Probably not but the threat, apart from fomenting world wide revolution by workers, the SU threatens Europe, China and India by land making it most people's problem.
Probably not but the threat, apart from fomenting world wide revolution by workers, the SU threatens Europe, China and India by land making it most people's problem.Would any government pre-Cold War have considered the Soviets as a potential naval "sleeping giant"
What’s the WTRE?Remind me never to open the WTRE again. It is a TVTropes level rabbit hole.
Anyway, one of their proposals was to sell the Cats to the Dutch...
Unlikely RN had bases everywhere and US had a large section of its electorate who did not want to fund expeditionary stuff, if they are buying more warship they will if anything be even more short for money.Might the US (or the RN?) put some money into fleet tankers or other auxiliaries? I'm thinking partial subsidy, with the wartime right-of-navy-use caveat.
Yes the 13.5"RN/14"USN/IJN are no longer viable against the major navies but against minor navies especially for RN against the Europeans ie France & Italians who are likely to still have the OTL ships due to funding from after WW1, a 13.5" ship will still be very useful against French 4x305/3x340mm or the Italian 5x 12" ships that make up the bulk of the European fleets until the late 30s? (not sure if France would build say one of Béarn or another ship in class etc as a BB using the material they had made so far for entire class without WNT for 1 extra ship, but it don't really matter)The WNT had the effect of making Super Dreadnoughts 13.5"/14" viable longer. This isn't the case. In particular, as pointed out the 13.5" ships need to be refitted. Their engines are direct drive, boilers are coal fired, they are not bulged, are lighter gunned than peers (10-13.5" vs 12-14") and optimised for the North Sea. It makes perfect sense to replace these with N3 and perhaps a follow on class depending if the US continues on slow BB or moves to a fast Battleship. After the G3 and N3 we are talking mid-late 1920's when even the Iron Dukes should be up for disposal, especially if expensive refits are skipped.
By this stage the RN are really stuck for potential foes. Treasury wont accept the US as a potential adversary and Japan is in alliance leaving French or Italian navies as the bogey-man. Swapping 2 25,000 ton old ships for a new built 50,000 ton one is a really good deal IF the RN can make a convincing enough pitch.
A project by a bunch of online serious naval nuts to roleplay the Washington Treaty negotiations to see if they could learn anything. It has to be 15 years old now. There is a huge word doc overview floating around but goodness knows what happened to the role play. One of the things that came out of it was the discovery/popularising that the UK could afford the G3s on the budget settings of the day.What’s the WTRE?
I can't but think of the French old battleships in WW2. Absolute death traps.Unlikely RN had bases everywhere and US had a large section of its electorate who did not want to fund expeditionary stuff, if they are buying more warship they will if anything be even more short for money.
Yes the 13.5"RN/14"USN/IJN are no longer viable against the major navies but against minor navies especially for RN against the Europeans ie France & Italians who are likely to still have the OTL ships due to funding from after WW1, a 13.5" ship will still be very useful against French 4x305/3x340mm or the Italian 5x 12" ships that make up the bulk of the European fleets until the late 30s? (not sure if France would build say one of Béarn or another ship in class etc as a BB using the material they had made so far for entire class without WNT for 1 extra ship, but it don't really matter)
I agree RN and others would skip refit, but I doubt they would be disposed they would just be tied up in forgotten rivers for the next 10-20 years like RN did pre WW1 and USN did post WW2 for very little money, and they are still far better than HMS Jervis Bay or HMS Rawalpindi..... even if they might still die like the WW1 old ships did.
Yes this is all true, but keeping the 13.5" ships in a river for next to nothing means that if you need to send the G3s (and N3s) to the far east to fight IJN you can reactivate the 13.5" to guard UK otherwise you are stuck in OTL situation that you can't realistically send a sufficient force east.I can't but think of the French old battleships in WW2. Absolute death traps.
I think we need to remember the role of a battle cruiser. Tootle half way around the world at 20 knt. Catch and smash the weaker opposition, then be back home in time for kippers. It is not hard to imagine a G3 in this role. Use their speed to base out of swing points like Gibraltar. Brutalise the older Italian ships, then back to the Rock.
For a 13.5" battleship to do the role they need multiple ships The lack of speed means they need to be closer to Italy. This meanins more 13.5" battleships at Gibraltar for the same coverage. So much for the crew savings. You can begin to see how one G3 replaces four battleships. This goes back to Jackie Fisher, Dreadnought, and Invincible. Speed is more than a tactical power. It is a strategic power.
Of course if someone is willing to pay the bill they can have super ships too. That is why N3s exist. But that is an expensive game and only a few nations can play it.
Why would you want to cut the Hawkins class cruiser without total hindsight of WNT? They are by far the best existing cruisers existing until the post WNT building rush?I know this will be shouted down but here goes:-
In 1918 at the armistice the RN realise that the Hawkins class cruiser is not what it really needs, so the construction of the unlaunched three are suspended on the slips.
In 1919 it is decided to use the three sets of boilers and turbines from these ships to re-engine and boiler the Three surviving "cats", Lion , Princess Royal and Tiger. This not only rejuvenates them but also reduces their crew numbers for peace time deployment. With oil tanks replacing bunkers their torpedo protection is somewhat improved as well.
whether later they all get Kongo type rebuilds is another matter.
