Saphroneth
Banned
That's... not really directly cogent to my point, is it?
Well, yes. Of course they'd have to, because the Nelsons were a revised pre-Treaty design and the KGVs were the first properly post-Treaty design.
That's... not really directly cogent to my point, is it?
Japanese warships were designed for the "Decisive Battle", which meant that endurance was matched to the tactical requirements. That's why the "Yamato" carried no more fuel than an "Iowa" class BB at 10,000 tons more displacement. 7,000 nm was sufficient to reach the area of the battle line engagement as planned in 1937, which meant somewhere off the Marianas, versus early Japanese plans that saw the battle line engagement south of Japan, between Japan and the Philippines. The Japanese did not design their ships to go to the US West Coast. The US on the other hand designed their warships on the basis of endurance to Pearl Harbor from San Diego to Davao in the Philippines, which is why on a comparable standard displacement a US design carried far more fuel when operating at emergency full displacement for maximum endurance versus a Japanese design intended to operate no farther from Truk than the Mandates.
BTW, reserve feed water for a BB usually never exceeded 750 tons, while fuel could exceed 8,000 tons. Not counting reserve feed water was NOT that big a coup. The usually amount of fuel, water and other liquid carried in a torpedo protection system such as that of HMS Prince of Wales exceeded 4,000 tons.
The USN never considered the British as a viable opponent after 1921. All US designs were predicated on a war with Japan. If the USN considered RN designs at all, it was as possible examples of the state of technology within the RN or as a complementary design should combined operations become necessary. All the NWC war games after 1922 were conducted against a Japanese opponent. All the Fleet Problems featured Japanese or German/Italian enemies. The AWC conducted one year long strategic problems in the mid-1930s where the US was at war with japan, Germany and Italy in alliance with Britain and France. The only reason the services exercised the "Red (British) and "Red/Orange" (British/Japan) war plans were that they were the only ones that featured full national mobilization as a training tool. No one, even Pratt and King thought that the US and British navies were going to clash between 1922 and 1941.
As far as British BB endurance, the British plan for a war with Japan from 1922 featured operations from bases no more than a couple thousand miles apart. Deployment of the Home Fleet would be by way of Gibralter, Malta, Alexandria, the Suez Canal and Trincomalee on the way to Singapore. The Med Fleet would of course start out from Malta or Alexandria. The British intended to operate out of Singapore, expected to recover Hong Kong and that the decisive battle with the Japanese BBs would be in the South China Sea. Thus endurance was calculated against a maximum of 4,000nm at maximum versus the USN which designed BBs, CVs and cruisers with a design objective of 10,000nm at 15 kts.
Last edited:
Saphroneth
Banned
In that case, then, surely the result of that is that the Japanese ships (by cheating) are individually superior to the US (if the US didn't cheat but merely exploited the fuel loophole)?
Actually, because of standard displacement, that is not exactly a true statement. Yes, the Japanese cheated, but not much when they were within the Treaty structure. And as Lacroix and Wells shows, at least with the cruisers, it was often sloppy calculations and continued additions to the design during construction that added to displacement rather than deliberate cheating. Most of their non-Washington/London Treaty designs came outside 1936. The rebuilt BBs were mostly completed outside the Treaty time frame, but certainly the modernization of the "Fuso" class exceeded the allowed 3,000 tons in 1935. But other than speed, the "Fuso" class was not significantly superior to the rebuilt "New Mexico" class, which was certainly better protected. The most egregious claim was probably declaring IJNS Kaga and IJNS Akagi at 26,900 tons in 1928-29 when they were probably over 30,000, but then in reality the USN did the same with USS Saratoga and USS Lexington. Disregarding the Type 93 torpedoes, the IJN's "Myoko" and "Takao" class CAs were not, overall, superior to the "Portland" and "New Orleans" classes or even the "Northamptons". Certainly the "Mogami" class until their final rebuild, which was outside the Treaty period, were not superior to the "Brooklyn" class. "Soryu" was superior to USS Ranger, more or less, but not to the "Yorktown" class. In destroyers, the larger Japanese DDs were superior in surface gun power to the USN's 1,500 ton class DDs, but those DDs had far more effective DP guns and fire control. And the "1,850" ton DDs, outgunned the "Fubuki" class and using 5" special common shells had a good chance of shooting up any "5,500 ton" class Japanese light cruiser they encountered. When you look at the comparative capabilities of classes within categories, it becomes apparent why the Japanese sought out-of-the-box solutions to their numerical inferiority, such as the Type 93 torpedo and the Mk.1 mine and night combat.
