Alternate warships of nations

That's false; manufacturers, for shells at least, used whichever system was desired. The 1886 La Spezia armor trial was explicitly done with a BL 16.25" gun (made by Armstrong) with a Krupp shell (page 13), probably to get the most powerful gun/projectile combination possible as a benchmark to prove that the armor was completely immune to any existing gun. Manufacturers would happily make shells for whatever gun a customer used as long as they got paid. I suspect they'd make whatever gun calibers were desired too; there are plenty of cases in WWI of captured French 75's and other guns being rebored for German calibers, so manufacturers could probably do that from the factory with naval guns too
Since that is exactly backwards to the way a gun is designed.... at least as far as I understand artillery, this being that one designs the base shell first and then builds the gun and propellant load around it, I would like to comment on that test.

The people who ran that test were allegedly trying to weapon proof (er… armor proof) plate for coast artillery gun mounts for La Spezia, the Italian naval base. The mounts were supposed to be the landed gun houses for the mounting of a pair of Krupp 40 cm (note the metric bore diameter?)/L27 naval guns that operated with brown powder propellant, this being 1886. Now this was SMACK in the middle of a guns/armor race between the Italians and the British. I'm pulling this information from a book entitled

"Textbook of Gunnery" by Major G. Macinlay R.A. , Printed by St Martins (1887 edition)

and also the article in Scientific American about the British BL 16.25 110 ton naval rifle tests.

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SUPPLEMENT NO. 586; NEW YORK, MARCH 26, 1887

Firing Trial of the 110 1/2 ton Elswick Gun

The following figures are authoritative: Length over all, 524 in.; length of bore, 487.5 in. (30 calibers). The breech engages in the breech piece, leaving the A tube with its full strength for tangential strain (vide Fig.). The A tube is in a single piece instead of two lengths, as in the case of the Italia guns. It is supplied to Elswick from Whitworth's works, one of the few in England where such a tube could be made. There are four layers of metal hoops over the breech. Copper and bronze are used to give longitudinal strength. The obturation is a modification of the De Bange system, proposed by Vavasseur.
The Grauson plate test was a one-off Sheboygan to specifically test expected maximum BRITISH gun performance against the contracted German cast iron plate that was to be the face plate on the fortification. It was a "special" that did not correspond to the general overall naval trends of the various technologies I discussed.

It was also a form of RUFUS waving, if you understand my meaning, in which Rome was telling London: "Mine is bigger and better than yours." Wholly impractical was the net result... as Sir George Tryon also discovered when he drowned on HMS Victoria.

===========================================

This is to say, that you "could" in a war emergency during an ammunition shortage, take 50,000 captured German 7.5cm APCBC shells and by changing the banding on a lathe in Egyptian field depots and doing some propellant case annealing, also, fit the thoroughly bodged shell such that you could ram the "cartridge" through and into the breech of a US made M2/M3 tank gun on a Lee/Grant and return it to its original makers to knock holes in PZKWIIIs and PZKWIVs. Yes; you can do that thing in a war emergency, but Murphy what you do to the expected shot life of the gun!

These idiocies, the Grauson armor proof and the 8th Army emergency shell modifications before El Alamein, would possibly meet the severe disapproval of Major G. Macinlay of the Royal Artillery?
 
Last edited:
Casa de Avis, Portuguese Battleship laid down in 1927-28, commissioned in 1931-32

Displacement:
25,775 t light; 27,167 t standard; 29,406 t normal; 31,197 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(711.94 ft / 666.01 ft) x 91.86 ft x (26.57 / 27.88 ft)
(217.00 m / 203.00 m) x 28.00 m x (8.10 / 8.50 m)

