Alternate warships of nations

[Father Maryland]

I'm just having images of airbases, or aircraft carriers carrying bat bombs and the things somehow escaping causing havoc before they even get loaded onto a plane. The basic idea of using them on wooden buildings seems workable, but you just know the whole scheme was probably asking for batty trouble somewhere and somehow.

I suppose it could get US commanders saying "Bats!" instead of "Nuts!".

Aye, I'm sure someone was thinking about how to make them bigger.


Sargon

That reminds me of the Soviet Anti Tank Dogs trained to run under tanks looking for food with mines on their backs. Trouble is they only associated Soviet tanks with food and when used in action ran under them instead of the German tanks.

I actually feel that the bat bombs probably would have worked well. From what I understand the bats went immediately from getting outfitted with the bombs to the cluster bomb type arrangement. If I remember correctly the bats were also asleep at the time they were outfitted.

The thing is by the time they were ready pretty much every Japanese city had been burned down by conventional bombing. That and the A bomb was pretty much ready.

And unlike the anti tank dogs there weren't any American cities for them to accidentally blow up.

 

[Count of Crisco]

View attachment 596683
In 1934 the Mexican empire placed orders with French yards for a pair of new battleships to replace their old Aquila class of dreadnoughts which dated to 1912 and 1914, and were coming up for replacement. In the end the increasingly poor financial situation would see only a single vessel, the kuautli (Nahuatl for eagle) would be completed and the battle ship Emperador Maximiliano el primero moderately modernized. Only a few of the planned cruisers, destroyers and submarines initially ordered in the 1934 bill would eventually see completion.

Kuautli entered service in 1939, arriving in Mexico just three days before the outbreak of the second world war. The ship displaced 27,376 tons and was armed with a primary battery of twelve 305mm guns in three quadruple turrets, the ship being largely obsolete compared to the monsters which had been ordered just after her laying down by the major powers as the naval treaties collapsed. The ship spend most of the war participating in neutrality patrols in Mexican territorial waters, notably the ship would have a prolonged stand-off with the Alyskan battleship Ryker in 1941 as the ship attempted to travel through the Nicaraguan canal despite a Mexican policy forbidding warships of the combatants using the canal for military purposes.

Post war the ship remained in Mexican service with refits into the 1970s and was placed in reserve in 1974, and languished in harbor for several decades until she caught fire in 2003 and was scuttled by the navy to stop the risk of her magazines detonating.

Forgot to mention this is from a TL I am working on with a more successful 2nd Mexican empire and a less wanked USA compared to OTL.

 

[PMN1]

I do agree that building triple expansion engined large ships after moving to turbines is wrong. I especially find it weird that the slower ship (dreadnought) gets the better engines rather than the cruisers. It did really help dreadnought stay relevant but the armoured cruisers were in a bad way here.

One of the Invincible proposals had triple expansion machinery.

 

[PMN1]

Naval Estimates
1904/1905 2 battleships of the Lord Nelson class [1.65 million each]
1905/1906 1 battleship Dreadnought class [1.785 million] 3 Armoured cruisers Minotaur class [4.187 million for 3]
1906/1907 0 battleships 3 Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers of the invincible class [5.25 million for 3]
1907/1908 3 battleships of the Bellerophon class [5.8 million]
This is a total of 20.3 million.

We know that the battleships of the Lord Nelson class were laid down late in the year, the design for Dreadnought had already been finalised. I have always considered that these ships should not have been built as the ship that would make them obsolescent was already designed.

Given how revolutionary Dreadnought was it seems odd that spending on armoured cruisers continued. They were barely faster than the battleship they were ordered with. Furthermore multiper calibre guns were abandoned on battleships. Why continue on cruisers? It seems to me that the director of naval construction was so focused on dreadnought that it did not consider the effect of technological changes made on the other half of the large ship program.

Fisher said (when speaking about the invincibles) that a knot or two speed difference is irrelevant. If you are faster you need to be a lot faster or a dirty bottom gets rid of your advantage. It would be very easy to see a armoured cruiser stuck to the same speed as Dreadnought due to a dirty bottom. This would leave her useless as a fleet screen and merely a bad ship in the line of the battle.

So as an alternate program someone decides to cancel the Lord Nelsons (reordering as additional Dreadnoughts) and to cancel the Minotaur class ordering two additional Dreadnoughts.

The justification being that there's no need to lay down ships that will be obsolescent when completed (in the case of the Nelsons) and that the effect of new technologies and methodology on large armoured cruisers should be considered at a later date (in the case of the Minotaur class).

1906/1907 continues as historical
1907/1908 sees the Royal Navy order Indefatigable (a year early but due to the cancelation of the Minotaur class extra faster capital ships are warned)[1.63 million] and two Bellerophon

This adjustment would see the Royal Navy finishing the 1907/1908 fiscal year with the following built or laid down

5x Dreadnought
3x Invincible
2x Bellerophon
1x Indefatigable

To sum up 7 dreadnought battleships and 4 battlecruisers compared to the historical 2 preadnoughts, 4 dreadnoughts 3 armour armoured cruisers and 3 battlecruisers.

The cost of the changed program would be approx 19.7 million compared to the historical program costing 20.3 million.

Does anyone feel that the Royal Navy would prefer the historical program? Does anyone feel that they might go for 2 Indefatigable and 1 Bellerophon to catch up the numbers of faster ships.

Nice but is there the turret manufacturing capability?

 

[naraic]

Nice but is there the turret manufacturing capability?

That I will have to check later on. There definitely is capacity but it might cut into exports. For example will it mean that Minas Geras and sao Paulo dont get turrets when Brazil want to import a dreadnought.

One of the Invincible proposals had triple expansion machinery.

True. They couldn't get the speed they wanted at a sensible cost and space requirement iirc.

I guess my point here is if you have a 21 knot battleship what is a 23 knot cruiser other than obsolete

 

[ArtosStark]

Nice but is there the turret manufacturing capability?

That I will have to check later on. There definitely is capacity but it might cut into exports. For example will it mean that Minas Geras and sao Paulo dont get turrets when Brazil want to import a dreadnought

According to this there should be capacity for 28 x 12" turrets over a 26 month period if the ordinance works are not also building 9.2" guns.

 

[PMN1]

I would also recommend this as a summary of British Oil policy in the time period in and around WW1.

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/3160/1/2012gibsonphd.pdf

So would I.

Between the two you get a good idea of the state of oil firing in the RN and elsewhere.

 

[ArtosStark]

So would I.

Between the two you get a good idea of the state of oil firing in the RN and elsewhere.

Makes sense. It was you that put me on to that one in the first place. Thanks for that!

 

[PMN1]

Makes sense. It was you that put me on to that one in the first place. Thanks for that!

Given the combinations of oil discoveries needed, the development of the transport system for the oil and the development of effective oil fired boilers, I think getting full oil firing for Dreadnought is right at the edge of possibility.

Having said that, the D’Arcy Concession was signed May 1901, would be interesting to see how things played out if he got lucky and struck oil virtually straight away….even better if it was a field closer to the Gulf and the eventual refinery.

 

[ArtosStark]

Given the combinations of oil discoveries needed, the development of the transport system for the oil and the development of effective oil fired boilers, I think getting full oil firing for Dreadnought is right at the edge of possibility.

Having said that, the D’Arcy Concession was signed May 1901, would be interesting to see how things played out if he got lucky and struck oil virtually straight away….even better if it was a field closer to the Gulf and the eventual refinery.

Considering it's closer connection to Britain, I wonder if it is possible for Kuwait's oil to be found earlier?

 

[ArtosStark]

Chart from the link I posted above. Gives an idea of just how dominant the US was in Oil production in this period. And how much the British would have to improve their oil production to feel secure. India was also a net consumer in this era, as its production did not even cover its own needs.

 

[Father Maryland]

View attachment 596869
Chart from the link I posted above. Gives an idea of just how dominant the US was in Oil production in this period. And how much the British would have to improve their oil production to feel secure. India was also a net consumer in this era, as its production did not even cover its own needs.

Jesus. 82 fucking percent of world oil production?

 

[ArtosStark]

Yeah, the American Oil industry expanded thanks to the war, while Russia, its closest rival, collapsed for obvious reasons. Mexico became number 2 but then Mexico's collapsed in 1920 (possibly due to revolution?). Everywhere else was still adjusting to the end of the war and figuring out the diplomatic issues.

 

[AJE]

Chart from the link I posted above. Gives an idea of just how dominant the US was in Oil production in this period. And how much the British would have to improve their oil production to feel secure. India was also a net consumer in this era, as its production did not even cover its own needs.

If you go before 1901 (roughly) it becomes more even, though oil was much more expensive in general before 1901.

 

[CV(N)-6]

Doesn't the RCN alone have 12 frigates and 4 Diesel subs? This seems like you're giving Quebec a Navy equal to the RCN, which I don't see as being very easy.

 

[Jim Smitty]

How is the Quebec navy affording that again?

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Quebec has a population of 8.5 million and a GDP similar in size to Chile. The Chilean Navy has 26,000 personnel including Marines and has 4 SSKs (two Type 209s from the 1980s and two Scorpenes from the 2000s) and eight old frigates, all from the 1980s and 1990s. These Quebecois would be lucky to have a navy that large considering the cost of manpower. A realistic goal would be for 4 SSKs and 4 modern frigates, although the naval geography in the Gulf of St. Lawrence would place more emphasis on fast attack craft and small ships no larger than the Sa'ar 4.5. MPAs would be very important, but Quebec won't have the money for more than a few modern ones, so the fleet is likely to be mostly P-3 Orions. Without frigates, you can also get rid of ASW helicopters. Any ideas of anything nuclear can be tossed immediately. OPVs are big, slow targets that have absolutely no business being built by such cash-strapped countries in places where land-based tactical aircraft are the dominant naval weapon.

 

[Hammerbolt]

Even with money, that's far too many large MPAs anway. Quebec simply doesn't have the shoreline and sea area to need such a fleet.

 

[Lascaris]

Quebec has a population of 8.5 million and a GDP similar in size to Chile. The Chilean Navy has 26,000 personnel including Marines and has 4 SSKs (two Type 209s from the 1980s and two Scorpenes from the 2000s) and eight old frigates, all from the 1980s and 1990s. These Quebecois would be lucky to have a navy that large considering the cost of manpower. A realistic goal would be for 4 SSKs and 4 modern frigates, although the naval geography in the Gulf of St. Lawrence would place more emphasis on fast attack craft and small ships no larger than the Sa'ar 4.5. MPAs would be very important, but Quebec won't have the money for more than a few modern ones, so the fleet is likely to be mostly P-3 Orions. Without frigates, you can also get rid of ASW helicopters. Any ideas of anything nuclear can be tossed immediately. OPVs are big, slow targets that have absolutely no business being built by such cash-strapped countries in places where land-based tactical aircraft are the dominant naval weapon.

Greece has about the same GDP and 10 million people with 13 frigates and 11 SSK. Granted two thirds of that are Type 209s and S class frigates dating to 1980, that are likely being replaced by fewer ships (2 Type 214, 4 MMCS and 2-4 FFG (X) afterwards, plus EPC to replace both missile boats and older frigates in the 2030s is my guess at the moment). Of course Greece has reasons to maintain a largish navy and air force for its size. What's the external threat Quebec is facing here?

 

[ArtosStark]

What's the external threat Quebec is facing here?

Newfoundland. Those Newfies are quite the empire-builders. Got to keep an eye on them.