Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

[Trevayne]

Someone will always look for loop holes . Maybe someone will build the naval equivalent of a tank destroyer . Maybe Torpedo Cruisers like the Kuma Class

Tank destroyer equivalents (ships with big guns and lighter armor) are already possible, but they will count as capital ships. The problem with the classic TD model at sea is that unlike World of Warships there doesn't tend to be that much cover on the open ocean.

Torpedo cruisers are certainly a possibility, but the hit chances of torpedoes at ranges over 10,000 yards get very low, and battleship ranges are increasing. A torpedo cruiser like Kitakami is just the equivalent of 2-4 destroyers in torpedo firepower. It uses less crew, but is a single target and less versatile than those same destroyers.

What was proposed on occasion was a torpedo battleship or better battlecruiser. The idea was that a heavily armored ship with a light gun armament and heavy torpedo armament could get close enough that it could launch torpedoes with a good hit chance. Unfortunately no ever took the idea seriously enough to actually build, probably because it would get torpedoed by destroyers as it closed.

 

[admiral charles]

Now, guys let's get to a still hot debate, should or shouldn't be a separate article for the specifics of the battlecruiser?, just to make things fun and put a technical difference with the battleship.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Now, guys let's get to a still hot debate, should or shouldn't be a separate article for the specifics of the battlecruiser?, just to make things fun and put a technical difference with the battleship.

The entire concept of a "battlecruiser" was obsolete by the end of the war. Battleship and battlecruiser development was converging on fast battleships. By 1918 and 1919, US design work focusing on the South Dakota follow-on (that design was downselected for finalization in 1918) was looking at 30 knot ships around 50k - 55k tons with 12 x 16-inch guns. A third generation of battleships would have been along the lines of the smaller Maximum battleships: 60k - 65k tons, 30 knots, 12 x 16-inch, with heavier belt and deck armor than the preceding class. BCR knew that the Lexingtons were more-or-less evolutionary dead ends considering the post-Jutland environment, and the design was rushed to construction simply to get fast capital ships in the water to challenge the Kongos.

 

[duckie]

There's more to come here, and of course I haven't really mentioned the East yet - where Germany might wish to put any of those 15-cm and 21-cm guns it doesn't have anymore.

Yeah..., that is a short term situation, but alas the treaty says nothing about Mortars and Rockets or aircraft, so insert "evil laughter" of the german weapons designers and general staff. In the short term, I suspect that Germany will build a lot Halberstad groud attack planes for the Schlachtstaffeln....

 

[sts-200]

(https://code2flow.com/mIBQMN)

I still think gun size is the best basis to differentiate classes.

Excellent diagram.

In reality, the minimum displacement limit for capital ships only came in the '36 LNT, so we may not be seeing that one for a while (or ever...???)

 

[sts-200]

But is it really status quo?.

To me it looks more like on the Allied side the British, French, Japanese, and US won, while the Russians lost. On the Axis side, the Germans won in the East and were starting to lose in the West, and the Austro-Hungarians lost.

At a guess, they will be able to claim they won because

France - We won because we got Alsace-Lorraine back

Britain - we won because Belgium is still independent and the German navy is getting trimmed

Germany - We won because we got to trade those ungrateful Alasatians for land in the East and the Russian threat has been seriously reduced

And the USA won because the mere threat of its vast army joining the war forced the Germans hands, the navy got decent levels of funding for the first time since the civil war, and the UK and France owe it tons of money

And everyone on the allied side gets an extra colony/territory or two out of it...
... while Germany is rid of the need to maintain communication with a worthless colonial empire in the face of RN dominance (OK - that's not a 'win', but a sensible German could see it's a net benefit).

