaty, so that 10,000-ton 8in cruisers could once more be built under the specific treaty clause allowing a breakout without mutual agreement as to new limits. Hence, as calculations were made, small excess displacements over 10,000 tons were rejected as unacceptable. DNC envisaged a flush deck ship armed with three triple 8in guns, four twin 4in, four multiple pompoms, and two triple torpedo tubes, plus the usual aircraft and catapult, capable of 32kts, with a 2in deck. Could such a ship have 6in side armour? Variants should be (a) protected against 11in fire (i.e. German‘pocket battleship’ fire) at fine inclinations; (b) with armament forward; (c) well protected against 8in fire; and (d) without 4in guns and pompoms. The ship would have new heavy 8in shells (290lbs). On DNO advice it was assumed that the 8in turrets would elevate to 60-70°and that the guns would be as far apart as in the twin mounts of the ‘County’ class – which guaranteed that turrets would be large. Analysis suggested that a 32kt ship would displace just over 10,000 tons. Data were worked up for both a 32kt (80,000shp) ship (Design A) and a 30kt (58,000shp) ship (Design B), both with 5in belt and 2in deck, Design B coming closer to 10,000 tons, but by surprisingly little. As an alternative, John considered a ship with four twin 8in mounts. That lengthened the citadel and thus required more armour (1,920 tons vs 1,850 tons). The estimated weight of an 8in triple was 328 tons, compared to 218 tons for the twin, so in this analysis adopting twin mounts saved considerable weight (984 tons for triples, 856 tons for twins). Designs C and D were 32kt and 30kt alternatives with the four twin mounts (10,250 tons and 9,995 tons), Design D having ?in more belt armour. The next possibility was eight guns distributed as two triples and one twin: 10,165 tons. All versions used the same hull, presumably to make comparison easier. Different levels of protection were also evaluated. ?1-5,在6月，DNC問詢了關(guān)于裝備8吋炮的10000噸巡洋艦，也就是使用當下技術(shù)的“郡”級。大概是總監(jiān)(以及董事會)設(shè)想條約會部分(并非全部)失效，因此10000噸排水量，裝備8吋主炮的巡洋艦可以在某些特定條款下建造，允許其在雙方?jīng)]有就新條款達成一致情況下取得突破。因此，在就方案進行相關(guān)計算時，超過10000噸的微小的超量排水量被認為不可接受。DNC設(shè)想的是一條平甲板巡洋艦，裝備有三座三聯(lián)裝8吋主炮，四座雙聯(lián)裝4吋副炮，四座砰砰炮以及兩座三聯(lián)裝魚雷發(fā)射管，加上往常的水機和彈射器，航速32節(jié)，有2吋(50.8mm)水平裝甲。這條船能否有6吋裝甲帶呢？a變種可以抵抗11吋(德國的“袖珍戰(zhàn)列艦”)，b變種的主炮前置，c變種可以抵御8吋火炮，d變種沒有裝備4吋炮與砰砰炮。該船將裝備新式290磅(約131.5kg，彈重系數(shù)0.56)8吋重彈。根據(jù)DNO的建議，假設(shè)火炮仰角高達60-70°且火炮間距類似“郡”級的雙聯(lián)裝8吋炮——這使得炮塔會很大。分析得到這條航速32節(jié)的船的排水量僅僅超過10000噸。計算得到一條32節(jié)的船(80000馬力)，即Design A；30節(jié)的船(58000馬力)，即Design B，都會配備5吋主裝和2吋甲板，Design B來到將近10000噸，這出乎意料的少。作為備選，約翰先生考慮了裝備有四座雙聯(lián)裝8吋炮。它的更長的核心艙要求更多的裝甲(1920噸對比1850噸)。