If you think it, makes sense to arm the ships with the 9.2 in because is sufficient to make important damage to a pocket battleship or even a proper battleship, not that they run into them but if necessary to make a stand by a squadron or two.
Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas
- Thread starter sts-200
- Start date
Deleted member 94680
No they wouldn't. Not in my mind anyway. They were built post-WWI and therefore - to one degree or another - affected by Britain's constrained finances.
Finances.
Again, we're comparing actual OTL apples to possible ATL oranges. I'm talking about what the RN would like to build given the chance rather than what the RN actually built when they had to face the problems of Imperial Defence with financial shackles.
I can't say - that's for @sts-200 to write. I would say that 2-3 cruisers of an individual type would be unlikely as they (allowing for refit, maintenance, etc as you've pointed out) would be "odd ships out" and unable to form a unit come wartime. 5 is a possibility, but a "pre-War" mentality RN would want at least 8 I'd imagine.
Derek Pullem
Donor
The perception was that the faster firing 6" cf 8" guns meant that a 12 x 6" cruiser was more likely to win a cruiser battle than 8x8" as the weight of shell per minute was actually slightly heavier.
Of course if cruisers are armoured against 6" shell then this is a bit of a false economy. But most weren't.
Yes Ajax and Achilles for example hit Graf Spee multiple times during the River plate engagement
However it was one of the 2 x 8" hits Exeter achieved before she was knocked out very early in the battle that mission killed the German ship
Had all 3 been 8" armed ships its likely that they would have sunk her
However River Plate is an outlier as the panzerschiff where slightly better armored than your average Cruiser in WW2
British doctrine had evolved to teh understanding that damage quickly reduced a warships ability to fight even if the ships citadel was not damaged
Things like damage to directors weapons and fire etc would quickly cripple the fighting effectiveness of a ship - so the ability to fire lots of 6" shells (or 5.25" shells) was deemed to be superior to the heavier but far fewer 8" shells
You could also place far more 6" guns on a treaty cruiser hull
I also wonder if the issues with the British twin 8" gun system whose issues were only really resolved in the very late 30's also drove this decision?
However it was one of the 2 x 8" hits Exeter achieved before she was knocked out very early in the battle that mission killed the German ship
Had all 3 been 8" armed ships its likely that they would have sunk her
However River Plate is an outlier as the panzerschiff where slightly better armored than your average Cruiser in WW2
British doctrine had evolved to teh understanding that damage quickly reduced a warships ability to fight even if the ships citadel was not damaged
Things like damage to directors weapons and fire etc would quickly cripple the fighting effectiveness of a ship - so the ability to fire lots of 6" shells (or 5.25" shells) was deemed to be superior to the heavier but far fewer 8" shells
You could also place far more 6" guns on a treaty cruiser hull
I also wonder if the issues with the British twin 8" gun system whose issues were only really resolved in the very late 30's also drove this decision?
A summary from some way back, which is still relevant to the current state of the story (except Glorious is a wreck in the Scheldt):
'State of the Fleets, May 1917'
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...but-the-fury-of-the-seas.472875/post-19959158
Last edited:
Fair enough, but I am curious about what a less constrained RN might have chosen to build. Lets assume the RN has the same extra 75,000 tons of cruisers for a total of the OTL 251,000 and the added 75,000 tons, for a total of 326,000 tons of cruisers, but can pick any designs it wants. What would the ideal RN crusier force look like?
Mathematically it looks something like this:
326,000 = x*15,000 ton 9.2" cruisers + y*10,000 ton 8" cruisers + z*7,500 ton 6" cruisers
One solution would be eight 15,000 to 9.2" cruisers, seven 10,000 ton 8" cruisers, and 18 7,500 ton 6" cruisers for 33 cruisers at 325,000 tons. Another would be eight 15,000 ton and twenty-seven 7,500 to cruisers for 35 cruisers at 322,500 tons. I think this later (8 big CAs, 27 CLs) may be a better mix, but should there be other designs? If they just wanted big cruisers, they could get 22 of the 9.2" ships for 330,000 tons.
