Alternative Development of Battleships .

I am interested in some ways that the modern Battleship (From Predreadnoughts to the Yamato) could have developed differently .POD needs to be before 1890 but you can drag on the scenario for as long as you want .
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Okay, let's see...


The tricky thing about this is that around the late 1880s the modern battleship pretty much emerged and everyone saw it was better. You get a combination of all-around angles of fire, a strong broadside, and minimal protected area in a way it's hard to really beat, and the arguments only get stronger as the range increases (since broadside mounts are much shorter ranged).


Now that I've said that, though, there are potential ways it could have worked out that you get a different "modern battleship". One way is basically if the battleship as battleship is not feasible, such as if:

1) Fire control remains much less advanced
2) Armour technology remains less advanced
3) Raw gun penetration is better over OTL


Under all those put together, then you get a situation where the only defence really is speed - in other words, you get battlecruisers not battleships, since the worse armour and the better guns mean that armouring a ship to resist its own guns becomes essentially unfeasible without far too much of a weight penalty.
 
It could be argued that Battleships peaked early, After WW2 and the advent of the Aircraft carrier, Battleships were essentially floating targets that said shoot me. Technically Battleships could have gotten a second wind with the advent of missile technology those vulcan intercept guns, but its a little too late and its hard to justify the costs of battleships
 
It could be argued that Battleships peaked early, After WW2 and the advent of the Aircraft carrier, Battleships were essentially floating targets that said shoot me. Technically Battleships could have gotten a second wind with the advent of missile technology those vulcan intercept guns, but its a little too late and its hard to justify the costs of battleships

Thats quite late .I am wondering what could have happened in say the 1870`s to early 90`s .
My thought is that perhaps naval architects choose to follow up on the central Battery ship concept rather than the turret/barbette ships that were IOTL followed .
 

Redbeard

Banned
Thats quite late .I am wondering what could have happened in say the 1870`s to early 90`s .
My thought is that perhaps naval architects choose to follow up on the central Battery ship concept rather than the turret/barbette ships that were IOTL followed .

But the problem is, that once it is practically possible to build turrets on barbettes - central batteries are a very inefficient solution.

Turrets/barbettes are a consequence of a general technological development, so hard to avoid.

But what about somebody taking the ram-tactics a step or two further?

It is realised that a ship can be much more effectively protected if the armour is concentrated at the front of the ship and only one main turret is carried - at the front - but with two very heavy guns. The tactic is to close on the enemy head on, and to achieve this the design has a few extra knots of speed. After an article in the press the ships are often called "Bullships" instead of battleships.

The first designs are in service with the Imperial Russian Navy and show their worth at Tushima in 1905. The more ordinary Russian ships take heavy losses, but a handful of Bullships smash the Japanese navy crossing their T.

This old tactic, which so far had been a certain way to win a battle, was now obsolete and all navies started building Bullships. The race not only went into armour and guns but as much in speed, as superior speed was instrumental if you were to utilise the Bullships.

When carrier borne attack planes became practical, the new arm of course was called "Toreadors".
 
Brandenburg...

Germany was, at the time, one of the most advanced in the field of optics. If they developed a better fire control system, and also made all six of SMS Brandenburg's guns the same length, they could have introduced the Dreadnought type battleship earlier, and in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary manner.
 
But the problem is, that once it is practically possible to build turrets on barbettes - central batteries are a very inefficient solution.

Turrets/barbettes are a consequence of a general technological development, so hard to avoid.

But what about somebody taking the ram-tactics a step or two further?

It is realised that a ship can be much more effectively protected if the armour is concentrated at the front of the ship and only one main turret is carried - at the front - but with two very heavy guns. The tactic is to close on the enemy head on, and to achieve this the design has a few extra knots of speed. After an article in the press the ships are often called "Bullships" instead of battleships.

The first designs are in service with the Imperial Russian Navy and show their worth at Tushima in 1905. The more ordinary Russian ships take heavy losses, but a handful of Bullships smash the Japanese navy crossing their T.

This old tactic, which so far had been a certain way to win a battle, was now obsolete and all navies started building Bullships. The race not only went into armour and guns but as much in speed, as superior speed was instrumental if you were to utilise the Bullships.

When carrier borne attack planes became practical, the new arm of course was called "Toreadors".

Or what about a "ram" ship but the ram isn't physical but made up of a large number of torpedo tubes

The difficulty with the ram and the torpedo is their relatively short range. By WW1 engagements at around 15000 yards were not uncommon and the closing time for a "ram" would be 20-30 minutes for a 21+ kn vessel. It's unlikely that in a fleet action the "ram" ships would survive the approach.

With much longer range torpedoes than WW1 - say 8-10,000 yards rather than 3-4,000 yds then a massed torpedo attack might be effective
 
Or what about a "ram" ship but the ram isn't physical but made up of a large number of torpedo tubes

The difficulty with the ram and the torpedo is their relatively short range. By WW1 engagements at around 15000 yards were not uncommon and the closing time for a "ram" would be 20-30 minutes for a 21+ kn vessel. It's unlikely that in a fleet action the "ram" ships would survive the approach.

With much longer range torpedoes than WW1 - say 8-10,000 yards rather than 3-4,000 yds then a massed torpedo attack might be effective

Could an effective long-range torpedo have been developed in the 19th century? If it could have happened, this might cause big-gun battleships to never be developed, with the dominant warship being some sort of torpedo carrier instead. Not necessarily a submersible like the early submarines, but a giant torpedo boat with (presumably) heavy defenses against torpedo attack rather than shellfire. Multi-layer hulls, compartmented structure, and so on.
 
That was my premise - a "missile boat" as a template for the capital ship rather than a "gun boat".

Developing a long range torpedo in the 19th century would be hard but given a fraction of the resources devoted to battleships and dreadnoughts I'd venture it was possible.

Something like the 24.5" Mk1 torpedoes introduced on the Rodney and Nelson battleships c. 1920

Running on oxygen enriched air they used the same technology as 1900's wet burners and were a kind of proto-Long Lance

They could travel 15,000 yds at 35 kns

Place a shedload of these tubes on a battleship hull with a few (2-4) long range guns and use the WW2 Japan Long Lance tactics.

With a massive target of a traditional dreadnought gun line this has the potential to change the way capital ships are designed.
 

Driftless

Donor
Germany was, at the time, one of the most advanced in the field of optics. If they developed a better fire control system, and also made all six of SMS Brandenburg's guns the same length, they could have introduced the Dreadnought type battleship earlier, and in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary manner.

Also, a large part of the shift was going from a heavy reliance on mixed calibers of guns to a reliance on the main battery of larger bore weapons. The three turreted Brandenburgs (had all of the guns in the main battery been the same weapon) could have fit the evolutionary bill. As you note, the need would have been for improved optics, plus improvements to propellants and gunnery practice.
 
Last edited:
Top