三聯(lián)裝8吋炮塔的預(yù)估重量是328噸，相對應(yīng)的雙聯(lián)裝炮塔重218噸，所以這一分析中，采用雙聯(lián)裝炮塔的版本節(jié)約了相當大的重量(三聯(lián)裝合計984噸，雙聯(lián)裝合計856噸)。Design C(10250噸，32節(jié))與Design D(9995噸，30節(jié))是裝備四座雙聯(lián)裝炮塔的替代方案。Design D的側(cè)舷主裝甲帶性比而言厚了0.5吋(17.7mm)。另一種可能是一條裝備兩座三聯(lián)裝炮塔，一座雙聯(lián)裝炮塔，排水量10165噸的船。上述的方案使用相同的船體，這大概是為了方便比較。不同的防護同樣也經(jīng)過評估。 1-6.DNC preferred the ship with three triple 8in guns, and E-in-C was asked about machinery. It would be the 80,000shp Fiji plant, but possibly with the 4in magazine forward of the machinery instead of between the after boiler and engine rooms, pushing the machinery box aft. By July, DNO was working up a turret design. As sketched on 29 June 1939 the ship looked like a cross between Belfast and Fiji, with a substantial gap between her bridge structure and a hangar built around her forefunnel. Like a Fiji, the bridge carried a DCT on its centreline and HADTs on either side. The forward 4in guns were in this gap. The ship was flush-decked, but with cut-outs in the forecastle deck so that the after 4in guns (between the two funnels) and the torpedo tubes were a deck lower. An after superstructure just forward of ‘X’ turret carried a third HADT on its centreline, with the after DCT below and adaft it. This structure also carried the ship’s pompoms. This version superseded a more Fiji-like ‘first attempt’. John ended up with a 580ft x 69ft 3in x 17ft ship (10,576 tons). 1-6.DNC更偏向于三座三聯(lián)裝炮塔的方案，總工程師問詢了機械系統(tǒng)。它將會是殖民地級的80000馬力動力組，但是可能4吋炮彈藥庫會在機械艙前而非處在后部鍋爐和引擎艙之間，使得機械艙更偏后。7月，DNO開始了炮塔的設(shè)計。根據(jù)1939年6月29日的草圖顯示，它看起來是殖民地級和城級的交集，在它的艦橋和圍繞前煙囪建造的機庫上有較大的間隔。類似殖民地級，艦橋中軸線上布局有主炮火控，兩側(cè)布局有高炮火控。前部的4吋炮布置在間隔處。這條船是平甲板的，但是前部艦橋甲板上有切口以便于向后的4吋炮(在兩個煙囪之間)和魚雷可以布局在低一層甲板上。在X炮塔前部的后部艦橋在中軸線上布局了高炮火控，主炮火控在高炮火控后且位置更低。這里還同時有砰砰炮。這一方案取代的類似殖民地級的初案。約翰先生的最終設(shè)計為580英尺長(約176.8m)69英尺3英寸寬(約21.1m)吃水17英尺(約5.18m)，排水量約10576噸。 1-7.Once war broke out, there was no longer any point in a 10,000-ton limit, and Winston Churchill, back as First Lord of the Admiralty, pushed for a powerful ship. John was assigned to develop a new 14,000-15,000-ton cruiser armed with 9.2in guns and protected against 8in shellfire, with a good radius of action, higher speed than the German 8in cruisers (say 33/34kts), six twin 4.5in anti-aircraft guns, and four quadruple pompoms; she would have no torpedo tubes. The ship would carry the usual two aircraft and one catapult, and she would be protected against aircraft torpedoes.Given the earlier studies, John chose a 7in belt and 2in deck (3in if possible), considering a 9in belt excessive. Cruisers would generally fight at something other than 90° inclination. At 90°it took 9in to keep out 8in fire at 8,000yds, but 