Lion and Princess Royal could possibly loose their Q turrets, so that they can get more deck armour thus making them similar in profile to the two R class battle cruisers.
The KGV's 14" gun was IIRC designed to fit on the slides of the existing 13.5" mount so if they were to be fully rebuilt later they could perhaps be up gunned at the same time.
Imagine force Z with Repulse, Renown, Lion, Princess Royal and Tiger plus a couple of Ark Royal class carriers, Dream on!!
To be fair, with all these butterflies would that Task Force and combat situation even happen as OTL?I know this will be shouted down but here goes:-
In 1918 at the armistice the RN realise that the Hawkins class cruiser is not what it really needs, so the construction of the unlaunched three are suspended on the slips.
In 1919 it is decided to use the three sets of boilers and turbines from these ships to re-engine and boiler the Three surviving "cats", Lion , Princess Royal and Tiger. This not only rejuvenates them but also reduces their crew numbers for peace time deployment. With oil tanks replacing bunkers their torpedo protection is somewhat improved as well.
whether later they all get Kongo type rebuilds is another matter.
Lion and Princess Royal could possibly loose their Q turrets, so that they can get more deck armour thus making them similar in profile to the two R class battle cruisers.
The KGV's 14" gun was IIRC designed to fit on the slides of the existing 13.5" mount so if they were to be fully rebuilt later they could perhaps be up gunned at the same time.
Imagine force Z with Repulse, Renown, Lion, Princess Royal and Tiger plus a couple of Ark Royal class carriers, Dream on!!
I carriers are cost-effective, battleships are very much not,
And how useful was that 35k tons battleship, compared to the carrier? I say this as an absolute fan of battleships who thinks that they were killed some 20 years too early by the poor showing of Japanese AA: if you need to wring the most use out of a capital ship, carriers were the way to go from at least mid-WW2. Still think battleships were the go-to for ship-to-ship fights, ideally! But a navy isn't made only for ship-to-ship fights.What costs are you using for carriers? The RN's official accounting was that even in peacetime, when aircraft lasted for five years, a 23,000 ton carrier cost about 125% as much as a 35,000 ton battleship to own and run on an annualised basis.
In wartime you're looking at closer to five weeks lifetime for each carrier aircraft, which ramps up costs enormously when you allow for keeping 300-400% back-up of aircraft and aircrew in the supply chain at all times to replace wastage.
At the same time, though, the Royal Navy is facing block obsolescence of its cruiser fleet and really can’t afford to let go of three fast, modern, well-armed ships. This especially when everyone and their mother was circling toward building 8” cruisers in numbers.Why cancel the three unfinished Hawkin's class? because come the cessation of hostilities it becomes clear to the Admiralty that the threat of large German cruisers that the Hawkins had been designed to counter had and would now never exist.
As to Force Z, one can but dream.
And at the same point the British now need cruisers for cruising, rather than scouting in the North Sea. The wartime C&D class are awfully cramped, while the Hawkins class are not and thus better suited for long duration cruisers to maintain the Empire. The Hawkins being larger also have vastly better upgrade potential than any existing cruiser classWhy cancel the three unfinished Hawkin's class? because come the cessation of hostilities it becomes clear to the Admiralty that the threat of large German cruisers that the Hawkins had been designed to counter had and would now never exist.
Would everybody build 8" without the Hawkins? Everybody wanted them but if say the Hawkins had gone for 10x 6" guns in open twins on centre line with side guns cut to save weight or replaced by AA 4" and make more room for aircraft? Would anybody want to push past 6" at WNT (maybe the wrong thread...)?At the same time, though, the Royal Navy is facing block obsolescence of its cruiser fleet and really can’t afford to let go of three fast, modern, well-armed ships. This especially when everyone and their mother was circling toward building 8” cruisers in numbers.
Yes. The Furutakas were a response to the Omahas, and had 8” guns. The French were almost certainly going to go for that to match German Versailles-compliant ships. And if Japan and France are going to 8” guns, the US and Italy are going to match.Would everybody build 8" without the Hawkins? Everybody wanted them but if say the Hawkins had gone for 10x 6" guns in open twins on centre line with side guns cut to save weight or replaced by AA 4" and make more room for aircraft? Would anybody want to push past 6" at WNT (maybe the wrong thread...)?
And how useful was that 35k tons battleship, compared to the carrier? I say this as an absolute fan of battleships who thinks that they were killed some 20 years too early by the poor showing of Japanese AA: if you need to wring the most use out of a capital ship, carriers were the way to go from at least mid-WW2. Still think battleships were the go-to for ship-to-ship fights, ideally! But a navy isn't made only for ship-to-ship fights.
I understand it's tangential at best, but could you please send me the doc(s) in PM or post them here for future reference? I can't seem to be able to find a working link.There is a huge word doc overview floating around
Attached. Sorry about the zip. The boards don't allow doc, but the allow zip?I understand it's tangential at best, but could you please send me the doc(s) in PM or post them here for future reference? I can't seem to be able to find a working link.