Pocket battleships for minor navies

Wether the Pocket Battleships, a modern take on the armoured cruiser theme were the right ships for the KM is an interesting debate. But were those vessels just a product of Versailles imposed restrictions or a useful concept.
Would the PB be a useful option for minor navies looking for a ship that could challenge a cruiser squadron showing an unwelcome flag,or to threaten a rival's communications.? Plus, with no need to look under ten K tons, they could get an improved design.
My POD would be Brasil ordering two improved Deutshlands as a heavier counter to the Argentine 25 de Maio class cruisers, with other navies liking the idea and following the trend.
Any thoughts on the matter?

I think there is a strong consensus that the Pocket Battleships were not a good concept. The same thing applies to the various equivalents of the pocket battleships over the years.

The major problem is that they don't give you real bang for the buck. Yes, they are better than standard cruisers, but not outstandingly so - so they don't perform the job of normal cruisers any better and who cost less. They fail at doing the role of battleship because true battleships outclass them easily.

Minor or regional powers who want a navy would be best advised to simply keep to the standard types. If Brazil wants to overpower Argentina, it needs a battleship, not multiple pocket battleships. If it sticks to cruisers, it would be better serve simply building more standard cruisers, not having less ships with more powerful guns.

The only thing the pocket battleships really excelled at were as commerce raiders since their heavier armor protected them from standard cruiser shells, and their big guns allowed them to pick off ships from a much farther distance. However, no navy except the German ever needed that role, so the one thing they were very good at is not a mission capacility on any other navy needs.

Blackfox5 said:

I think there is a strong consensus that the Pocket Battleships were not a good concept. The same thing applies to the various equivalents of the pocket battleships over the years.

The major problem is that they don't give you real bang for the buck. Yes, they are better than standard cruisers, but not outstandingly so - so they don't perform the job of normal cruisers any better and who cost less. They fail at doing the role of battleship because true battleships outclass them easily.

Minor or regional powers who want a navy would be best advised to simply keep to the standard types. If Brazil wants to overpower Argentina, it needs a battleship, not multiple pocket battleships. If it sticks to cruisers, it would be better serve simply building more standard cruisers, not having less ships with more powerful guns.

The only thing the pocket battleships really excelled at were as commerce raiders since their heavier armor protected them from standard cruiser shells, and their big guns allowed them to pick off ships from a much farther distance. However, no navy except the German ever needed that role, so the one thing they were very good at is not a mission capacility on any other navy needs.

Click to expand...

All navies who could fight an opponent who traded by sea might consider that mission. The Argentinian navy had two modernised BB vs a single non modernised Brasilian one, and two CA to Nil. Just buying cruisers would require them to be either bigger or in larger numbers. Two improved PBs would outgun the Argentine CAs! outrun their BB, and be a lot cheaper than a new BB...

AdA said:

Any thoughts on the matter?

Click to expand...

Yes.

There was such a thing as the dedicated coastal defence battleship. It sacrificed speed and range for armour and firepower.

Slowpoke said:

Yes.

There was such a thing as the dedicated coastal defence battleship. It sacrificed speed and range for armour and firepower.

Click to expand...

For smaller areas of operations. Not for the big south American coastlines and open waters...

AdA said:

All navies who could fight an opponent who traded by sea might consider that mission. The Argentinian navy had two modernised BB vs a single non modernised Brasilian one, and two CA to Nil. Just buying cruisers would require them to be either bigger or in larger numbers. Two improved PBs would outgun the Argentine CAs! outrun their BB, and be a lot cheaper than a new BB...

Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt the Brazilians would be sending out the very few capital ships they have to scour the Atlantic Ocean looking for ships that are bound for Buenos Aires. That is what commerce raiders do. Targets of opportunity are too low for the few ships sent out to find them. It would be a waste of those ships.

If they want to blockade Argentina, they need to control the sea approaches which means they need to overpower the Argentinean navy. They don't need commerce raiders, but a combined fleet which would be better served by larger numbers of smaller cruisers (or one true battleship), not pocket battleships.

Navies need to define their mission, and do that. Not waste expensive assets on secondary missions. No other navy needs commerce raiders than Germany, and given the relatively few ships sunk by the German commerce raiders, it may not even have been worth it for them. There are much cheaper solutions - like subs.

You're missing the building opportunity the treaty of Washington creates. Major navies could not counter a PB with the natural response, larger CAs or BC, because they had to follow BB/BC quotas and couldn't build cruisers bigger than 10K nor with guns larger than 8''

Subs the Argentinians could sink. Pocket Battleshisp they couldn't. The Rivadavias were too slow, the 25 de Maios too light. A ship that can't be countered is a powerful psychological weapon...