7in would be enough at 8,800yds at a reasonable 60° inclination. The end of treaty restrictions shows in DNC’s instruction:‘Let the displacement come to what it will.’The ship quickly grew back to what John had been sketching early in 1938, about 21,500 tons and 700ft long.The design was reported on 8 September, and it formed the basis for a further armoured cruiser project described in Chapter 9. As an alternative, John was asked for a ship armed with four triple 8in, but otherwise as the 9.2in ship.Both the ship armed with nine 9.2in guns and the one with four triple 8in were expected to displace 21,500 tons and to cost ￡5.5 million. ?1-7.伴隨戰(zhàn)爭的爆發(fā)，10000噸的噸位限制不再生效，同時溫斯頓·丘吉爾(溫斯頓·丘吉爾爵士，1874-1965)成為第一海軍大臣(任期1939.9-1940.5)，推動更強大的艦船的建造工作。約翰先生被委派設(shè)計一型裝備9.2吋主炮，六座雙聯(lián)裝4.5吋副炮，四座八聯(lián)裝砰砰炮，不配備魚雷，足以抵御8吋炮彈，續(xù)航更長，航速超過德國重巡(情報顯示約為33/34節(jié))的排水量為14000-15000噸的巡洋艦。它可以攜帶2架水機，一座彈射器，足以抵御航空魚雷。基于此前的設(shè)計，約翰先生選擇了7吋主裝(考慮到9吋主裝過厚了)，2吋裝甲甲板(可能的話會是3吋)。巡洋艦通常會在超過90°航向角下作戰(zhàn)。在90°下，需要9吋 主裝才足以在8000碼距離防御8吋火炮，然而7吋主裝便足以在60°下在8800碼(約8km)外抵御8吋火炮了。條約限制的終結(jié)也顯示了DNC的指導“讓排水量達到它應(yīng)當有的水平”。它迅速回到了約翰先生在1938年早期的設(shè)計尺寸，約21500噸，長700英尺。設(shè)計在9月8日匯報給上級部門，它成為未來的裝甲巡洋艦設(shè)計的基礎(chǔ)(即所謂的15500噸巡洋艦方案)，這將在本書的第九章“戰(zhàn)時巡洋艦設(shè)計”中的第一小節(jié)“1941年巡洋艦方案”中詳細介紹。作為替代方案，約翰先生被要求在除了9.2吋方案外設(shè)計四座三聯(lián)裝8吋的方案。裝備三座三聯(lián)裝9.2吋炮和四座三聯(lián)裝8吋炮的方案排水量均為約21500噸，造價550w鎊。 1-8.These designs suggested that the earlier 10,000-ton cruisers had been a mismatch of guns and ships, and that the ideal was something far larger – and far less affordable.Director of Plans concluded that it would be much better to build as many fast capital ships as possible. Big cruisers were clearly poorly suited to work with the fleet: they would rather fight enemy cruisers in minor actions and on the trade routes. Under such circumstances much would depend on effective range, because it might take hours for a cruiser to close from the range at which an enemy was spotted to firing range. The larger gun offered longer range, both absolutely and because its splashes were easier to spot. Against that, although a design for an 8in turret was proceeding, nothing was being done about the 9.2in. The pits used to build 6in turrets could probably be adapted to 8in, but not to 9.2in, so adopting the larger gun would make for further delays. If any ships were to be built, perhaps they should be faster 8in cruisers more likely to close their targets before nightfall. This reasoning led to the decision to design a new fast battleship using four existing twin 15in turrets, HMS Vanguard.However, the 8in (but not the 9.2in)heavy cruiser survived in British building plans. 1-8.