Washington Naval Treaty Fails

[Julius Vogel]

Originally Posted by 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

Looks like an interesting book, although rare, if Amazon UK's price of £120 or so is anything to go by.

Are you the MarkLBailey of France Fights On/APOD?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Eternity

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.

Eternity

Interesting about that duplication. As I referenced I had read that one reason Bismarck was disabled so quickly was that the low main armoured belt meant a lot of the internal communications were knocked out after the 1st few hits.

As you say the Bismarck was a lot better protected in a short ranged slog. However as WWI showed this was pretty unlikely unless you got something like the WWII encounters in the Pacific where terrain/inexperience prevented longer ranged fire. Especially once radar was adopted for ships there was little chance of the Bismarck getting close and Rodney only closed to pound her once the ship was largely disabled I believe.

Steve

[stevep]

Originally Posted by AdA

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...

AdA

Since as late as Dec 41 it was uncertain if/when the US would enter the conflict and it had repeated raised doubts about 'fighting to defend European colonies' I think this would be an unreliable statement even in OTL. In the proposed TL without a treaty where the US would probably seek to present the RN as its greatest rival, if only for budgetary reasons, I think it would be less likely still.

Steve

[PMN1]

SealordLawrence on the Warship Projects board found a 1926 paper on the Rosyth dockyard.

http://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/Docu...9/A1899774.PDF

The diagram on Page 62 shows plans for 5 additional docks, three of which look close to over 1,000ft long.

I wonder if the RN was planning for the possibility of very large battleships at some time in the future?

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by stevep

Eternity

Interesting about that duplication. As I referenced I had read that one reason Bismarck was disabled so quickly was that the low main armoured belt meant a lot of the internal communications were knocked out after the 1st few hits.

As you say the Bismarck was a lot better protected in a short ranged slog. However as WWI showed this was pretty unlikely unless you got something like the WWII encounters in the Pacific where terrain/inexperience prevented longer ranged fire. Especially once radar was adopted for ships there was little chance of the Bismarck getting close and Rodney only closed to pound her once the ship was largely disabled I believe.

Steve

If memory serves the RN sighted the Bismarck at about 23,000 yards (Range of horizon), and opened fire shortly thereafter. The problem Bismarck had was that a lucky hit took out her bridge (Central Control) early on, and another her gunnery director shortly after, forcing the guns to go to local control. Once the main guns were silenced (Within 25 minutes), then the RN closed to 3 miles to pound her.

For comparision, I believe the Battle of Jutland was fought at ranges of between 10 and 4 miles (For the main action, not the Battlecruiser action), and this would have been the range the Germans designed Bismarck for.

For reference, I have 'Anatomy of the ship Bismarck', along with 'Hood and Bismarck' and 'The Battlecruiser HMS Hood', all of which go into detail about either the final battle or Bismarck's design. I will see if I can dig them out later, and find the correct pages and references.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Eternity

If memory serves the RN sighted the Bismarck at about 23,000 yards (Range of horizon), and opened fire shortly thereafter. The problem Bismarck had was that a lucky hit took out her bridge (Central Control) early on, and another her gunnery director shortly after, forcing the guns to go to local control. Once the main guns were silenced (Within 25 minutes), then the RN closed to 3 miles to pound her.

For comparision, I believe the Battle of Jutland was fought at ranges of between 10 and 4 miles (For the main action, not the Battlecruiser action), and this would have been the range the Germans designed Bismarck for.

For reference, I have 'Anatomy of the ship Bismarck', along with 'Hood and Bismarck' and 'The Battlecruiser HMS Hood', all of which go into detail about either the final battle or Bismarck's design. I will see if I can dig them out later, and find the correct pages and references.

Eternity

Thanks, that would be useful. I have read the version I suggested in a number of places over the years but could be that its another myth. She did get knocked out quickly but whether that was luck, good shooting or poor design?