In OTL, the British built something like 65 light cruisers for WW1, with no armored cruisers and only the Hawkins class as heavier cruisers. I expect they don't need quite that many post war because aircraft will pick up a fair amount of the scouting role of Grand Fleets cruiser squadrons, but they will need some. Maybe the mix suggested by CV(N)-6 would work?
On the other hand, maybe different types would work better. They could get more 8" cruisers if they used the York design (6x8", 8,250 tons), or they could use an even smaller 6" design, for example.
Deleted member 94680
All very well thought out and I agree with the majority of what you’ve written.
The only thing I would say is the 8” designed for the RN OTL was very much a “treaty design” and had a troubled service life for its first few years.
Most of the problems seem to have been satisfactorily resolved prior to the start of World War II, but HMS London reported as late as June 1938 that "one would wish that the 8in mountings and torpedoes would behave as they should. The prolonged firing of 20 rounds per gun from London was a disappointment on the material side." (NavWeaps)
I believe that given the choice, the RN would carry on with the already in service 9.2” and develop a new gun based on this “trusted” calibre. The 7.5” was designed pre-War so a “trade cruiser” designed to defeat enemy 6” cruisers is a possibility.
Fascinating discussion been going on here ... and some of those themes will be mirrored in the story in due course.
Numbers are still needed, but aircraft may also have a part to play, and there's still a feeling in most major navies that a foreign station needs a 'large ship' as flag; pre-war, traditionally an armoured cruiser.
I think I'd only note for the moment that a 9.2" or 10" cruiser will be a big ship. Even pre-war British studies for them were similar size to I-class battlecruisers (IIRC the designs were called 'E2', 'E3' etc.., but I'd need to check that). Better machinery might cut that a bit, but not much once higher speed and better equipment are allowed for.
I think you can summarise real British policy by the balance of 'need for numbers' and 'low cost', particularly during '30-'35 when funds were at their tightest.
Plenty of old RN cruisers were due for replacement around that period (e.g. the Towns, early 'C' classes), so while they couldn't have 1:1, they still needed numbers, not size.
By then, it had also been shown that an 8" cruiser on 10,000 tons was a compromise, and the ability for cruisers to engage each other beyond 20,000yds was highly debatable. Then add the dead hand of the Treasury - the Kents and their derivatives were expensive.
So if treaty limits could be tightened and the 'heavy' cruisers limited (per 1930 LNT), it suited short-medium term budgets.
Numbers are still needed, but aircraft may also have a part to play, and there's still a feeling in most major navies that a foreign station needs a 'large ship' as flag; pre-war, traditionally an armoured cruiser.
I think I'd only note for the moment that a 9.2" or 10" cruiser will be a big ship. Even pre-war British studies for them were similar size to I-class battlecruisers (IIRC the designs were called 'E2', 'E3' etc.., but I'd need to check that). Better machinery might cut that a bit, but not much once higher speed and better equipment are allowed for.
I think you can summarise real British policy by the balance of 'need for numbers' and 'low cost', particularly during '30-'35 when funds were at their tightest.
Plenty of old RN cruisers were due for replacement around that period (e.g. the Towns, early 'C' classes), so while they couldn't have 1:1, they still needed numbers, not size.
By then, it had also been shown that an 8" cruiser on 10,000 tons was a compromise, and the ability for cruisers to engage each other beyond 20,000yds was highly debatable. Then add the dead hand of the Treasury - the Kents and their derivatives were expensive.
So if treaty limits could be tightened and the 'heavy' cruisers limited (per 1930 LNT), it suited short-medium term budgets.
Was it the 8" gun that was the problem, or the mountings? According to NavWeaps the designers tried to give the British 8" twin mount Mk I and II a 70 degree max elevation for AA use, despite the fact that the rate of fire and traverse speed was grossly inadequate for AA use. The gun itself seems to have been a serviceable weapon.
| Elevation | Mark I, I* and II: -3 / +70 degrees Mark II*: -3 / +50 degrees |
|---|
Britain 8"/50 (20.3 cm) Mark VIII - NavWeaps
The US twin and triple 8" on the US treaty cruisers only had 41 degrees of elevation and seems to have worked better.