Armament:
6 - 14.57" / 370 mm 44.0 cal guns - 1,765.90lbs / 801.00kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1923 Model
2 x Triple mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 5.51" / 140 mm 50.0 cal guns - 82.01lbs / 37.20kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1913 Model
12 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
4 - 4.02" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 31.09lbs / 14.10kg shells, 220 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1914 Model
4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 11,704 lbs / 5,309 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 11.0" / 280 mm 269.03 ft / 82.00 m 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
Ends: 4.02" / 102 mm 262.47 ft / 80.00 m 26.25 ft / 8.00 m
134.51 ft / 41.00 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 62 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
4.02" / 102 mm 426.51 ft / 130.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 91.86 ft / 28.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 5.98" / 152 mm 16.0" / 406 mm
2nd: 2.99" / 76 mm - 5.00" / 127 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2.99" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 2.99" / 76 mm Quarter deck: 2.99" / 76 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 11.02" / 280 mm, Aft 11.02" / 280 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, plus diesel motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 88,107 shp / 65,728 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 7,700nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,030 tons

Complement:
1,122 - 1,459

Cost:
£8.158 million / $32.633 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,839 tons, 6.3 %
- Guns: 1,839 tons, 6.3 %
Armour: 11,140 tons, 37.9 %
- Belts: 4,784 tons, 16.3 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,040 tons, 3.5 %
- Armament: 2,180 tons, 7.4 %
- Armour Deck: 2,684 tons, 9.1 %
- Conning Towers: 453 tons, 1.5 %
Machinery: 2,781 tons, 9.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,015 tons, 34.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3,631 tons, 12.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
45,978 lbs / 20,855 Kg = 29.7 x 14.6 " / 370 mm shells or 8.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 4.4 ft / 1.4 m
Roll period: 18.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.85
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.07

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
an extended bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.633 / 0.640
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.79 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 70
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 45.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 35.00 %, 31.17 ft / 9.50 m, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 23.62 ft / 7.20 m, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Aft deck: 25.00 %, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Quarter deck: 10.00 %, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m, 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Average freeboard: 22.05 ft / 6.72 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 61.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 161.8 %
Waterplane Area: 48,122 Square feet or 4,471 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 114 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 180 lbs/sq ft or 879 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.47
- Overall: 1.00

BACKSTORY: Following the end of the First World War, a new naval race was brewing between the Americans, British, and Japanese. In OTL, this resulted in the Washington Naval Treaty. However, in this timeline, the WNT is discarded as the British, Japanese, and Americans are hampered by constantly varying views of how the naval restrictions should go. Thus, the new battleship race ignites, and eventually, even smaller nations are forced to begin building new warships. One class of ships was the Spanish "Reina Victoria Eugenia" class, which was nearly identical to the proposed version of it OTL, but was upgunned to 14in cannons, with tonnage increasing accordingly. Viewing this as a threat to their Colonial Empire, the Portuguese Second Republic in return ordered a class of two battleships from British shipyards. Finding both British 14 inch and 15 inch guns as not satisfying their requirements, the Portuguese asked for an intermediate to these two options. Elswick responded with the 370mm 44 calibre gun, with which the Portuguese became enamored, deciding to arm their ships with 6 of these in two triple turrets fore. The first ship was laid down in 1927, the second following a year later, and both were completed 4 years after their laying down.
 
After the formation of the Straits Settlement Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (SSRNVR) on 27 April 1934, They needed ships and the King of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim gave the money to buy a guard ship for Malaya and the Singapore base........due to the restrictions of the LNT it had to be a B type exempt ships and the design was finalized and laid down in early 36.