Steve

Steve

[AdA]

Originally Posted by stevep

AdA

Since as late as Dec 41 it was uncertain if/when the US would enter the conflict and it had repeated raised doubts about 'fighting to defend European colonies' I think this would be an unreliable statement even in OTL. In the proposed TL without a treaty where the US would probably seek to present the RN as its greatest rival, if only for budgetary reasons, I think it would be less likely still.

Steve

In a non WNT world either the USN would be to big for a Pearl Harbour analogue attack to cripple her, or Japan would have been forced out of Pacific ambitions by a financial crises. Either way, a Pacific war would be less likely, and the RN could safely leave the bigger USN of this timeline to guard the Pacific.
A Anglo American rivalry would be more a matter of prestige than military realities.

[AdA]

To clarify, in a General War, it was pretty sure that the French, The Brits and the US would at least not be on opposite sides. The French were No1 in the Med, the Brits in the Atlantic, The US in the Pacific. With France out, the RN could not, in any non ASB timeline, hold the three oceans alone against Italy, Germany and Japan in 1940/...
It had to leave the Pacific to the USN and hope for the best.

[sharlin]

One small point re the rubbish shells on the Nelrod (and in turn the G3's) guns

2) According to "Naval Weapons of World War Two," a 2,250 lbs. (1,021 kg) APC shell was proposed to correct some of the problems encountered by the too-light shell, but "financial stringencies in the early 1930s prevented any change." It was estimated that a 506 lbs. (229.5 kg) charge of SC381 would give this heavier projectile a new-gun muzzle velocity of 2,575 fps (785 mps) and a range of 40,500 yards (37,030 m) at an elevation of 40 degrees.

thats from naval weapons.com

If AdA in your TL idea the RN didn't build battleships then money saved could go on these heavier shells. Yes that would not fix the issues with the turrets but these were solved by 1939 on the Nelrods at any rate and in action the 16 inchers were more reliable than the 14 inchers of the KGVs.

[sharlin]

Originally Posted by stevep

Eternity

Interesting about that duplication. As I referenced I had read that one reason Bismarck was disabled so quickly was that the low main armoured belt meant a lot of the internal communications were knocked out after the 1st few hits.

As you say the Bismarck was a lot better protected in a short ranged slog. However as WWI showed this was pretty unlikely unless you got something like the WWII encounters in the Pacific where terrain/inexperience prevented longer ranged fire. Especially once radar was adopted for ships there was little chance of the Bismarck getting close and Rodney only closed to pound her once the ship was largely disabled I believe.

Steve

Very right SteveP the Bismark was a very tough ship to sink, thanks to the german fetish for internal subdivision and her thick armour but it turned out she was easy to disable. The 'weak' shells of the Rodney knocked out two turrets (Anton and Bruno) with one hit early in the engagement whilst the Suffolk who I swear had gunnery rangefinder seeking shells also disabled the Bis's main FC with a bloody lucky hit at around the same time

[AdA]

Originally Posted by sharlin

One small point re the rubbish shells on the Nelrod (and in turn the G3's) guns

2) According to "Naval Weapons of World War Two," a 2,250 lbs. (1,021 kg) APC shell was proposed to correct some of the problems encountered by the too-light shell, but "financial stringencies in the early 1930s prevented any change." It was estimated that a 506 lbs. (229.5 kg) charge of SC381 would give this heavier projectile a new-gun muzzle velocity of 2,575 fps (785 mps) and a range of 40,500 yards (37,030 m) at an elevation of 40 degrees.

thats from naval weapons.com

If AdA in your TL idea the RN didn't build battleships then money saved could go on these heavier shells. Yes that would not fix the issues with the turrets but these were solved by 1939 on the Nelrods at any rate and in action the 16 inchers were more reliable than the 14 inchers of the KGVs.

The 16''only got a bad rep because they were compared to the USN 16'', wich was the best in the world. The G3 would be eligible for a upgrade in the 30s, and work on the ammo, and even on the weapons themselves, might be possible. The G3 would also be much more loved by the RN than the Nelsons, so lots of TLC would go their way, particulary if the RN takes you hint and shelves the R class...
Most people defend a 15'' option on the Nelsons within the context of devoting some weigh, along with the 1500t or so they had under the treaty, to a bit more speed...