這些設(shè)計表明了先前的10000噸巡洋艦方案的排水量與武裝水平嚴重不符，理想的情況遠遠比其更大，也更貴。計劃總監(jiān)總結(jié)到盡可能的建造快速主力艦會更好。大型巡洋艦在與艦隊一起作戰(zhàn)時表現(xiàn)欠佳，它們更適合執(zhí)行次要的任務(wù)，諸如與敵方巡洋艦作戰(zhàn)或貿(mào)易護航。在這種情況下，這將更取決于有效射程，因為巡洋艦可能要花上數(shù)個小時才能在發(fā)現(xiàn)敵人后進入其射程。更大口徑的提供更遠的射程，因為它的跨射更容易被觀測到。與之相反的是，8吋火炮的設(shè)計仍在進行中，9.2吋火炮卻沒有什么進展。用于制造6吋炮的設(shè)備可以用于8吋炮的建造，卻不適合9.2吋炮的建造，所以更大口徑火炮的開發(fā)被進一步延遲。如果要建造這些船的話，或許它們應(yīng)當是裝備8吋炮的快速巡洋艦，這使得它們可以在夜幕降臨之前快速接近目標。這一原因?qū)е铝私ㄔ煅b備已有的15吋炮的快速戰(zhàn)列艦，即前衛(wèi)號。然而，裝備8吋炮的重型巡洋艦(而非9.2吋)依然在英國造艦計劃中得以保留。 1-9.Director of Plans decided that sacrificing speed might be better than sacrificing armour, so John estimated the effect of holding speed to 27 or 29.5kts. By December 1939, John was working on a cruiser with three triple 8in turrets, other characteristics being as in the earlier 21,500-ton ship. This design is best described as part of the wartime design series, in Chapter 9. 1-9.計劃總監(jiān)決定犧牲速度比犧牲裝甲更優(yōu)，所以約翰先生對航速在27節(jié)或29.5節(jié)的效能進行評估。到1939年12月，約翰先生繼續(xù)了裝備三座三聯(lián)裝8吋炮的巡洋艦方案，其其他特征與之前21500噸方案類似。這一設(shè)計在隨后的戰(zhàn)時巡洋艦設(shè)計中被認為是最優(yōu)的，詳見第九章。 1-10.The 8in and 9.2in cruisers were conceived in response to reports that the Japanese were building four or five ‘pocket battleship’ equivalents armed with 12in guns. The choice in 1939 (for the 1940 programme) was two such ships or a 40,000-ton fast battleship. The latter was chosen; it became HMS Vanguard. 1-10.裝備8吋和9.2吋火炮的巡洋艦的設(shè)想是對于情報中顯示的日本人正在建造四或五條“袖珍戰(zhàn)列艦”的對等回應(yīng)。在1939年的決議(為1940年造艦計劃所作)中是兩條這種巡洋艦或是一條40000噸級別的快速戰(zhàn)列艦。后者成為最終選擇，它即是后世的前衛(wèi)號。 1-11.In the months before war broke out, the Admiralty developed a new fleet plan including 100 (rather than the earlier seventy) cruisers, because it had to take into account three potential enemies rather than one: Germany, Italy and Japan. The 100-cruiser force would have comprised twenty heavy, forty medium, and forty small cruisers. The Royal Navy had fifteen heavy, thirty-six medium (including thirteen building) and thirty-five small (including ten building) cruisers, a total of eighty-six, but four Hawkins and twenty-one ‘C’ and ‘D’ class were either overage or soon would be. Pre-war planning was complicated by a treaty requirement to inform the Germans of near-term building plans, which the Germans in turn might use to justify breaking out of the limits imposed on them by the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935. 1-11.在戰(zhàn)爭爆發(fā)的幾個月前，海軍部提出了新的艦隊計劃包括100條巡洋艦(比先前的70條更多)，因為它將三個敵人納入考慮，即德國，日本和意大利。這100條巡洋艦包括20條重型巡洋艦，40條中性巡洋艦和40條小型巡洋艦?；始液＼娨延?5條重型巡洋艦，36條中型巡洋艦(包括正在建造的13條)以及35條小型巡洋艦(包括正在建造的10條)，總共86條，然而4條霍金斯級和21條“C”級和“D”級已經(jīng)超齡或即將超齡。條約要求將近期的建造計劃通知給德國人，這使得戰(zhàn)前的計劃變得更加復雜，而德國人可能會利用這些建造計劃來證明他們打破1935年簽訂的《英德海軍協(xié)定》的行為是合規(guī)的。