And PB are not capital ships. They're just different cruisers, not necessarily much more expensive than a CA...

You are being inconsistent now. The Washington Treaty is completely meaningless to anyone who is not one of the 5 signatory powers. So if Brazil gets a PB, Argentina could get a true battleship if it wanted. If you are talking about any of the 5 signatory powers, they already have tons of real battleships and battlecruisers that could handle whatever few PB might be built.

Considering that Admiral Graf Spree was defeated by one heavy cruiser and two light cruisers, I think it shows the limitations of the concept. Yes, the Graf Spree suffered mostly minimal damage and did more damage, nevertheless it goes to show that even in an ideal situation facing opponents the PBs were supposed to outclass, they could still lose.

I am not absolutely sure of relative expense between PBs and standard cruisers, but I think they are much more expensive than you do. Here are some comparisons.

• Graf Spree cost 82 million reichsmark (or about US$32 million).
• British light cruisers tended to be around 1.5 million pounds (about US$7.5 million).
• The US New Orleans class heavy cruiser were about US$12 million.

So for the cost of a Graf Spree, you could get almost three heavy cruisers, or two heavy cruisers and 1 light cruiser. Those aren't bad odds. So if Brazil gets 2 PBs, if we assume Argentina can match the purchase, they can get 4 CA and 2 CLs. That is a lot of firepower to bring to bear.

The cost of a WWI era Pennsvlvania class battleship was USD $15 million. Even given inflation and some modernization, that's a better investment than buying one PB. Similar analysis on costs for other battlecruiser types are around the same - they simply aren't worth the cost. They are much more expensive than normal cruisers, and almost as expensive as a true BB.

Did Germany have the spare dockyard capacity to build extra pocket battleships?

And if so, wouldn't the very first one that ended up in foreign hands show just how much they'd been cheating on the 10,000 tonne limit?

Blackfox5 said:

You are being inconsistent now. The Washington Treaty is completely meaningless to anyone who is not one of the 5 signatory powers. So if Brazil gets a PB, Argentina could get a true battleship if it wanted. If you are talking about any of the 5 signatory powers, they already have tons of real battleships and battlecruisers that could handle whatever few PB might be built.

Considering that Admiral Graf Spree was defeated by one heavy cruiser and two light cruisers, I think it shows the limitations of the concept. Yes, the Graf Spree suffered mostly minimal damage and did more damage, nevertheless it goes to show that even in an ideal situation facing opponents the PBs were supposed to outclass, they could still lose.


I am not absolutely sure of relative expense between PBs and standard cruisers, but I think they are much more expensive than you do. Here are some comparisons.

• Graf Spree cost 82 million reichsmark (or about US$32 million).
• British light cruisers tended to be around 1.5 million pounds (about US$7.5 million).
• The US New Orleans class heavy cruiser were about US$12 million.

So for the cost of a Graf Spree, you could get almost three heavy cruisers, or two heavy cruisers and 1 light cruiser. Those aren't bad odds. So if Brazil gets 2 PBs, if we assume Argentina can match the purchase, they can get 4 CA and 2 CLs. That is a lot of firepower to bring to bear.

The cost of a WWI era Pennsvlvania class battleship was USD $15 million. Even given inflation and some modernization, that's a better investment than buying one PB. Similar analysis on costs for other battlecruiser types are around the same - they simply aren't worth the cost. They are much more expensive than normal cruisers, and almost as expensive as a true BB.

Click to expand...

1. Treaty limitations mean that signatary powers can't counter a surge in PB in minor navies by the obvious means of building larger more capable CAs. Of course non signatary navies culd build BB/BC, but they wouldn't be able to aford them.

2. Why would a 14000t ship cost 3x as much as a 10000t one?
The PB were armoured to cruiser standard, powered by cruiser sized engines and the only real diference to a later larger CA, like the Baltimore, was that they packed six 11'' rather than nine 8''. So, unless the guns alone cost as much as two complete cruisers, you can have a PB for a price close to a large CA. Let's consider a British design. Take a county hull, enlarge it to 15000t, improve armour a bit, but not much, replace the 4xtwin 8'' with 3xtwin 12'' from a retired BB/BC but modify the turrets to increase elevation and reduce armour. (If necessary, keep all turrets on the same deck level to reduce top weight problems) Retain the engines to a reduced 27knots speed. You now have a modern day CA that can take out any cruiser and wouldn't be that expensive.
3. BC on the other hand are about the same size as BB, and the only trade off is btw armour and engine power, so a 30000t BC should cost about as much as a 30000t BB

ModernKiwi said:

Did Germany have the spare dockyard capacity to build extra pocket battleships?