Johor class, Straits Settlement Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (SSRNVR) Coastal defence ship laid down 1936
Displacement:
1,770 t light; 1,886 t standard; 2,315 t normal; 2,658 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(283.17 ft / 280.00 ft) x 48.00 ft x (11.00 / 12.28 ft)
(86.31 m / 85.34 m) x 14.63 m x (3.35 / 3.74 m)

Armament:
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm 50.0 cal guns - 111.99lbs / 50.80kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1933 Model
2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
4 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 45.0 cal guns - 16.01lbs / 7.26kg shells, 200 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1910 Model
4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 39.0 cal guns - 1.81lbs / 0.82kg shells, 1,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
2 x Quad mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 raised mounts
8 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm 62.0 cal guns - 0.08lbs / 0.04kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
2 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck aft
2 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 527 lbs / 239 kg

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
- Box over machinery & magazines:
3.00" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 1.00" / 25 mm, Aft 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 5,500 ihp / 4,103 Kw = 18.35 kts
Range 6,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 772 tons

Complement:166 - 216
Cost:£0.826 million / $3.304 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 159 tons, 6.9 %
- Guns: 159 tons, 6.9 %
Armour: 392 tons, 16.9 %
- Armament: 31 tons, 1.3 %
- Armour Deck: 353 tons, 15.3 %
- Conning Towers: 8 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 307 tons, 13.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 802 tons, 34.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 545 tons, 23.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 110 tons, 4.8 %
- Hull below water: 5 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
- Above deck: 5 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
5,389 lbs / 2,445 Kg = 49.9 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 1.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.47
Metacentric height 3.2 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 11.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 74 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.24
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.48
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.548 / 0.564
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.83 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.73 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 25.00 %, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Forward deck: 40.00 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Aft deck: 20.00 %, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Average freeboard: 13.40 ft / 4.08 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 66.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 143.2 %
Waterplane Area: 9,362 Square feet or 870 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 144 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 68 lbs/sq ft or 334 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.39
- Overall: 1.00

Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

any comments welcome, absolutely nothing to do with the http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9744 design challenge..... :p

upload_2019-12-23_22-18-24.png

Better version below,
 

Attachments

Last edited:
After the formation of the Straits Settlement Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (SSRNVR) on 27 April 1934, They needed ships and the King of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim gave the money tow buy a guard ship for Malaya and the Singapore base........due to the restrictions of the LNT it had to be a B type exempt ships and the design was finalized and laid down in early 36.

Johor class, Straits Settlement Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (SSRNVR) Coastal defence ship laid down 1936
Displacement:
1,770 t light; 1,886 t standard; 2,315 t normal; 2,658 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(283.17 ft / 280.00 ft) x 48.00 ft x (11.00 / 12.28 ft)
(86.31 m / 85.34 m) x 14.63 m x (3.35 / 3.74 m)

Armament:
4 - 6.00" / 152 mm 50.0 cal guns - 111.99lbs / 50.80kg shells, 200 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1933 Model
2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
4 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm 45.0 cal guns - 16.01lbs / 7.26kg shells, 200 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1910 Model
4 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 39.0 cal guns - 1.81lbs / 0.82kg shells, 1,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
2 x Quad mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 raised mounts
8 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm 62.0 cal guns - 0.08lbs / 0.04kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Machine guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
2 x Single mounts on sides, forward deck aft
2 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 527 lbs / 239 kg

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 1.00" / 25 mm
- Box over machinery & magazines:
3.00" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 0.00" / 0 mm Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 1.00" / 25 mm, Aft 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
Direct drive, 2 shafts, 5,500 ihp / 4,103 Kw = 18.35 kts
Range 6,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 772 tons

Complement:166 - 216
Cost:£0.826 million / $3.304 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 159 tons, 6.9 %
- Guns: 159 tons, 6.9 %
Armour: 392 tons, 16.9 %
- Armament: 31 tons, 1.3 %
- Armour Deck: 353 tons, 15.3 %
- Conning Towers: 8 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 307 tons, 13.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 802 tons, 34.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 545 tons, 23.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 110 tons, 4.8 %
- Hull below water: 5 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
- Above deck: 5 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
5,389 lbs / 2,445 Kg = 49.9 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 1.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.47
Metacentric height 3.2 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 11.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 74 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.24
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.48
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.548 / 0.564
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.83 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 16.73 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 25.00 %, 18.00 ft / 5.49 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Forward deck: 40.00 %, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m, 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Aft deck: 20.00 %, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m, 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
- Average freeboard: 13.40 ft / 4.08 m
Ship tends to be wet forward
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 66.0 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 143.2 %
Waterplane Area: 9,362 Square feet or 870 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 144 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 68 lbs/sq ft or 334 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.39
- Overall: 1.00

Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

any comments welcome, absolutely nothing to do with the http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9744 design challenge..... :p

View attachment 510429
Quite an interesting ship, especially given the country of origin! There are some countries I'd be surprised to see have warships like this, especially that of one based in Johor, so props for making a vessel that makes sense for them!
 
@McPherson What did "rapid fire" mean for US pre-dreadnought secondary guns? Was it related to the size of the shell allowing manual loading, or were those guns the largest to use a metallic cartridge case for the powder? The largest US RF gun was 7-inch with 165 lbs shells; I thought that the accepted standard at the time for one-man loading was 100 lbs (6-inch gun) and for two-man loading was 200 lbs (8-inch gun), so the 7-inch guns would be in the inefficient middle by that measure. The Hawkins class went with 7.5-inch guns post-Great War because the British wanted to stay with 200 lbs shells.
 
@McPherson What did "rapid fire" mean for US pre-dreadnought secondary guns? Was it related to the size of the shell allowing manual loading, or were those guns the largest to use a metallic cartridge case for the powder? The largest US RF gun was 7-inch with 165 lbs shells; I thought that the accepted standard at the time for one-man loading was 100 lbs (6-inch gun) and for two-man loading was 200 lbs (8-inch gun), so the 7-inch guns would be in the inefficient middle by that measure. The Hawkins class went with 7.5-inch guns post-Great War because the British wanted to stay with 200 lbs shells.
I want to show you something.


Those mortars were bag guns. They could get off under combat pressure, about 4 shots a minute. Not a hoist to be seen. Shells are 250 kgs and 25.5 cm diameter.

The USN used a 4 man Gurney lift with a rammer as the 5th man. With this method shells of 90-110 kg lift were as nothing. The thing that was the problem was the powder bag. One man can handle a 20 kg. bag and throw for minutes. Charges might be slammed into the breech manually up to that limit with no difficulty. 30 kg charge bags required 2 men. This is the bulk of the time in reload for a deBang system and the bore limit is 18 cm. Beyond that one needs power assisted feed and ram. So you get the 7 inch bore size gun. Shots were 6-8 rounds per minute or what the British could reasonably get with their 6 in bore disameter guns of the same era MANUALLY.
 
Was there ever, in any country, any consideration of adding engine space to a large surface combatant, like a cruiser or battleship, by adding a plug to the middle of the ship? The Italians never went farther than adding new bows, although they made a lot of other huge changes as well.
 
Last edited:
Was there ever, in any country, any consideration of adding engine space to a large surface combatant, like a cruiser or battleship, by adding a plug to the middle of the ship? The Italians never went farther than adding new bows, although they made a lot of other huge changes as well.

The Siegfried class coast defence ships in 1900 were lengthened cut-n-shut style to increase bunkerage and were reboilered.
 
Was there ever, in any country, any consideration of adding engine space to a large surface combatant, like a cruiser or battleship, by adding a plug to the middle of the ship? The Italians never went farther than adding new bows, although they made a lot of other huge changes as well.
Yes they did. They removed midships turrets (British 'Q') and re-engined the ships..... All their WWI battleships as I recall. They also rebored the guns to a larger calibre, but that is easy!
 
Yes they did. They removed midships turrets (British 'Q') and re-engined the ships..... All their WWI battleships as I recall. They also rebored the guns to a larger calibre, but that is easy!
The Italian rebuilds of the Conte di Cavour and Andria Doria-classes. Removal of the triple 12-inch turret amidships for more boilers and reboring of the remaining ten 12-inch guns to 12.6-inch. New Secondary and AA Batteries. New lengthened bow section.

A lot of money and work on old ships that looked better on paper than in real life.

The Soviets planned on a major rebuild of BB Frunze (ex-Poltava) including removing both amidships triple 12-inch turrets and moving one of them to "B" position plus more boilers but this never happened.

There was of course the rebuild of Ise and Hyuga into BB/CV's which involved removing the aft turrets but no work was done on increasing speed.

The French removed "Q" turret on BB Lorriane but this was just to install a catapult and aviation, no work on engines or boilers.
 
If Italy focused on carriers pre-WWII, could the naval war fare better for them?
The function, of an aircraft carrier, was reconnaissance in that era. Being mobile and with a lot of planes and attached to the fleet it served; it could search a lot of ocean quickly to let an admiral know what was out there before he sailed into it blindly. Its secondary function effectively was attack and defense at a distance further than a battleship's artillery could reach. Now note I mean 1930-1940. In Italy's circumstance, the Battle of Matapan taught the Italian admirals, they had to have that reconnaissance and some kind of immediate air defense they could call their own without waiting hours for the Regia Aeronautica to make up their imbecilic minds to cooperate. (Taranto/Pearl Harbor/Matapan Lesson.) Aircraft carriers, when they become numerous, assume the all attack all the time role only when the airplanes they put up muster in the couple of hundreds in an alpha strike, no matter what Taranto accomplished for the British. That was a distinct one off. Again, this is a function of ordnance carried/time to get there and return cycle per target serviced situation. The British only bought themselves a few (3) months with 1 aircraft carrier and 30 or so planes. The Japanese bought themselves 2-3 years with Pearl Harbor and 200 aircraft. (And squandered it all at Midway.).

Given that an aircraft carrier with her bodyguard ships and air-group is 4x-10x to operate as expensive as a single battleship and uses 3x-5x the oil per mission sortie, and given that she is almost useless as a single unit, Italy has a choice of either new battleships or new aircraft carriers. She cannot afford both. So does she give up her 3 Littorios and go with a pure aircraft carrier navy (1935 onward.)? Or does she rely on land based air power. Here is another fun fact; Aircraft carriers without radar cannot defend a fleet against air attack. (Midway Lesson.) So...

This effort times 3 (see data card)= about 6 Littorios. + 9 cruisers and 15 destroyers diverted from SAGs to act as bodyguard ships for the three fast aircraft carrier task groups that can be assembled.

More homework from the hypothetical Battle of the Ligurian Sea.



That makes the Regia Marina 2x the power of the RTL MN of the era, but can Italy afford it? That is about $250M USD equivalent. Enormous capital drain on an economy where a Littorio was an almost unaffordable $50M USD equivalent hit.

OUCH!

What does carriers give them that a well established anti-shipping force from land bases doesn't? Italy was a well placed & unsinkable aircraft carrier already.
Time on target right now instead of 3 hours into the future never; and a huge reconnaissance advantage versus the French Marine National and strategic naval parity with the RN in the Mediterranean Sea.

BTW, the Aquila upon completion would be a fair match for an Ark Royal.
 
Last edited:
What is the conventional wisdom on building spare warships to fit in a squadron/division structure? I'm thinking primarily about the idea of building a fifth battleship for a battle division with a standard strength of four, or an extra destroyer or two for a flotilla of eight. We're availability rates that bad that this actually had to be considered, or would it have been more a matter of dealing with peacetime and wartime attrition?
 
Last edited:
What is the conventional wisdom on building spare warships to fit in a squadron/division structure? I'm thinking primarily about the idea of building a fifth battleship for a battle division with a standard strength of four, or an extra destroyer or two for a flotilla of eight. We're availability rates that bad that this actually had to be considered, or would it have been more a matter of dealing with peacetime and wartime attrition?
High performance steam engines require a lot maintenance and ships need general r efits and training/working back up from refits as well. And yes having extra ships as assigned to a formation did help with attrition
 
Last edited:
Top