[AdA]

So how would cruisers develop without the WNT?
My guess is that Italian and French cruisers would follow their OTL 6'' CL lines, but money saved on the treaty cruisers would allow more of them, earlier.
The US had a clear need for large cruisers for the Pacific, and the Lexingtons took care of the Battle Fleet recconissance in force needs, so that would lead to what? A more modern successor to the Omahas?
And would the German PBs, still make sense in an Atlantic full of fast capital ships (more surviving BC+G3)
And if built, would they lead to response in the form of super cruisers?
There were a number of cruiser killer 15/20000t concepts that were not allowed unde the treaty, but could be built in this TL...

[stevep]

Originally Posted by AdA

So how would cruisers develop without the WNT?
My guess is that Italian and French cruisers would follow their OTL 6'' CL lines, but money saved on the treaty cruisers would allow more of them, earlier.
The US had a clear need for large cruisers for the Pacific, and the Lexingtons took care of the Battle Fleet recconissance in force needs, so that would lead to what? A more modern successor to the Omahas?
And would the German PBs, still make sense in an Atlantic full of fast capital ships (more surviving BC+G3)
And if built, would they lead to response in the form of super cruisers?
There were a number of cruiser killer 15/20000t concepts that were not allowed unde the treaty, but could be built in this TL...

Ada

As some people have said there are a number of options. I think Mark is right that the RN would tend to go for larger number of lighter ships. Along with possibly his idea of a couple of the old I class BCs updated for use in the Pacific especially, which sound like they could be very effective cruiser killers.

With the USN presumably some replacement for the Ohama's when funds [AKA Congress] permit. Probably something similar to the OTL treaty cruisers, perhaps a little larger to allow more protection or guns. As they will find if they convert any the Lexingtons will be better scouts as carriers than as BCs.

For the Germans I suspect something like the PBS are still likely. Some sources suggest they were directed more towards Poland and France than Britain especially since TTL even more than OTL Germany would be totally outclassed against the RN. Also they were technically replacements for elderly pre-dreads and limited by treaty to 10k tons. The Germans stretched the ships about as much as they could, with a 11% excess over 'official' tonnage but they couldn't have done much more. Also not sure if Germany at the time had much more capacity as they had to rebuild their design and construction capacity from scratch. Hence I think they would produce something similar. Still potentially useful ships, especially if more capital ships meant less carrier development, although definitely more exposed as markedly more fast ships are available to the allies.

In terms of the response I think the Strasbourg's were designed at least in part as a response to the PBS.

For Japan I think a lot would depend on how things develop in the country after the 23 quake. Japan is going to have to give up on naval plans for a few years at least and what type of government emerges from this period, and then probably the depression, would greatly effect what their naval plans and actual construction are.

For France and Italy, at least until Germany starts rearming, their both exhausted for a decade or two and staring at each other so they will tend to counter each other's moves. Probably not too dissimilar to OTL for those two powers.

Steve

[HMS Warspite]

Originally Posted by AdA

So how would cruisers develop without the WNT?
My guess is that Italian and French cruisers would follow their OTL 6'' CL lines, but money saved on the treaty cruisers would allow more of them, earlier.
The US had a clear need for large cruisers for the Pacific, and the Lexingtons took care of the Battle Fleet recconissance in force needs, so that would lead to what? A more modern successor to the Omahas?
And would the German PBs, still make sense in an Atlantic full of fast capital ships (more surviving BC+G3)
And if built, would they lead to response in the form of super cruisers?
There were a number of cruiser killer 15/20000t concepts that were not allowed unde the treaty, but could be built in this TL...

The USN actually had no real interest in the cruiser, as it was putely battleship forcussed in the early 20's, before the Washington Naval treaty came out. The Omaha's were seen basically as scouts for lesser needs, where the large Lexingtons were not needed, besides leading DesRons in combat, which was seen as a siderol, as the USN hardly had any seagoing destroyers for the fleet in deep water operations. (The flushdeckers were poor seaboats and certainly a bit short legged.)

