No Washington or London Naval Treaties

[stevep]

Feb 16, 2020 12:46:19 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 16, 2020 12:34:55 GMT stevep said:

  Japan is likely to have a larger fleet than OTL since its going to produce more of its 8:8 programme, at least until the economy folds.  However even if they still go heavily militaristic which is a definite possibility but not certain, how much new ships they build before a possibly new naval race in the late 30's I wouldn't know.  Their unlikely to have the same CV strength and experience.  However definitely Australia can't really oppose Japan at sea.

That is the problem with Japan, will they stop when they know they can not compete with the United States ore will they go on despite not able to fund it.

  I think that the still largely democratic Japan will stop in the early 20's as they did OTL, if only in 23 when the Tokyo quake really screws them over.  This might prompt major political change with either the navy or the military in general being discredited and power not flowing to them as OTL.  Or they may still gain an increasing lock on power and increase military spending, as well as quite possibly some idiocracy such as the invasion of China in the late 30's.  If their still so close to the historical path then very likely they will clash with the western powers at some point regardless of the impossibility of actually defeating them.

[lordroel]

So lets start the journey of which ships would be build if there was no treaty, our first candidate is the South Dakota-class battleship (1920) design.

US Navy: South Dakota-class (BB-49 to BB-54)

Displacement: 43,200 tons

Length: 684 ft.

Beam: 105 ft.

Draft: 33 ft.

Propulsion: Turbo-electric transmission turning 4 propellers.

Speed: 23 knots.

Armament (as built).
12 × 16 in. gun (4 × 3).
16 × 6 in. guns.
4 × 3 in. guns.
2 × 21 in. torpedo tubes.

South Dakota-class (BB-49 to BB-54) - Background:

Authorized on March 4, 1917, the South Dakota-class represented the final set of battleships called for under the Naval Act of 1916. Comprising six vessels, the design in some ways marked a departure from the Standard-type specifications that had been utilized in the preceding Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Colorado classes. This concept had called for vessels that had similar tactical and operational traits such as a minimum top speed of 21 knots and turn radius of 700 yards. In creating the new design, naval architects sought to utilize lessons learned by Royal Navy and Kaiserliche Marine during the early years of World War I. Construction was then delayed so that information gleaned during the Battle of Jutland could be incorporated into the new vessels.

South Dakota-class (BB-49 to BB-54) - Design:

An evolution of the Tennessee- and Colorado classes, the South Dakota-class employed similar bridge and lattice mast systems as well as turbo-electric propulsion. The latter powered four propellers and would give the ships a top speed of 23 knots. This was faster than its predecessors and showed the US Navy's understanding that British and Japanese battleships were increasing in speed. Also, the new class varied in that it trunked the ships' funnels into a single structure. Possessing a comprehensive armor scheme that was approximately 50% stronger than that created for HMS Hood, the South Dakota's main armor belt measured a consistent 13.5" while protection for the turrets ranged from 5" to 18" and the conning tower 8" to 16".  

Continuing a trend in American battleship design, the South Dakotas were intended to mount the main battery of twelve 16" guns in four triple turrets. This marked an increase of four over the earlier Colorado-class. These weapons were capable of an elevation of 46 degrees and possessed a range of 44,600 yards. In a further departure from the Standard-type ships, the secondary battery was to consist of sixteen 6" guns rather than the 5" guns used on early battleships. While twelve of these guns were to be placed in casemates, the remainder was located in open positions around the superstructure.

South Dakota-class (BB-49 to BB-54) - Ships & Yards:

- USS South Dakota (BB-49) - New York Naval Shipyard

- USS Indiana (BB-50) - New York Naval Shipyard

- USS Montana (BB-51) - Mare Island Naval Shipyard

- USS North Carolina (BB-52) - Norfolk Naval Shipyard

- USS Iowa (BB-53) - Newport News Shipbuilding Corporation

- USS Massachusetts (BB-54) - Fore River Shipbuilding

South Dakota-class (BB-49 to BB-54) - Construction:

