If you can get a double ended dock like the French Vauban 1-4, you might be able to cover your plans a bit.
Military Ship tonnages without WNT
- Thread starter Vabasion
- Start date
If you can get a double ended dock like the French Vauban 1-4, you might be able to cover your plans a bit.
It was all part of a design rather than luck. Before WW1, the French Navy decided it needed several drydocks for holding Yamato size ships.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
Any link to those designs? 1910's Yamato's sounds fascinating to read about.
Sadly no. The Brits were curious about the width of the docks as it was inefficient to dock ships like the Bretagnes in 130m wide docks.
Some notes I have on the French program by 1914.
Stung by the rapid decline of the French Navy's position, France had a stated plan of 28 1st rate battleships (13 BB with at least 13.4" guns, 4 BB 12" guns, 6 Danton and 5 Patrie), 10 scout cruisers, 10 'overseas' cruisers, 52 Destroyers, 25 Ocean and 69 Coastal Subs all by 1920. In introducing the 1912 Law (Loi du 30.III.12) the Navy Minister Lanessan noted that France had spent more than German on her Navy but had slipped behind. The new law also called for building new docks as their current ships were restricted to 22500 tons and the 7 new docks to complete by 1920 included the 250m by 36m (820ft x 118ft) Laninon Docks No. 8 and 9 at Brest and the 2 Vauban Grands Bassins at Toulon (1450ft x 131ft). These docks were also to support Russian ships (probably Borodino class BC) based on Bizerte in North Africa.
France had a series of Naval Laws:
1890 Naval Statute 24 BB 17 Coastal BB, 34 cruisers 220 TB
1900 28 BB 24 AC, 52 DD, 263 TB and 38 SS by 1908
1906 revised to 34 BB, 36 AC 6 Scouts, 109 DD, 131 SS and 179 TB
1912 law 28 BB, 10 'overseas' Cruisers, 10 Scout Cruisers, 52 Destroyers, 25 Ocean and 69 Coastal subs
1913 law brought forward the order for a battleship from 1917 to 1914.
After 4 Normandies and 4 Lyons, 2 ships of a new design were to be laid down in 1917. The battleships were to be built in the early part of the program and Destroyers and Scouts to follow in 1917. The program was later accelerated at the insistence of the Naval Staff (EMG), one of the 1917 ships was inserted into the 1914 programme to become the 5th Normandie (Bearn). The first of the scout cruisers were to be brought forward too. This reflected the shift to 8 ship squadrons rather than 6 ship ones.
4 battleships would have been started in 1915 and 2 in 1917. Replacement ships would have been laid down 2 in 1919, 2 in 1920, 4 in 1921 and 2 in 1922, which would have given in 1925 a navy composed of 24 battleships (3 Bretagne, 5 Normandy, 4 Lyon being 12 ships plus 4 Courbets and therefore eight battleships of an unidentified type). If this program had been realized, France would have possessed an impressive force with four dreadnought of Courbet type and especially two squadrons of eight super-dreadnought a total of 20 modern battleships.
Naval officers were trying to define 'overseas cruisers' as 'battlecruisers' in 1914 but the war started before this was settled. At least 4 and perhaps 7 of the existing AC contemporary with the Danton's and Republic's would fit this 'overseas cruiser' classification and still be under age. Some of these ships served into the 1930's in real life. BC designs were at a very early stage, the ones put forward were in the nature of student projects rather than something from the Director of Naval Construction. French ideas on BC at this time were along Fast Battleship lines with less guns of battleship calibre, contrasting with RN (less armour) and German (smaller calibre guns) ideas. Following large ship schedules, 4 could be laid down 1917, 1 in 1918, 4 in 1920 and the last in 1921. Designs being considered ranged from 6500 tons to 23000 tons.
Discussions in the Senate in mid 1914 detailed that France should be superior to the Italian-AH combination and the battlefleet should be raised from 28 Dreadnoughts to 33. The EMG were told that no additional battleships beyond the 1912 Law were to be laid down prior to 1918. To reach 32 ships by 1925, EMG were projecting a need for additional ships.
1921 BB Levels (Loi du 30.III.12) 13 BB with at least 13.4" guns, 4 BB 12" guns, 6 Danton and 5 Patrie (28 BB)
1921 BB levels (Project EMG du 10.IV.14) 24 BB with at least 13.4" guns, 4 BB 12" guns, 6 Danton and 5 Patrie (39 BB)
Beyond I 16, the schedule proposed in 1914 (39 force level) was I 17 (May 1916) I 18, I 19 (Jul 1916) A 20 A 21 Oct 1916, I 22 Apr 1917 and 5 units in 1918. The EMG asserted that the additions were necessary to make up the deficiency of three ships below the total number of Italian and Austrian BB expected in 1918 and to enable an 8-ship battle squadron in the Channel/Atlantic as recommended by former Minister Lanessan in 1912. I 16 was to be advanced from from 1917 to 1915 as a 5th Lyon to replace Suffren. The inspector of finances ruled this out. The Lyons were 86m fr. 31000 ton design was 96m fr. This is about £ 120 per ton. The cost would have been an additional £32m for the 11 ships with costs peaking at £18m per year in 1918, almost double the agreed 1912 plan.