I tried again to upload a .pdf conversion of an .xls file on my library. So if you want to refer to the references I am using to conduct my analysis you are welcome to visit my site at http://warsimsandhistoryplusscifi.com/. I have all the standard references to the design and construction of warships between 1921 and 1945, from Raven to Friedman to Lacroix.
I tried again to upload a .pdf conversion of an .xls file on my library. So if you want to refer to the references I am using to conduct my analysis you are welcome to visit my site at http://warsimsandhistoryplusscifi.com/. I have all the standard references to the design and construction of warships between 1921 and 1945, from Raven to Friedman to Lacroix.
Last edited:
Saphroneth
Banned
As did the USS South Dakota, which you cited as an example of how the treaty limits were a coup.
Please note that the USN remained under the Washington/London Treaty limits until 1940. All US warships designed from 1922 to 1938 were informed and limited by the Treaties. The Treaties were US law and the USN was bound by them and by the language of Congressional authorizations, which for the "South Dakota" class meant to a standard displacement of 35,000 tons, as they were designed before the US executed the "escalator" clause, and with 16" guns because the three-gun turrets could be easily substituted for the quad 14" so they could be quickly redesigned before being laid down. Even the "Iowa" class BBs were constrained by the Treaties, through the "escalator" clause to 45,000 tons standard displacement and 16" guns. The "Montana" class BBs were the first designed outside Treaty constraints. So the Japanese designed and built the 64,000 ton standard displacement "Yamato" class legally as they had left the Treaty structure on 31 Dec 36. The USN did not design a comparable ship until the Congress repealed the Treaties and authorized designs beyond their limits.
The British also remained under Treaty limits until the start of the war, which meant that the "KGV", "Lion" and "Vanguard" classes were all designed under Treaty constraint.
The French suspended participation also at the start of the war which allowed them to arm the "Richelieu" class with 38cm guns.
The Italians never joined the 1930/1935 treaties, but remained bound by the Washington Treaty until Oct 40. The "Littorio" design was initially designed to limit, which were abandoned when the constraints limited the desired capabilities to much. The 38cm gun was adopted because the Italians could not design and build a 40.6cm gun in time and they already had a 38cm design they could lengthen.
The Germans were constrained by the Versailles Treaty until 1933, and then the Anglo-German Treaty until Apr 39. Like the Italians, they decided to abandon Treaty limits (the KMS Bismarck was designed before the Germans repudiated the Anglo-German Treaty) when they couldn't get the desired operational characteristics.
The Japanese were part of the 1922 Washington Treaty and the 1930 London Treaty. They gave notice in Dec 34 and left the treaty structure on 31 Dec 36. All designs completed prior were technically limited by Treaty. But the Japanese did play fast and loose with the limits, mostly due to designs being completed overweight and the Japanese reporting the design displacement rather than the actual displacement.
The Soviets adhered to the Treaty system in an agreement with the British in 1937, but Treaty limits did not apply to Soviet ships intended for operation in the Pacific.
That meant that the Japanese could design and complete superior ships in each category of warship if they had the design and construction potential, which they didn't except in limited cases. The "Shokaku" class Cvs are a case in point. They were superior to anything the USN had before the end of 1942 from the day they were commissioned in 1941. They were designed after the Japanese left the Treaty structure and were part of the reason that they did. But the Japanese could not continue to produce such ships. Other than IJNS Taiho, the Japanese production carrier of WW2 was a modified "Hiryu", a CV definitely inferior to the "Essex" class, the production fleet carrier of the USN. Not only were the "Essex" class CVs qualitatively superior, they were built in much larger numbers. The limits of their industrial and naval infrastructure still bound them to designs and construction that could not be a quantum leap in quality AND quantity.
Again, you just don't get the point. The USN could design and build a "Yamato" equivalent class BB (1000' wl and 108' beam) from 1921 to 1945. The USN had already explored such designs at the instigation of Congress in 1917-18. The US had the naval design bureau to design the ships, the naval and commercial shipyards to build the ships and the naval infrastructure to support them. The US could have built twelve of these ships every five years from 1922 to 1939. It didn't because the political leadership decided that the USN would be built to the qualitative and quantitative limits imposed by Treaty and law. Japanese warships designed and built/modernized between 1922 and 1934-36 were not superior to similar USN designs in the same categories. The Treaty determination where fuel and reserve feed water were not included in standard displacement enabled that outcome. And even when unlimited by Treaty, Japanese industrial and infrastructure limits ensured that US designs, while a couple of years behind in expansion of size and capabilities, would remain competitive.
Saphroneth
Banned
But that still doesn't address my point, which is that the supposed coup the US achieved was never realized - as the only ships they built which followed this loophole trick were built while Japanese ships were building entirely outside the treaty.
