stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,866 
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Feb 17, 2020 17:22:29 GMT
No, they would not be built without the WNT. Nelson and Rodney were compromise designs built to fit under 35,000 tons. So we would have 4 G3-class battlecruisers and 4 N3-class battleships for the Royal Navy. The 2 Nelson-class battleship would as you have said not be build, anymore Royal Navy ships i missed that where planned to be build but where cancelled due the Washington Naval Treaty.
Not that I'm aware of as those 8 if completed would take 3-4 years to complete and in the immediate post-war situation with funding and political will for new constructions weak - at least by British standards at the time - I suspect the RN would concentrate on supporting light vessels - i.e. cruisers, destroyers etc and possibly upgrading some older units. [Such as converting Glorious, Courageous and Furious to CVs or some of the older ships from coal to oil]. The latter and the increasing use of oil fueling in the fleet also meant a lot of expenditure would be needed on replacing/supplementing the worldwide coal stockpiles to allow the fleet to operate worldwide with similar oil storage. It was this that formed the bulk of the actual cost of the so called Singapore base expenditure in the 30's.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 17, 2020 17:25:48 GMT
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 what I've read, had the N3s been built, they would have had the names of the patron saints of the four nations of the British Isles; St. George, St. Andrew, St. David and St. Patrick... Regards, |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 18, 2020 3:51:50 GMT
My thinking on what the RN would field: Battlecruisers: Hood, Renown, Repulse, Tiger, Lion, Princess Royal Battleships: 4 x G3, 4 x N3, 5 x R, 5 x QE, 4 x Iron Duke, 3 x KGV A follow up class of 4 would replace the KGVs in the late 20s/early 30s, followed by replacement class of 6 ships for the Iron Dukes and 3 older 13.5” BCs in the mid 1930s (KGV analogue) and a further replacement class for the Rs (Lion analogue) in the late 1930s/early 1940s. That would all depend on finance, foreign threats, political will and other requirements. Without the WNT holiday, not only will there be the “missing class” from the late 1920s, but also less of a reduction of industrial capacity.
Depending on the political situation I'm doubtful that the RN would keep the 13.5" ships, at least the BBs once the new builds were in place. If they were already scrapping all the 12" ships I can't see them keeping so many 13.5" ones while building 8 large new units. At least not unless things are very tense internationally which I suspect not in the 20's.
Personally I would prefer another 4 G3s rather than the 4N3s. They would not only provide commonality but also their higher speed would make them both strategically and tactically more useful in a future conflict.
The Royal Navy will keep a more substantial reserve force if not restricted from doing so as under the WNT. The 13.5" ships play the role of the 15" Rs and QEs in the Second World War - partially useful second and third line ships that allow concentration of the main force in the primary theatres. Looking at the naval threats to the British Empire in the 1920s and 1930s, Germany and Soviet Russia are absent, France is well back and Italy has a rather smaller fleet concentrated in the Med. The main threat is Japan, with conflict with the United States viewed as unlikely. The IJN battleline would have Ise, Hyuga, Fuso, Yamashiro, Nagato, Mutsu, Tosa and Kaga; Amagi, Akagi, Atago, Takao, Kongo, Haruna, Kirishima and Hiei being the fast/battlecruiser wing. 4 Nagatos/Tosas: 4 N3s 4 Ises/Fusos: 5 QEs 4 Amagis: 4 G3s 4 Kongos: Hood, Renown, Repulse, Tiger The RN would have an advantage in the first and second categories and a clear one in the third. Renown and Repulse and Tiger wouldn't be ideal battleline vessels, but would fill the gap until the next class of fast battleships comes into service. Having the N3s would mean that the Japanese have speed advantage, admittedly. What the 13.5" ships in reserve would allow is covering the Atlantic and Mediterranean to allow the Rs to go east with the main fleet to Singapore. That would make the balance 22-16, or rather more favourable. They represent strategic, not tactical flexibility. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,866
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Feb 18, 2020 14:12:43 GMT
Depending on the political situation I'm doubtful that the RN would keep the 13.5" ships, at least the BBs once the new builds were in place. If they were already scrapping all the 12" ships I can't see them keeping so many 13.5" ones while building 8 large new units. At least not unless things are very tense internationally which I suspect not in the 20's.
Personally I would prefer another 4 G3s rather than the 4N3s. They would not only provide commonality but also their higher speed would make them both strategically and tactically more useful in a future conflict.