Perhaps ITTL the RN designers will not be that ambitious? I suppose it is one more thing in favor of the 9.2" is that nobody will try to make it an AA gun.
Last edited:
Deleted member 94680
Mmm, that’s a fair point. I suppose the attempt to make an 8” gun HA/LA is more evidence of financial constraints forced on the RN post-War.
All Quiet in the Afternoon
All Quiet in the Afternoon
‘... they're calling it the Great War, Private.’
‘Oh yes, Sir? I don’t see what's so great about it.’
‘What's that? You mean you're not enjoying digging this latrine for your King and Country?’
‘No Sir, I mean Yes Sir… Err, Sir … does that mean the King's going to come here and use it?’
‘Don't be silly Private … he'd probably use III Company's instead.’
In seeking peace, the new German government had to walk a fine line. To their own people, they had to portray themselves as reforming socialists whose goal was to end the war on honourable terms. Simultaneously, they had to present a strong, disciplined military front to the Allies. The Kaiser was gone, which removed one stumbling block for peace, but the enemy must not be allowed to think that Germany was in a state of revolution and collapse.
However, the Allies had their own problems too.
The western powers could see that the Russians were only a few steps away from total military defeat. A Russian collapse could release two million German troops for service in the West, tipping the balance back into Germany’s favour. The situation was confused; the Russian Provisional Government appeared to have little control over some central areas of the country, and the efforts of various revolutionary groups were clearly undermining the Russian Army, although ‘Red Militias’ had been in action against recent German offensives.
Despite its recent offensive moves, the French Army was depleted and exhausted, and France herself was not far behind. Of all the Allies, the French were the most determined to drive the enemy back deep into his homeland, but they would need massive amounts of British and American help in order to do so.
The British Army had also suffered very heavy casualties over the summer, while the effects of submarine warfare were showing alarming signs of damaging Britain’s trading economy and financial stability. Although the U-boat threat had been reduced by the capture of the Belgian coast, the Admiralty believed that the Germans were rebuilding and refitting, and they took seriously the German negotiators’ threat that all-out submarine warfare would be recommenced if the war were continued.
The government were told that if Germany could sink 400,000 tons per month through the Spring of 1918, an extensive programme of rationing and cutbacks would be needed to keep the country in the war. In comparison to the situation on the Continent, the war had made relatively little difference to the British people’s day-to-day life. However, following heavy shipping losses in the spring, food prices had already risen significantly, and there was concern that government-imposed sanctions on food, goods and fuel could wreck morale on the home front.
The British-backed financial system that supported the Allies was also under stress, as reserves of collateral to back Dollar purchases from the USA had been exhausted. Now the Americans had joined the war, the problem was no longer an immediate one, but economists, ministers and bankers in London had an eye on the future. Another year (or worse, two) of running up debts would leave the future finances of the British government severely constrained. If decent peace terms could be obtained in 1917, then it made little economic sense to crush Germany.
American politicians were split. The American public were still enthusiastic about the war, but opportunists and isolationists believed that they might easily support a quick peace instead; particularly if it could be said that America had tipped the balance of the war, quickly and decisively ending the slaughter in the Old World at relatively little cost to herself.
After three long years of war, both sides had good reason to call a halt, and on Sunday, 30th September 1917, that is exactly what they did.
At midday, the guns fell silent, but the negotiations continued.
‘... they're calling it the Great War, Private.’
‘Oh yes, Sir? I don’t see what's so great about it.’
‘What's that? You mean you're not enjoying digging this latrine for your King and Country?’
‘No Sir, I mean Yes Sir… Err, Sir … does that mean the King's going to come here and use it?’
‘Don't be silly Private … he'd probably use III Company's instead.’