I saw this picture of the 'HMS Henry Morgan' - http://pre02.deviantart.net/85b2/th..._morgan_class_battleship_by_tzoli-dat70j4.png
http://tzoli.deviantart.com/art/Henry-Morgan-class-Battleship-653697904
She's a big lass, at 39,000 tons and 224 meters in length vs the QE's 196 meters. And whilst this is clearly a late 30's refit version the earlier one would probably look like an enlarged QE which is basically what she is. The big difference being the triple turrets and i'd assume a different boiler layout to try keep the speed up (perhaps small tube boilers?) and fight against the weight.
Could such a thing realistically be built by the UK prior to WW1? Idea I came up with is this.
Whilst the design for the Revenge class was being worked on, rumors started percolating the Admiralty and Government about a supposed German 'Super-ship' class that was under consideration. The initial and considerably hyped up stats of these ships (that would become the Bayern class) caused a surge of concern amongst the Admiralty who feared their latest warship could be outclassed before it was even constructed or launched. Whilst the initial reaction was to up-gun the Revenge's, there was no gun available outside of the 15-inch Mk1 and the time developing and testing a 16-inch rifle could well prove fatal and allow the Germans to launch their more capable ships with no RN answer on hand to counter them.
Instead it was chosen to adopt a triple turret, using Armstrong's experience with these mountings (having built them for the Russian and Italian navies) to develop a triple 15-inch mount for the Mk1 gun. Going off the reported German ships speed it was obvious that the Revenge would be too slow and instead the designers went to the Queen Elisabeth class and enlarged them to take the new turrets.
These new turrets were of course heavy and this would adversely affect the speed of the ship, so to save weight and increase power the Small Tube boiler system was fitted. These were lighter, smaller and delivered higher pressures to the turbines, and the same weight of machinery was able to keep the speed around 23 knots.
Other changes were made with the Queen Elisabeths, their secondary 6-inch guns were mounted further back to make them useful in a rough sea, whilst the armour scheme was re-worked. At full load the Queen's main belt was very close to the waterline so the belt on the new vessel would be expanded and taller, more uniform in its layout rather than just a thin strake of 13-inch thick plate. Instead the uniform plate of 13-inch belt armour went all the way to A and Y turrets and covered the entire waterline.
Four ships would be laid down HMS Drake, HMS Hawkins, HMS Henry Morgan, HMS Raleigh, earning the class the nickname in the fleet of The Four Pirates. Of course the panic over their German opponents proved to be poorly founded as the Germans Baden class was roughly equal to the planned Revenge class ships and the Drake class with their far heavier broadside and higher speed were considerably more powerful vessels. Only the Drake would see action being completed in time to take part in the Battle of Jutland where her 15-inch guns were able to sink the Seydlitz in the evening as the badly damaged battlecruiser blundered into the Grand Fleet.
Of course building such massive ships had its drawbacks, despite loud and angry protests from First Lord (before he was fired), Admiral Fisher's latest battlecruisers were cancelled before being laid down, as the guns and metal were needed to build the Drake's. He still managed to get his 'large light cruisers' built, all be it with single 18-inch guns that proved a danger to the ship in service.
The Admiral class would also see delays but enough to learn about the battle of Jutland and take those lessons to heart as well as the lessons from abroad. Whilst the Admiral's were in essence a battlecruiser version of the Queen Elisabeth class, the Admiralty lept at the USN's 'All or Nothing' armour scheme idea to increase protection over the vitals without overly increasing the armour weight. And whilst some designs showed the Admiral class with two triple turrets and two dual mounts, they would be completed with 8 x 15-inch guns, like their Queen Elisabeth pregenetors, but would boast a superior armour scheme. But of the Admirals, only HMS Hood and HMS Anson would be completed and even then both missed the War, launching in 1919. Their sisters, the Rodney and Nelson were halted on the stocks, both hulls around 75% complete.
At the Washington Naval treaty the British offered to decomission all of their 13.5-inch gunned ships save the HMS Tiger who would be used as a Gunnery training ship. They would also be allowed to construct four 16-inch gunned ships whilst Rodney and Anson would complete as aircraft carriers with 'Fishers Follies' also converted into carriers.
The Americans would get to complete the 5th Colorado class ship as well as two South Dakota class ships and two Lexington class, whilst another two would be converted into carriers. Japan would get two Tosa class ships and two Kaga class vessels as well as two Tosa carrier conversions but the terrible earthquake in 1923 broke the hull of one of the Tosa's on the stocks and one Kaga hull was chosen for conversion.
As powerful units the Drake's were fully refitted in the 30's with their machinery overhauled and their old 6-inch gun casemates removed. In their place a battery of 4.5-inch DP guns were fitted to ward off destroyers and aircraft as well as large numbers of 2lb AA guns. By the outbreak of WW2 all had been refitted whilst the older Queens had been refitted to a lesser level (OTL's Warspite refit) and the battlecruisers Conqueror and Formidable also recived similar refits in the rush to re-arm as tensions built in Europe following the Abyssinia crisis. The more modern Nelson class ships (9 x 16-inch guns, 25 knot speed 44,000 tons fully loaded) were not so altered as they were still modern ships.
As the war progressed the Drake's saw more AA guns and radar added, the 20mm Oerlikon gun was fitted where there was space whilst eventually the Catapult was removed as well as the hangar to save weight. All four ships took part in many of the major battles of the War including the Relief of Malta, the First and Second battles of Matapan, the Battle of Crete, the Battle of Iceland and the Battle of Singapore. The HMS Hawkins would be sunk in the Med, torpedoed by a U-boat, whilst the HMS Raleigh would barely survive the Battle of Singapore and was able to withdraw to Ceylon with the HMS Nelson escorting her. She would return to the Pacific in 1944 with the British pacific fleet.
Yes its done on the back of a fag packet but what do ya think?
http://tzoli.deviantart.com/art/Henry-Morgan-class-Battleship-653697904
She's a big lass, at 39,000 tons and 224 meters in length vs the QE's 196 meters. And whilst this is clearly a late 30's refit version the earlier one would probably look like an enlarged QE which is basically what she is. The big difference being the triple turrets and i'd assume a different boiler layout to try keep the speed up (perhaps small tube boilers?) and fight against the weight.
Could such a thing realistically be built by the UK prior to WW1? Idea I came up with is this.
Whilst the design for the Revenge class was being worked on, rumors started percolating the Admiralty and Government about a supposed German 'Super-ship' class that was under consideration. The initial and considerably hyped up stats of these ships (that would become the Bayern class) caused a surge of concern amongst the Admiralty who feared their latest warship could be outclassed before it was even constructed or launched. Whilst the initial reaction was to up-gun the Revenge's, there was no gun available outside of the 15-inch Mk1 and the time developing and testing a 16-inch rifle could well prove fatal and allow the Germans to launch their more capable ships with no RN answer on hand to counter them.
Instead it was chosen to adopt a triple turret, using Armstrong's experience with these mountings (having built them for the Russian and Italian navies) to develop a triple 15-inch mount for the Mk1 gun. Going off the reported German ships speed it was obvious that the Revenge would be too slow and instead the designers went to the Queen Elisabeth class and enlarged them to take the new turrets.
These new turrets were of course heavy and this would adversely affect the speed of the ship, so to save weight and increase power the Small Tube boiler system was fitted. These were lighter, smaller and delivered higher pressures to the turbines, and the same weight of machinery was able to keep the speed around 23 knots.
Other changes were made with the Queen Elisabeths, their secondary 6-inch guns were mounted further back to make them useful in a rough sea, whilst the armour scheme was re-worked. At full load the Queen's main belt was very close to the waterline so the belt on the new vessel would be expanded and taller, more uniform in its layout rather than just a thin strake of 13-inch thick plate. Instead the uniform plate of 13-inch belt armour went all the way to A and Y turrets and covered the entire waterline.
Four ships would be laid down HMS Drake, HMS Hawkins, HMS Henry Morgan, HMS Raleigh, earning the class the nickname in the fleet of The Four Pirates. Of course the panic over their German opponents proved to be poorly founded as the Germans Baden class was roughly equal to the planned Revenge class ships and the Drake class with their far heavier broadside and higher speed were considerably more powerful vessels. Only the Drake would see action being completed in time to take part in the Battle of Jutland where her 15-inch guns were able to sink the Seydlitz in the evening as the badly damaged battlecruiser blundered into the Grand Fleet.
Of course building such massive ships had its drawbacks, despite loud and angry protests from First Lord (before he was fired), Admiral Fisher's latest battlecruisers were cancelled before being laid down, as the guns and metal were needed to build the Drake's. He still managed to get his 'large light cruisers' built, all be it with single 18-inch guns that proved a danger to the ship in service.
The Admiral class would also see delays but enough to learn about the battle of Jutland and take those lessons to heart as well as the lessons from abroad. Whilst the Admiral's were in essence a battlecruiser version of the Queen Elisabeth class, the Admiralty lept at the USN's 'All or Nothing' armour scheme idea to increase protection over the vitals without overly increasing the armour weight. And whilst some designs showed the Admiral class with two triple turrets and two dual mounts, they would be completed with 8 x 15-inch guns, like their Queen Elisabeth pregenetors, but would boast a superior armour scheme. But of the Admirals, only HMS Hood and HMS Anson would be completed and even then both missed the War, launching in 1919. Their sisters, the Rodney and Nelson were halted on the stocks, both hulls around 75% complete.
