Naval Ships and Technologies without the Arms Treaties

[Riain]

HMIS Bengal?

Dunno, but IIUC it was the government of India who paid for the Indian Army and had some say over it's deployment. So I guess that some similar arrangement could be made with the navy, which would take some of the pressure off the British Treasury.

 

[Saphroneth]

Dunno, but IIUC it was the government of India who paid for the Indian Army and had some say over it's deployment. So I guess that some similar arrangement could be made with the navy, which would take some of the pressure off the British Treasury.

Ooh, a fun idea just struck me. HIMS Tiger, a Lion-class battleship.
That or there might be "Dominion" class ships, where the Admiralty pays for the cost of building them, but each dominion supports crewing the ship in question. So you'd have HMS Great Britain, HMCS Canada, HMAS Australia, HMNZS New Zealand, HMSAS (?) South Africa, and HMIS India.
Something of a propoganda move, in a sense... very much to demonstrate Imperial solidarity. Plus it means there's six modern and very capable BBs spread all over the world.

 

[CalBear]

What about the Anglo-Japanese Treaty? This was another factor in the WNT, without the WNT and with the US building up such a huge fleet the AJT will probably get renewed.

In addition as part of the WNT HMAS Australia was disposed of, but without it I'd guess that it would be replaced with a more modern ship. Indeed I think that in order to defray the cost of a battlefleet big enough to pose a mortal threat to the proposed USN HM Treasury will come up with innovative schemes to be able to afford the G3 and N3. I'd guess that Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the Indian Raj will also have to foot the bill for significant warships, a modern-ish BB or BC in the case or Canada, Australia and perhaps a Hawkins class cruiser or two for the smaller Dominions.

It was a factor. However, the British also looked at the world through a very clear lens.

Japan - Similar to the UK in that it's an island country. Dissimilar in that its poorer, has no useful exports that do not directly compete with British industry. Minimal exporter of raw materials, lacks significant reserves of hard currency & Gold. Poor market for UK produced consumer goods, interest in continued purchase of UK weapons, especially warships waning every day. On the far side of the Planet.

United States - Cultural ties going back to the 1600s. Same basic language (although they can't spell for shit). Richest country on Earth, hold billions of dollars of British markers (866 million pounds in 1934, about 40 BILLION in modern terms), huge market, huge importer of finished goods, major global producer of raw and partially completed materials, largest oil exporter in the world, by far. Economy is exploding, huge currency and Gold Reserves, Long Atlantic Seaboard, fleet is already nearing equality in heavy units with RN, 3,000 mile border with Canada. Capable of outbuilding RN 5-1 without breaking a sweat economically. Double the UK's population (including Dominions, excluding colonies & the Raj).

Who are you going to choose?

 

[Riain]

I'd choose Japan because there is no way I could influence such a superpower as the USA, however Japan will be much more malleable.

 

[fasquardon]

What about the Anglo-Japanese Treaty? This was another factor in the WNT, without the WNT and with the US building up such a huge fleet the AJT will probably get renewed.

A far larger factor was that the Canadians did not want to get tangled up in an American-Japanese war. They were exerting significant diplomatic pressure of Britain to ditch the Japanese.

Also, the British had a very old policy of not pissing off the US. They knew that an Anglo-American war would likely lead to the mutually assured destruction of both country's trade. Alas, while the US had a large internal market, the UK was dependant on trade.

Oh, and the UK was right next to Europe, which had Germany and the Soviet Union in it, both rather unhappy with the status quo and Britain's lofty place in it.

I'd choose Japan because there is no way I could influence such a superpower as the USA, however Japan will be much more malleable.

This isn't the way people thought back in the time though. Back then, Britain and the USA were both members of the Anglo-Saxon race, which meant they were both more malleable to each-other than those inscrutable orientals over in Japan.

fasquardon

 

[BlondieBC]

I wonder if this will convince the Japanese that they should give up on big ships entirely, and keep the navy restrained to a raider force, with the army being given the resources instead. Would the army perhaps advocate defence of the home islands with land-based air? Or a combination of bunkers and guerilla forces instead?

FOOD.

Japan has to have a Navy. If we look at the interwar years, we see a country with a high birth rate with difficulty feeding itself from its land based resources. (I believe it would be both land based and near sea based, but i have to double check.) So from the grand strategy part, you need both a navy to protect your importation of food and some economic/military means to get the food. Basically a England type situation.

In the cold world of geopolitics, entering Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan made sense. You get food and place for Japanese to immigrate too. And if you can keep from the Chinese getting too upset and unified, you have a chance to hold long term since all these are outside of the traditional Chinese borders. But you need a strong ally to help, which is either Russia or the UK. And once you lose the tie with the UK which started to fall apart almost immediately after taking Tsingtao, you get a very hard game to play. Hard to win, but winnable if you can keep out of China proper. You have to be very frugal with resources and skill in diplomacy.

 

[BlondieBC]

I once saw something on the web that extrapolated out a bunch of WW2 engagements into a 'torpedo tactics prior to a decisive battle with the USN' scenario. The upshot was that IOTL the IJN never went close to the 15% hits/kills required to make it work.

This is from memory, but I am pretty sure that even in the Japanese war games in the 1930's, they never hit the required hit/kill ratio to win. Often one or two units would be high enough, but another would not work. So a rational Japanese analyst would look at the data and conclude that everything had to work almost perfectly for Japan to win.

 

[fasquardon]

FOOD.

Japan has to have a Navy. If we look at the interwar years, we see a country with a high birth rate with difficulty feeding itself from its land based resources. (I believe it would be both land based and near sea based, but i have to double check.) So from the grand strategy part, you need both a navy to protect your importation of food and some economic/military means to get the food. Basically a England type situation.

In the cold world of geopolitics, entering Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan made sense. You get food and place for Japanese to immigrate too. And if you can keep from the Chinese getting too upset and unified, you have a chance to hold long term since all these are outside of the traditional Chinese borders. But you need a strong ally to help, which is either Russia or the UK. And once you lose the tie with the UK which started to fall apart almost immediately after taking Tsingtao, you get a very hard game to play. Hard to win, but winnable if you can keep out of China proper. You have to be very frugal with resources and skill in diplomacy.

Well, if the home islands cannot be secured and they are overpopulated, then clearly what will have to happen is for farmers to move to Manchuria.

I doubt such a policy would work very well, but it's not like they have many alternatives here.

fasquardon

 

[BlondieBC]

Well, if the home islands cannot be secured and they are overpopulated, then clearly what will have to happen is for farmers to move to Manchuria.

I doubt such a policy would work very well, but it's not like they have many alternatives here.

fasquardon

It was OTL policy, so we have some idea how it worked. Until Japan got trapped in China, it helped some. It is not only the food you get from farming, it is also the food purchased with currency that otherwised is used for non-food imports. Manchuria is rich in minerals and low in population.

It is just the next step that makes a hard to win game. The USA is almost genetically upset by Japan, look at the Yap Island fiasco in 1919. China is only manageable if it does not unify and/or has low interest in Manchuria. Hard to maintain. The USA/Japanese actions in the Russian Far East right after WW1 did not help the situation. Japan managed to not improve relations with the USA, anger the Soviets, and not weaken the Soviets. And Japan started taking actions to anger the UK by 1915. And to be fair, a lot of irreversible strategic actions were taken before the outcome of WW1 was understood. IMO, Japan was really playing to for an Entente win where Japan picks off some Asia lands. And IMO, this is the most likely scenario in 1915 and 1916 based on the information available at the time. And in this type of TL, it is lot easier to make the plans work due to:

1) USA stays out of war and is more isolationist than OTL.
2) USA is less friendly towards UK since never entered war.
3) Russia stays focused on Germany.
4) UK is weakened by war, and has to keep large land army since it did not win WW1.


How was Japan to know the Kaiser would be such an idiot and bring the USA into the war?

 

[Andy42]

I once saw something on the web that extrapolated out a bunch of WW2 engagements into a 'torpedo tactics prior to a decisive battle with the USN' scenario. The upshot was that IOTL the IJN never went close to the 15% hits/kills required to make it work.

I think this one may be the article?
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

(It tickled my lonely little braincell, so I had a look at navweaps.com and there it was!)

 

[Riain]

I think this one may be the article?
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

(It tickled my lonely little braincell, so I had a look at navweaps.com and there it was!)

That's it, but personally I'd only use the earlier engagements since by 1943-4 radar was widely deployed, airpower was ubiquitous and the IJN had lost the technical surprise it was bound to have in the event of the envisaged torpedo battle.

 

[CalBear]

That's it, but personally I'd only use the earlier engagements since by 1943-4 radar was widely deployed, airpower was ubiquitous and the IJN had lost the technical surprise it was bound to have in the event of the envisaged torpedo battle.

The difficulty with this is that the IJN was, by 1940, stuck with an environment where the enemy was always going to have radar.

It would be equally valid to remove the action off Savo Island since the Decisive Battle was supposed to take place in open water, not in close waters with islands all around the battle area or Sunda Strait since that was a case of two unescorted cruisers encountering a vastly more powerful enemy force.

It is, however, interesting to note that, with the exception of a single ship firing and striking a target, the IJN never achieved its stated 15% hit requirement.

 

[Delta Force]

Ooh, a fun idea just struck me. HIMS Tiger, a Lion-class battleship.
That or there might be "Dominion" class ships, where the Admiralty pays for the cost of building them, but each dominion supports crewing the ship in question. So you'd have HMS Great Britain, HMCS Canada, HMAS Australia, HMNZS New Zealand, HMSAS (?) South Africa, and HMIS India.
Something of a propoganda move, in a sense... very much to demonstrate Imperial solidarity. Plus it means there's six modern and very capable BBs spread all over the world.

Historically it was the other way around, with the dominions paying for ships that were operated by the Royal Navy.

An idea that I considered in a setting I was working on once would be for the Commonwealth to split things up into zones similar to unified commands of the United States Department of Defense. That would help to spread around the cost of policing the Empire and improve local defenses.

 

[fasquardon]

It was OTL policy, so we have some idea how it worked. Until Japan got trapped in China, it helped some. It is not only the food you get from farming, it is also the food purchased with currency that otherwised is used for non-food imports. Manchuria is rich in minerals and low in population.

Mmm. The main trouble with resettlement policies of the era was that they tended to be poorly thought-out. Not saying it is easy, but if the Japanese think it is either move people to Manchuria or get starved out by the USN, one imagines it would focus minds a bit.

As it was, their best minds were trying to replicate the British path of success. And doing a fairly good job of it, to be fair.

And no doubts, the Japanese really had a bad hand in the 30s and 40s. I was reading a really good history on the period, and one of the points it was making is just how much American racism constrained their options in the period.

fasquardon

 

[Errolwi]

Historically it was the other way around, with the dominions paying for ships that were operated by the Royal Navy.

OTL, the battlecruiser HMAS Australia was purchased by, largely manned, and operating costs fully paid by Australia. Placed under RN operational control once the Pacific was cleared. HMS New Zealand was as you say.

 

[Delta Force]

OTL, the battlecruiser HMAS Australia was purchased by, largely manned, and operating costs fully paid by Australia. Placed under RN operational control once the Pacific was cleared. HMS New Zealand was as you say.

There was also HMS Malaya, whose construction was paid for the Federated Malay States.

 

[eltf177]

Hmm, I don't have springsharp but how about something like this for the RN as a small battleship/light battlecruiser (read cruiser killer)

9 x 13.5 inch guns (refitted from Iron duke class)
4.5 inch or 4 inch guns for DP/secondary armament
Armour scheme equal to a Tiger class BC but naturally better laid out and All or Nothing (9 inch belt etc).

Sure she'd be big, probably around the 24k tonnage point if not more but she'd still be 'light' for what a battleship was.

I took a shot at this, here's the springsharp report...