In seeking peace, the new German government had to walk a fine line. To their own people, they had to portray themselves as reforming socialists whose goal was to end the war on honourable terms. Simultaneously, they had to present a strong, disciplined military front to the Allies. The Kaiser was gone, which removed one stumbling block for peace, but the enemy must not be allowed to think that Germany was in a state of revolution and collapse.
However, the Allies had their own problems too.
The western powers could see that the Russians were only a few steps away from total military defeat. A Russian collapse could release two million German troops for service in the West, tipping the balance back into Germany’s favour. The situation was confused; the Russian Provisional Government appeared to have little control over some central areas of the country, and the efforts of various revolutionary groups were clearly undermining the Russian Army, although ‘Red Militias’ had been in action against recent German offensives.
Despite its recent offensive moves, the French Army was depleted and exhausted, and France herself was not far behind. Of all the Allies, the French were the most determined to drive the enemy back deep into his homeland, but they would need massive amounts of British and American help in order to do so.
The British Army had also suffered very heavy casualties over the summer, while the effects of submarine warfare were showing alarming signs of damaging Britain’s trading economy and financial stability. Although the U-boat threat had been reduced by the capture of the Belgian coast, the Admiralty believed that the Germans were rebuilding and refitting, and they took seriously the German negotiators’ threat that all-out submarine warfare would be recommenced if the war were continued.
The government were told that if Germany could sink 400,000 tons per month through the Spring of 1918, an extensive programme of rationing and cutbacks would be needed to keep the country in the war. In comparison to the situation on the Continent, the war had made relatively little difference to the British people’s day-to-day life. However, following heavy shipping losses in the spring, food prices had already risen significantly, and there was concern that government-imposed sanctions on food, goods and fuel could wreck morale on the home front.
The British-backed financial system that supported the Allies was also under stress, as reserves of collateral to back Dollar purchases from the USA had been exhausted. Now the Americans had joined the war, the problem was no longer an immediate one, but economists, ministers and bankers in London had an eye on the future. Another year (or worse, two) of running up debts would leave the future finances of the British government severely constrained. If decent peace terms could be obtained in 1917, then it made little economic sense to crush Germany.
American politicians were split. The American public were still enthusiastic about the war, but opportunists and isolationists believed that they might easily support a quick peace instead; particularly if it could be said that America had tipped the balance of the war, quickly and decisively ending the slaughter in the Old World at relatively little cost to herself.
After three long years of war, both sides had good reason to call a halt, and on Sunday, 30th September 1917, that is exactly what they did.
At midday, the guns fell silent, but the negotiations continued.
Good news for Armistice Day commemorations in the future ITTL - less need for thermals on parade.
More seriously: thanks for a(nother) good update with a realistic outcome, though as CV(N)-6 noted above, the negotiations ahead will be a challenge for all involved.
Alright, so the Brits have:
10 12" dreadnoughts: these are obsolete and their first-gen turbines are shot to hell. Scrapped ASAP.
3 12" battlecruisers: Also obsolete, hideously vulnerable, first-gen turbines. Scrapped ASAP.
11 13.5" battleships: obsolescent, but still have some mileage left in them and a match for the older German dreadnoughts. Plans will be to slowly replace them as new ships come online, and they're good candidates for reserve.
4 13.5" battlecruisers: Obsolescent, some mileage left, useful against German battlecruisers or on the trade routes. Likely to be replaced by the notional large cruisers.
3 seizures: non-standard ships. Same fate as OTL.
5 Queen Elizabeths: Retained per OTL.
4 Royals: Retained per OTL. Assuming modernizations happen much more amenable to major reconstruction than OTL Rs.
Courageous: Conversion candidate.
Furious: Odd duck, but fast and well-armed. Retained unless treaties intervene.
Hood/Howe: Fast, well-armed, and well-armored. Retained unless treaties intervene.
Rodney: Basically faster Nagatos, currently under construction.
So the Brits have 12 ships that are up to the standards of the latest Japanese/American battleships, and another two under construction. None of them have a proper raft body armor scheme designed for long-range combat. It's also a mess of classes, guns, and speeds. So the Brits are going to want to build new designs to incorporate the war lessons, get more 16"/18" guns in the water, and also start to rationalize the fleet some.
Treaty negotiations are going to be interesting. Rodney and Hardy butterfly away the Nelsons entirely; those ships were built because the Brits demanded two 16" ships to match the Nagato and Colorado classes. However, with five ships over 40,000 tons instead of one, I don't think the 35,000-ton limit is going to fly, and the Americans and Japanese are going to be very upset about the British having five of those ships and them having none. The British, on the other hand, are not going to budge on allowing more 16" ships. I don't envy the negotiators.
OTL Britain determined they needed 70 cruisers at minimum, 45 on the trade routes and 25 as fleet cruisers for working with the destroyers. As in OTL, the British have a mess of C and D-class cruisers either built or under construction that can do the fleet work, so the priority is going to be those 45 trade protection ships, especially since the newest ships that can do it are the 25-knot, coal-fired Towns. I'd need to crack open my books to get the specific ship mix, though, and can't do that ATM.
Another interesting thought, if the German navy survives with even a basic battlefleet (say 6-10 Dreadnoughts), does this butterfly the panzerschiffe? IIRC, the pocket battleships were an essentially "We'll show them" gesture aimed at the Versailles Treaty limiting Germany to 3-4 pre-dreadnoughts. If Germany isn't limited that severely, would anyone invent them?
Correct me if I'm wrong but Glorious was mearly damaged enough that she couldn't pass the various obstacles she would need to pass to get to sea and thus in order to keep the ship intact and out of German hands she interned herself in the Netherlands and thus like her sister she will almost certainly be converted to a carrier postwar
Re the Cruisers, you've got the C, series which was 28 ships in total, of which 14 would be considered modern (the 4 Caledons, 5 Ceres, 5 Carlisles) and the 8 D class cruisers which were larger and better laid out. Finally there's the E's but we don't know if they were laid down or not and they were really just a larger faster take on the C and D class ships and IIRC in TTL, the RN's cruiser program was somewhat gimped by Fisher and friends grabbing all the high pressure boilers they could for the Follies and Renowns.
All of these 16 ships if completed would be quickly rendered obsolete by ships with their guns in turrets as they are just different iterations on the WW1 design of guns behind shields.
The idea of a 'super cruiser' IE a 15,000 ton vessel armed with say 8 x 9.2's in a typical County esque layout does sound appealing. The RN's going to be downsizing and most of its older battlecruisers will be gone by 1920 - 22 with a few of the 13.5 gunned ships hanging around for a bit longer. This will reduce the RN battlecruiser fleet to 4 ships, the 2 Hoods and 2 Renowns, the 16-inch gunned Hood's are true fast battleships with their combination of guns, speed and protection.
And here a 15,000 ton ship with 9.2's might come in handy as you could use these large ships as a kind of squadron command ship and something to impress the locals. You could and probably would want to keep the 4 x Battlecruisers operating as either a single large squadron (perhaps retaining the Battlecruiser Force organisation) or have them operating in pairs. along with escorts, but you'd also probably want them in home waters. Just in case, and of course depending on what happens with the Germans.
A large cruiser with its 9.2s could act as a squadron flagship on say the China or Asia squadron, its 9.2's can deal with anything short of a full battleship and if designed well enough (perhaps using experience from the Follies in regards to small tube, high pressure machinery) they could probably be fast enough to run away from anything they can't fight *cough Kongo *cough* and if a Lexington comes along with angry intent, that huge things actually vulnerable to a 9.2-inch round with its 7-inch belt and large areas of un-armoured hull.
Also if possible use the 9.2 in (234 mm) Mk XII guns - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-51_mk12.php on any super-cruiser, they were a superior weapon to older - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-50_mk11.php which suffered from nasty barrel erosion issues.