At the Washington Naval treaty the British offered to decomission all of their 13.5-inch gunned ships save the HMS Tiger who would be used as a Gunnery training ship. They would also be allowed to construct four 16-inch gunned ships whilst Rodney and Anson would complete as aircraft carriers with 'Fishers Follies' also converted into carriers.
The Americans would get to complete the 5th Colorado class ship as well as two South Dakota class ships and two Lexington class, whilst another two would be converted into carriers. Japan would get two Tosa class ships and two Kaga class vessels as well as two Tosa carrier conversions but the terrible earthquake in 1923 broke the hull of one of the Tosa's on the stocks and one Kaga hull was chosen for conversion.
As powerful units the Drake's were fully refitted in the 30's with their machinery overhauled and their old 6-inch gun casemates removed. In their place a battery of 4.5-inch DP guns were fitted to ward off destroyers and aircraft as well as large numbers of 2lb AA guns. By the outbreak of WW2 all had been refitted whilst the older Queens had been refitted to a lesser level (OTL's Warspite refit) and the battlecruisers Conqueror and Formidable also recived similar refits in the rush to re-arm as tensions built in Europe following the Abyssinia crisis. The more modern Nelson class ships (9 x 16-inch guns, 25 knot speed 44,000 tons fully loaded) were not so altered as they were still modern ships.
As the war progressed the Drake's saw more AA guns and radar added, the 20mm Oerlikon gun was fitted where there was space whilst eventually the Catapult was removed as well as the hangar to save weight. All four ships took part in many of the major battles of the War including the Relief of Malta, the First and Second battles of Matapan, the Battle of Crete, the Battle of Iceland and the Battle of Singapore. The HMS Hawkins would be sunk in the Med, torpedoed by a U-boat, whilst the HMS Raleigh would barely survive the Battle of Singapore and was able to withdraw to Ceylon with the HMS Nelson escorting her. She would return to the Pacific in 1944 with the British pacific fleet.
Yes its done on the back of a fag packet but what do ya think?
Last edited:
It could but I would question a few parts,
- Going for triples would slow it down would going for 6 twins not be much faster as a super Fuso be more realistic?
- The refit with 4.5"DP and still having 6" casements (OTL all the rebuilds lost the 6" guns when they got DP, Warspite kept hers but only had limited 4" AA guns in open twins added)
So RN at WNT of, 5xQE, 4xHM, 2xA, 4x16" (+3LLC + 2A CVs) This is much bigger and stronger than OTL with most (10 out of 15 v OTL 1) of them over the 35,000t limit and at least 6 post Jutland designs.
v
USN, don't you mean 4th? so 4Colorado and 2SD and 2Lex I think you need to give them more ie 4 SDs to match the 4x16" new ships (as they will be say 40,000t new WNT limit ?)
v
IJN Tosa and Kaga are the same class! (but this TL will have changed what IJN/USN build anyway as they will have the HM information early so N&M and the Colorado class may change a lot)
Ahh my bad, so IJN gets 2 Amagi and 2 Kaga class, whilst another 2 Amagi were slated to be built as carriers, earthquake wrecks one and they convert a Kaga.
USN gets 4 Colorado's and 4 SD's and 2 Lex's with a treaty limit of say 40k tons. Again this is back of a fag packet stuff.
RE the layout of the Fuso's, basically this was seen as a bad thing. All those holes in the hull are difficult to work on and alter, and its more space for a shell to hit something juicy. Going to triples saves weight, space and length. The RN had lots of experience with ships with many turrets and how that number of barbettes weakens the hull or requires a lot of strengthening to stop it being a bit iffy. The Agincourt is good example of this, she's got one more turret than the Fugly's.
USN gets 4 Colorado's and 4 SD's and 2 Lex's with a treaty limit of say 40k tons. Again this is back of a fag packet stuff.
RE the layout of the Fuso's, basically this was seen as a bad thing. All those holes in the hull are difficult to work on and alter, and its more space for a shell to hit something juicy. Going to triples saves weight, space and length. The RN had lots of experience with ships with many turrets and how that number of barbettes weakens the hull or requires a lot of strengthening to stop it being a bit iffy. The Agincourt is good example of this, she's got one more turret than the Fugly's.
Last edited:
I haven't read the text in detail. I'm not a naval architect, but its probably feasible with the technology and shipbuilding facilities of the day.
However, it's going to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer and HM Treasury umpteen litters of kittens due to the cost. The rest of the Liberal Government isn't going to like the diversion of more money from its welfare reforms. IOTL fewer submarines, light cruisers and destroyers than the Admiralty wanted were ordered in the 1913-14 and 1914-15 Estimates because the 15-inch gunned battleships of OTL were more expensive. To pay the extra cost of these you're probably going to see even fewer smaller warships ordered, plus the cancellation of Ark Royal, the airship programme and a general slowing down of the RNAS. However, cutting out the rigid airship programme altogether might not be a bad thing because the stop-go programme of OTL meant that Britain did not get any useful craft until the war ended.
Edit
If it was up to me I would order another 5 Queen Elisabeths in the 1913-14 Estimates instead of the first 5 Revenge class and another 4 in the 1914-15 Estimates in place of the second 3 Revenge class and Agincourt. These 14 ships would have small tube boilers, but the weight saved would be used for thicker armour rather than increasing speed.
When war broke out I would order another 2 Queen Elisabeths under the War Emergency Programme instead of cancelling the 1914-15 programme ships and building Repulse, Renown and the Follies.
Then instead of the OTL Admiral class 4 fast battleships mounting eight 15" on 32,000 tons, which were all completed in the first half of the 1920s.
That would allow the British Empire to retain twenty 15" gunned battleships under the WNT without having to amend the terms of the treaty very much.
It also has the beauty of butterflying away The Follies and the Nelson class battleships. The money spent on converting the Follies to aircraft carriers in the 1920s and building the Nelsons (about £20 million) would be available to build some better aircraft carriers from the keel up.
Last edited:
I'd say the element of Pride,Wanting Naval Superiority of Germany and having some of fishers battlecruisers exchanged for something much more superior would help get the funds.
Britain was building battleships/battlecruisers like crazy during the war anyway, which didn't stop until 1917(with the suspension of the other Admirals)
I thought of the panic as there was a precident. The RN learned about a Russian 'super ship' that would be faster than their battleships but have the guns to defeat cruisers in the late 1800's. The reports on them were spiced up to a degree not seen until the public was told about the Iraqi's huge stockpiles of WMD's and their intent to use them.
So the RN went "Build a counter." and pounded out the Duncan class, 6 ships built as a counter. The Russian ships were far inferior to the RN ones and there was only 3 of 'em. So it kinda is possible. RN learns of a threat, and could drum up support for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peresvet-class_battleship is the Russian ship I was talking about that the Duncans were panic built as a counter to.
With this one the Renown and Repulse are not built, their guns are put into the Drakes, same with the Follies. Now the Follies are built but instead are the OTL's original design of the Furious with 2 x 18-inch guns and have absoutely 0 use.
So the RN went "Build a counter." and pounded out the Duncan class, 6 ships built as a counter. The Russian ships were far inferior to the RN ones and there was only 3 of 'em. So it kinda is possible. RN learns of a threat, and could drum up support for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peresvet-class_battleship is the Russian ship I was talking about that the Duncans were panic built as a counter to.
With this one the Renown and Repulse are not built, their guns are put into the Drakes, same with the Follies. Now the Follies are built but instead are the OTL's original design of the Furious with 2 x 18-inch guns and have absoutely 0 use.
Yes there is a precedent, but designing ships to counter those of a potential enemy has been proved to be a bad one on multiple occasions. For a start they rarely meet each other in battle.
It's much better to design your ships to meet your own requirements. E.g. the counter to the Panzerschiffe wasn't to build ships of that type yourself, but a mix of aircraft carriers, cruisers and land based aircraft.
But that's with hindsight.
The British were stubborn when it came to counter building, and they were still doing it with the Hoods,even though it was obvious the make sense were not going to be built.
They may have rarely met in battle, but if they had considered that there would be no dreadnought at all. At the end of the day it was a big dick waving contest to see who's was biggest and best
I don't entirely agree with that. However, sometimes there were good mistakes like the V&W class destroyers built because of faulty intelligence about what the Germans were building. Then later on there were the Town class cruisers and Tribal class destroyers intended to fight the big cruisers and destroyers the Japanese were building which resulted in 10 very good cruisers and 16 very good destroyers.But that's with hindsight.[Comment by NOMISYRRUC: That's what Alternative History is all about]
The British were stubborn when it came to counter building, and they were still doing it with the Hoods, even though it was obvious the make sense were not going to be built.
They may have rarely met in battle, but if they had considered that there would be no dreadnought at all. At the end of the day it was a big dick waving contest to see who's was biggest and best
I think that the overriding problem was the lack of a Naval Staff before 1912 to work out what types of warship the Royal Navy actually needed and their characteristics. However, it wasn't until after the reforms instituted in 1917 that the Naval Staff began to function properly and even then it made mistakes.
In the case of the dreadnought that was going to happen sooner or later anyway. The advantages of turbines were too great to ignore them and the way gunnery was developing meant that large intermediate calibres were on the way out.
The other thing is that the early dreadnoughts weren't significantly more expensive than the last pre-dreadnoughts. Dreadnought along with the following Bellerophon and St Vincent classes cost about £1.7 million each, while the preceding King Edward VIII and Lord Nelson classes cost about £1.5 million each. It also helped that the Selbourne Programme of building 7 large warships a year (3 battleships and 4 armoured cruisers) in the first half of the 1900s was replaced by the Cawdor Programme of 4 capital ships (a mix of dreadnoughts and battle cruisers) in the middle of the 1900s. The cost rose to about £2 million each for the Super Dreadnoughts and an estimated £2.5 million each for the Queen Elisabeth and Revenge class (wartime inflation pushed the actual cost up).
Meanwhile the cost of submarines and destroyers was increasing as they developed.
On the subject of inflation, according to the Bank of England inflation calculator £10.00 in 1900 bought £10.65 in 1914. Therefore nearly all the cost escalation before World War One was due to the increase in displacement, armament, armour and more powerful machinery.
However, I admit that the, "I've got a massive willy and you haven't, you inadequate prick," factor was relevant at the time.
Last edited:
Okay lets ammend it slightly.
QE's are ordered whilst hopeful noises are made at Canada to order some more. This comes to nothing (*sounds of booing and jeering*)
The R class starts getting planned when spies bring information of a supposed German super ship that will outclass the R's. Design work on the R's is halted whilst this is investigated. But someone slips this to a certain cigar puffing, brandy swilling MP and also gets it to a certain Hobgoblin Who's Name is Fisher. Both these men start agitating in the admiralty and Commons and the 'threat' is leaked to the Press who spice up the German super ship even more.
Whilst the Admiralty is a bit unconvinced about the ability of the Germans to produce the ship they are hearing about, the MPs, the Press and public are all a tizzy. Think the 'we want 8 and we won't wait' brewhaha. And the Chancelor and Treasury fold and authorise payment of a new ship.
The R design is seen as inadequate so they look to the successful QE and go "This but more." seeing as there's a lack of a bigger gun, they opt to go with more. Using triple turrets to save weight and space (and if the Russians, Italians and Americans can do it, so can we by jove!) Step forwards the Drakes.
A knock on effect of this is that Renown and Repulse AND the Follies don't get built and the Admirals are delayed enough to learn the lessons of Jutland, with two ships HMS Hood and HMS Anson. She's still basically a BC version of the QE class (which is what the Admirals basically were) but she comes out with the first RN All or Nothing armour scheme.
At the WNT the RN argues for a limit of 40,000 tons for new battleships and the US accepts it, as does Japan. France and Italy make noises but they get thrown the scraps.
The RN gets to keep all 5 QEs, 4 Drakes, the Hood and Tiger. Two incomplete Admiral hulls are looked at for completion as carriers as well as permission to build 4 x 16-inch gunned 40,000 ton ships. But all other 13.5 and 12-inch gunned ships MUST go, the last of the 13.5's replaced when the 16-inchers come into service, on a 1 for 1 basis. This leaves the RN with a fleet like this;
4 x 16-inch gunned Battleships to be built
2 x Admiral Class Battlecruiser
4 x Drake Class Dreadnoughts
5 x Queen Elisabeth class Dreadnoughts
1 x Tiger class battlecruiser
4 x Iron Duke class Dreadnoughts (decommissioned once the 16-inch gunned ships are completed)
16 ships.
RCN
HMCS Canada
RAN (part paid for/manned by RNZN)
HMNZS Australia ex Princess Royal
USN gets the 4th Colorado, 2 Lexingons (with 2 more built as carriers) and 4 Sodaks.
USN Fleet;
1 x New York class
2 x Nevada
2 x Pennysylvania
3 x New Mexico
2 x Tennessee Class
4 x Colorado
2 x Lexington
4 x South Dakota
New York to decommission once the last SoDak is completed.
19/20 ships
IJN gets 2 Mutsu BB 2 Kaga BB, and 2 Amagi BC (as well as 1 Kaga and 1 Amagi carrier conversions)
IJN fleet
2 x Fuso
2 x Ise
4 x Kongo
2 x Mutsu
2 x Amagi
2 x Kaga
14 ships
The 16-inch gunned ships are under treaty limits at 38,000 tons (44,000 when fully loaded) and are 25 knot ships with 9 x 16-inch guns in a conventional layout with 2 turrets forwards 1 aft. Armour is all or nothing with 6 x 6-inch guns in dual turrets (like the Nelsons) on each side. 720 feet OA, with a 15-inch belt amidships. The class stars construction in 1924/25 and finishes in 1929/1930 at which point the Iron Dukes are all paid off and scrapped whilst Tiger goes into a training ship role.
On paper the USN fleet is larger but the RN accepts this due to the greater weight of 6 of its Ships. Two incomplete Admirals are to be completed as carriers (HMS Fearless, HMS Furious) USN gets 2 Lexington conversions (Lexington and Saratoga) and the IJN was to get 2 Amagi conversions but had to substitute one of the Kaga hulls that was due to be scrapped due to the Earthquake wrecking one of the Amagi hulls.
QE's are ordered whilst hopeful noises are made at Canada to order some more. This comes to nothing (*sounds of booing and jeering*)
The R class starts getting planned when spies bring information of a supposed German super ship that will outclass the R's. Design work on the R's is halted whilst this is investigated. But someone slips this to a certain cigar puffing, brandy swilling MP and also gets it to a certain Hobgoblin Who's Name is Fisher. Both these men start agitating in the admiralty and Commons and the 'threat' is leaked to the Press who spice up the German super ship even more.
Whilst the Admiralty is a bit unconvinced about the ability of the Germans to produce the ship they are hearing about, the MPs, the Press and public are all a tizzy. Think the 'we want 8 and we won't wait' brewhaha. And the Chancelor and Treasury fold and authorise payment of a new ship.
The R design is seen as inadequate so they look to the successful QE and go "This but more." seeing as there's a lack of a bigger gun, they opt to go with more. Using triple turrets to save weight and space (and if the Russians, Italians and Americans can do it, so can we by jove!) Step forwards the Drakes.
A knock on effect of this is that Renown and Repulse AND the Follies don't get built and the Admirals are delayed enough to learn the lessons of Jutland, with two ships HMS Hood and HMS Anson. She's still basically a BC version of the QE class (which is what the Admirals basically were) but she comes out with the first RN All or Nothing armour scheme.
At the WNT the RN argues for a limit of 40,000 tons for new battleships and the US accepts it, as does Japan. France and Italy make noises but they get thrown the scraps.
The RN gets to keep all 5 QEs, 4 Drakes, the Hood and Tiger. Two incomplete Admiral hulls are looked at for completion as carriers as well as permission to build 4 x 16-inch gunned 40,000 ton ships. But all other 13.5 and 12-inch gunned ships MUST go, the last of the 13.5's replaced when the 16-inchers come into service, on a 1 for 1 basis. This leaves the RN with a fleet like this;
4 x 16-inch gunned Battleships to be built
2 x Admiral Class Battlecruiser
4 x Drake Class Dreadnoughts
5 x Queen Elisabeth class Dreadnoughts
1 x Tiger class battlecruiser
4 x Iron Duke class Dreadnoughts (decommissioned once the 16-inch gunned ships are completed)
16 ships.
RCN
HMCS Canada
RAN (part paid for/manned by RNZN)
HMNZS Australia ex Princess Royal
USN gets the 4th Colorado, 2 Lexingons (with 2 more built as carriers) and 4 Sodaks.
USN Fleet;
1 x New York class
2 x Nevada
2 x Pennysylvania
3 x New Mexico
2 x Tennessee Class
4 x Colorado
2 x Lexington
4 x South Dakota
New York to decommission once the last SoDak is completed.
19/20 ships
IJN gets 2 Mutsu BB 2 Kaga BB, and 2 Amagi BC (as well as 1 Kaga and 1 Amagi carrier conversions)
IJN fleet
2 x Fuso
2 x Ise
4 x Kongo
2 x Mutsu
2 x Amagi
2 x Kaga
14 ships
The 16-inch gunned ships are under treaty limits at 38,000 tons (44,000 when fully loaded) and are 25 knot ships with 9 x 16-inch guns in a conventional layout with 2 turrets forwards 1 aft. Armour is all or nothing with 6 x 6-inch guns in dual turrets (like the Nelsons) on each side. 720 feet OA, with a 15-inch belt amidships. The class stars construction in 1924/25 and finishes in 1929/1930 at which point the Iron Dukes are all paid off and scrapped whilst Tiger goes into a training ship role.
On paper the USN fleet is larger but the RN accepts this due to the greater weight of 6 of its Ships. Two incomplete Admirals are to be completed as carriers (HMS Fearless, HMS Furious) USN gets 2 Lexington conversions (Lexington and Saratoga) and the IJN was to get 2 Amagi conversions but had to substitute one of the Kaga hulls that was due to be scrapped due to the Earthquake wrecking one of the Amagi hulls.
Last edited: