MrP
Banned
I'd say one should just accept that the definition of battleship will change. Otherwise one might as well ask how many big guns one can stick on a pre-dreadnought before she becomes, er, a dreadnought.
No Aircraft Carriers, How far do battleships develop?
- Thread starter LightInfa
- Start date
I'd say one should just accept that the definition of battleship will change. Otherwise one might as well ask how many big guns one can stick on a pre-dreadnought before she becomes, er, a dreadnought.
Thande
Donor
I'd say one should just accept that the definition of battleship will change. Otherwise one might as well ask how many big guns one can stick on a pre-dreadnought before she becomes, er, a dreadnought.
I always wanted to write a story set in the 1880s on HMS Pre-Dreadnought...
MrP
Banned
I always wanted to write a story set in the 1880s on HMS Pre-Dreadnought...
Reminds me of that amusing instance when a Roman coin made by Ribena and marked 55 B.C. was identified as authentically Roman by an archaeologist after being found in the south. Only debunked after someone wrote into the local 'paper pointing out all of the above and more discrepancies.
Reminds me of that amusing instance when a Roman coin made by Ribena and marked 55 B.C. was identified as authentically Roman by an archaeologist after being found in the south. Only debunked after someone wrote into the local 'paper pointing out all of the above and more discrepancies.
You mean that actually happened?!? I just remember having something like that presented in college History class, with us trying to work out what the problem might be with coins like that.
MrP
Banned
I read the story second-hand in a book several years ago, so I cannot vouch for its veracity. The author certainly presented it as fact.
Philip
Donor
Depends on the purpose. Such a missile is an excellent choice for striking a high-value target. It is, however, nearly useless for suppressive fires. The AGS shines in this role. A single AGS delivers roughly the same firepower as a battery of howitzers at roughly 5 times the range. Two mounts on a DDX hull allows a single ship to provide a significant amount of fire support for troops onshore. Of course, one should not rely on a single weapon system alone. An 80 cell PLS matches up nicely with a pair of AGS.
Philip
Donor
I'd say as many as you want. There were some who wanted to designate the proposed arsenal ships as battleships. They would have had up to 500 VLS cells and maybe some MLRS -- but no big guns.
There are two traditional ways to define a battleship. One way is 'big and heavily armored'. The other is 'a ship designed to match or defeat any other ship in single combat'. For the time being, ships meeting the first definition are obsolete. Current armor simply can't stand up to current weapons. As for the second definition, most modern cruiser and destroyer (and even a few corvette) designs qualify*.
* Except, perhaps, for the 'single combat' -- modern networked systems largely have eliminated the concept.
Ah, the arsenal ship. Surely the 'Floating Fortress' of the 21st century...
I read a novel once, featuring the crash construction of three arsenal ships as a major plot point. Invasion, it was called, by Eric L Harry. It was interesting, just to see the US getting its arse kicked for a change...
David S Poepoe
Banned
Spare me your "carriers are just better at doing things than battleships" bullshit, David. Next you'll be ragging on Zeppelins.
Actually carrier zeppelins are better at doing things than regular zeppelins.
Philip
Donor
Ah, the arsenal ship. Surely the 'Floating Fortress' of the 21st century...
Floating Fortress. Floating Target. It is such a file line between them.
I may have to look for that.
Floating Fortress. Floating Target. It is such a file line between them.
Yeah...
It was OK. Mixed reviews, as you can see. I found certain parts of it to be implausible, and there were too many coincidences. Apart from that, interesting idea.
I doubt that what you say is true, as with few exceptions (most notably the Kirovs, which are actually armed as battleships) most modern surface combatants are not designed to fight other surface combatants. They usually carry a few anti-ship missiles, but their main purpose is to hunt submarines and aircraft. You get a sort of cycle, where submarines attack aircraft carriers, carrier aircraft attack surface combatants, and surface combatants attack submarines.
