Washington Naval Treaty Fails

[stevep]

Originally Posted by AdA

The most implausible thing I'm assuming is that both axis navies would risk loosing their entire heavy force to get a chance of hurting the RN a lot. In both actions the Axis has to win the fast engaments because the loosing ships will have to engage the QEs, while the RN can n both cases fall back under cover of the QEs.
My dual goal was to provide interesting wargame material, and demonstrating that a non WNT RN would be likely to depend on the French and the USN to control the Med and Pac in order to maintain its desirable superiority versus the KM.
The outcome of those fictional actions might range from an RN major win to repeat Dogger Bank (axis leave one unit behind and run) to a Axis win.
In the harder to conjure up Med set piece the Four Rebuils have 40x12.6''guns against the 12x15'' of the RN BC. The R&R might be overwhelmed and out of action from multiple hits very rapidly. The remaining operational Rebuilts would then either rush to support the Litorios, or face the QEs.
I dont share your faith on the G3 superiority over the Litorios. I'd risk a 50/50 outcome. At the end of the day both fleets might cancel each other out, the BC sunk, a few BB on each side sunk, all others too demaged to face action again soon.
The KM has a harder job. The S&G have 18x11'' vs 8x15'' and 8x13.5''. But they fired accuracy and could probably sustain more damage longer. And I don't think the G3 vs the Bismarck is a sure thing either.
The outcome might be that for a few critical months, until ships are back on service and/or the Lions are in Comission there are virtually no heavy units in the Med or in the Atlantic. Time for an Axis effort on North Africa, seizing Malta, using PB to raid the Atlantic, for Argentina to seize the Falklands. We would buy great quality bat time...

AdA

I would agree that the idea is implausible, especially as both Axis powers had a policy of avoiding a major clash unless they had overwhelming numbers, which they wouldn't. I could see some sort of enlarged Denmark Straits, where the KM are trying to sneak into the Atlantic to raid convoys and are forced into combat. A major clash between the RN and Italian fleet is a lot less difficult to see, but more likely in TTL as Britain has very powerful units that can successfully chase Italian capital ships and possibly force them to combat.

In terms of the Med it would be difficult as there are so many factors that could happen.

In terms of the Atlantic I could see a sizeable battle but I find it very difficult to see anything but a major German defeat. Its fleet lacks experience, which is every bit as important as the raw material factors. I'm talking here not just in terms of experience of the crews of the ships but also of the designers and constructors. British ships were designed with the experience of both WWI and a lot of actual use. The Germans lost their design staff after WWI and much of the warship construction capacity. Hence you get badly flawed designs such as Bismarck, with to a large degree was an enlarged version of the WWI Baden class. As such its deck armour was a lot lower than the more modern design so its pretty difficult to sink but relatively easy to knock out as much of the infrastructure and communications are above the main armoured deck. Hence shells which fail to pierce this and explode above it scatter shrapnel through the ship, devastating such facilities. Similarly the German shells, as well as fairly light, reducing their penetration, seem to have been fairly poor quality, with a number failing.

With the twins the 12" guns had a good range but a lot less punch. Also, from the death of the Scharnhorst and I think also its earlier clash with the Renown, the turrets suffered from flooding in bad weather, even B turret being virtually unworkable in heavy seas.

Similarly with the Italians, while they have more design experience, not starting virtually from scratch, they still lack the experience of the RN and also have the disadvantage of being under Mussolini. Also even through the V-V design was some way over treaty limits its still significantly smaller than the G3's and less well protected as well as smaller guns. Hence in a slog they are pretty likely to come off worse. True in the scenario you mean, where the slower Queens are left behind, sheer weight of number might work against quality but then why would the RN fight in such conditions. Just pull back to maintain numerical as well as quality superiority.

Steve

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by marklbailey

++Snip++

There was nothing wrong with the WWI cruisers and there were plenty of them. So there was no need to start a cruiser building program until 1925-26. That's why the E class had such a long and leisurely building time. meanwhile a 'universal cruiser' with 4 x 2 6" had been designed (see Raven and Roberts), in the 7000 ton and million quid bracket.

Hi Mark, can you elaborate on that reference please (ie with a book title?) as I would be interested in reading up about that.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by stevep;6783860[I

]++Snip++[/I]
Hence you get badly flawed designs such as Bismarck, with to a large degree was an enlarged version of the WWI Baden class. As such its deck armour was a lot lower than the more modern design so its pretty difficult to sink but relatively easy to knock out as much of the infrastructure and communications are above the main armoured deck. Hence shells which fail to pierce this and explode above it scatter shrapnel through the ship, devastating such facilities. Similarly the German shells, as well as fairly light, reducing their penetration, seem to have been fairly poor quality, with a number failing.

I don't want to get into a conversation about German shells as I know little about them, but I would like to point out a few things.
1) The Bismarck's were the successor's to the Baden's on paper, but the design was entirely new. Just about the only common things was the mounting of 8 x 15" guns (Of a new design) and triple shaft layout.
2) Most of the infrastructure above the armour deck was duplicated below the main armoured deck, so backup systems were safe and still operational at the time of her sinking.
3) The Bismarck's were designed to operate in the North Sea and Atlantic Oceans where combat was expected at short ranges (Hence the German's obsession with fitting 5.9" secondary guns over the UK's preference for 4.5"/5.25" DP guns). For short range combat, an armour deck lower in the ship is a better design, whereas for long range combat, it is better if it is higher in the ship (This relates to long-range plunging fire & protection from). Simply put: The Bismarck's were designed and built for short range combat, and could take one hell of a beating at those ranges - As demonstrated by the Bismarck when the was pummeled by King George V and Rodney in May 1941, and subsequently scuttled by her own crew.

[marklbailey]

Alan Raven and john Roberts, British Cruisers of World War Two, Arms and Armour press, London & Melbourne, 1980 ISBN 0-85368-304-2

There is very little data available on these designs in secondary sources.

On p.142 of the reference, they are discussed briefly. To summarise, a new 6" design was looked at in 1921 then shelved as the focus had to be on the new WNT cruisers. In 1924 it was looked at again as the 8" ships were too costly to allow numbers needed. By Feb 25 a design (no diagram is avialable) had emerged (4 x 2 6", 32-33kt, 3-4" armour, 1800t fuel for 5500nm@12kt, displacement 7500-8000t. There was iterations up to 8500t with 7000nm@12kt and 34.5kt on an Emerald plant. It was shelved again until 1928 when a big bunfight started over cruiser policy. By Jan 29 the bunfight had yielded 5 designs from 5995 to 6410t. pp.143-144 tells how these evolved into Leander.

Cheers: mark

[AdA]

When ever someone refers to the Bismarck as a warmed up Baden, I allways wonder, why not a fast BB version of the planned eYorck Battle Cruisers?

[AdA]

The one Cruiser class that was designed pre WNT and would have been influencial would have been the French Duguay-Trouin class. designed in 1920, they make the Ohmahas look very dated...

[sharlin]

If the Italians ever tried to fight a RN fleet that included G3s and QE's with the Littoro's and their rebuilds the rebuilds would be terribly vulnerable. Although successful updates of older vessels the rebuild WW1 Dreadnoughts did not fix one major problem. Their lack of armour. They had about as much armour as the Renown, a 9 inch belt, rather thin deck armour and none too great protection on the turrets and the pullgese system was suspect at best in terms of resisting torpedoes.

The rebuilt battleships basically became battlecruisers, fast, well armed but lacking in protection. The QEs would be slower but far tougher and their heavier shells would be more destructive against the lightly armoured Italians.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by sharlin

If the Italians ever tried to fight a RN fleet that included G3s and QE's with the Littoro's and their rebuilds the rebuilds would be terribly vulnerable. Although successful updates of older vessels the rebuild WW1 Dreadnoughts did not fix one major problem. Their lack of armour. They had about as much armour as the Renown, a 9 inch belt, rather thin deck armour and none too great protection on the turrets and the pullgese system was suspect at best in terms of resisting torpedoes.

The rebuilt battleships basically became battlecruisers, fast, well armed but lacking in protection. The QEs would be slower but far tougher and their heavier shells would be more destructive against the lightly armoured Italians.

Precisely why I tried to have them engage only the Renown and Repulse. They were (re)designed to "outrun and outrange" the french older BB. Their most likely foes would be Dunkerque and Strasbourg, and that would be a more balanced match.

[sharlin]

You are implying that the RN would separate its forces, with the Renown, Repulse and 2 G3s you've got a fairly homegenous fleet in regards to speed, in a six on four fight the RN would not spread out its forces.

Also i'm not sure the RN would suddenly stop building battleships after building the G3s. The QE's are older ships and of the previous generation and would need to be replaced eventually. Probably a 35k - 40k tonne replacement with either 16 inch guns of a newer 15 inch weapon in tripple turrets and a 26 knot speed. Basically a RN version of the Sodak or Washington classes.

In the event that the RN decided against major ship building save carriers and cruisers the BCs that survived would be fully modernised, so the Repulse would probably resemble her sister as would the Hood if she was around and Tiger too.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by sharlin

You are implying that the RN would separate its forces, with the Renown, Repulse and 2 G3s you've got a fairly homegenous fleet in regards to speed, in a six on four fight the RN would not spread out its forces.

Also i'm not sure the RN would suddenly stop building battleships after building the G3s. The QE's are older ships and of the previous generation and would need to be replaced eventually. Probably a 35k - 40k tonne replacement with either 16 inch guns of a newer 15 inch weapon in tripple turrets and a 26 knot speed. Basically a RN version of the Sodak or Washington classes.

In the event that the RN decided against major ship building save carriers and cruisers the BCs that survived would be fully modernised, so the Repulse would probably resemble her sister as would the Hood if she was around and Tiger too.

Not split. I specified a paralel course high speed action, with L&VV, on the lead, engaging the two G3, also on the lead, and the four Rebuilts, on the rear of the Italian line, engaging the two BC, on the rear of the British line. This is one of those theoretical actions, that mostly happen only on exercises or wargames, but ilustrative.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by sharlin

You are implying that the RN would separate its forces, with the Renown, Repulse and 2 G3s you've got a fairly homegenous fleet in regards to speed, in a six on four fight the RN would not spread out its forces.

Also i'm not sure the RN would suddenly stop building battleships after building the G3s. The QE's are older ships and of the previous generation and would need to be replaced eventually. Probably a 35k - 40k tonne replacement with either 16 inch guns of a newer 15 inch weapon in tripple turrets and a 26 knot speed. Basically a RN version of the Sodak or Washington classes.

In the event that the RN decided against major ship building save carriers and cruisers the BCs that survived would be fully modernised, so the Repulse would probably resemble her sister as would the Hood if she was around and Tiger too.

Regarding old ships, in a non WNT world, they would only build if the Germans, French or Italians would, since the USN would take care of the IJN.
Thats why I considered that they would build a Lion equivalent on a close to KGV timeframe. Since if the Lions were comissiones earliear than the Littorios and the Bismarcks the Axis fleets would be toast in this TL, I proposed a non Lions ready set, fully stating it was not the most plausible one...

[sharlin]

The RN could still use its speed advantage to overhaul the Italians, all be it slowly, the VV and Litorrio are tied to the rebuilds slower speed whilst the British formation could motor along at 30 knots if the BCs were willing to stress their engines. Its not much of an advantage and it would take time but overhauling them would be possible and then the Italians would either have to react to british movements or let the leading ships be fired on by four ships with four being unable to reply.

As much as I love the Littorio design, they were stunningly pritty ships, they are still at a bit of a disadvantage even against the relatively weak shells of the Nelrod style 16 inch rounds, assuming they are still being used by the RN or a more heavy weight shell has not been developed. Their armours good but in a long range engagement (assuming thats what this starts as) they would be quite vulnerable to plunging fire.

Also whilst the 15 inch guns on their ships were superb penetrators, they got this through insanely high muzzle velocity which did bad things in regards to barrel life and accuracy in sustained firing, also they had issues with their 15 inch shells with some being very badly made and that mauled accuracy.

At long range the Renown class (assuming they are refitted to Renown standard at least) are pritty resistant to the 12.6 inch rounds on the rebuilds but the same can't be said for the Italian ships, 9 inch thick belt vs 15 inch shell is a no brainer.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by sharlin

The RN could still use its speed advantage to overhaul the Italians, all be it slowly, the VV and Litorrio are tied to the rebuilds slower speed whilst the British formation could motor along at 30 knots if the BCs were willing to stress their engines. Its not much of an advantage and it would take time but overhauling them would be possible and then the Italians would either have to react to british movements or let the leading ships be fired on by four ships with four being unable to reply.

As much as I love the Littorio design, they were stunningly pritty ships, they are still at a bit of a disadvantage even against the relatively weak shells of the Nelrod style 16 inch rounds, assuming they are still being used by the RN or a more heavy weight shell has not been developed. Their armours good but in a long range engagement (assuming thats what this starts as) they would be quite vulnerable to plunging fire.

Also whilst the 15 inch guns on their ships were superb penetrators, they got this through insanely high muzzle velocity which did bad things in regards to barrel life and accuracy in sustained firing, also they had issues with their 15 inch shells with some being very badly made and that mauled accuracy.

At long range the Renown class (assuming they are refitted to Renown standard at least) are pritty resistant to the 12.6 inch rounds on the rebuilds but the same can't be said for the Italian ships, 9 inch thick belt vs 15 inch shell is a no brainer.

The RN would have a dielema. The G3 would prefer to engage the Littorios at long range, but that would expose the BCs to plunging fire from 40 12.6'' guns. See how leaving the QEs behind makes this more interesting?

[sharlin]

Long range gunnery does not produce results though generally. And if the RN engaged at range then both sides would start suffering accuracy issues due to barrel erosion (G3s, Littorios and the high velocity 12.6s on the rebuilds, for some reason the Italians fell in love with high velocity guns)

[HMS Warspite]

Originally Posted by AdA

When ever someone refers to the Bismarck as a warmed up Baden, I allways wonder, why not a fast BB version of the planned eYorck Battle Cruisers?

Basically the Ersatz Yorck was a slightly larger variation on the Mackensen class and therefore linked to the Scharnhorst class of 1934, which was actually a development of that design, while the larger and beamier Bismarck class was always designed as a pure battleship, rather than a hybrid between a fast battleship and a (rather heavily armored un-british) battlecruiser Bsicmarck therefore was directly a descendent of the Baden class of 1914, only designed much later by some 20 years or so.

[HMS Warspite]

Originally Posted by AdA

The one Cruiser class that was designed pre WNT and would have been influencial would have been the French Duguay-Trouin class. designed in 1920, they make the Ohmahas look very dated...

The Japanese too had some pre-washington cruisers of an even more powerful type; the Furataka class, which was designed in 1920 although commissioned around the mid 20's. For some political reasons the class was included in the treaty, as it set the mark for the future heavy cruisers due to her 20 cm, (actually 7.9 inch) main guns. Technically this class was a pre- Washington Design still, as this and the succeeding Aoba class were well below the maximum size allowed by the treaty, as that was based on the Britich Hawkins class of nearly 10,000 tons. The Myoko class was the first Japanese design within the official Washington Treaty limmitations, although cheated with the rules.

[HMS Warspite]

Originally Posted by sharlin

If the Italians ever tried to fight a RN fleet that included G3s and QE's with the Littoro's and their rebuilds the rebuilds would be terribly vulnerable. Although successful updates of older vessels the rebuild WW1 Dreadnoughts did not fix one major problem. Their lack of armour. They had about as much armour as the Renown, a 9 inch belt, rather thin deck armour and none too great protection on the turrets and the pullgese system was suspect at best in terms of resisting torpedoes.

The rebuilt battleships basically became battlecruisers, fast, well armed but lacking in protection. The QEs would be slower but far tougher and their heavier shells would be more destructive against the lightly armoured Italians.

The Cavour and Andrea Doria were never intended to engage ships more than twice their own size, if you compare them with the G-3 and so on type. This G-3 was not likley to be seen in the Mediteranean, even if build by the way, due to lack of dockingcapacity in that part of the world, restricting their use to the home waters around the UK only. The Italians were awayre of that naturally, otherwise they would not have signed the Washington Naval treaty in the first place. They had a good, but lightly protected fast battleships almost ready for commissioning in the early 20's by the way, which was rougly comparable to the larger faster HMS Hood adn superior to other designs in most aspects.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by HMS Warspite

The Cavour and Andrea Doria were never intended to engage ships more than twice their own size, if you compare them with the G-3 and so on type. This G-3 was not likley to be seen in the Mediteranean, even if build by the way, due to lack of dockingcapacity in that part of the world, restricting their use to the home waters around the UK only. The Italians were awayre of that naturally, otherwise they would not have signed the Washington Naval treaty in the first place. They had a good, but lightly protected fast battleships almost ready for commissioning in the early 20's by the way, which was rougly comparable to the larger faster HMS Hood adn superior to other designs in most aspects.

do you mean the Caracciolos? I thought WW1 made their completion impossible and there was no real chance of them being built after 1918. I used them as a 35000t benchmark on my post #79

[sharlin]

One could have been completed, the guns were ready (and used in WW1) and If memory serves the hull was considered for use as being completed and turned into a tanker or fast freighter of some nature.

[HMS Warspite]

Originally Posted by AdA

do you mean the Caracciolos? I thought WW1 made their completion impossible and there was no real chance of them being built after 1918. I used them as a 35000t benchmark on my post #79

The lead vessel was already launched, although not fully completed in wartime, due to more urgent needs for the industry. The hull was complete, including machinery though. Thoughts were made to either convert her into a passenger liner, or even an aircraft carrier. to have completed her as a battleship would have been a burden for the limmited and bankrupt Italian economy, so the ship was disposed off. (as was the Leonardo Da Vinci, which was salvaged, but not rebuild, after her internal explosion by the way. Completing her would be a problem for the financial situation of post war Italy.)

[AdA]

details here...
http://books.google.pt/books?id=dytT...arrier&f=false