********

Singapore, RN Light Battleship laid down 1933

Displacement:
19,083 t light; 20,304 t standard; 21,226 t normal; 21,963 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
708.50 ft / 700.00 ft x 80.00 ft x 22.00 ft (normal load)
215.95 m / 213.36 m x 24.38 m x 6.71 m

Armament:
9 - 13.50" / 343 mm guns (3x3 guns), 1,230.19lbs / 558.00kg shells, 1913 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns (4x2 guns), 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1933 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (1x8 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline aft, all raised guns - superfiring
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (2x8 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1933 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (2x4 guns), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1933 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all forward, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 11,375 lbs / 5,160 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 125

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 455.00 ft / 138.68 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
Ends: 4.00" / 102 mm 150.00 ft / 45.72 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
95.00 ft / 28.96 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.50" / 38 mm 400.00 ft / 121.92 m 20.00 ft / 6.10 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 7.00" / 178 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm - -
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.50" / 64 mm, Conning tower: 8.00" / 203 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 51,484 shp / 38,407 Kw = 25.00 kts
Range 5,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,660 tons

Complement:
879 - 1,143

Cost:
£9.796 million / $39.185 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1,422 tons, 6.7 %
Armour: 5,936 tons, 28.0 %
- Belts: 1,911 tons, 9.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 444 tons, 2.1 %
- Armament: 1,549 tons, 7.3 %
- Armour Deck: 1,900 tons, 8.9 %
- Conning Tower: 132 tons, 0.6 %
Machinery: 1,500 tons, 7.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,125 tons, 47.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,143 tons, 10.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
30,677 lbs / 13,915 Kg = 24.9 x 13.5 " / 343 mm shells or 4.5 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
Metacentric height 4.9 ft / 1.5 m
Roll period: 15.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 46 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.82
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.05

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.603
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.75 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.46 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 43 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 40
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 18.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 20.00 ft / 6.10 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Stern: 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Average freeboard: 18.16 ft / 5.54 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 99.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 160.2 %
Waterplane Area: 41,072 Square feet or 3,816 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 179 lbs/sq ft or 876 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.04
- Longitudinal: 0.98
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Main Battery guns are recycled from the "Iron Duke"-class but fitted in new triple turrets.

********

I wanted a battlecruiser but ended up with a light battleship as 25 knots was the best I could do. However, she's got triple 13.5-inch turrets on a 80' beam. Iron Duke had twin 13.5-inch turrets on a 90' beam while Renown had twin 15-inch turrets also on 90'. I'm thinking an 80' beam just isn't enough...

 

[sharlin]

Very nice I did have this idea for a pre WW1 light battlecruiser or 'Colonial Heavy Cruiser' later altered to Heavy cruiser.

8 x 9.2s in dual superfiring turrets and some 4 inch guns on shields port and starboard, 25 knot speed,built at the same time as the Invincibles in an attempt to get an early County Class cruiser, armoured with a 6 inch belt.

 

[eltf177]

Very nice I did have this idea for a pre WW1 light battlecruiser or 'Colonial Heavy Cruiser' later altered to Heavy cruiser.

8 x 9.2s in dual superfiring turrets and some 4 inch guns on shields port and starboard, 25 knot speed,built at the same time as the Invincibles in an attempt to get an early County Class cruiser, armoured with a 6 inch belt.

For a displacement of ~20,000 tons a cruiser killer is the best you can do. For that 9.2-inch guns and a 6-inch belt are sufficient, use the extra displacement for speed to catch your prey. Singapore is a nice ship but too slow to catch cruisers and can't stand up to a battleship. She does compare somewhat favorable to the Kongo's though...

Singapore

Displacement: 21,963 tons FL
Main Belt: 9-inches
Deck: 2.5-inches
Speed: 25 knots
Range: 5000 nm @ 14 knots
Main Battery: Nine 13.5-inch guns

Kongo

Displacement: 27,500 tons FL
Main Belt: 8-inches
Deck: 2-inches
Speed: 30 knots
Range: 8000 nm @ 14 knots
Main Battery: Eight 14-inch guns

Singapore is smaller and slower but has slightly more armor and a similar Main Battery with an additional gun. Kongo's greater speed however will allow her the choice to fight or flee.

 

[Riain]

Would a gun designed in 1909 and introduced into service in 1912 be appropriate armament for a ship laid down in 1933? IIUC the 11" guns on the Deutschland/Scharnhorst classes was not a resurrection of the actual guns used by the HSF prior to WW1 but new designs based on the experience of the old.