I would use a definition based on tonnage and role:
Corvette- up to 3,000 tonnes, primarily a patrol vessel
Frigate- up to 5,000 tonnes, primarily ASW
Destroyer- up to 8,000 tonnes, primarily AAW (still needed to guard against land-based aircraft and missiles)
Cruiser- up to 20,000 tonnes, command, ASuW, land attack
Battleship- roles as cruiser, over 20,000 tonnes.
In this "carrier-less world", the cruiser would be the equivalent of a small carrier, and the battleship of a large carrier...
David S Poepoe
Banned
I have never heard of the Kirovs being armed as battleships, they never carried the large caliber guns that are associated with battleships. I know in several instances they were refered to as battlecruisers.
I think with the general complexity and increased capability of modern warships - not to mention the accompanying expense - we will slowly see the decline of the 'cruiser' designation. The Arleigh Burke class destroyers are immensely capable and usually take smaller crews. There is also a growing change from blue water fighting to green/brown water or littoral combat which requires smaller vessels.
I meant armed as battleships would be in this ATL- i.e. lots of missiles including AShMs. Nobody thinks of the Kirovs as battleships IOTL, but ITTL a battleship would look something like a Kirov- although armoured if armour technology had kept up. Perhaps have hardened missile tubes, or missile tubes recessed into the hull? Like VLS, but with armoured hatches and an armoured deck above it. Or possibly an armoured deck over the horizontal-launch cruise-missile tubes on Russian cruisers?
Also, isn't a battlecruiser a fast, light hull with battleship weapons?
Philip
Donor
I disagree. The premier current surface combatants were designed to defeat other surface combatants. You have mentioned the obvious Kirovs. Stop and think about the US reaction. The first move was to recommission the the Iowas. Why? Because this was the easiest way to get TASMs to sea. Latter, the Ticos and the Burkes were also able to launch TASMs. This is clearly a designed anti-ship capability. The TASMs were latter withdrawn, but this does not change the fact that the ships were designed to engage and defeat other surface combatants.
This is a reflection of the perceived threat. Should a nation develop a blue water navy that can challenge the USN (or other major Western navies), I imagine you would see a change in loadouts.
Sure. That is their primary mission. ASuW is a secondary role, but to say that they are not designed to defeat surface combatants is crazy. If, as you claimed, they are not designed to defeat surface combatants, why are the radar and weapons systems the carry designed to engage surface combatants?
This is a matter of doctrine, not design. Consider the layered defense used by the USN against air threats. The outer-most layer is carrier based aircraft. The second and third layer are provided by the missiles carried on DDGs and CGs. If things go as planned, the surface combatants never engage the air threat. However, it would be foolish to say that an AEGIS equipped surface combatant is not designed to deal with air threats.
Likewise, aircraft are used as the outer layer of defense against surface combatants because they have the reach to do so. Again, the next layer is provided by the missiles carried by surface combatants. If all goes according to plan, the aircraft deal with the enemy surface combatants. However, when this fails, the carrier's escorts are designed to engage and defeat the surface threat, primarily with missiles.
Separating destroyers and cruisers like that is rather antiquated, at least for the USN. The Burkes and the Ticos are roughly the same size (and the Ticos were built on a destroyers hull).
The USN's next generation will continue to blur the line and cause problems for your dual classification system. DDX (or whatever it is named in this design cycle) will displace appox 15 000 tonnes. While it is a multi-purposed ship, it is primarily mission is LAW. It will be equipped to command a battle groups. So, according to your definitions, it should be a cruiser. CGX will displace roughly the same as DDX, but will be focused on AAW. Where does it go? Then comes the proposed BMD cruisers. Displacing around 25 000 tonnes, they place an even stronger emphasis on AAW.
We can also look at other navies. Consider the F-100 ships. Under a Spanish or Norwegian flag they are frigates. Under an Australian flag, they are destroyers.
IMBANSHO, most navies will continue to avoid the term 'battleship', regardless of the size, weapons, and armor. The term 'destroyer' is also on the way out. In our PC world, they just sound too mean. The trend will be towards something like this:
Corvette: Green-water vessels.
Frigate: Smaller blue-water vessels.
Cruisers: Larger blue-water vessels, including some carriers.
Smaller/Larger would be relative to a given navy and classes might not be comparable between navies (as the F-100s demonstrate).
Philip
Donor
I would go the other way. The 'destroyer' designation will go away. 'Cruiser' is more acceptable to PC-crazed legislatures.
David S Poepoe
Banned
You raise a good point in your reply above and its entirely likely. I would also point to the likelihood of Tirpitz's slight of hand regarding ship replacement as laid out by the German Naval Laws of the early 20th century. What was or became known as battlecruisers were known as large cruisers to the Germans. Since the capabilities of both cruisers and destroyers these days are practically the same there is an implied - at least to the layperson - difference in the size of a cruiser vs. a destroyer.
How about "gunboat"?
I agree it is possible that the name of 'destroyer' could be phased out... then, of course, we must also phase out 'cruiser', because of the connotations which 'cruising' has - it might offend teh gaysexuals!
And 'frigate'. Because it sound like it's about fridges, and that would confuse the less intelligent. You know, the same people who thing that a shipping magnate is the same sort of thing as a fridge magnet.
The issue is really about airplanes, not aircraft carriers, per se.
I don't think you could completely avoid some experimentation with the concept or airplane carriers in the 1918-1930 period by the major maritime powers (UK, US, and Japan). However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that political pressures and prejudices in these nations could have lead to a situation where offensive airpower became centralized in Army aviation corps or in fully independent air forces. Airpower might have been seen primarily as a tactical compliment to landwarfare or as a means of strategic long-range bombing - and most of the money and research could have gone to these ends. Since heavy level bombing is pretty useless against ships at sea and, at least until the late 1940's, vast stretches of blue ocean would be outside the range of land-based tactical bombers, the primacy of the battlefleet in sea control would remain longer. Couple this with more aggressive and successful lobbying by "battleship admirals" ,I could imagine a situation where naval aviation is considered almost solely as a means of scouting and defense against specific foes such as submarines and possibly convoys. Aircraft carriers might be built, but they would be smaller and/or they would be convoy raiding or scouting hybrids like the abortive US Navy crusier/carriers of the 1930's. And yes, airplane carrying Zeppelins, might have fulfilled a lot of those roles as well. It is not out of the range of possibility that airplane carriers would have never assumed the importance they did in our TL before naval research switched to guided and ballistic missiles to provide capital ships with long range standoff offensive capability.
So here's my summary of fantasy ships of this time line, by decade, taken from alternate Janes Fighting Ships editions of 1919, 1938, 1946, 1955, 1967, and 1999.
HMS Glorious 1919-1928. Originally planned as a light battlecrusier with 2x15" and then 2x18" guns, the ship was modified in 1918 to carry 10 scouting bi-planes and a flight/handling deck aft of the superstructure, replacing the aft turret. The planned 18" inch gun forward was replaced by a new quadruple 8" turret, as it was believed the quicker firing main armamement would be more suited to thew new scouting and independent cuising role planned for this ship. It is interesting to note that early sketches for this conversion featured a full flight deck forward and configured for use by land planes as well as floatplanes. The main guns were placed aft. This design was scrapped as soon as it was presented to the Admiralty. As First Lord Jellicoe is rumored to have said, "The Royal Navy has never turned tail and run from an enemy before; I do not intend to see any ship placed in His Majesty's service which is designed to do just that!" The ship was always considered a failure and was scrapped in 1928.
USS Lexington 1929-1942. One of six battlecrusiers planned for the US Navy as the arms race among Britain, Japan, and the US heated up, Lexington was modified while still under construction to serve as the flagship and core of the experimental "1st Independent Airship Scouting Squadron" based at Pearl Harbor. Only the fore 16" turret was retained and the remainder of the ship was given over to a huge cantilevered hangar deck, a collapsable mooring mast, and retractable hangar walls capable of creating an open-topped hangar. The original 7 funnels were trunked into two huge exhausts venting over each side of the ship. The ship was intended to service three 5,000,000 cubic foot Topeka ZR-4 class scouting airships, each in turn carrying 2 Boeing FB1 scout biplanes. The airships would operate on a rotating 5-day cycle, with two aloft while one being serviced and replenished by the Lexington. The intention was to provide a fully independent aerial scouting element to the fleet with great range of action, but it soon became apparent the concept was flawed. Smoke from the trunked side funnels interfered with airship mooring operations, and the difficulty of confining a 700-foot airship floating within air in a rolling nautical hanger was never completely overcome. As a result, only two of the planned 3 airships were completed, and only USS Little Rock [/I]was ever permanently based on the Lexington, this from 1932-1935 until the airship was lost in a storm off Luzon. After plans to reconstruct Lexington as an experimental full-deck airplane carrier were rejected by Congress, she was eventually reconstructed as a one-of-a kind convoy raider, mounting 6 16 in guns and a large torpedo battery. She was sunk by the French Communist Battleship Normandie during an unsuccessful convoy raid off Indochina in 1942.
HMS Vanguard 1936-1960 Typical of British 3rd generation battleship construction, Vanguard and her 6 sisters formed the core of the Royal Navy's First battle squadron during the European War and the later Australian Defense Campaign. These ships were considered particularly successful, if at only 68,000 tons full load they were considerably smaller than their Japanese, German, Italian, and American counterparts. Moderately well-armored and capable of 27 knots under full power, they carried eight 1935 model 19.5 inch guns in 2 quadruple turrets. They also carried a large battery of 8 inch and 5 inch anti destroyer guns. Toward the end of their careers, the three surviving ships, Vanguard, Nelson, and Jellicoe were rearmed with multiple launchers for Supermarine Snipe televisored air-breathing cruise missles and Canadian-designed Blowback antisubmarine rocket bombs.
USS Alaska 1943-present. The 4 Alaska-class "super-battleships" represent the pinnacle of US naval architecture in the Pacific War and its aftermath. Larger and more powerful ships were built by the Japanese and Americans, but none combined the all-round attributes of this highly successful class. Displacing just under 85,000 tons full-load and capable of 30 knots at full steam, the ships were armed with the relatively small main battery of twelve 55 cal 17 inch guns, supplemented by a large battery 8 inch and 5 inch anti destroyer guns. However, the late model US 17inch gun was an outstanding weapon, arguably better than the Japanese 18, German 17.7, and Italian 17.7 weapons it was most often ranged against in the various American Wars of the mid-20th century. All four ships survived the wars and USS Oregon was converted as the US Navy's first BBBM (ballistic missile battleship) in 1962.
IJN Katsuragi 1950-1952. Katsuragi began life as one of 4 giant Haruna-class battlecrusiers, but while under design she was redesigned and modified to serve as the first of a new series "hero-missile attack ships. Unlike her sisters who shipped nine 20-inch guns on a 95,000 ton displacement, Katsuragi was completed as a dedicated carrier for no fewer than 155 manned rocket-powered cruise missiles launched from 20 armored catapults. After the Japanese defeat off Darwin and near destruction of the entire Japanese battlefleet, the Imperial Navy found no shortage of volunteers for various suicide (or "kamakazi") missions against the Anglo-American alliance. The most sophisticated approach, and one which prefigured the eventual rearming of all fleets with cruise missles in the 1970's, was the Kyushu M7A manned rocket bomb. Not only Katsuragi, but other armored crusiers and high-speed destroyers were modified or built from scratch to carry this diabolical weapon. Katsuragi, escorted by a stong scouting screen and two obsolete airships, first sortied in 1951 and succeeded in sinking no fewer than 4 Allied capital ships (USS Iowa, USS New Mexico, HMS Rodney, and HMAS Brisbane) before they could even enter gun range. She was much less successful on her next, and final, sortie as a disastrous launch explosion of one of the liquid rocket propelled M7As led to a chain reaction destroying over half the missles on the ship's starboard side and crippling the ship's damage-control capability. She was able to lanch a few kamakazis but their effect was neligible. While attempting to withdraw from the advancing US fast crusiers and battlecruisers, she was torpedoed by a British submarine, sealing her fate.
I don't think you could completely avoid some experimentation with the concept or airplane carriers in the 1918-1930 period by the major maritime powers (UK, US, and Japan). However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that political pressures and prejudices in these nations could have lead to a situation where offensive airpower became centralized in Army aviation corps or in fully independent air forces. Airpower might have been seen primarily as a tactical compliment to landwarfare or as a means of strategic long-range bombing - and most of the money and research could have gone to these ends. Since heavy level bombing is pretty useless against ships at sea and, at least until the late 1940's, vast stretches of blue ocean would be outside the range of land-based tactical bombers, the primacy of the battlefleet in sea control would remain longer. Couple this with more aggressive and successful lobbying by "battleship admirals" ,I could imagine a situation where naval aviation is considered almost solely as a means of scouting and defense against specific foes such as submarines and possibly convoys. Aircraft carriers might be built, but they would be smaller and/or they would be convoy raiding or scouting hybrids like the abortive US Navy crusier/carriers of the 1930's. And yes, airplane carrying Zeppelins, might have fulfilled a lot of those roles as well. It is not out of the range of possibility that airplane carriers would have never assumed the importance they did in our TL before naval research switched to guided and ballistic missiles to provide capital ships with long range standoff offensive capability.
So here's my summary of fantasy ships of this time line, by decade, taken from alternate Janes Fighting Ships editions of 1919, 1938, 1946, 1955, 1967, and 1999.
HMS Glorious 1919-1928. Originally planned as a light battlecrusier with 2x15" and then 2x18" guns, the ship was modified in 1918 to carry 10 scouting bi-planes and a flight/handling deck aft of the superstructure, replacing the aft turret. The planned 18" inch gun forward was replaced by a new quadruple 8" turret, as it was believed the quicker firing main armamement would be more suited to thew new scouting and independent cuising role planned for this ship. It is interesting to note that early sketches for this conversion featured a full flight deck forward and configured for use by land planes as well as floatplanes. The main guns were placed aft. This design was scrapped as soon as it was presented to the Admiralty. As First Lord Jellicoe is rumored to have said, "The Royal Navy has never turned tail and run from an enemy before; I do not intend to see any ship placed in His Majesty's service which is designed to do just that!" The ship was always considered a failure and was scrapped in 1928.
USS Lexington 1929-1942. One of six battlecrusiers planned for the US Navy as the arms race among Britain, Japan, and the US heated up, Lexington was modified while still under construction to serve as the flagship and core of the experimental "1st Independent Airship Scouting Squadron" based at Pearl Harbor. Only the fore 16" turret was retained and the remainder of the ship was given over to a huge cantilevered hangar deck, a collapsable mooring mast, and retractable hangar walls capable of creating an open-topped hangar. The original 7 funnels were trunked into two huge exhausts venting over each side of the ship. The ship was intended to service three 5,000,000 cubic foot Topeka ZR-4 class scouting airships, each in turn carrying 2 Boeing FB1 scout biplanes. The airships would operate on a rotating 5-day cycle, with two aloft while one being serviced and replenished by the Lexington. The intention was to provide a fully independent aerial scouting element to the fleet with great range of action, but it soon became apparent the concept was flawed. Smoke from the trunked side funnels interfered with airship mooring operations, and the difficulty of confining a 700-foot airship floating within air in a rolling nautical hanger was never completely overcome. As a result, only two of the planned 3 airships were completed, and only USS Little Rock [/I]was ever permanently based on the Lexington, this from 1932-1935 until the airship was lost in a storm off Luzon. After plans to reconstruct Lexington as an experimental full-deck airplane carrier were rejected by Congress, she was eventually reconstructed as a one-of-a kind convoy raider, mounting 6 16 in guns and a large torpedo battery. She was sunk by the French Communist Battleship Normandie during an unsuccessful convoy raid off Indochina in 1942.
HMS Vanguard 1936-1960 Typical of British 3rd generation battleship construction, Vanguard and her 6 sisters formed the core of the Royal Navy's First battle squadron during the European War and the later Australian Defense Campaign. These ships were considered particularly successful, if at only 68,000 tons full load they were considerably smaller than their Japanese, German, Italian, and American counterparts. Moderately well-armored and capable of 27 knots under full power, they carried eight 1935 model 19.5 inch guns in 2 quadruple turrets. They also carried a large battery of 8 inch and 5 inch anti destroyer guns. Toward the end of their careers, the three surviving ships, Vanguard, Nelson, and Jellicoe were rearmed with multiple launchers for Supermarine Snipe televisored air-breathing cruise missles and Canadian-designed Blowback antisubmarine rocket bombs.
USS Alaska 1943-present. The 4 Alaska-class "super-battleships" represent the pinnacle of US naval architecture in the Pacific War and its aftermath. Larger and more powerful ships were built by the Japanese and Americans, but none combined the all-round attributes of this highly successful class. Displacing just under 85,000 tons full-load and capable of 30 knots at full steam, the ships were armed with the relatively small main battery of twelve 55 cal 17 inch guns, supplemented by a large battery 8 inch and 5 inch anti destroyer guns. However, the late model US 17inch gun was an outstanding weapon, arguably better than the Japanese 18, German 17.7, and Italian 17.7 weapons it was most often ranged against in the various American Wars of the mid-20th century. All four ships survived the wars and USS Oregon was converted as the US Navy's first BBBM (ballistic missile battleship) in 1962.
IJN Katsuragi 1950-1952. Katsuragi began life as one of 4 giant Haruna-class battlecrusiers, but while under design she was redesigned and modified to serve as the first of a new series "hero-missile attack ships. Unlike her sisters who shipped nine 20-inch guns on a 95,000 ton displacement, Katsuragi was completed as a dedicated carrier for no fewer than 155 manned rocket-powered cruise missiles launched from 20 armored catapults. After the Japanese defeat off Darwin and near destruction of the entire Japanese battlefleet, the Imperial Navy found no shortage of volunteers for various suicide (or "kamakazi") missions against the Anglo-American alliance. The most sophisticated approach, and one which prefigured the eventual rearming of all fleets with cruise missles in the 1970's, was the Kyushu M7A manned rocket bomb. Not only Katsuragi, but other armored crusiers and high-speed destroyers were modified or built from scratch to carry this diabolical weapon. Katsuragi, escorted by a stong scouting screen and two obsolete airships, first sortied in 1951 and succeeded in sinking no fewer than 4 Allied capital ships (USS Iowa, USS New Mexico, HMS Rodney, and HMAS Brisbane) before they could even enter gun range. She was much less successful on her next, and final, sortie as a disastrous launch explosion of one of the liquid rocket propelled M7As led to a chain reaction destroying over half the missles on the ship's starboard side and crippling the ship's damage-control capability. She was able to lanch a few kamakazis but their effect was neligible. While attempting to withdraw from the advancing US fast crusiers and battlecruisers, she was torpedoed by a British submarine, sealing her fate.
MrP
Banned
How about "gunboat"?
I agree it is possible that the name of 'destroyer' could be phased out... then, of course, we must also phase out 'cruiser', because of the connotations which 'cruising' has - it might offend teh gaysexuals!
And 'frigate'. Because it sound like it's about fridges, and that would confuse the less intelligent. You know, the same people who thing that a shipping magnate is the same sort of thing as a fridge magnet.
How the deuce do you pronounce frigate, old man?