Though the South Dakota-class was approved and the design completed prior to the end of World War I, construction continued to be delayed due to the US Navy's need for destroyers and escort vessels to combat German U-boats. With the end of the conflict, work commenced with all six vessels being laid down between March 1920 and April 1921. During this time, concern arose that a new naval arms race, similar to the one that had preceded World War I, was about to begin. In an effort to avoid this, President Warren G. Harding held the Washington Naval Conference in late 1921, with the object of placing limits on warship construction and tonnage. Beginning on November 12, 1921, under the auspices of the League of Nations, the representatives gathered at Memorial Continental Hall in Washington DC. Attended by nine countries, the key players included the United States, Great Britain, Japan, France, and Italy. Following exhaustive negotiations, these countries agreed on a 5:5:3:1:1 tonnage ratio as well as limits on ship designs and overall caps on tonnage.

Among the restrictions imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty was that no vessel could exceed 35,000 tons. As the South Dakota-class rated 43,200 tons, the new vessels would be in violation of the treaty. In order to comply with the new restrictions, the US Navy ordered the construction of all six ships to halt on February 8, 1922, two days after the treaty's signing. Of the vessels, work on South Dakota had progressed the furthest at 38.5% complete. Given the size of the ships, no conversion approach, such as completing the battlecruisers Lexington (CV-2) and Saratoga (CV-3) as aircraft carriers, was available. As a result, all six hulls were sold for scrap in 1923. The treaty effectively halted American battleship construction for fifteen years and the next new vessel, USS North Carolina (BB-55), would not be laid down until 1937.

YouTube (USS South Dakota, 1920)



Artist's concept of the South Dakota class

[simon darkshade]

The issue with the South Dakotas is their low speed and their less than optimal armour scheme. They are older designs than the G3s in many ways.

Steve, once upon a time back in 2012 or so, I think I sent you the two documents of the Washington Treaty Revisited Evaluation on AH.com. That would have a lot of relevant material; I’ll try and dig it out.

[lordroel]

Feb 16, 2020 16:34:40 GMT simon darkshade said:

The issue with the South Dakotas is their low speed and their less than optimal armour scheme. They are older designs than the G3s in many ways.

Even in the period that they where build.

They are BBs, are they not always slower than BCs, ore am i wrong.

[simon darkshade]

The South Dakota’s were obsolescent at the time, given the greater speed of their potential opponents in the IJN. Compared to the G3s, they were not in the same category. Very good guns, but 32 knots compared to 23 is a big difference. The G3s were the first bonafide fast battleships in many ways.

[1bigrich]

Feb 16, 2020 16:34:40 GMT simon darkshade said:

The issue with the South Dakotas is their low speed and their less than optimal armour scheme. They are older designs than the G3s in many ways.

Steve, once upon a time back in 2012 or so, I think I sent you the two documents of the Washington Treaty Revisited Evaluation on AH.com. That would have a lot of relevant material; I’ll try and dig it out.

Exactly.

As I said above, South Dakota (BB-49) is BB1918, slightly modified to BB1919 delayed until 1920.   

[simon darkshade]

Indeed. If Warships Projects hadn't sadly have gone down, then there would be a lot of discussion there of relevance.

Steve, I had a look at my records. It turned out you had sent the WTRE to me back in January 2012. Small world.

[markp]

The South Dakotas were an evolutionary step in US battleship design. Most of the increased displacement went to adding more and better guns. They would have been the core of a powerful but slow US battle line. The long range of their guns would have required an attacking force to undergo their fire unanswered until the range had closed enough for effective return fire. These ships would have been effective in the defense of a fixed position or to attack a fixed position such as the Philippines. They would have been nearly useless for chasing down commerce raiders. They were designed to operate as part of the main battle line along with the standard type ships. With the planned battle cruisers this fleet would have been similar to the British Grand Fleet or German High Seas Fleet from WW1. By the time of WW2 in our time line they would have been used for shore bombardment since the only thing they would be able to catch would be islands. Assuming the naval developments in this alternate time line result in larger and more numerous battle ships and less naval air power these ships would have been able to hold their own in a Jutland type fleet battle. US naval planners well into the 30s were making war plans based on this type of battle deciding a future war as were the Japanese. Also if international relations followed a similar course as in OTL The US would have designed a new class of battleship in the early 30s but without the treaty limitations. See Norman Friedman's Book U.S. Battleships An Illustrated Design History for more details on both the South Dakotas and alternate designs. Some of the Tillman designs would have resulted in effective ships that could have been built. The battleship design of the 30s
probably would have been something like this

Displacement 80,000 tons
Main Armament either 12 18" guns or 8/9 20" guns
Secondary Armament 16 to 24 5" or 6" guns. The 5" would be dual purpose the 6" would be in casemates and 8 to 12 3" AA guns would have been in open mounts above them. Either design would have had a number of 1.1" AA guns.
They would have been armored to a level to defend against their own fire.
Range would have been 5,000 to 8,000 miles.
Speed would have been in the range of 25 knots.

These ships would have been a replacement for the early standard type ships.

A battle cruiser variant would have increased speed. One option to not sacrifice to much protections would have been to use the 16" 50 gun as the main armament. This guns had good long range performance 9 to 12 of these would have allowed armament weight to be exchanged for the extra speed at little cost in protection. These ships would have been true fast battlehips.

Mark

[stevep]

Feb 16, 2020 15:34:21 GMT lordroel said:

So lets start the journey of which ships would be build if there was no treaty, our first candidate is the South Dakota-class battleship (1920) design.

US Navy: South Dakota-class (BB-49 to BB-54)

Displacement: 43,200 tons

Length: 684 ft.

Beam: 105 ft.

Draft: 33 ft.

Propulsion: Turbo-electric transmission turning 4 propellers.

Speed: 23 knots.

Armament (as built).
12 × 16 in. gun (4 × 3).
16 × 6 in. guns.
4 × 3 in. guns.
2 × 21 in. torpedo tubes.

South Dakota-class (BB-49 to BB-54) - Background:

Authorized on March 4, 1917, the South Dakota-class represented the final set of battleships called for under the Naval Act of 1916. Comprising six vessels, the design in some ways marked a departure from the Standard-type specifications that had been utilized in the preceding Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Colorado classes. This concept had called for vessels that had similar tactical and operational traits such as a minimum top speed of 21 knots and turn radius of 700 yards. In creating the new design, naval architects sought to utilize lessons learned by Royal Navy and Kaiserliche Marine during the early years of World War I. Construction was then delayed so that information gleaned during the Battle of Jutland could be incorporated into the new vessels.

South Dakota-class (BB-49 to BB-54) - Design:

An evolution of the Tennessee- and Colorado classes, the South Dakota-class employed similar bridge and lattice mast systems as well as turbo-electric propulsion. The latter powered four propellers and would give the ships a top speed of 23 knots. This was faster than its predecessors and showed the US Navy's understanding that British and Japanese battleships were increasing in speed. Also, the new class varied in that it trunked the ships' funnels into a single structure. Possessing a comprehensive armor scheme that was approximately 50% stronger than that created for HMS Hood, the South Dakota's main armor belt measured a consistent 13.5" while protection for the turrets ranged from 5" to 18" and the conning tower 8" to 16".  

Continuing a trend in American battleship design, the South Dakotas were intended to mount the main battery of twelve 16" guns in four triple turrets. This marked an increase of four over the earlier Colorado-class. These weapons were capable of an elevation of 46 degrees and possessed a range of 44,600 yards. In a further departure from the Standard-type ships, the secondary battery was to consist of sixteen 6" guns rather than the 5" guns used on early battleships. While twelve of these guns were to be placed in casemates, the remainder was located in open positions around the superstructure.

South Dakota-class (BB-49 to BB-54) - Ships & Yards:

- USS South Dakota (BB-49) - New York Naval Shipyard

- USS Indiana (BB-50) - New York Naval Shipyard

- USS Montana (BB-51) - Mare Island Naval Shipyard

- USS North Carolina (BB-52) - Norfolk Naval Shipyard

- USS Iowa (BB-53) - Newport News Shipbuilding Corporation

- USS Massachusetts (BB-54) - Fore River Shipbuilding

South Dakota-class (BB-49 to BB-54) - Construction:

Though the South Dakota-class was approved and the design completed prior to the end of World War I, construction continued to be delayed due to the US Navy's need for destroyers and escort vessels to combat German U-boats. With the end of the conflict, work commenced with all six vessels being laid down between March 1920 and April 1921. During this time, concern arose that a new naval arms race, similar to the one that had preceded World War I, was about to begin. In an effort to avoid this, President Warren G. Harding held the Washington Naval Conference in late 1921, with the object of placing limits on warship construction and tonnage. Beginning on November 12, 1921, under the auspices of the League of Nations, the representatives gathered at Memorial Continental Hall in Washington DC. Attended by nine countries, the key players included the United States, Great Britain, Japan, France, and Italy. Following exhaustive negotiations, these countries agreed on a 5:5:3:1:1 tonnage ratio as well as limits on ship designs and overall caps on tonnage.

Among the restrictions imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty was that no vessel could exceed 35,000 tons. As the South Dakota-class rated 43,200 tons, the new vessels would be in violation of the treaty. In order to comply with the new restrictions, the US Navy ordered the construction of all six ships to halt on February 8, 1922, two days after the treaty's signing. Of the vessels, work on South Dakota had progressed the furthest at 38.5% complete. Given the size of the ships, no conversion approach, such as completing the battlecruisers Lexington (CV-2) and Saratoga (CV-3) as aircraft carriers, was available. As a result, all six hulls were sold for scrap in 1923. The treaty effectively halted American battleship construction for fifteen years and the next new vessel, USS North Carolina (BB-55), would not be laid down until 1937.

YouTube (USS South Dakota, 1920)



Artist's concept of the South Dakota class

  Lordroel

  Yes Drachindfel is a very good site for a lot of naval issues and details.  Finally got around to bookmarking so I can view it again.

  One other issue with the US designs, both the Colorado's and the S Dakota's that has been mentioned on the BB site is that, like the slightly earlier R class of the RN they were very tight ships when it came to ability to take additional weight.  As such, unless other stuff were removed or replaced by lighter equivalents they would have limited capacity for additions.  As such when say radar became available and even more so aircraft were seen as a threat additional AA guns and related factors, such as crew would be more difficult to add on.

  Basically if the US completed all 10 Colorado's and S Dakota's they would have a very powerful but slow battlefield.  It might not be as effective as some of its advocates argued because there is limited capacity for the very long range fire due to targeting issues even if visibility is adequate and also the fleet was definitely short on scouting vessels.  Those problems might be moderated when carrier air power becomes more capable to aim in scouting and long ranged fire but while in combination the force would be formidable but as the video said a lot of enemy forces would be able to avoid contact.  So unless it was the case of being forced to defend say a slow moving convoy it could be frustrating for the USN being unable to actually close with an enemy.

  Steve

[stevep]

Feb 17, 2020 12:41:39 GMT simon darkshade said:

Indeed. If Warships Projects hadn't sadly have gone down, then there would be a lot of discussion there of relevance.

Steve, I had a look at my records. It turned out you had sent the WTRE to me back in January 2012. Small world.

  Very true.  Were you still using the same name then and there as I can't remember it but then I'm not very well organised nowadays.  

[simon darkshade]

I have used the same name on there since 2007. I've never been too active on there save for my own writings and a few bursts, such as the G3 discussion of 2011/2012.

[lordroel]

Feb 17, 2020 15:30:06 GMT simon darkshade said:

I have used the same name on there since 2007. I've never been too active on there save for my own writings and a few bursts, such as the G3 discussion of 2011/2012.

Do we now what names the G3s might had, in my No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War i once worked upon i had then named Saints class battlecruiser with then being named: HMS Saint Andrew, HMS Saint Patrick and HMS Saint Lucia but then i discovered that the N3-class battleship also might used those names.

But i also have heard the G3s might have become the Invincible class with their names being: Invincible, Indomitable, Inflexible & Indefatigable.

[stevep]

Feb 17, 2020 14:43:13 GMT markp said:

The South Dakotas were an evolutionary step in US battleship design. Most of the increased displacement went to adding more and better guns. They would have been the core of a powerful but slow US battle line. The long range of their guns would have required an attacking force to undergo their fire unanswered until the range had closed enough for effective return fire. These ships would have been effective in the defense of a fixed position or to attack a fixed position such as the Philippines. They would have been nearly useless for chasing down commerce raiders. They were designed to operate as part of the main battle line along with the standard type ships. With the planned battle cruisers this fleet would have been similar to the British Grand Fleet or German High Seas Fleet from WW1. By the time of WW2 in our time line they would have been used for shore bombardment since the only thing they would be able to catch would be islands. Assuming the naval developments in this alternate time line result in larger and more numerous battle ships and less naval air power these ships would have been able to hold their own in a Jutland type fleet battle. US naval planners well into the 30s were making war plans based on this type of battle deciding a future war as were the Japanese. Also if international relations followed a similar course as in OTL The US would have designed a new class of battleship in the early 30s but without the treaty limitations. See Norman Friedman's Book U.S. Battleships An Illustrated Design History for more details on both the South Dakotas and alternate designs. Some of the Tillman designs would have resulted in effective ships that could have been built. The battleship design of the 30s
probably would have been something like this

Displacement 80,000 tons
Main Armament either 12 18" guns or 8/9 20" guns
Secondary Armament 16 to 24 5" or 6" guns. The 5" would be dual purpose the 6" would be in casemates and 8 to 12 3" AA guns would have been in open mounts above them. Either design would have had a number of 1.1" AA guns.
They would have been armored to a level to defend against their own fire.
Range would have been 5,000 to 8,000 miles.
Speed would have been in the range of 25 knots.

These ships would have been a replacement for the early standard type ships.

A battle cruiser variant would have increased speed. One option to not sacrifice to much protections would have been to use the 16" 50 gun as the main armament. This guns had good long range performance 9 to 12 of these would have allowed armament weight to be exchanged for the extra speed at little cost in protection. These ships would have been true fast battlehips.

Mark

  Mark

  Good line but a little hard on them as they were still faster than most of the ships available at the start of OTL WWII although possibly not in a world where there was no treaty or limitation other than resources and political will.

  Not sure how practical the Tillman's were as they were so huge that like the Yamoto's our time they may simply be putting too much resources into too few, huge packages, even for the US.  Both because no ship can be in more than one place so more smaller ships have merit and because their lose or serious damage is a largely blow to both military capacity and probably moral.  There is a Drachindfel video on them and how they came into being, see Tillman designs for more details.  As he says at the end of the video he's rather tongue in cheek, as he is in some other videos but he doesn't see them as practical ships and they were never meant to be.  However as he says some aspects, drastically scaled down were included in the 1916 S Dakota class.

  I suspect that when the political will was present the USN would replace the older [or possibly all of the] standards with say something like the OTL Iowa's and Montana's probably starting in the early-mid 30's, especially if the depression still occurred and brought FDR into power as he would see it as a way of rebooting the economy and also updating the navy.

  Steve

 

[stevep]

Feb 17, 2020 15:30:06 GMT simon darkshade said:

I have used the same name on there since 2007. I've never been too active on there save for my own writings and a few bursts, such as the G3 discussion of 2011/2012.

  Ah thanks.  Tend to check there daily, albeit not as active as I used to be.  That was a good discussion on the G3's and the options if they had been completed.

[simon darkshade]

Feb 17, 2020 15:40:21 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 17, 2020 15:30:06 GMT simon darkshade said:

I have used the same name on there since 2007. I've never been too active on there save for my own writings and a few bursts, such as the G3 discussion of 2011/2012.

Do we now what names the G3s might had, in my No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War i once worked upon i had then named Saints class battlecruiser with then being named: HMS Saint Andrew, HMS Saint Patrick and HMS Saint Lucia but then i discovered that the N3-class battleship also might used those names.

But i also have heard the G3s might have become the Invincible class with their names being: Invincible, Indomitable, Inflexible & Indefatigable.

From the sources I have read, going back to old issues of Warship from the 1970s, the I class names are the ones with more evidence.