The Royal Navy will keep a more substantial reserve force if not restricted from doing so as under the WNT. The 13.5" ships play the role of the 15" Rs and QEs in the Second World War - partially useful second and third line ships that allow concentration of the main force in the primary theatres. Looking at the naval threats to the British Empire in the 1920s and 1930s, Germany and Soviet Russia are absent, France is well back and Italy has a rather smaller fleet concentrated in the Med. The main threat is Japan, with conflict with the United States viewed as unlikely. The IJN battleline would have Ise, Hyuga, Fuso, Yamashiro, Nagato, Mutsu, Tosa and Kaga; Amagi, Akagi, Atago, Takao, Kongo, Haruna, Kirishima and Hiei being the fast/battlecruiser wing. 4 Nagatos/Tosas: 4 N3s 4 Ises/Fusos: 5 QEs 4 Amagis: 4 G3s 4 Kongos: Hood, Renown, Repulse, Tiger The RN would have an advantage in the first and second categories and a clear one in the third. Renown and Repulse and Tiger wouldn't be ideal battleline vessels, but would fill the gap until the next class of fast battleships comes into service. Having the N3s would mean that the Japanese have speed advantage, admittedly. What the 13.5" ships in reserve would allow is covering the Atlantic and Mediterranean to allow the Rs to go east with the main fleet to Singapore. That would make the balance 22-16, or rather more favourable. They represent strategic, not tactical flexibility.
Possibly although that depends on how much Japan is seen as a threat, at least in the near term, when decisions are being made about which ships to maintain. Remember that currently Japan is an allied power and without the treaties that's likely to be renewed for another 5-10 years at least. Coupled with the lack of the treaties forcing Japan into a 2nd class status - instead its more a question of economic potential at the time - the position of the militarists is likely to be weakened. This factor could be compounded by the economic problems caused by the naval programme, especially if as many ships as your suggesting actually get completed. There is at least a decent chance that the military could be politically weakened by such a mess and the more liberal elements maintain power for a few more years at least.
If they do emerge as a threat then Britain will have to rethink things although I suspect that most of the 13.5" ships would be considered short term measures until replacements comes in. After all they would be slow and weak and also unless an expensive upgrade was done they would still be coal powered. If any are kept its more likely to be the BCs, i.e. Lion and Princess Royal along with Tiger. If all those three were upgraded in the mid-late 20's say, with new engines, oil propulsion, improved protection including torpedo bluges, fire control and extended ranges to the guns plus some AA defence they would be decent additions to the fleet, either for fighting in the Far East in a major battle or as support for slower ships covering the Atlantic/Med or hunting down raiders. BCs are generally bigger than BBs, at least in the early generations prior to WWI so they have greater capacity to allow upgrades. The R' class BBs could cover the Home waters unless we're talking about a late 30's type scenario where say Italy and Germany are producing new powerful ships but by then Britain is likely to have pumped out at couple of new classes.
That line up to my viewpoint at least supports my argument for a 2nd set of [probably slightly modified] G3s rather than the N3. They have slightly less firepower but still enough to fairly easily outclass 3 Nagato and 2 Tosa's and unlikely the N3's they could actually catch them.
What you might see is some of the 13.5" BBs put in reserve as the G3/N3 ships enter service - if only to avoid a serious manpower crunch - and then replaced if it was thought necessary by say some new, possibly somewhat smaller -but still sat 30-40kton fast BBs in the late 20's or early 30's.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,093
Likes: 49,488
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 18, 2020 14:56:53 GMT
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,866
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Feb 18, 2020 15:04:24 GMT
Guys By the way, if you really want a monster option, albeit not necessarily in size have a read of diesel-powered-G3. John, AKA Irishopinion doesn't quite get a G3 class in terms of protection/speed/weaponary on 35 ktons but he comes up with some fascinating designs.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,093
Likes: 49,488
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 18, 2020 15:44:46 GMT
Well if we are discussing the G3 desgin, lets show it to those who might not known it, thus the next schip to be to be posted here is the G3.  The G3 battlecruisers were a class of battlecruisers planned by the Royal Navy after the end of World War I in response to naval expansion programmes by the United States and Japan. The four ships of this class would have been larger, faster and more heavily armed than any existing battleship (although several projected foreign ships would be larger). The G3s have been considered to be proper "fast battleships" since they were well-balanced designs with adequate protection. Nonetheless the class was officially designated as a "battlecruiser" due to their higher speed and lesser firepower and armour relative to the planned N3 class battleship design. The G3s carried nine 16-inch (406 mm) guns and were expected to achieve 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph), while the N3s would carry nine 18-inch (457 mm) guns on the same displacement at the expense of a slower speed. The G3 design was approved by the Board of Admiralty on 12 August 1921. Orders were placed in October, but were suspended in mid-November shortly after the beginning of the Washington Naval Conference which limited battleship sizes. The orders were cancelled in February 1922 with the ratification of the Washington Naval Treaty which limited construction to ships of no more than 35,000 long tons (36,000 t) displacement. Displacement: 48,400 long tons (49,200 t) (normal), 53,909 long tons (54,774 t) (deep load) Length: 856 ft (260.9 m). Beam: 106 ft (32.3 m). Draft: 35 ft 8 in (10.9 m) (at deep load). Propulsion: four shafts, 4 geared steam turbines, 20 small-tube boilers. Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph). Range: 7,000 nautical miles (13,000 km; 8,100 mi) at 16 knots (30 km/h; 18 mph) Complement: 1716 Armament: 3 × 3 - 16-inch (406 mm) guns. 8 × 2 - 6-inch (152 mm) guns. 6 × 1 - 4.7-inch (120 mm) AA guns. 4 × 10 - barrel 2-pdr pom-pom mountings. 2 × 24.5-inch (622 mm) torpedo tubes. Armour: Belt: 12–14 in (305–356 mm). Deck: 3–8 in (76–203 mm). Barbettes: 11–14 in (279–356 mm). Turrets: 13–17 in (330–432 mm). Conning tower: 8 in (203 mm). Bulkheads: 10–12 in (254–305 mm). YouTube (G3 class - Drachinifel) |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 18, 2020 16:43:10 GMT
The Royal Navy will keep a more substantial reserve force if not restricted from doing so as under the WNT. The 13.5" ships play the role of the 15" Rs and QEs in the Second World War - partially useful second and third line ships that allow concentration of the main force in the primary theatres. Looking at the naval threats to the British Empire in the 1920s and 1930s, Germany and Soviet Russia are absent, France is well back and Italy has a rather smaller fleet concentrated in the Med. The main threat is Japan, with conflict with the United States viewed as unlikely. The IJN battleline would have Ise, Hyuga, Fuso, Yamashiro, Nagato, Mutsu, Tosa and Kaga; Amagi, Akagi, Atago, Takao, Kongo, Haruna, Kirishima and Hiei being the fast/battlecruiser wing. 4 Nagatos/Tosas: 4 N3s 4 Ises/Fusos: 5 QEs 4 Amagis: 4 G3s 4 Kongos: Hood, Renown, Repulse, Tiger The RN would have an advantage in the first and second categories and a clear one in the third. Renown and Repulse and Tiger wouldn't be ideal battleline vessels, but would fill the gap until the next class of fast battleships comes into service. Having the N3s would mean that the Japanese have speed advantage, admittedly. What the 13.5" ships in reserve would allow is covering the Atlantic and Mediterranean to allow the Rs to go east with the main fleet to Singapore. That would make the balance 22-16, or rather more favourable. They represent strategic, not tactical flexibility.
Possibly although that depends on how much Japan is seen as a threat, at least in the near term, when decisions are being made about which ships to maintain. Remember that currently Japan is an allied power and without the treaties that's likely to be renewed for another 5-10 years at least. Coupled with the lack of the treaties forcing Japan into a 2nd class status - instead its more a question of economic potential at the time - the position of the militarists is likely to be weakened. This factor could be compounded by the economic problems caused by the naval programme, especially if as many ships as your suggesting actually get completed. There is at least a decent chance that the military could be politically weakened by such a mess and the more liberal elements maintain power for a few more years at least.
If they do emerge as a threat then Britain will have to rethink things although I suspect that most of the 13.5" ships would be considered short term measures until replacements comes in. After all they would be slow and weak and also unless an expensive upgrade was done they would still be coal powered. If any are kept its more likely to be the BCs, i.e. Lion and Princess Royal along with Tiger. If all those three were upgraded in the mid-late 20's say, with new engines, oil propulsion, improved protection including torpedo bluges, fire control and extended ranges to the guns plus some AA defence they would be decent additions to the fleet, either for fighting in the Far East in a major battle or as support for slower ships covering the Atlantic/Med or hunting down raiders. BCs are generally bigger than BBs, at least in the early generations prior to WWI so they have greater capacity to allow upgrades. The R' class BBs could cover the Home waters unless we're talking about a late 30's type scenario where say Italy and Germany are producing new powerful ships but by then Britain is likely to have pumped out at couple of new classes.
That line up to my viewpoint at least supports my argument for a 2nd set of [probably slightly modified] G3s rather than the N3. They have slightly less firepower but still enough to fairly easily outclass 3 Nagato and 2 Tosa's and unlikely the N3's they could actually catch them.
What you might see is some of the 13.5" BBs put in reserve as the G3/N3 ships enter service - if only to avoid a serious manpower crunch - and then replaced if it was thought necessary by say some new, possibly somewhat smaller -but still sat 30-40kton fast BBs in the late 20's or early 30's.
Steve
Steve The Japanese had already begun to be a potential threat and, despite the potential for a continued A-J Alliance, there was no longer the pre-WW1 confluence of interests. Japan was very much in a second-class status compared to the USA and British Empire and the long term factors leading to the rise of the militarists may not be so easily countered. However, there is a chance as you say that there could be a political solution to growing differences. The 13.5" BBs are superior to anything the Germans or Italians have for the time being. Prior to Washington, there was a fair bit of forward planning that involved keeping them around as a reserve fleet. The 13.5" BCs as you say are more flexible and capable for second line roles. I'd anticipate that HMAS Australia and HMS New Zealand could well be kept as Dominion ships as part of Jellicoe's plans for Imperial fleet units. The argument in favour of the N3s is the 18" gun. It has a longer range and capacity and gives Britain an advantage over the USN 16" ships and makes relatively new IJN ships decidedly secondline. If the RN is building in a (smaller scale) naval arms race, then it would not make sense for them to move back down from the size and capacity of the G3s. The mistake of the Rs is still recent, with their nominal savings coming at a considerable cost in capacity. My thinking is that the next class after the N3s will be 45,000t or larger variants of the G3s. The L3s are an interesting 9 x 18" 26 knot design, with the answer coming down to drydocks. The matter does come down to what other countries are doing. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,866
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Feb 19, 2020 13:44:17 GMT
Possibly although that depends on how much Japan is seen as a threat, at least in the near term, when decisions are being made about which ships to maintain. Remember that currently Japan is an allied power and without the treaties that's likely to be renewed for another 5-10 years at least. Coupled with the lack of the treaties forcing Japan into a 2nd class status - instead its more a question of economic potential at the time - the position of the militarists is likely to be weakened. This factor could be compounded by the economic problems caused by the naval programme, especially if as many ships as your suggesting actually get completed. There is at least a decent chance that the military could be politically weakened by such a mess and the more liberal elements maintain power for a few more years at least.
If they do emerge as a threat then Britain will have to rethink things although I suspect that most of the 13.5" ships would be considered short term measures until replacements comes in. After all they would be slow and weak and also unless an expensive upgrade was done they would still be coal powered. If any are kept its more likely to be the BCs, i.e. Lion and Princess Royal along with Tiger. If all those three were upgraded in the mid-late 20's say, with new engines, oil propulsion, improved protection including torpedo bluges, fire control and extended ranges to the guns plus some AA defence they would be decent additions to the fleet, either for fighting in the Far East in a major battle or as support for slower ships covering the Atlantic/Med or hunting down raiders. BCs are generally bigger than BBs, at least in the early generations prior to WWI so they have greater capacity to allow upgrades. The R' class BBs could cover the Home waters unless we're talking about a late 30's type scenario where say Italy and Germany are producing new powerful ships but by then Britain is likely to have pumped out at couple of new classes.
That line up to my viewpoint at least supports my argument for a 2nd set of [probably slightly modified] G3s rather than the N3. They have slightly less firepower but still enough to fairly easily outclass 3 Nagato and 2 Tosa's and unlikely the N3's they could actually catch them.
What you might see is some of the 13.5" BBs put in reserve as the G3/N3 ships enter service - if only to avoid a serious manpower crunch - and then replaced if it was thought necessary by say some new, possibly somewhat smaller -but still sat 30-40kton fast BBs in the late 20's or early 30's.
Steve
Steve The Japanese had already begun to be a potential threat and, despite the potential for a continued A-J Alliance, there was no longer the pre-WW1 confluence of interests. Japan was very much in a second-class status compared to the USA and British Empire and the long term factors leading to the rise of the militarists may not be so easily countered. However, there is a chance as you say that there could be a political solution to growing differences. The 13.5" BBs are superior to anything the Germans or Italians have for the time being. Prior to Washington, there was a fair bit of forward planning that involved keeping them around as a reserve fleet. The 13.5" BCs as you say are more flexible and capable for second line roles. I'd anticipate that HMAS Australia and HMS New Zealand could well be kept as Dominion ships as part of Jellicoe's plans for Imperial fleet units. The argument in favour of the N3s is the 18" gun. It has a longer range and capacity and gives Britain an advantage over the USN 16" ships and makes relatively new IJN ships decidedly secondline. If the RN is building in a (smaller scale) naval arms race, then it would not make sense for them to move back down from the size and capacity of the G3s. The mistake of the Rs is still recent, with their nominal savings coming at a considerable cost in capacity. My thinking is that the next class after the N3s will be 45,000t or larger variants of the G3s. The L3s are an interesting 9 x 18" 26 knot design, with the answer coming down to drydocks. The matter does come down to what other countries are doing.
Simon
True unless the US does something really stupid the IJN is the only real threat at this point. Plus despite the alliance and related good will there are growing differences and racial feeling on both sides. At least until you get a military revival by either Germany or, less likely the Soviets, although the latter could end up regenerating the alliance.
Japan may go militaristic still but there is the possibility that a continued friendship with Britain and the armed forces, or at least the navy being seen as reckless and irresponsible, due to the damage of the naval race economically. I fear that their political influence will still win out however although it might be a bit delayed here. Alternative if the navy was discredited it might end up with the army gaining even more power earlier, although that could lead to some bloody clashes between the two. This could be good for Britain if the navy is side-lined however, although likely to be bad for Japan.
I could see the 13.5" BBs possibly being kept in reserve once the new ships start entering service but how effective would they be without some substantial upgrades, especially say increasing their max elevation and converting to oil, the latter being expensive. As such while they would be a definite diplomatic threat I'm not sure they would actually be brought back into service if a war started unless actually needed. The BCs are far more likely as they could have multiple roles and their greater size would make them more efficient upgrades. Agree with the I's also being modified for a more limited raider hunter role as they were initially designed for.
The 18" gun will give more punch but isn't range more a matter of maximum elevation? Along with of course being able to locate targets at longer range and a FC able to hit them. OTL the Nelson's had a 45 degree max elevation, which proved rather over the top I think in reality. Also its probably easier to get such range/elevation with a 16" turret than an even heavier 18" one. They have a bit more armour than the G3's but the latter are still better protected than any rivals and I think their markedly higher speed gives them such greater utility. Hence that's why I would prefer more G3s. Another factor here I've seen mentioned on the naval board is that Britain may prefer keeping the maximum at 16". The US are currently producing a lot of 16" ships but their already either outdated or very vulnerable. The Japanese are likely to see economic collapse before they even start their 18" designs so the British government and RN staff could see an advantage in not pushing guns even larger.
In terms of size of future ships I don't see them being massively smaller than the G3's but depending on internal and international politics I could see a basis for smaller ships. What might happen, especially if Britain was angling for a new attempt at a treaty might be that it announces plans for say a 13.5" Vanguard type. Say between 35-45ktons, fast and well armoured but with smaller guns, thinking either four twins or three triples. Those might be guns from the old ships or if the solid moulded has replaced the wire wound technology, new barrels at least which would be lighter but firmer, giving greater accuracy. If such ships were built, with the old 13.5" BBs finally scrapped and the 15" ships sent to reserve it might look a moderate upgrade but would also give the RN greater capacity. They would be better ships than the R's and Queens they replaced while the latter would be more useful reserve units than the old 13.5 inchers. At the same time it looks a step back from the G3/N3 type which might be seen as a way of avoiding stoking up another arms race and be cheaper than such larger ships. Thinking about such an idea being proposed towards the end of the 20's although it could be derailed if the depression still hits, or might be seen as more attractive then because its cheaper.
Under such a system you might end up with the battle fleet by the mid-late 30'e being 8G3, 8-10 'Vanguard', Hood, Renown Repulse and possibly Tiger and with the older BCs and the 10 R's and Queens in reserve. All of those would be fast and well protected [other than the older BCs although here the Hood at least is also likely to get a good upgrade] and if things are going down the tube as OTL new ships of greater capacity would be under production. [Alternatively if other nations are rejecting a deal and proposing new construction those could be upgraded somewhat to 15" 'Vanguards'. However unless its clear someone is going for 18" mammoths and as OTL Japan would be limited to very few of them 13.4, 15 and 16 are close enough to provide a formidable for for any opponent.]
As you say a lot depends on whats happened, in Britain and around the world, politically, economically and in other ways. However such a force is likely to both secure the Atlantic and Med against any German and Italian expansion and also be able to send a major force to contest SEA with the Japanese.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 19, 2020 14:16:44 GMT
Steve
A lot of what you have to say makes a great deal of sense. A substantial part seems to be working within the circumstances of Washington, though, even if its presence is removed. What I mean by that is the notion of going for smaller ships, Vanguards and working on a limit of 16". There is an argument to be made for somewhere around 16"-18" being the point of diminishing returns for naval guns, but a substantial part of this is informed by what I like to term backwards rationalisation, or working back from the US 16"/50 of the Second World War and finding it to be the apex of naval gun design, or the 15"/42 for the RN equivalent.
My perspective is informed by a number of ideas:
A.) There would be a merging of the battleship and battlecruiser categories in a non-Treaty world. We view the 32 knot Iowas and G3s as ideal, as they have enough speed for combined operations with carriers. That wasn't on the cards in 1920.
B.) The RN did try to get 12" and then 14" in subsequent treaties in order to maximise its numbers in a WNT world. It was perhaps the one power which held the closest to the Treaty restrictions and regime for the least benefit.
C.) Once the move to 18" is made in the 1920s and there isn't a treaty in place, the genie is not going to go back into the bottle. This has a number of effects. Firstly, it makes a lot of the rather new vessels that have been expensively constructed obsolete, causing considerable consternation. In @, the imposition of a 16" standard had the effect of killing off anything below 13.4" as hopeless obsolete.
Here, it would do the following in my view:
- 13.5"-14" superdreadnoughts are in the same position as 12" ships historically in the late 1920s/early 1930s: on their way out and less than useful
- 15" = 14" ships. Good second line performers, but not top of the line
- 16" = 15" ships. The practical limit for most European navies and slightly behind the heaviest gunned ships of the top fleets.
- 18" = 16". The big gun of the Big Three by the 1930s
- 20" = 18". The next leap forward and beyond the edge of what is practical.
By knocking out the 14" ships, the RN loses 7 old battleships that are of minimum utility anyway as compared to the 4 oldest USN ships and 4 IJN ships. This still results in them getting a good ratio, as the 12 x 14" USN Standards are now obsolescent.
D.) One can design a fairly well balanced BB of ~27-28 knots on 48,000t with 8-9 x 18", particularly if set up like the G3/N3 turret and belt design. It could scrape in, like the G3s, to fit into existing RN infrastructure.
E.) Once four 18" are in service, then there can be some sort of attempt at reaching a compromise and perhaps a return to 16", after it has achieved the purpose of attriting the fleets of the other two major naval powers. It would also allow the QEs to shift onto the Kongos in a planned fleet engagement as well as allowing replacement of the Rs.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,866
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Feb 19, 2020 16:41:05 GMT
Steve A lot of what you have to say makes a great deal of sense. A substantial part seems to be working within the circumstances of Washington, though, even if its presence is removed. What I mean by that is the notion of going for smaller ships, Vanguards and working on a limit of 16". There is an argument to be made for somewhere around 16"-18" being the point of diminishing returns for naval guns, but a substantial part of this is informed by what I like to term backwards rationalisation, or working back from the US 16"/50 of the Second World War and finding it to be the apex of naval gun design, or the 15"/42 for the RN equivalent. My perspective is informed by a number of ideas: A.) There would be a merging of the battleship and battlecruiser categories in a non-Treaty world. We view the 32 knot Iowas and G3s as ideal, as they have enough speed for combined operations with carriers. That wasn't on the cards in 1920. B.) The RN did try to get 12" and then 14" in subsequent treaties in order to maximise its numbers in a WNT world. It was perhaps the one power which held the closest to the Treaty restrictions and regime for the least benefit. C.) Once the move to 18" is made in the 1920s and there isn't a treaty in place, the genie is not going to go back into the bottle. This has a number of effects. Firstly, it makes a lot of the rather new vessels that have been expensively constructed obsolete, causing considerable consternation. In @, the imposition of a 16" standard had the effect of killing off anything below 13.4" as hopeless obsolete. Here, it would do the following in my view: - 13.5"-14" superdreadnoughts are in the same position as 12" ships historically in the late 1920s/early 1930s: on their way out and less than useful - 15" = 14" ships. Good second line performers, but not top of the line - 16" = 15" ships. The practical limit for most European navies and slightly behind the heaviest gunned ships of the top fleets. - 18" = 16". The big gun of the Big Three by the 1930s - 20" = 18". The next leap forward and beyond the edge of what is practical. By knocking out the 14" ships, the RN loses 7 old battleships that are of minimum utility anyway as compared to the 4 oldest USN ships and 4 IJN ships. This still results in them getting a good ratio, as the 12 x 14" USN Standards are now obsolescent. D.) One can design a fairly well balanced BB of ~27-28 knots on 48,000t with 8-9 x 18", particularly if set up like the G3/N3 turret and belt design. It could scrape in, like the G3s, to fit into existing RN infrastructure. E.) Once four 18" are in service, then there can be some sort of attempt at reaching a compromise and perhaps a return to 16", after it has achieved the purpose of attriting the fleets of the other two major naval powers. It would also allow the QEs to shift onto the Kongos in a planned fleet engagement as well as allowing replacement of the Rs.
Simon
I think my point is that no 18" gun ships are actually produced - Britain because it decides not to be the 1st to cross that border and Japan because it can't afford them, at least in the 20s. If either Japan or the US does start producing such ships then I agree that Britain would follow suit but with so many 15 and 16 inchers I'm not sure its in Britain's interest to open that can of worms. They will be increasingly aware that they can't afford a race with the US, despite the latter's much less need for a large fleet.
I'm viewing the G3's as a good top level ship thinking more in terms of their ability in gun combat without any consideration of later carrier development. They can take on with a good chance of success anything that either the US or Japan are producing and should be able to smash quickly the smaller types of the new ships [Colorado's and Nagato's] as well as anything older. Also they have the speed both for rapid strategic deployment and for tactical combat, either avoiding it if needed or being able make it very difficult for a running enemy to escape.
It could be argued that most of the USN ships, because of their outdated design, speed and limited ability for upgrades would be obsolete once the G3's entered service. The Lexington's are, at least in good weather, marginally faster so they can get away but they are very much egg shells compared to just about everything else being produced.
Your 18" design under d) above sounds like a good option, a somewhat smaller Yamato sounds like a good idea if the RN has to go to 18" guns but I suspect they and the politicians would prefer to avoid that if they could. Anything larger is going to be very cumbersome I suspect and so expensive that they could only be completed in small numbers, even for the US. Plus true with hindsight advances in technology is going to make them largely obsolete.
I would disagree with E) I think if Britain was the 1st to produce 18" ships both the US and Japan would face serious pressure to match that before they agreed to any restrictions on new ships. Also while the Queens, especially if modernised a bit will smash the Kongo's that would only be if they could catch them and the latter are going to be a good bit faster.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 19, 2020 17:06:17 GMT
Steve
Some good points. My position is that the 18" gun is already developed and presents an ideal way of upping the ante with regard to Japan and to a slightly lesser extent, the United States. It can be the 16" gun of a non-Treaty world, forcing opponents to either counter or negotiate.
The advantages of the G3s in 'conventional' terms are quite evident, but they do not have the additional grand strategic advantage that a putative 18" battleship would of making some ships so painfully obsolete as to force their replacement.
Most of the USN Standards will be obsolete in the face of the G3s, but their major advantage was not openly known, in the form of their exceptional armour. The 18" would be more openly known; this was the epoch of wild speculation and wild error with regard to foreign naval developments.
We know from our perspective that Japan would be essentially knocked out by the Great Kanto earthquake, but this was not known from 1920. However, there wasn't a complete ignorance of what Japan could realistically do financially and industrially.
My general contention is, in a non-WNT world, clever British grand strategy with regard to 18" gunned ships could achieve one of their major aims of the era, which was to lead to negotiation that would arrest an arms race. It raises the ante.
Of course, it would need to get around the Treasury.
Simon
|
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Feb 19, 2020 23:46:32 GMT
The 18" gun would probably be adopted by someone, most likely the Japanese would be first and the US and GB would follow. Since the big three were all proposing the construction of a mixed fleet of battleships and battle cruisers barring increased world tensions escalating the arms race the next round of construction would take place in the 30s. FDR could trigger this arms race by using naval construction as a way out of the depression. The question would be to build a few very powerful ships 9 to 12 18" guns on a 70,000 to 80,000 ton hull given the limited number that could be built going all out for a fast battleship design would have made these ships very dangerous and very expensive. Another option would be to build a ship similar to the Iowa but with less AA but twice as many could be built. The US had a very powerful 16" gun developed at the end of WW1. This gun was turned over to the army for coast defense since there was no ship that could carry it at the time. Unless there is something like the treaties to control growth warships tend to get larger and more capable and more expensive for a given type and given the consequences of a defeat that is not going to change without a treaty.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 20, 2020 3:13:36 GMT
I can't see the Japanese going first, given the inherent limits of their financial and physical situation in the 1920s. Looking at their construction programme, they were tapped out and stretched to financial breaking point by building Tosa, Kaga, Akagi and Amagi by the end of 1920; throwing in Atago and Takao would push things further.
Following up with the four Kiis, the work time and completion dates of which were extremely over-optimistic, would hold up their limited resources further. The putative Number 13s are more of a late 1920s ship, depending on when Japan can recover sufficiently from the Great Kanto Earthquake.
The USN had put its eggs in the basket of the 16"50 with the South Dakotas, which were an older design by even 1920.
The Japanese and British were moving, at various paces, towards a single fast battleship type. The 18" fast battleship doesn't need to be 70,000-80,000t, although that was where the natural growth of capital ship design was heading towards. To operate such ships, the British particularly would need to make quite expensive investments in sufficient drydocks to service them. As a general estimation, they would need ~4 docks at home, one in Gibraltar, 2 in Alexandria, 2 in Singapore, one in Cape Town, one in Australia and one in Halifax on the low side of estimates, with each costing 2 million pounds, based on the cost of the King George V Graving Dock in Southampton in 1933/34.
A minimum of 24 million pounds on infrastructure, not including dredging and additional support building construction; Singapore in @ cost 60 million.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,866
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Feb 20, 2020 11:12:49 GMT
I can't see the Japanese going first, given the inherent limits of their financial and physical situation in the 1920s. Looking at their construction programme, they were tapped out and stretched to financial breaking point by building Tosa, Kaga, Akagi and Amagi by the end of 1920; throwing in Atago and Takao would push things further. Following up with the four Kiis, the work time and completion dates of which were extremely over-optimistic, would hold up their limited resources further. The putative Number 13s are more of a late 1920s ship, depending on when Japan can recover sufficiently from the Great Kanto Earthquake. The USN had put its eggs in the basket of the 16"50 with the South Dakotas, which were an older design by even 1920. The Japanese and British were moving, at various paces, towards a single fast battleship type. The 18" fast battleship doesn't need to be 70,000-80,000t, although that was where the natural growth of capital ship design was heading towards. To operate such ships, the British particularly would need to make quite expensive investments in sufficient drydocks to service them. As a general estimation, they would need ~4 docks at home, one in Gibraltar, 2 in Alexandria, 2 in Singapore, one in Cape Town, one in Australia and one in Halifax on the low side of estimates, with each costing 2 million pounds, based on the cost of the King George V Graving Dock in Southampton in 1933/34. A minimum of 24 million pounds on infrastructure, not including dredging and additional support building construction; Singapore in @ cost 60 million.
In general agreement and suspect the Japanese won't complete any of the Kii's in TTL, In fact possibly the last two Akagi's may be beyond them. If they still go highly militaristic as OTL and the navy isn't frozen out by an army that still retains political support then I could see Japan being the 1st to 18", provided the RN doesn't go with the N3's. However I would suspect that economic and political oppositions would mean this wouldn't be until sometime in the 30's probably the late 30's if we still have a worldwide depression.
Also agree that I think a 70kton or high displacement is likely to be too large and counter-productive. Would aggravate international tensions as well as internal opposition to such expensive ships and their probably limited use due to small numbers and the development of counter measures.
That's why I would rather see 4 more G3's than the N3's. While the former would I believe be more useful the latter would appear more powerful and threatening to many. I think the US at least and Japan when they got the chance, would feel forced to respond. Possibly not immediately due to the large programme already under way in the US and the Congressional opposition to it but it would happen fairly soon. I think its better to have a clear qualitative edge - due to wartime experience - but seem less threatening than to appear more powerful because of the 18" gun.
On the cost of the Singapore base I think a lot of that was actually in converting worldwide bases with sizeable coal stockpiles to have oil stocks as well so that the newer oil fueled ships had the strategic mobility. However agree that being able to operate 70kton ships would demand huge costs worldwide which I think Britain would be wise to avoid. I think a lot of money would be needed to support existing ships, especially the Hood, let alone the G3/N3 classes and it would be even worse for much larger ships.
Steve
|
|