I imagine after the early to mid 1920s the Japanese have to massively slow and curtail their warship program due to financial concerns, lack of resources, and natural disasters. France is more concerned with matching the Kriegsmarine and the Regia Marina than with being a world power, and so the global aspect of the arms race is Anglo-American, at least principally.
I could also see the militarists being forced out of government in Japan when they doggedly try to maintain building and expansion against economic reality.
If memory serves the United States comes into the 1920s with more shipyards capable of producing large ships, but the Royal Navy is already quite large, had not been historically starved of funds, and so would start with a better overall position in terms of various ship types, especially cruisers and the like, which would potentially enable them to focus more on producing capital ships.
I could also see the militarists being forced out of government in Japan when they doggedly try to maintain building and expansion against economic reality.
If memory serves the United States comes into the 1920s with more shipyards capable of producing large ships, but the Royal Navy is already quite large, had not been historically starved of funds, and so would start with a better overall position in terms of various ship types, especially cruisers and the like, which would potentially enable them to focus more on producing capital ships.
I'm pretty sure it was more of a if we are building new docks let's do it so we don't need to do it again for 50 years thing rather than a this is what we want to build in a few years time.
I did a similar thread based on this thought because I suspect there is a scientifically "ideal" battleship design much as during the Age of Sail the "seventy-four" third-rate was the standard warship because of the balance of speed, maneuverability, cost, and firepower (and I suspect in the Cold War it was the 10K ton CG). The reason we never really hit on such a design is because the dreadnought age was barely 40 years and the final generation of battleships, the nuclear-powered battleship (which would be akin to mid-19th century ships of the line which used steam power), never emerged. I think it would be extremely challenging to both find such a standard and have it produced on a large scale in numerous nations before the battleship is obsolete.
At one point I was thinking a Yamato/Montana-class ship might be your standard battleship, but the cost and just as importantly the size (needs to fit your docks, need to fit through the Panama Canal, etc.) would serve as a constraint. Because the United States is going to be a major player in this and needs to worry about Panama Canal, this means the standard would be close to a Panamax ship which would be a slightly longer Iowa-class with more draft. The standard gun will be in the 16-18" range. I favor the lower end because IIRC 18" guns have some inherent issues due to their size and the technology of the era, are more expensive, and have slower rate of fire.
You will see a few larger ships to counter them, but they're so prohibitively expensive nations will build very few of them, and even nations which could build them may prefer not to in favor of more smaller ships. I think given technical issues, you won't see anything much larger than a 20" gun ever built. Realistically even those might be sidelined in favor of packing a ship with more 18" guns. Among these ships, you might have an initial generation of true super-battleships and then attempts at building "super-super battleships" which by that point might be nuclear-powered and likely armed with missiles and not big guns. The "super-battleship" would be your Yamato/Montana-class at over 70K tons and the counter to that might be around 90K-100K tons (like the Nazi H-42/H-43 plan).
Carriers are difficult to invest in because they aren't proven weapons in the interwar period and there's a considerable barrier to entry lest you build something like France's Béarn or the Nazi Graf Zeppelin. It needs the planes, the cooperation with other branches of the military (potentially), the doctrine to properly use carriers, and properly trained pilots. Smaller nations would be skeptical about buying a carrier.
This happened OTL, Spain built 3 very small dreadnoughts because the government had little money but demanded ships. It's the exact same as how in the 18th century Portugal, Venice, and other small nations built third-rate ships of the line. Battlecruisers might be popular too among these nations (see the Dutch battlecruiser proposal) since their fleets won't be expected to clash with the major powers and battlecruisers do a good job at showing the flag and hunting enemy surface raiders and winning smaller engagements.
As for a rating system for ships armed with guns, here is my concept:
*First-rate - "Super-super battleship", 18-20" guns, over 80K tons
*Second-rate - "Super battleship", 16-18" guns, 65-80K tons
*Third-rate - Battleship, 15-18" guns, 40-60K tons
*Fourth-rate - Small/obsolete battleship, battlecruiser, "cruiser killer", 11"-15" guns - 20-40K tons (akin to how fourth-rates were no longer considered ships of the line by the end of the 18th century)
*Fifth-rate - Heavy cruiser, armored cruiser, 8"-11" guns - 10K-20K tons
*Sixth-rate - Light cruiser, 5"-8" guns - 5K-10K tons
I think we could've seen the basis of this in an ATL without the naval treaties and in some ASB world stuck at 1910 - 1950 technology for centuries this would inevitably emerge.
The biggest limiter of the US isn’t even as easily solvable as dry docks. It’s ships have an absolute maximum size fixed by the Panama Canal.
Makes WW2 a bit different as to fund that lot Germany would have bicycles rather than Panzers (Germany not actually having any thing bigger than pre dreads prior to 1933 due to the Versailles treaty )
I suspect US and GB simply get into a nice hotel room and agree some form of money saving deal like OTL but with a higher level of ships due to IJN numbers.....
I dont think it's the same due to speed and protections not being as constant as the era with sails and wood hulls, simply put you can see the "ideal" cut down in number of guns down to around 9 main guns on almost all later Battleships (a range of 6-8-9-10-12 ish with most on 9 guns) but as you can increase gun size, protection and speed the ships keep getting larger unlike the Age of Sail where human strength limits (on gun/sail size) and wood (length of single trees) limits your increases?
Agreed, with hindsight a larger WNT or no WNT world is far harder for the none and minor WNT powers to catch up to as GB/US have build up a lead of first rate ships in a slow peacetime build at lower costs than OTL pre war race to rearm.
With say 8-12 G3/Lions and Hood+R&R RN in say 1937 is far worse for KM with not much more than S&G and the PB especially are far more vulnerable with slow speed.....
I wonder if S&G and the PBs would have been built in a world where Britain had multiple fast battleships.
I've always considered the calculation that Britain had just 3 fast capitalships in service as making German planners consider that there would be a role for PB and S&G.
The raiding option disappears when Britain goes from 3 fast capital ships to 15.
Unless they really think that they need to plan a naval war with France.
The PBs are limited by VT and the only alternative would be relatively useless Baltic CD ships?
S&G would IMO be needed even to match off the other European powers? But maybe GB would have been happy for them to be 15" ships but that probably delays them a little, would it be sufficient to matter probably not?
I think KM will need to look at fighting none RN in the Baltic especially in the early years, USSR/Poland and allies like France? (maybe even to match Sweden/Finish CDs if only for pride!)
They also can't go U-boats early (and can't go aircraft) and have to buy something otherwise the navy loses its budgets to Army/LW......?
Last edited:
Well the biggest limiting factor for ships from what I understand is the machinery weight and capabilities of it. Armor while it can be made thicker seems to be ideal at 12 inch plates with diminishing returns and higher costs for thicker ones. Guns as well seem to peak at 16 inches. I thought it may be 17 but can’t really find much research on the caliber being tested. The weight savings of all forward armaments would also allow for thicker armor and more concentrated deck thickness to assist against bombs. Shorter length makes ship have tighter turn radius while longer is more hydrodynamic. Both have benefits. And the biggest problem, machinery could have developed far more with investment and resulted in lighter more powerful engines until we reach nuclear reactors which would be the ultimate weight savers both in terms of machinery itself as well as fuel requirement.
The “ideal” ship in my mind is in 50k ton range, 9x16” or 2X4 16” guns in all forward arrangement, AON armor scheme with a standard template used across the navy for ease of production and similar performance within the division.
Now here’s the kicker. On one hand historical battleships were 10/15/20 years old by the time of Second World War save the newest models which were rare. While these ships stagnated and were limited in size aircraft kept developing way past its capabilities at the time of said ships construction. 1000lb AP bombs weren’t really thought of when designing Kongos or Queen Elizabeths. But even so there was serious doubt that aircraft could actually sink a battleship supported by naval assets and fighting back. We never truly got to see that put to the test. Most battleships sunk by aircraft were unsupported or isolated. Force Z. The Yamato’s. Pearl Harbor and others.
With ship development keeping pace I’m thinking of the two things happen - either the ships are equipped and armored for newest aircraft or aircraft is dismissed and remains a threat.
Eventually with development of SAMs, more developed radar and detection systems we could see classical dive bombing/torpedo bombing completely removed by 50s due to sheer necessity and unfrasibility. But then aircraft development would fundamentally change to deal with these massively armored surface threats and missiles would have to be developed to deal with it. But the time required to develop said aircraft and missiles could leave a decade or two of battleship resurgence in the 50s.
I think once your defence is the active SAMs protection the weight of a deck that can no longer stop bombs & missile is worthless, and you are better going for a DDG/CG or CVs?
Post guided bombs, no reasonable deck is going to stop them and then you get atomic, so I doubt you get anywhere like a decade?
Last edited:
The problem with the bolded is that it's precisely what led to the death spiral that was the 1944 Lion design series. When you have a 60,000-ton battleship with only 9 16" guns it tends to prompt people to start re-evaluating the cost effectiveness of battleships.
Uh, no, it wouldn't. This is the Gargoyle. It dates to the mid-40s. It is a guided missile with a 1000-lb warhead carriable by carrier strike aircraft. This is Felix. It's an infrared-guided glide bomb. There's Bat, and Azon.
Guided missiles are viable in the mid-1940s and actual weapons were built. Yes, the range of the weapons means you still need to get past the fighters. That's the case even today.
JDAM isnt a 50s weapon........ and 17 miles is well outside all 50s AA and a lot of SAMs?
Why not talk about RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) and its 1000sih miles....?
And in 50s most sides were thinking about using Nukes RN/USN did have them on CVs with jet bombers at about the time they removed the last surface gun ships, and they were listed as the official replacements.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Which was fairly solvable, the US started working on an expansion in 1939 that would allow anything skinnier than an H-42 (which included Yamato and A-150) to pass through, the construction was abandoned partway due to WWII resource shortages, but if warship sizes got bigger earlier, work would start earlier. Once WWII happened the US was actually willing to abandon use by the canal anyways, some of the Post Pearl Harbor Standard refits were not able to do so because of their bulges