The hull of the Erie was basically identical to the Treasury Class Cutters ie one of the most cost effective class of vessels ever paid for by a nation's taxpayers
Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas
- Thread starter sts-200
- Start date
As far as I can tell, the monitor were already classified as coastal defense ships, but maybe am mistaking
Captain Oblivious
Banned
Just like the present day when lots of navies unable to afford big, nuclear powered aircraft carriers tries from the low-end of the spectrum. That is, big amphibious ships with VSTOL aircraft off the deck. Heck, even the USN will try this, "borrowing" USMC ultralarge amphibs and flying F-35C and V-22s off their decks... the V-22 has already replaced the "transport hawkeye" (C-2 Greyhound) and may start a new career as aerial tanker.
F-35Bs can be launched from the Wasps and Americas not Cs as you need cats and traps for the Cs. As for the V-22 being the basis for a tanker the USN already ordered its first carrier based drones(72 of them all told are planned at the current date)as a tanker so that is unlikely to occur
Captain Oblivious
Banned
That's the issue with the F-35 not being a very interesting aircraft... I'm always getting its alphabet soup of variants wrong.. d'oh !
Guns
Guns
Limits on total tonnage were one thing, but without limits on armament or rate of new construction, a new generation of capital ships could still be built. If these were dramatically more powerful than existing vessels, it could still trigger a building race.
The issue of armament was regarded as the most pressing. In July, the British had proposed a ‘standstill’ in naval gun types, with no new guns to be introduced into service for the next ten years. Naturally, this met with objections from almost everyone, once they realised it would allow only the British to build battleships with 18” guns.
Even if the Americans were allowed to introduce their powerful 16” Mk.2, which had already been developed for the ‘South Dakota’ class, the Japanese would be stuck with a less capable 16” gun, the Dutch and Italians with 15”, and the French with 13.4”.
However, the British knew their 18” Mk.1 was a less than optimal design, and that any further ships would be built with a new 45-calibre version of the gun, which would probably have even more severe blast effects. Their delegation did not take much convincing to agree a limit of 16”, and in so doing formally announced that Rodney was armed with this calibre. This came as a pleasant surprise to the Americans, who had suspected that she was armed with 18” guns.
This revelation made a limitation on gun calibre far more realistic. If Rodney had been equipped with 18” guns, the Royal Navy would have possessed the only two 18” ships in a world otherwise limited to 16”. This still left the lone battlecruiser Furious, but with only six guns and a declared displacement of 36,000 tons, American designers had concluded she was not a disproportionate threat on her own.
Based on their knowledge of British construction techniques and the design of the later HMS Hood, the Bureau of Construction and Repair had concluded that Furious probably had a 9” belt, with a thin upper belt and an lower armoured deck no more than 2” thick. Her top speed was clearly at least 32 knots and based on the known specifications of the British 15” gun, she probably had a broadside of about 19,000lbs. It was therefore unlikely that she was significantly superior to their own designs for Lexington, a 33-knot ship with a 9” belt and a broadside of 17,600lbs.
The Japanese had come to the same conclusion, and regarded their ten-gun Amagi design as superior to both the American and British battlecruisers.
A limit of 16” was therefore practical, and the British returned to their ‘standstill’ proposal, modified so that the three smaller powers would be permitted to develop a new gun of up to 16” calibre. In addition, both Japan and the USA had 16” guns in development with a length of 50-calibres, and the American ‘South Dakotas’ were designed to mount this 16” Mk.2. However, the versions currently in service in Britain, Japan and the USA were 45-calibres long, and an agreement was reached to restrict any future designs to using these shorter guns.
This was later amended to permit the deployment of the American 16” Mk.2 aboard two vessels, while the Japanese received favourable terms regarding their ability to complete new ships.
All three major parties subsequently agreed not to develop any new guns with a calibre of more than 8”, while the three smaller nations would be allowed to develop a gun of up to 16” calibre. The Royal Navy would be allowed to keep the eight guns that were available for Furious (six on the ship and two spares), but no more 18” guns would be permitted.
Limits on total tonnage were one thing, but without limits on armament or rate of new construction, a new generation of capital ships could still be built. If these were dramatically more powerful than existing vessels, it could still trigger a building race.
The issue of armament was regarded as the most pressing. In July, the British had proposed a ‘standstill’ in naval gun types, with no new guns to be introduced into service for the next ten years. Naturally, this met with objections from almost everyone, once they realised it would allow only the British to build battleships with 18” guns.
Even if the Americans were allowed to introduce their powerful 16” Mk.2, which had already been developed for the ‘South Dakota’ class, the Japanese would be stuck with a less capable 16” gun, the Dutch and Italians with 15”, and the French with 13.4”.
However, the British knew their 18” Mk.1 was a less than optimal design, and that any further ships would be built with a new 45-calibre version of the gun, which would probably have even more severe blast effects. Their delegation did not take much convincing to agree a limit of 16”, and in so doing formally announced that Rodney was armed with this calibre. This came as a pleasant surprise to the Americans, who had suspected that she was armed with 18” guns.
This revelation made a limitation on gun calibre far more realistic. If Rodney had been equipped with 18” guns, the Royal Navy would have possessed the only two 18” ships in a world otherwise limited to 16”. This still left the lone battlecruiser Furious, but with only six guns and a declared displacement of 36,000 tons, American designers had concluded she was not a disproportionate threat on her own.
Based on their knowledge of British construction techniques and the design of the later HMS Hood, the Bureau of Construction and Repair had concluded that Furious probably had a 9” belt, with a thin upper belt and an lower armoured deck no more than 2” thick. Her top speed was clearly at least 32 knots and based on the known specifications of the British 15” gun, she probably had a broadside of about 19,000lbs. It was therefore unlikely that she was significantly superior to their own designs for Lexington, a 33-knot ship with a 9” belt and a broadside of 17,600lbs.
The Japanese had come to the same conclusion, and regarded their ten-gun Amagi design as superior to both the American and British battlecruisers.
A limit of 16” was therefore practical, and the British returned to their ‘standstill’ proposal, modified so that the three smaller powers would be permitted to develop a new gun of up to 16” calibre. In addition, both Japan and the USA had 16” guns in development with a length of 50-calibres, and the American ‘South Dakotas’ were designed to mount this 16” Mk.2. However, the versions currently in service in Britain, Japan and the USA were 45-calibres long, and an agreement was reached to restrict any future designs to using these shorter guns.
This was later amended to permit the deployment of the American 16” Mk.2 aboard two vessels, while the Japanese received favourable terms regarding their ability to complete new ships.
All three major parties subsequently agreed not to develop any new guns with a calibre of more than 8”, while the three smaller nations would be allowed to develop a gun of up to 16” calibre. The Royal Navy would be allowed to keep the eight guns that were available for Furious (six on the ship and two spares), but no more 18” guns would be permitted.
Treaty Excerpt 2
Excerpt from the Washington Naval Limitation Treaty
ARTICLE VI
No capital ship of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry, or be constructed to carry, a gun with a calibre in excess of 16 inches or with a bore length greater than 720 inches as measured from the breech face to the muzzle.
The United States may exceed this limitation with the South Dakota and Indiana, which may be equipped with guns of 16-inch calibre and a bore length of 800 inches.
Great Britain may exceed this limitation with the Furious, equipped with guns of 18-inch calibre and a bore length of 720 inches.
The length of an ‘inch’ in this Treaty shall be defined as being exactly 25.4 millimeters for Contracting Powers who use metric measurements.
ARTICLE VI
No capital ship of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry, or be constructed to carry, a gun with a calibre in excess of 16 inches or with a bore length greater than 720 inches as measured from the breech face to the muzzle.
The United States may exceed this limitation with the South Dakota and Indiana, which may be equipped with guns of 16-inch calibre and a bore length of 800 inches.
Great Britain may exceed this limitation with the Furious, equipped with guns of 18-inch calibre and a bore length of 720 inches.
The length of an ‘inch’ in this Treaty shall be defined as being exactly 25.4 millimeters for Contracting Powers who use metric measurements.
Deleted member 94680
I reckon those 18" will end up being coastal defence guns fairly soon - no point maintaining production and supply of a unique calibre for one ship.
Derek Pullem
Donor
That is going to put a crimp in the plans for any new BCL as the guns will need to reused / older designs for the major nations
Good updates too! The limitation to 16-inch guns pretty much dooms the Furry-bus as either a single gunship freak or the RN takes her out of service and turns her into a CV. Put the 18-incher's somewhere useful. Gibraltar or Malta ideally. Pay her the respect she was due, as a warship designed by a visionary, but also learn from the experience so not to repeat the mistakes of her or the Courageous class.
Captain Oblivious
Banned
Interesting.
With the upper limit at 16 inch, I'm wondering which design will be embraced by the French Navy - Richelieu / improved Richelieu 15-inch or alt-Alsace with 16 inch ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace-class_battleship
Then again, ITTL is so far 1922, and many things can happen until ITTL 1934...
With the upper limit at 16 inch, I'm wondering which design will be embraced by the French Navy - Richelieu / improved Richelieu 15-inch or alt-Alsace with 16 inch ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace-class_battleship
Then again, ITTL is so far 1922, and many things can happen until ITTL 1934...
Deleted member 94680
Four in Gib and four overlooking Malta dockyard would be nice
Deleted member 94680
I was thinking more along the line of the rate of fire of the 18” requiring more guns to be effective. Gibraltar and Malta would be anti-ship batteries rather than large artillery, requiring less prolonged fire but higher rates of fire in shorter periods?
Another interesting development in that the limitation to 16" guns with Furious exempted was expected, but the caliber and development limitations were not. In OTL for example, the US Army had its own 16" coastal defense gun design. I expect it is no longer allowed , unless it was already developed.
Also, the cruiser 8" limit is now fixed, because that is the largest caliber where new guns can be developed , so no cruisers with 9.2" or 10" guns.
Also, the cruiser 8" limit is now fixed, because that is the largest caliber where new guns can be developed , so no cruisers with 9.2" or 10" guns.
The best place for the 18" guns is on Furious, it's a waste of a ship to take the only 18" guns allowed out of commission.
The RN is better served building new carriers rather than trying to build a compromised carrier from a hull already in service.
Do people really think that the RN cant provide shells for the 18" guns? This is the navy that had to cater for about 20 separate shell types for its 4, 4.5, and 4.7" guns during the 2nd world war with no issues, once the infrastructure for making the shells is in place it's not really an issue it supply them to the major naval bases that the RN will use.
Before people write off Furious they should think how useful HMS Renown was during WW2, big fast hulls will always be in demand and what to say she will not get a HMS Renown type refit making her into a Light battleship hunter extraordinaire, with the new class being introduced by th treaty she is more useful than ever.
The RN is better served building new carriers rather than trying to build a compromised carrier from a hull already in service.
Do people really think that the RN cant provide shells for the 18" guns? This is the navy that had to cater for about 20 separate shell types for its 4, 4.5, and 4.7" guns during the 2nd world war with no issues, once the infrastructure for making the shells is in place it's not really an issue it supply them to the major naval bases that the RN will use.
Before people write off Furious they should think how useful HMS Renown was during WW2, big fast hulls will always be in demand and what to say she will not get a HMS Renown type refit making her into a Light battleship hunter extraordinaire, with the new class being introduced by th treaty she is more useful than ever.
It's only a ban on putting new guns in service, nothing to say you cant have a new design of 16" gun sitting on the shelf ready to retrofit into older turrets the day after that part of the treaty lapses.
It probably does mean that the light battleships in service will remain in service until the replacement ships can have new guns built, will we see the RN royally upsetting the German navy buy bringing a new 12" gun into service for it's new light battleships.
It probably does mean that the light battleships in service will remain in service until the replacement ships can have new guns built, will we see the RN royally upsetting the German navy buy bringing a new 12" gun into service for it's new light battleships.
Apart from the small issue that firing those big guns warped the structure of furious. Otl these guns were a colossal waste of money. Fired only 85 times in anger (mostly on the monitors) furious was a huge white elephant until transformed into a carrier, where she was far more useful for the RN in the study of carriers and carrier warfare (I actually like the top hanger being a second deck), during the war her most useful contributions was ferrying gold and aircraft across the Atlantic
Hopefully ttls furious is built strong enough not to Shatter her from the stress of firing her guns
as for your second post. It will be difficult getting a gun manufacturer to design and build a gun that they’re not allowed to sell on the offhand the treaty dissolves. Especially designed for older turrets that won’t stay in service for the expected life of the treaty
Last edited:
