Alternate warships of nations

[naraic]

If I recall correctly the British and Americans were aware to varying degrees of cheating in the Italian and Japanese navies. But decided to ignore them as the margins were not so great that the ships were superior to their own ships.

The British response to a lot of cheating was 10,000, 11,000 its not a massive difference and they aren't too far outside the rules.

We know they are cheating but not by enough to walk out and trigger an arms race.

Britain worked out the weight of every new ship give or take 5 % within 6 months or two of all powers giving the required notification.

When an Italian ship needed drydocking in Gibraltar due to major problems during the Spanish neutrality patrols the British found out the exact weight of the cruiser in question and adjusted their formulas to work out the weight of every Italian ship (within 2%).

Edit: Given that the British were a bit loose about everyone else's approach to the rules I sometimes wonder why the British didn't nudge their own ships a few % outside the limits. If they can do it so can we. I also wonder what the response would have been if Britain sends a note to the Italian government "We note the completion of your new Zara class battleship (as it does not fit the definition of cruiser) using up the unused battleship tonnage available to Italy under the naval treaties".

 

[Sargon]

When an Italian ship needed drydocking in Gibraltar due to major problems during the Spanish neutrality patrols the British found out the exact weight of the cruiser in question and adjusted their formulas to work out the weight of every Italian ship (within 2%).

I think I read an alternate history many, many years back and can't remember the title where there was a clause in the treaties where vessels when completed had to take displacement tests in internationally monitored and agreed upon dock locations in front of an international board of inspectors. The plausibility issue of it was with the problem of getting all the powers to actually agree to such a clause in the first place.


Sargon

 

[LostCosmonaut]

Springsharp download link, for anyone interested; http://www.springsharp.com/download.htm

I think there's also a quick intro guide buried somewhere on that page.

 

[CV(N)-6]

Where can one find data for slipways available from 1922-1945 (doesn't have to be those exact years) and warship costs during the same period? Digging through google, google scholar, and some national archives hasn't gotten me far, and my books are admittedly more geared towards service histories and designs than the logistics side of things.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

5 inch/38 does not come arounnd when these ships were constructed. The weapon was designed and constructed from 1934 on, so the Pensacola's and Northamptons, constructed in 1929, as well as their successors Portland and New Orleans classes predate the existence of this weapon so they had to do with the older 5 inch/25 AA gun.

Oh I know that, but with power of hindsight and adding a bit(around 10%)of displacement cheated in I can leave sufficient topweight reserves to enable the modifications starting in say 1937 and improve the armor and general robustness of the designs in general while I'm at it. Oh and if I'm the US player I'm getting the 40mm and 20mm used as the light and medium AA of the fleet the second they hit the market even if I have to use a couple million dollars worth of bribes to get a production license. And testing all of the ordnance of the fleet. And making the subs have the ability to go way deeper than they could in otl via buying some Dutch(German) tech

 

[ArtosStark]

Where can one find data for slipways available from 1922-1945 (doesn't have to be those exact years) and warship costs during the same period? Digging through google, google scholar, and some national archives hasn't gotten me far, and my books are admittedly more geared towards service histories and designs than the logistics side of things.

Shipbuilding and Repair Industries, 1914-18

including Royal Naval Dockyards and Research Establishments

www.naval-history.net

It’s WW1 but I find this a pretty good list for the British. Some of these were shut down later though.

 

[McPherson]

Got a link for that story?

Victor Crutchley, page Narvik forward.

Admittedly it was their first modern steel "battleships" and the USN had more or less almost completely missed the design trends and developments of between 1865 and the "New Steel Navy". And even the ACW designs tended more towards being coastal/riverine affairs rather then sea going warships (Though some like New Ironsides were more contemporary in terms of essentially being a ironclad wooden hull sail/steam oceangoing frigate.

The USS Texas (BB0) was a British design concocted by Naval Construction & Armaments Co, that is known today as VSEL. The mistakes in her design were mostly British. USS Maine is strictly the USN's fault, for that was an in-house botched job. USS Indiana, as proposed by William Cramp and Sons, was US Congress neutered and then further cut by the General Board who could not convince Congress to do the correct thing and relax displacement to about 13,000 tonnes. The compromises led to float reserve miscalculations that negated the armor belt. The turrets were USN botched by C and R.

 

[edgeworthy]

Shipbuilding and Repair Industries, 1914-18

including Royal Naval Dockyards and Research Establishments

www.naval-history.net

It’s WW1 but I find this a pretty good list for the British. Some of these were shut down later though.

For 1939-1945 ...

Moore's Building for Victory lists 19 slips long enough (At least 750') for a KGV or Illustrious. Plus another 16 slips long enough for CVL or Heavy Cruiser construction, some 650'. (Not counting the slips at Portsmouth and Chatham, they did manage County Class Cruisers, and in the case of Portsmouth a Queen Elizabeth Class Battleship, and two of the Didos were built at Chatham and Portsmouth).
Of these 16 were at least 800' long and 7 at least 900', 4 definitely capable of a 950' hull, and 1 over 1000'.
(In theory the defunct yard at William Beardmore, could be reactivated as well. It was still there, simply derelict).

 

[Dilvish]

The British response to a lot of cheating was 10,000, 11,000 its not a massive difference and they aren't too far outside the rules.

We know they are cheating but not by enough to walk out and trigger an arms race.

Britain worked out the weight of every new ship give or take 5 % within 6 months or two of all powers giving the required notification.

When an Italian ship needed drydocking in Gibraltar due to major problems during the Spanish neutrality patrols the British found out the exact weight of the cruiser in question and adjusted their formulas to work out the weight of every Italian ship (within 2%).

Edit: Given that the British were a bit loose about everyone else's approach to the rules I sometimes wonder why the British didn't nudge their own ships a few % outside the limits. If they can do it so can we. I also wonder what the response would have been if Britain sends a note to the Italian government "We note the completion of your new Zara class battleship (as it does not fit the definition of cruiser) using up the unused battleship tonnage available to Italy under the naval treaties".

One guess as to why the British didn't nudge their own ships a few% outside the limits is the added cost. With so many cruisers, destroyers, and other warships being built, the cost of an extra 10% tonnage for a cruiser class could mean a few more destroyers or sloops, or even another cruiser down the road?

From my limited reading of USN and RN design histories, it appears the designers worked hard at getting their designs within treaty limits. Beyond simple cost, another reason could be not wanting to run afoul of Congress/Parliament.

 

[Count of Crisco]

One guess as to why the British didn't nudge their own ships a few% outside the limits is the added cost. With so many cruisers, destroyers, and other warships being built, the cost of an extra 10% tonnage for a cruiser class could mean a few more destroyers or sloops, or even another cruiser down the road?

From my limited reading of USN and RN design histories, it appears the designers worked hard at getting their designs within treaty limits. Beyond simple cost, another reason could be not wanting to run afoul of Congress/Parliament.

That was partially it. Unlike other states the UK and US had greater government oversight of their militaries.
It was also I think a desire to set the example. Show that you could build a really good warship without going over the treaty limits. Also it was likely that if they cheated the consequences would have been much greater for their reputation as well.
And given the issues the Japanese ships especially had with overloading despite their breaking the treaty limits I can't say the US and UK were wrong.

 

[CV(N)-6]

That was partially it. Unlike other states the UK and US had greater government oversight of their militaries.
It was also I think a desire to set the example. Show that you could build a really good warship without going over the treaty limits. Also it was likely that if they cheated the consequences would have been much greater for their reputation as well.
And given the issues the Japanese ships especially had with overloading despite their breaking the treaty limits I can't say the US and UK were wrong.

Agreed. The UK and France were seen as kind of the leaders of the Western World with the US pretty isolationist, their reputations would be crippled if caught undermining a peace deal, and I suspect their publics wouldn't like it either. The US is similar, but it doesn't have as big of an international reputation yet. Japan was already portrayed unfavorably for their actions in China throughout the 30's, so really had nothing to lose. Italy showed a willingness to throw away her reputation to look stronger in 1936, and the French and British were either fairly friendly with Italy (20's) or trying to get the Italians on board against Germany(mid-late 30's), so they don't want to raise as big of a deal.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

There really isn’t much that a cruiser can do in a couple thousand tons or a destroyer to do in a few hundred tons that couldn’t be countered by a compliant ship using better tactics or equipment. Zara may have been the most balanced cruiser of the treaty era until Wichita, but 2000 tons wasn’t enough for bigger guns or for enough armor to deal with 8 inch guns.

 

[CV12Hornet]

There really isn’t much that a cruiser can do in a couple thousand tons or a destroyer to do in a few hundred tons that couldn’t be countered by a compliant ship using better tactics or equipment. Zara may have been the most balanced cruiser of the treaty era until Wichita, but 2000 tons wasn’t enough for bigger guns or for enough armor to deal with 8 inch guns.

Um, they did have enough armor to deal with 8" guns. 5.9" belt and 2.8" deck should be proof against 8" guns at the expected battle ranges for CAs; certainly the US Navy thought it would be enough against standard 8" shells.

 

[McPherson]

Um, they did have enough armor to deal with 8" guns. 5.9" belt and 2.8" deck should be proof against 8" guns at the expected battle ranges for CAs; certainly the US Navy thought it would be enough against standard 8" shells.

Foreign 20.3 cm bore diameter shells. The Americans knew Class A plate with 40% deep face-hardening was barely proof, but...

MIDVALE UNBREAKABLE discussion? This is one of those... "I dunno, Howie. The test results just might indicate the reverse?"

 

[HMS Warspite]

Um, they did have enough armor to deal with 8" guns. 5.9" belt and 2.8" deck should be proof against 8" guns at the expected battle ranges for CAs; certainly the US Navy thought it would be enough against standard 8" shells.

Actually the armor on the New Orleans class was not enough to protect them at Guadalcanal, where three of the class were shot up by 203mm shellfire mostly, and a few torpedoes as well. As such the class was armored better then and more extensively then preceding classes but still insufficient to shield them against their own size main calliber guns, just as all USN ships were not build to protect themselves against their own caliber main guns (despite false claims some did). Some vital parts were protected at best, but not all of the citadel was, especially engineering sections and boiler rooms, remained vulnerable as the sheer weight needed to cover these relatively large area's prevented this from happening in the first place. The main thickness of armor on the New Orleans class'belt of 5 inch was too thin still to protect them against eight inch AP shellfire at normal combat ranges, except very long range. (Engineering had only a belt of 3 inch which is hardly providing protection against guns of destroyer size, let alone any cruiser. ) Turrets and barbettes varied between the members of the class, with just USS San Francisco having 6.5 inch on her (forward) barbettes while the rest had 5 inches. Turret faces were up to 8 inches of armor depending on the type of turret fitted as these varied between the ships in this class. Older gun turrets, with all guns in the mounting in a single sleeve, on CA 32, 34 and 36 were similar to the preceding Portland class and the rest got mostly the newer turret design with all guns in a separate sleeve.

 

[Driftless]

A host of links to US Navy ship designs 1911-1925

This album contains a total of 216 individual sheets of U.S. Navy "preliminary design" plans, dating from March 1911 through September 1925. These drawings, prepared by the Bureau of Construction and Repair (predecessor to the Bureau of Ships, established 1940, and today's Naval Sea Systems Command), were used to illustrate potential ship designs for the Navy's leadership.

The individual plans in this album are presented in two different sequences:

• "Spring Styles" Plans -- Presented by Drawing Number;
  and
• "Spring Styles" Plans -- Presented by Ship Type:
• Battleship Preliminary Design Drawings;
• Battle Cruiser Preliminary Design Drawings;
• Torpedo Battleship Preliminary Design Drawings;
• Aircraft Carrier Preliminary Design Drawings;
• Cruiser Preliminary Design Drawings;
• Destroyer Preliminary Design Drawings;
• Submarine Preliminary Design Drawings;
• Patrol and Mine Warfare Vessel Preliminary Design Drawings; and
• Auxiliary Vessel and District Craft Preliminary Design Drawings.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Actually the armor on the New Orleans class was not enough to protect them at Guadalcanal, where three of the class were shot up by 203mm shellfire mostly, and a few torpedoes as well. As such the class was armored better then and more extensively then preceding classes but still insufficient to shield them against their own size main calliber guns, just as all USN ships were not build to protect themselves against their own caliber main guns (despite false claims some did). Some vital parts were protected at best, but not all of the citadel was, especially engineering sections and boiler rooms, remained vulnerable as the sheer weight needed to cover these relatively large area's prevented this from happening in the first place. The main thickness of armor on the New Orleans class'belt of 5 inch was too thin still to protect them against eight inch AP shellfire at normal combat ranges, except very long range. (Engineering had only a belt of 3 inch which is hardly providing protection against guns of destroyer size, let alone any cruiser. ) Turrets and barbettes varied between the members of the class, with just USS San Francisco having 6.5 inch on her (forward) barbettes while the rest had 5 inches. Turret faces were up to 8 inches of armor depending on the type of turret fitted as these varied between the ships in this class. Older gun turrets, with all guns in the mounting in a single sleeve, on CA 32, 34 and 36 were similar to the preceding Portland class and the rest got mostly the newer turret design with all guns in a separate sleeve.

I was talking about the Zaras.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

I was talking about the Zaras.

Not to mention that most of the night actions off Guadalcanal basically occured the naval equivalent of point blank range and no heavy cruiser ever built had the armor to withstand 8" shells at that close of range.

 

[McPherson]

Not to mention that most of the night actions off Guadalcanal basically occurred the naval equivalent of point blank range and no heavy cruiser ever built had the armor to withstand 8" shells at that close of range.

Hmmm.

The main thickness of armor on the New Orleans class'belt of 5 inch was too thin still to protect them against eight inch AP shellfire at normal combat ranges, except very long range. (Engineering had only a belt of 3 inch which is hardly providing protection against guns of destroyer size, let alone any cruiser. ) Turrets and barbettes varied between the members of the class, with just USS San Francisco having 6.5 inch on her (forward) barbettes while the rest had 5 inches. Turret faces were up to 8 inches of armor depending on the type of turret fitted as these varied between the ships in this class.

USS San Francisco which has been mentioned, survived combat along with other NO class vessels. The 35.6 cm bore diameter shells, 20.3 cm bore diameter shells and Type 93 torpedoes, they received, often failed to kill them. This is what armchair admirals forget. The armor on a US warship is there, not to bounce shellfire, but to give the US ship a chance to survive the penetrations and battle damage that will send foreign equivalents to the bottom of the sea. Imagine a Town class or a Mogami class taking this kind of damage? They would sink.

U.S. Navy - U.S. Navy photo [1] from Navsource.org

The damaged U.S. Navy heavy cruiser USS New Orleans (CA-32) entering Tulagi harbour about eight hours after the Battle of Tassafaronga, 1 December 1942. Everything ahead of turret No. 2 is missing after being hit by a single torpedo which exploded her forward magazines.

History of that ship.

Second Source.

17 battle stars,

With the repaired carrier, New Orleans sailed to Fiji early in November, then proceeded to Espiritu Santo, arriving 27 November to return to action in the Solomons. With four other cruisers and six destroyers she fought in the Battle of Tassafaronga on the night of 30 November, engaging a Japanese destroyer transport force. When flagship Minneapolis was struck by two torpedoes, New Orleans, next astern, was forced to sheer away to avoid collision, and ran into the track of a torpedo which ripped off her bow. Bumping down the ship-s port side, the severed bow punched several holes in New Orleans' hull. A fifth of her length gone, slowed to 2 knots, and blazing forward, the ship fought for survival. Individual acts of heroism and self-sacrifice along with skillful seamanship kept her afloat, and under her own power she entered Tulagi Harbor near daybreak 1 December. Camouflaging their ship from air attack, the crew jury-rigged a bow of coconut logs, and 11 days later New Orleans sailed to replace a damaged propeller and make other repairs in Sydney, Australia, arriving 24 December. On 7 March 1943, she was underway for Puget Sound Navy Yard, where a new bow was fitted and all battle damage repaired.

USS San Francisco ... 17 battle stars and the Hockey Puck.

San Francisco and her crew would become one of the most decorated warships of World War II earning 17 Battle Stars, Presidential Unit Citation, four Medals of Honor, 21 Silver Stars and 32 Navy Crosses. Notable battles include: Battle of Cape Esperance; Naval Battle of Guadalcanal; Assault and Occupation of Guam; Marshall Islands Operations; and Okinawa Operations Assault and Occupation.

USS San Francisco, battle-scarred after November 1942.

 

[Count of Crisco]

So quick question, what if after wwI ends a minor nation, Spain, Netherlands, Poland, Greece, or a southern American state, bought one or two incomplete German capital ships and began working on them with the aim of bringing them into service with their fleet. Could the German yards complete the ships if they were for an export country? Or would they have to be taken by the purchasing power and completed in their own yards or brought to another nation for completion?