 

[sts-200]

The entire concept of a "battlecruiser" was obsolete by the end of the war. Battleship and battlecruiser development was converging on fast battleships. By 1918 and 1919, US design work focusing on the South Dakota follow-on (that design was downselected for finalization in 1918) was looking at 30 knot ships around 50k - 55k tons with 12 x 16-inch guns. A third generation of battleships would have been along the lines of the smaller Maximum battleships: 60k - 65k tons, 30 knots, 12 x 16-inch, with heavier belt and deck armor than the preceding class. BCR knew that the Lexingtons were more-or-less evolutionary dead ends considering the post-Jutland environment, and the design was rushed to construction simply to get fast capital ships in the water to challenge the Kongos.

Yes, I'd argue also due to improving technology.
Pre-war, the battlecruiser was a derivative of the old armoured cruiser - every battleship class had a 'companion cruiser' that was much the same displacement, but used the weight for a large hull and engines in place of guns and armour. Boilers and engines were limited and bulky, so it really was a choice.
By the late 1910s, lightweight, compact engines were becoming available, so the 'choice' was less acute, although those effects didn't show up for years due to the treaties.

 

[Palantir]

@sts-200 For France, once Alsace-Moselle is back, they will probably concentrate on getting as much reparations as possible to reconstruct. Dismantling German fortress in the West is unnecessary as the 2 biggest (Metz and Strasbourg) are now in their hands. If Germany wants new ones, good for them, but it will cost them.
Even with a war shorter by a year, France is still in a precarious financial position and have still a quarter of its territory destroyed or pillaged. So they will need as much help as they can get, financially or in nature, to get back on their feet. The 2 best sources of "help" are Germany with reparations of one sort or an other, and the US with loans and private sponsor ship (like with the reconstruction Reims Cathedral OTL).

One big question for the French financial stability (and for the British at a lesser degree) is if Russia will pay its debts or default.

 

[admiral charles]

The entire concept of a "battlecruiser" was obsolete by the end of the war. Battleship and battlecruiser development was converging on fast battleships. By 1918 and 1919, US design work focusing on the South Dakota follow-on (that design was downselected for finalization in 1918) was looking at 30 knot ships around 50k - 55k tons with 12 x 16-inch guns. A third generation of battleships would have been along the lines of the smaller Maximum battleships: 60k - 65k tons, 30 knots, 12 x 16-inch, with heavier belt and deck armor than the preceding class. BCR knew that the Lexingtons were more-or-less evolutionary dead ends considering the post-Jutland environment, and the design was rushed to construction simply to get fast capital ships in the water to challenge the Kongos.

Is still the case in this different scenario?, because although there were «booms» at Stavenger, it was just Queen Mary... as i see it, they are not (so) discredited as otl, or at least not on the same level( and we now know the real reasons behind it). Anyway, my idea was, I repeat, a technical difference not a doctrinal one; yes, everyone wants big guns in big ships, am just saying that putting on the treaty a light post indicating « here are the options, more hulls and decent ships or less hulls and huge (bankruptcy expensive) ships» would make good the financial thinking of the majority, but what a given nation decides to make with its allotted tonnage is their business. Just, showing the ways.

don't now if am making myself understand?

Yes, I'd argue also due to improving technology.
Pre-war, the battlecruiser was a derivative of the old armoured cruiser - every battleship class had a 'companion cruiser' that was much the same displacement, but used the weight for a large hull and engines in place of guns and armour. Boilers and engines were limited and bulky, so it really was a choice.
By the late 1910s, lightweight, compact engines were becoming available, so the 'choice' was less acute, although those effects didn't show up for years due to the treaties.

Yes, and because of that i vehemently recomend considering put the differences between the two, check my chart of specifications, they are an effective option of light battleship.

 

[Jellico]

Yes, I'd argue also due to improving technology.
Pre-war, the battlecruiser was a derivative of the old armoured cruiser - every battleship class had a 'companion cruiser' that was much the same displacement, but used the weight for a large hull and engines in place of guns and armour. Boilers and engines were limited and bulky, so it really was a choice.
By the late 1910s, lightweight, compact engines were becoming available, so the 'choice' was less acute, although those effects didn't show up for years due to the treaties.

The G3 and N3 show the problem with that. WNT brought the fast battleship early. Without it you have to wait for hydrodynamics to put a cap on speed and guns to get so big larger hulls are impractical. Which is not to say there won't be oversized Hoods in the mean time.

 

[admiral charles]

Exactly,and at this point we must consider, with her new design, that the Hoods are already true fast battleships.

 

[brazen]

Any treaty is just going to class Battlecruisers as capital ships , they will not have their own clause as not every power who will potentially sign up have Battlecruisers or wish to build them.

We are all assuming that there will be hard tonnage limits in any treaty, it could just be that the powers agree to only laying down a set tonnage of capital ships and cruisers a year for 10 years, limiting the costs but not the tonnage or gunnery options. This would stop any Naval arms race if signatories agree to say 70000 tons of capital ships a year and 40000 tons of cruisers. It could be argued that refit tonnage might have to come out of that allowance as well?

As this would keep the industry intact that makes the guns an the armour we might see Beardsmore and COW stay in business as warship building will be a steady drumbeat in accordance with the treaty?

 

[sts-200]

The G3 and N3 show the problem with that. WNT brought the fast battleship early. Without it you have to wait for hydrodynamics to put a cap on speed and guns to get so big larger hulls are impractical. Which is not to say there won't be oversized Hoods in the mean time.

I'd argue the WNT put off the fast battleship by 15 years (simply by stopping construction).
The technology to build something with the performance of any of the 2nd WW ships was effectively there in 1922 (if you accept the different AA environment).
I know there were plenty of 'slow' 23-knot designs around, but I suspect they would have been viewed as limited in a world of G3, Kii, etc.

 

[sts-200]

@sts-200 For France, once Alsace-Moselle is back, they will probably concentrate on getting as much reparations as possible to reconstruct. Dismantling German fortress in the West is unnecessary as the 2 biggest (Metz and Strasbourg) are now in their hands. If Germany wants new ones, good for them, but it will cost them.
Even with a war shorter by a year, France is still in a precarious financial position and have still a quarter of its territory destroyed or pillaged. So they will need as much help as they can get, financially or in nature, to get back on their feet. The 2 best sources of "help" are Germany with reparations of one sort or an other, and the US with loans and private sponsor ship (like with the reconstruction Reims Cathedral OTL).

One big question for the French financial stability (and for the British at a lesser degree) is if Russia will pay its debts or default.

Spot on.
US loans are certainly going to be a key driver for most (if not all) the other powers.

As you may have gathered, I'm going for something a bit closer to a traditional end for a 14th-18th C. European war :-
'We've all had enough for now, so you pay us a million Gold wot-nots and give us a few castles, and we'll find a spare princess or two to seal the deal...'
(except for the later of course).

 

[Machiavelli Jr]

Tank destroyer equivalents (ships with big guns and lighter armor) are already possible, but they will count as capital ships. The problem with the classic TD model at sea is that unlike World of Warships there doesn't tend to be that much cover on the open ocean.

Torpedo cruisers are certainly a possibility, but the hit chances of torpedoes at ranges over 10,000 yards get very low, and battleship ranges are increasing. A torpedo cruiser like Kitakami is just the equivalent of 2-4 destroyers in torpedo firepower. It uses less crew, but is a single target and less versatile than those same destroyers.

What was proposed on occasion was a torpedo battleship or better battlecruiser. The idea was that a heavily armored ship with a light gun armament and heavy torpedo armament could get close enough that it could launch torpedoes with a good hit chance. Unfortunately no ever took the idea seriously enough to actually build, probably because it would get torpedoed by destroyers as it closed.

I think I read somewhere that the Japanese considered a big torpedo cruiser (possibly a conversion job on an otherwise useless big fast ship) - lots of speed, lots and lots of Long Lances under as much armour as possible, the idea would be to launch a massive torpedo spread beyond the enemy's torpedo range, preferably at night without them ever seeing you, and leg it. One of those weapons that would only work once or twice before the other side figured it out, and only before radar. But as 1942 demonstrated you can do the same thing with four DDs which can also do a lot more.