With the Washington Treaty the Lexingtons were banned and the USN actually sought an substitute for the banned capital ships in terms of firepower, which eventually was the 8 inch gunned cruiser. The heavy cruiser was therefore not born out of a real need fro the type, but more as a result of the buildingholliday for the battleships. (In Japan a simmilar development took place, as the first real treaty cruiser design by Hiraga and Fujimoto, the Myoko class, was to be a ship sronger than any foreign cruiser likely to be build and strong enough, at least in firepower, to hold her own against a battleline, especially during a nocturnal strike. Japanese therefore put serious attention on arming the cruisers with torpedoes of the heaviest types available. The USN did just the opposit, making her cruisers pure artillery ships, with all the disadvantages of that in combat, where they were a disappointment, compared to the more usefull 6 inch cruiser, which had a higher rate of fire.)

[King Augeas]

Originally Posted by sharlin

Very right SteveP the Bismark was a very tough ship to sink, thanks to the german fetish for internal subdivision and her thick armour but it turned out she was easy to disable. The 'weak' shells of the Rodney knocked out two turrets (Anton and Bruno) with one hit early in the engagement whilst the Suffolk who I swear had gunnery rangefinder seeking shells also disabled the Bis's main FC with a bloody lucky hit at around the same time

Well, short of blowing up, no 50,000 tonne battleship is going to sink quickly from gunfire. But was Bismarck any easier to disable than her contemporaries? While a thick belt will effectively protect a ship's engines and buoyancy, will a large-calibre hit on a conning tower, director or gunhouse disable it regardless of plausible armour levels, even if it doesn't penetrate? Certainly armouring of radars is impossible.

I can think of a good number of disabling heavy hits on directors or turrets, but not of any non-disabling ones, but that might just be because non-disabling hits don't get talked about. But if it is the case that a heavy hit on a critical location will disable it, then it suggest that fire control, volume of fire and pure dumb luck would be the most important factors in battleship engagements.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by King Augeas

Well, short of blowing up, no 50,000 tonne battleship is going to sink quickly from gunfire. But was Bismarck any easier to disable than her contemporaries? While a thick belt will effectively protect a ship's engines and buoyancy, will a large-calibre hit on a conning tower, director or gunhouse disable it regardless of plausible armour levels, even if it doesn't penetrate? Certainly armouring of radars is impossible.

I can think of a good number of disabling heavy hits on directors or turrets, but not of any non-disabling ones, but that might just be because non-disabling hits don't get talked about. But if it is the case that a heavy hit on a critical location will disable it, then it suggest that fire control, volume of fire and pure dumb luck would be the most important factors in battleship engagements.

King Augeas

With buoyancy and engines protected the ship won't sink and can steam, provided that it doesn't have the sort of problem that the Bismarck had with the rudder damage. However if its guns are knocked out, either by directly destroying them or the related services [intel on targets, ability to bring shells and powder up from below] its pretty much mission dead at least. Also if the bridge crew are knocked out again its suffered serious damage to its performance unless and until some alternative command centre is in place to co-ordinate.

Steve

[docfl]

A look at what might of been can be seen in the Navy Spring Style books. This one is from 1911 to 1925. You can google navy spring style books to find others.
docfl

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by marklbailey

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

Thanks Mark!

Originally Posted by stevep

Eternity

Thanks, that would be useful. I have read the version I suggested in a number of places over the years but could be that its another myth. She did get knocked out quickly but whether that was luck, good shooting or poor design?

Steve

Steve, check out the Anatomy of the ship Bismarck references. The plans pages list the various compartments, so I can confirm that (According to them) the the main control station was on the upper platform deck and both the main artillery fire control rooms were on the middle platform deck. The top of the upper platform deck is the main armour deck, and just below the waterline. Oviously, things like range finders cannot be duplicated below the armour decks, and as far as I recall, these are what were knocked out - Not her ability to calculate angles of shot etc.

