Light naval forces on the eve of ww1

[Monk78]

Obviously, yes, I mentioned the use of motor boats before.

and the steamers and powered river barges too ?

 

[CV12Hornet]

and the steamers and powered river barges too ?

Those existed long before WWI, so yes.

 

[marathag]

Just because they called something a destroyer doesn't mean that we would call it the same thing...

1902 USS Hopkins Class 620 tons

1917 USS Wickes Class 1247 tons

1935 Farragut Class 2064 tons

1954 Forrest Sherman class 4050 tons

1980 USS Ticonderoga 9800 tons

 

[Monk78]

Can the older German torpedo boats (Which were disarmed by removal of torpedo tubes At the start of the war) become ASW vessels and upgunned ?

 

[Father Maryland]

Civil War Photo Friday: Union mortar boat

This ugly little vessel is a mortar boat. Used primarily by the Union navy, they were armored rafts carrying a heavy mortar. As the siege ...

civilwarhorror.blogspot.com

a more modern version of something like this ?

The Brits did build a couple dozen monitors ranging from ones armed with a 18 inch gun (briefly) to much smaller gunboat types for close in coast work. They were mostly used for bombarding German coastal positions in occupied Belgium.

You could theoretically have the Brits to invest in say heavy mortars/howitzers for coastal defense pre war and end up mounting them in Monitors during the war. Something like the 12 inch breechloading mortar the US developed in the 1890s.

 

[Gunnarnz]

Can the older German torpedo boats (Which were disarmed by removal of torpedo tubes At the start of the war) become ASW vessels and upgunned ?

Sure. You'd end up with something like a submarine chaser.

 

[Father Maryland]

1902 USS Hopkins Class 620 tons
View attachment 683152

1917 USS Wickes Class 1247 tons
View attachment 683151
1935 Farragut Class 2064 tons
View attachment 683153
1954 Forrest Sherman class 4050 tons
View attachment 683154
1980 USS Ticonderoga 9800 tons
View attachment 683155

Admittedly these days there is a trend in a lot of nations to nominally designate a vessel as being a class lower then they really are. Like what is effectively a Destroyer being designated a "frigate" or a frigate being called a "corvette". For a lot of Western Democracies it helps with the politics and the general public to downplay what the vessels actual size and roll is. Sort of like how the Germans call their new destroyers "Frigates" or why the South Koreans call their King Sejong the Great class as being destroyers despite having 128 VLS Tubes to the Tico's 122 and 16 ASM missiles vesus 8 ASM missiles for the Tico's. A Sejong also has a 20 plus round Sea RAM mount and a Goalkeeper CIWS. And the Sejong is a thousand tons more then a Tico. But the Sejong is a "Destroyer" while the Tico is a Cruiser.

 

[Monk78]

Sure. You'd end up with something like a submarine chaser.

But earlier than OTL ?

 

[Gunnarnz]

But earlier than OTL ?

Not much earlier. The first ones were ordered in 1915, with nearly 600 built by 1916.