 

[CV12Hornet]

I think I read somewhere that the Japanese considered a big torpedo cruiser (possibly a conversion job on an otherwise useless big fast ship) - lots of speed, lots and lots of Long Lances under as much armour as possible, the idea would be to launch a massive torpedo spread beyond the enemy's torpedo range, preferably at night without them ever seeing you, and leg it. One of those weapons that would only work once or twice before the other side figured it out, and only before radar. But as 1942 demonstrated you can do the same thing with four DDs which can also do a lot more.

Ah, but you have to consider Japanese fleet battle doctrine. The long-range torpedo spreads would be for either assisting the CAs in cracking open American screens during the Night Battle phase, at which point destroyers could dive in and torpedo the battleships at point-blank range, or else for a ginormous torpedo salvo right at the opening of the daylight battleship gun action.

So under the Japanese battle plan the ships make perfect sense. It's just that... well... the battle plan was wack, especially the night battle phase.

 

[sts-200]

Ah, but you have to consider Japanese fleet battle doctrine. The long-range torpedo spreads would be for either assisting the CAs in cracking open American screens during the Night Battle phase, at which point destroyers could dive in and torpedo the battleships at point-blank range, or else for a ginormous torpedo salvo right at the opening of the daylight battleship gun action.

So under the Japanese battle plan the ships make perfect sense. It's just that... well... the battle plan was wack, especially the night battle phase.

I've long thought everyone learned the wrong lessons from surface torpedo attacks during the Great War, and none moreso than the Japanese. Despite pre-war fears, the torpedo was a short-range weapon, unless fired at a non-manoeuvring target.
The odds of hitting a moving ship with an unguided torpedo fired from even 5,000 yards are pretty much nil (as was proven at Jutland - IIRC the Germans fired something like 300 torpedoes and scored 2 hits).
Given that the American ships had lookouts and weren't stationary, it sounds like a great way of getting them to turn to avoid, but as that's exactly the opposite of what the Japanese wanted ...

 

[admiral charles]

Any treaty is just going to class Battlecruisers as capital ships , they will not have their own clause as not every power who will potentially sign up have Battlecruisers or wish to build them.

they are already stated as capital ships but inside the capital ship definition they would be some kind of lighter and, you may say, cheaper( number wise that is) capital ship and yes not everyone have battlecruisers but actually they wish to have some and as I said before the treaty what is going to do is to defined the dimensions of what should be not what is already a battlecruiser, I repeat, I insist on this, is just a technical difference not a doctrinal one.

We are all assuming that there will be hard tonnage limits in any treaty, it could just be that the powers agree to only laying down a set tonnage of capital ships and cruisers a year for 10 years, limiting the costs but not the tonnage or gunnery options. This would stop any Naval arms race if signatories agree to say 70000 tons of capital ships a year and 40000 tons of cruisers. It could be argued that refit tonnage might have to come out of that allowance as well?

Yeah, love that idea, it would be interesting. That level the odds for everyone and throws by the window any notion of a race, at least in practice.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

they are already stated as capital ships but inside the capital ship definition they would be some kind of lighter and, you may say, cheaper( number wise that is) capital ship and yes not everyone have battlecruisers but actually they wish to have some and as I said before the treaty what is going to do is to defined the dimensions of what should be not what is already a battlecruiser, I repeat, I insist on this, is just a technical difference not a doctrinal one

History proved time and again that cruiser-killers, which is all your "light capital ship" would be, are a bad idea because they get smacked whenever a real battleship shows up.

 

[CV(N)-6]

History proved time and again that cruiser-killers, which is all your "light capital ship" would be, are a bad idea because they get smacked whenever a real battleship shows up.

Just build a real BB (or a carrier for that matter)