Now, from what I recall, Bismarck's turrets were knocked out in the following manners:

Anton - Loss of hydraulic pressure to barrels (But still able to fire if they could train & elevate). Same 16" hit that took out bridge/forward control station.
Bruno - Disabled at the same time as Anton, but fired again later in the battle. Finally silenced by direct hit that blew out the back of the turret (I presume it was a 16" hit).
Casar - Disabled by a 14" direct hit to the forward face. Shock of hit disabled elevation and training gear.
Dora - A shell exploded in the barrel, disabling turret.

Also, Bismarck had over 2,876 shells fired it her during her final battle. Of those, and estimated 300-400 found their targets. Under that sort of barrage, it would be staggering if she continued to fire for long - The law of averages says that many of those hits would be serious. As an example: 2x 14" and 1x 16" shell penetrated the barbette of Dora turret during the battle. I think I read that a couple of 16" shells did the same to Bruno turret's barbette as well.

Anyway, according to the book I have here, Rodney opened fire at 08:47 and her foretop range finder was hit at 09:02, and was the first hit scored (That's just bloody bad luck really!). She was further seriously hit at 09:12 (Aft command post, direct hit to the rangefinders) and 09:13 (Forward command post/bridge, direct hit) which also took out her forward turrets (50% of her firepower down in 1 hit!). She took a beating though as recent investigation of the wreck shows a few shells penetrated the main armour belt, but nothing penetrated the torpedo bulkhead below the waterline, meaning that British shells did not sink her.

References:
Anatony of the Ship Bismarck. Pages 11, 38-55 (Plans & deck layouts)
KM Bismarck.com
Bismarck's Final Battle @ navweaps.com

[sharlin]

Lets not start the discussion on if the RN sunk her or not, she was doomed even if the RN ships shot out all their ammo and she somehow survived all that.

RE Cruisers the RN would need to replace its WW1 built and cruisers they were built for the North sea and were not that long ranged and with their open gunmounts growing obsolete they would need to be replaced. So you could see a large number of Leander type cruisers or the smaller Arethusa classes. The RN started the trend for large cruisers with the Hawkins class and if other nations built cruisers to rival them and exceed them then you can bet the RN would build a reply IE the Counties, which were superb ships when it came to long range, seaworthyness and comfort for the crews. Also when built they were probably the best protected cruisers in the world against aircraft attack.

[King Augeas]

Originally Posted by Eternity

The top of the upper platform deck is the main armour deck, and just below the waterline.

She took a beating though as recent investigation of the wreck shows a few shells penetrated the main armour belt, but nothing penetrated the torpedo bulkhead below the waterline, meaning that British shells did not sink her.

References:
Anatony of the Ship Bismarck. Pages 11, 38-55 (Plans & deck layouts)
KM Bismarck.com
Bismarck's Final Battle @ navweaps.com

This doesn't make much sense to me. What's so important about the torpedo bulkhead? We know that heavy shells penetrated and exploded in the engineering spaces:

There are reports of heavy shells exploding in the port turbine room and in one of the starboard boiler rooms between 0920-0930, when Rodney was at ranges of less than 9,000 meters. Mr. Statz has confirmed these two shell hits and stated that one was near his position in Damage Control Center, thereby preventing his escape aft with the party of Commander Oels. This shell exploded in the starboard boiler room, started a fuel oil fire and burst steam pipes.

This requires a penetration of the belt or the main armour deck. You state that the main armour deck was just below the waterline, which would be a problem, as perforation of the upper belt would allow flooding to spread out across the top of the main armour deck and to enter the turbine and boiler rooms via the shell holes.

Actually, http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html states that the main armour deck was actually about a meter above the waterline, but maybe the combination of flooding from POW's hits, counterflooding to correct the list, subsequent damage in the final battle and the heavy seas had reduce that meter of clearance to the extent that flooding could occur freely through the heavy shell holes into the citadel. In any case, it seems clear that gun penetration of the torpedo bulkhead isn't important. Of course, this doesn't tell us anything of the significance of scuttling attempts, but it does suggest that gunfire had significantly decreased Bismarck's buoyancy and stability.