But, these ships are going to be expensive. Probably as expensive as an I class battlecruiser in terms of scale or even a Lion, because of all that machinery, so if the RN did push for them, they'd probably not really produce more than say 6 at the most. What's needed is big gobs of light cruisers for trade protection and fleet scouting. Perhaps start off small and cheap with an early Arethusa type ship - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Arethusa_(26) 6 x 6-inch guns that can be fired in all weather and you don't have to worry about shell splinters killing gun crew thanks to turrets. Assuming the Hawkins are not coming along or even laid down the IJN is still going to produce the Furry-taco's - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furutaka-class_cruiser and the USN might want to answer them with the Pensacola's and then its up to the RN to either get into the 8-inch race or stick with its few 'super cruisers' and pump out a large number of growing CL's.
Perhaps in the mid 30's the RN could then start producing a heavy cruiser of its own. There was a OTL one that would have been based on the Town class hull and had 9 x 8-inch guns but these never saw the light of day, but who knows here. You could even produce the Town as a CL and CA hull, perhaps saying the heavy cruisers are built to replace the older Super Cruisers which will be getting a bit old at this point. And you could have the OTL Town with their 12 x 6-inch guns as the next generation of fleet cruiser filling the role of Goodenough's Town class ships in WW1 as THE fleet cruiser.
All of these 16 ships if completed would be quickly rendered obsolete by ships with their guns in turrets as they are just different iterations on the WW1 design of guns behind shields.
The idea of a 'super cruiser' IE a 15,000 ton vessel armed with say 8 x 9.2's in a typical County esque layout does sound appealing. The RN's going to be downsizing and most of its older battlecruisers will be gone by 1920 - 22 with a few of the 13.5 gunned ships hanging around for a bit longer. This will reduce the RN battlecruiser fleet to 4 ships, the 2 Hoods and 2 Renowns, the 16-inch gunned Hood's are true fast battleships with their combination of guns, speed and protection.
And here a 15,000 ton ship with 9.2's might come in handy as you could use these large ships as a kind of squadron command ship and something to impress the locals. You could and probably would want to keep the 4 x Battlecruisers operating as either a single large squadron (perhaps retaining the Battlecruiser Force organisation) or have them operating in pairs. along with escorts, but you'd also probably want them in home waters. Just in case, and of course depending on what happens with the Germans.
A large cruiser with its 9.2s could act as a squadron flagship on say the China or Asia squadron, its 9.2's can deal with anything short of a full battleship and if designed well enough (perhaps using experience from the Follies in regards to small tube, high pressure machinery) they could probably be fast enough to run away from anything they can't fight *cough Kongo *cough* and if a Lexington comes along with angry intent, that huge things actually vulnerable to a 9.2-inch round with its 7-inch belt and large areas of un-armoured hull.
Also if possible use the 9.2 in (234 mm) Mk XII guns - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-51_mk12.php on any super-cruiser, they were a superior weapon to older - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-50_mk11.php which suffered from nasty barrel erosion issues.
But, these ships are going to be expensive. Probably as expensive as an I class battlecruiser in terms of scale or even a Lion, because of all that machinery, so if the RN did push for them, they'd probably not really produce more than say 6 at the most. What's needed is big gobs of light cruisers for trade protection and fleet scouting. Perhaps start off small and cheap with an early Arethusa type ship - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Arethusa_(26) 6 x 6-inch guns that can be fired in all weather and you don't have to worry about shell splinters killing gun crew thanks to turrets. Assuming the Hawkins are not coming along or even laid down the IJN is still going to produce the Furry-taco's - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furutaka-class_cruiser and the USN might want to answer them with the Pensacola's and then its up to the RN to either get into the 8-inch race or stick with its few 'super cruisers' and pump out a large number of growing CL's.
Perhaps in the mid 30's the RN could then start producing a heavy cruiser of its own. There was a OTL one that would have been based on the Town class hull and had 9 x 8-inch guns but these never saw the light of day, but who knows here. You could even produce the Town as a CL and CA hull, perhaps saying the heavy cruisers are built to replace the older Super Cruisers which will be getting a bit old at this point. And you could have the OTL Town with their 12 x 6-inch guns as the next generation of fleet cruiser filling the role of Goodenough's Town class ships in WW1 as THE fleet cruiser.
Last edited: