Alternate Greece-Ottoman naval arms race from 1910s onwards

[lordroel]

Sept 27, 2020 3:51:38 GMT 1bigrich said:

[

Getting a minimum word warning when I try to post this, so I'm adding this sentence....

That is strange, should only be when you do not quote people.

So i also found out about Greece version of the Bretagne-class battleship, if the Greeks had the Vasilefs Konstantinos in service as they wanted, would she be a threat to the Ottmans.

[1bigrich]

Sept 27, 2020 11:52:41 GMT stevep said:

    1bigrich ,

  That was my prime thought.  Without a longer war and US involvement their likely to start building the programme earlier, albeit with the early designs, such as a 10x14" Lexington.  Not sure after such a massive programme, which might well be completed with continued naval tension in Europe as well as the Pacific with the Japanese response to the US, that Congress would be prepared to lash out on another big programme for quite a while.  However the US programme, Japanese response and a continued German threat is likely to force more construction from Britain and Germany may well respond depending on its economic and political situation.  Britain would want a clear edge over Germany and probably, if only for political reasons equality with the US.  Which given the 1916 programme and the latter standards just before it would mean a lot of construction in the UK, especially as the older 12" and probably at least some of the 13.5" ships are retired.  Possibly the three modified Admirals are completed here while the RN and constructors gear up for something like the G3's.  They wouldn't have the experience from the captured Baden but tests of older ships and war experienced would still be present.

Steve,

Not to drag us off-topic, but the Admirals were something I was specifically thinking of. I've always thought had one or more of Hood's sisters been completed with an 'all-or-nothing' armor scheme, the would have been very formidable warships. Especially with those Mark II turrets with 30 degrees elevation for long range gunnery. They see ideal for the Pacific...

My own counterpoint, but I always thought J3 was a chance to do Hood 'right'



Post World War I, the UK took war with the US off the table; differences with the US would be dealt with diplomatically. I think in this scenario, that might still happen, especially if the US ramps up production while still staying out of the war; the historic insane amount of 4-piper destroyers leaps to mind. The programs are still going to be very expensive, but finances would still be better with the short war/no war scenario. There still might be a movement to avoid the expenditures, though, especially if Harding is elected in the US in 1920.

In our short war/no war treaty negotiations, I could well see Germany wanting more than Japan. Of course they would want parity with the UK and the US, but diplomatically, I doubt they would get it. Perhaps ratios along the lines of UK/US/Germany of 5-5-4, Japan 3, France/Italy 1.75-1.75, Spain/Greece/Ottomans 1.5-1.5-1.5.

 

On another issue how were the US barrels constructed at this point

Steve, the US went to built-up construction very early, I think as early as the 12in/35. I cannot recall what the last US wire-wound gun was.

On another board a well respected poster was saying that the RN was having problems with the 12" designs at long range - or what was anything but short range by the end of the war.  Two reasons were given one of which was that as 50 calibre they were long barreled and the wire-wound barrels had problems of vibration which caused wide dispersal problems.  The actual section was and is at cycling-of-bcs-from-rosyth-to-scapa-for-gunnary-training, post 12 if your interested:

I have seen the conversation, but I have not dived too deeply into it. I will have to take a closer look.

One definite reason for the 12-inch Mk XI’s exceptionally widely scattered of fall of shot is due to the relatively poor longitudinal strength of wire wound guns. The longer the gun barrel, the weaker the longitudinal strength. The high pressures generated by the propellant creates oscillations in the barrel due to the stresses. Wire-wound barrels are more prone to excessive oscillation than most other types which results in excessive muzzle whip as the shell exits the barrel. The shell flies off in whatever direction the muzzle was pointing to at the time of exit and so, the greater the muzzle whip, the greater the dispersion of fall of shot. The greater the range, the greater the potential distance each individual shell can spread apart from both the previous and succeeding shells fired. 

 

This prompted me to ask whether other 50+ calibre guns had similar issues - having seen the Drachinifel video on their 12"/52 calibre designs and knowing that a number of US designs had 50 calibre guns - had similar problems.  John replied he didn't think that the Germans had the same problems but that the RN didn't think much of the US 14" guns accuracy - presumably when the US force were operating with the GF at Scapa in 1917-18 but that seems to be due to barrel droop rather than the oscillations he was mentioning above.  Do you know anything about US gun designs of the period please?

In an old conversation on the Italian rebuilds' bored-out guns having barrel droop, as I recall, Bill Jurens said over on NavWeaps that droop causes barrel whip, but it should not impact accuracy because the barrel will whip the same way every time. I'll have to see if I can find that conversation via tapatalk's search function.

As I recall, the Royal Navy's 12in/50 was less accurate than the 12in/45...

One I have bookmarked,

www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/any-consensus-on-the-littorios-accuracy-t21231.html

See Bill Juren's third post where he is commenting on the problems with the US 14in. He's speaking of the 14in/50 from the New Mexico and California classes, I think.

  Odd that you got a minimum word message given the size of the post??

Very odd. Perhaps because I switched to BBCode to break up your quote in reply, as I'm doing now. But I was sitting here thinking 'what else can I type?' and I thought just what I'm thinking now...

Regards,

[1bigrich]

Sept 27, 2020 12:13:34 GMT lordroel said:

That is strange, should only be when you do not quote people.

So i also found out about Greece version of the Bretagne-class battleship, if the Greeks had the Vasilefs Konstantinos in service as they wanted, would she be a threat to the Ottmans.

Vasilieffs Konstantinos has her faults like the Bretagne class, their belts are a little thin, but the 13.4 in was very popular and found to be very reliable in French service.

With the Hellenic Navy, they would be an interesting match for Resadiye, but I think I would favor the latter in an even fight, especially if the latter has improved 'Greenboy' shells by the time of such an engagement.

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Sept 27, 2020 14:10:10 GMT 1bigrich said:

Sept 27, 2020 12:13:34 GMT lordroel said:

That is strange, should only be when you do not quote people.

So i also found out about Greece version of the Bretagne-class battleship, if the Greeks had the Vasilefs Konstantinos in service as they wanted, would she be a threat to the Ottmans.

Vasilieffs Konstantinos has her faults like the Bretagne class, their belts are a little thin, but the 13.4 in was very popular and found to be very reliable in French service.

With the Hellenic Navy, they would be an interesting match for Resadiye, but I think I would favor the latter in an even fight, especially if the latter has improved 'Greenboy' shells by the time of such an engagement.

My thoughts,

What are  'Greenboy' shells if i might ask.

[stevep]

Sept 27, 2020 14:17:55 GMT lordroel said:

Sept 27, 2020 14:10:10 GMT 1bigrich said:

Vasilieffs Konstantinos has her faults like the Bretagne class, their belts are a little thin, but the 13.4 in was very popular and found to be very reliable in French service.

With the Hellenic Navy, they would be an interesting match for Resadiye, but I think I would favor the latter in an even fight, especially if the latter has improved 'Greenboy' shells by the time of such an engagement.

My thoughts,

What are  'Greenboy' shells if i might ask.

  lordroel,

  After Jutland the RN realised it had a problem with its AP shells often detonating virtually on contact rather than after penetrating the armour. Testing - which had been suggested by Jellicoe a few years before the war but unfortunately not carried out - showed problems with both the explosive being used being too sensitive and also poor quality control meaning they often broke up on low angle contact.  [Earlier testing had virtually all been at perpendicular contact which didn't show this problem.]

  As such urgent work went on to develop an improved version and when those were entered into service to distinguish them they were marked by a green band painted around them.  Hence they came to be called Greenboys.  Later on in the 20's IIRC a further improved version was marked with a blue band.

  One of the problems of being on a number of naval history sites.  You get used to the terms and forget others are unfamiliar with them.

  Steve

[stevep]

Sept 27, 2020 13:09:38 GMT 1bigrich said:

Sept 27, 2020 11:52:41 GMT stevep said:

    1bigrich ,

  That was my prime thought.  Without a longer war and US involvement their likely to start building the programme earlier, albeit with the early designs, such as a 10x14" Lexington.  Not sure after such a massive programme, which might well be completed with continued naval tension in Europe as well as the Pacific with the Japanese response to the US, that Congress would be prepared to lash out on another big programme for quite a while.  However the US programme, Japanese response and a continued German threat is likely to force more construction from Britain and Germany may well respond depending on its economic and political situation.  Britain would want a clear edge over Germany and probably, if only for political reasons equality with the US.  Which given the 1916 programme and the latter standards just before it would mean a lot of construction in the UK, especially as the older 12" and probably at least some of the 13.5" ships are retired.  Possibly the three modified Admirals are completed here while the RN and constructors gear up for something like the G3's.  They wouldn't have the experience from the captured Baden but tests of older ships and war experienced would still be present.

Steve,

Not to drag us off-topic, but the Admirals were something I was specifically thinking of. I've always thought had one or more of Hood's sisters been completed with an 'all-or-nothing' armor scheme, the would have been very formidable warships. Especially with those Mark II turrets with 30 degrees elevation for long range gunnery. They see ideal for the Pacific...

My own counterpoint, but I always thought J3 was a chance to do Hood 'right'



Post World War I, the UK took war with the US off the table; differences with the US would be dealt with diplomatically. I think in this scenario, that might still happen, especially if the US ramps up production while still staying out of the war; the historic insane amount of 4-piper destroyers leaps to mind. The programs are still going to be very expensive, but finances would still be better with the short war/no war scenario. There still might be a movement to avoid the expenditures, though, especially if Harding is elected in the US in 1920.