And if so, wouldn't the very first one that ended up in foreign hands show just how much they'd been cheating on the 10,000 tonne limit?

Click to expand...

Before 1934, yes, and they could claim it was a different design.

Possible design

Here's an italian 1928 for a PB design. It would be an ideal export design. at 18000t standard, it is a bit more than just an improved Deutschland.

Check link bellow
http://www.bobhenneman.info/18000design.htm

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/currency.htm#tables

Graf Spree cost 82 million reichsmark (or about US$32 million).
That's using the overvalued mark of 1934. the ships were built 1928 to 1934, and the RM was stable at .24 USD until Jan 34, so it would be more like 20 Million dollars for a PB. And building in large very active yards would give US and UK ships a much cheaper unit cost. I'll agree that german ships were probably more expensive than equivalent US or UK ones, not that PB were much more expensive than CA. I'd say their cost was proportional to their true size (40% larger than a treaty CA, and 40 to 50% more expensive:

Deutschland cost 80M RM, wich means a 19M USD cost in 1932.

One thing I have wondered about is was is the real diffence between a pocket battleship and a hevey/normal cruiser? As far as I can tell, not much. Is that range of the main guns the biggest thing apart for weight?

I found a source that had the US / RM coversion rate from 3,6-4,4 which woul put the cost to 19-23 mill US $ - still more than the later US ships...

Richter von Manthofen said:

I found a source that had the US / RM coversion rate from 3,6-4,4 which woul put the cost to 19-23 mill US $ - still more than the later US ships...

Click to expand...

Not if you factor in the size. Assuming 15M for the New Orleans and 19 for the Deutschland, that gives a cost of 1,5M per 1000t for the US ship, and 1.4M per 1000t for the KM one, assuming a true standard displacement close to 14000t for the PB. This would actually make the German vessel cheaper for its size...

Spanish designs

this site:
http://www.bobhenneman.info/Spain.htm
gives some details of projected Spanish PB. Anyone has more details on them?

It might be difficult to get someone to build this ship - the South American states are not able to, and nearly everyone else who could was bound by the treaties - as far as I can remember, there was also a clause included not to build ships that were out of the treaty conventions for other, non-treaty nations.

Vickers-Armstrong owned Spanish yards and might be able to build them there, but could get a friendly notice from the Admiralty to better let it be as to not upset the naval balance. The British lobbied heavily to prevent anyone from building 8'' cruisers for Chile in 1937, even offering Italy to accept its conquest of Abbysinia for not building 8'' cruisers.

tallthinkev said:

One thing I have wondered about is was is the real diffence between a pocket battleship and a hevey/normal cruiser? As far as I can tell, not much. Is that range of the main guns the biggest thing apart for weight?

Click to expand...

It's the destructive power of the main guns. Since ships are normaly built to either resist or control demage from their equals, a 11'' shell would have a devastating efect on a Cruiser, while a 8'' would not. In the only real action in wich that was tested, Graff Spee gave far more damage than it got, despite having to divide its fire. It also gives the PB an option to engage a WW1 era BC, since while it would suffer terrible from a 12 to 15'' shell, at least its guns would do real demage if they scored hits, while, for example, Repulse, would likely sustain little demage from 8'' hits.
So, if for example Lutzow and Scheer met Repulse they would have far better chances than Hipper and Printz Eugen against the old Battle Cruiser. Not good chances, but better.
A bigger ship like the Italian concept with 6x13.5 would have serious firepower, and there is ample WW1 evidence that 11'' and 12'' guns were devastating against cruisers, even armoured ones.

SMS_Viribus_Unitis said:

It might be difficult to get someone to build this ship - the South American states are not able to, and nearly everyone else who could was bound by the treaties - as far as I can remember, there was also a clause included not to build ships that were out of the treaty conventions for other, non-treaty nations.

Vickers-Armstrong owned Spanish yards and might be able to build them there, but could get a friendly notice from the Admiralty to better let it be as to not upset the naval balance. The British lobbied heavily to prevent anyone from building 8'' cruisers for Chile in 1937, even offering Italy to accept its conquest of Abbysinia for not building 8'' cruisers.

Click to expand...

But there would also be a strong interest in exporting after the finantial crises. Italy might be the ideal source, and France might be tempted.
This shipswould certanly cause concern among treaty signers, and might lead to a request for an "escalation" clause allowing for trade protection light Battle Cruisers...