In our short war/no war treaty negotiations, I could well see Germany wanting more than Japan. Of course they would want parity with the UK and the US, but diplomatically, I doubt they would get it. Perhaps ratios along the lines of UK/US/Germany of 5-5-4, Japan 3, France/Italy 1.75-1.75, Spain/Greece/Ottomans 1.5-1.5-1.5.

 

On another issue how were the US barrels constructed at this point

Steve, the US went to built-up construction very early, I think as early as the 12in/35. I cannot recall what the last US wire-wound gun was.

On another board a well respected poster was saying that the RN was having problems with the 12" designs at long range - or what was anything but short range by the end of the war.  Two reasons were given one of which was that as 50 calibre they were long barreled and the wire-wound barrels had problems of vibration which caused wide dispersal problems.  The actual section was and is at cycling-of-bcs-from-rosyth-to-scapa-for-gunnary-training, post 12 if your interested:

I have seen the conversation, but I have not dived too deeply into it. I will have to take a closer look.

One definite reason for the 12-inch Mk XI’s exceptionally widely scattered of fall of shot is due to the relatively poor longitudinal strength of wire wound guns. The longer the gun barrel, the weaker the longitudinal strength. The high pressures generated by the propellant creates oscillations in the barrel due to the stresses. Wire-wound barrels are more prone to excessive oscillation than most other types which results in excessive muzzle whip as the shell exits the barrel. The shell flies off in whatever direction the muzzle was pointing to at the time of exit and so, the greater the muzzle whip, the greater the dispersion of fall of shot. The greater the range, the greater the potential distance each individual shell can spread apart from both the previous and succeeding shells fired. 

 

This prompted me to ask whether other 50+ calibre guns had similar issues - having seen the Drachinifel video on their 12"/52 calibre designs and knowing that a number of US designs had 50 calibre guns - had similar problems.  John replied he didn't think that the Germans had the same problems but that the RN didn't think much of the US 14" guns accuracy - presumably when the US force were operating with the GF at Scapa in 1917-18 but that seems to be due to barrel droop rather than the oscillations he was mentioning above.  Do you know anything about US gun designs of the period please?

In an old conversation on the Italian rebuilds' bored-out guns having barrel droop, as I recall, Bill Jurens said over on NavWeaps that droop causes barrel whip, but it should not impact accuracy because the barrel will whip the same way every time. I'll have to see if I can find that conversation via tapatalk's search function.

As I recall, the Royal Navy's 12in/50 was less accurate than the 12in/45...

One I have bookmarked,

www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/any-consensus-on-the-littorios-accuracy-t21231.html

See Bill Juren's third post where he is commenting on the problems with the US 14in. He's speaking of the 14in/50 from the New Mexico and California classes, I think.

  Odd that you got a minimum word message given the size of the post??

Very odd. Perhaps because I switched to BBCode to break up your quote in reply, as I'm doing now. But I was sitting here thinking 'what else can I type?' and I thought just what I'm thinking now...

Regards,

  1bigrich,

  Replying to various points:

a)  Yes an improved Hood, without the problems of the additional weight added for the 1st at a late point could have been a decent ship.  Still probably a stepping stone to a full post-war design but definitely a useful addition to the fleet and would in itself have created some useful butterflies.

b)  Britain took non-diplomatic options off the table somewhere in the 1890's IIRC, possibly a little before as the viewpoint was that war with the US would be too costly to both sides.  They even opposed any military plans being complemented for war with the US. 

c)  Germany and Japan would have made an awkward issue definitely.  Especially depending on what happens to the German Pacific colonies that had been seized by Japan among others.  The awkward bit is Germany would be looking at Britain while Japan would be concerned with the US but I can see Germany insisting on superiority over Japan if only for prestige and racial terms.  I think Britain would be very unhappy with a 5:4 ratio with Germany as it leaves us open to a sudden attack since Britain has worldwide commitments.  Also its less favourable than what Britain had for most of the naval race and wartime period so it would mean Britain building less than Germany. 

  Furthermore if the US completes its entire 1916 programme then what size of fleet would it have?  How many of the older ships would it scrap.  If none then we're talking about 16+11+8 dreadnoughts in all 35 ships.  Even if the USN scraps all 8 older 12" gunned ships that's a big fleet.  Britain will want to scrap its own 12" gun units as their obsolete by now and might want to get rid of at least some of its 13.5" ones.  Assuming it kept the historical 13 15" ships, although in this scenario it may have doubts about Repulse and Renown and say 8 13.5" ships that will mean another 6 ships minimum to match the USN in numbers and with 12 large 40kton plus ships with 16" guns in US service Britain would probably want more than that.  Although if the Lexington's are completed with 10x14" that might change things a bit.  All likely to be very complex.

d)  Thanks for the info on the US ships.  I had assumed that other nations were using wire-wound guns as well prior to the WNT but sounds like that wasn't the case.  I think what John was referring to, by oscillations due to being wire-wound, is a different issue to barrel droop. 

e)  Must admit I do it manually when I split up a post for reply. Seen the BBCode marker but never used it.

  Steve