United States vs. Anglo-Japanese Alliance circa 1920s: Who Wins?

Who Wins?

  • United States

    Votes: 80 40.2%
  • Anglo-Japanese Alliance

    Votes: 61 30.7%
  • status quo ante-bellum

    Votes: 50 25.1%
  • other (please state in post)

    Votes: 8 4.0%

  • Total voters
    199
Then because they had 'battle' in the name unfortunately some commanders started having them in positions were they were trying to slog it out with battleships.

Until I can look at my copy Worth's excellent book on battlecruisers, aside from the Bismarck engagement, exactly when did battlecruisers slog it out with battleships?

The term 'battlecruiser' was first used for the Powerful class cruisers of the 1890s.
 
Until I can look at my copy Worth's excellent book on battlecruisers, aside from the Bismarck engagement, exactly when did battlecruisers slog it out with battleships?

The term 'battlecruiser' was first used for the Powerful class cruisers of the 1890s.


Jutland, the WWI battles in the Black sea between the German Battlecruisers and Russian Battleships (although this is perhaps not the best example as these were draws as often as not but they were Battleship vs. Battlecruiser fights). These are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, there was the Battle of Imbros between the British and the Ottomans but that was Monitors vs a Battlecruiser and the Battlecruiser won that one so it is probably a bad example :D.

Tom.
 
One Question, was Britain a big importer of oil in the 1920s? If Britain and Japan have to import over 60% of its oil in the 1920s, Could they function if the Ottoman Empire (if it still around in the 1920) Embargo the oil to Britain and Japan once the war starts (or even before the war starts)?
 
Jutland, the WWI battles in the Black sea between the German Battlecruisers and Russian Battleships (although this is perhaps not the best example as these were draws as often as not but they were Battleship vs. Battlecruiser fights). These are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, there was the Battle of Imbros between the British and the Ottomans but that was Monitors vs a Battlecruiser and the Battlecruiser won that one so it is probably a bad example :D.

Tom.

Jutland was predominately battlecruiser vs. battlecruiser, the only time it was really battleship vs. battlecruiser was British Fifth Squadron against the German battlecruiser force. I thought most German actions against the Russians were battlecruiser vs. predreadnought.
 
Jutland was predominately battlecruiser vs. battlecruiser, the only time it was really battleship vs. battlecruiser was British Fifth Squadron against the German battlecruiser force. I thought most German actions against the Russians were battlecruiser vs. predreadnought.

Hmm, I really don't remember if the Russian battleships were predreadnought or a bit newer than that - but yes they were old battleships. And yes the German Battlecruiser was a new ship, but it's still battleship vs. Battlecruiser :D.
 
There was also the battleship action in Guadacanal. Though the old Kirishima (originally rated as a battlecruiser) was heavily adapted and reinforced in its armor protection (to the point of being rated a battleship in WWII), it was still heavily outmatched going up against the Washington and South Dakota (though the South Dakota was disabled by electrical failure in mid-battle).
 
One Question, was Britain a big importer of oil in the 1920s? If Britain and Japan have to import over 60% of its oil in the 1920s, Could they function if the Ottoman Empire (if it still around in the 1920) Embargo the oil to Britain and Japan once the war starts (or even before the war starts)?

cwf1701

If the Ottoman empire is still around it might be awkward. However Juwait was already a British protectorate, although not sure when they started major production from there. However Britain's main imports from that period came from Persia. Other alternative major sources at the time were the Dutch East Indies, conveniently close to Japan and Russia/Baku, although that might depend on the political situation there.

Oil was a lot less important in this period don't forget. Coal was still the primary source of power and fuel and there were a lot less motor vehicles outside military use. There is the famous quote from the energy crisis of the 70's that whereas Japan went to war in 41 with only ~12 months oil stockpile left but they were consuming the same amount of oil in 12 hours in the 70's.

Steve
 
Until I can look at my copy Worth's excellent book on battlecruisers, aside from the Bismarck engagement, exactly when did battlecruisers slog it out with battleships?

The term 'battlecruiser' was first used for the Powerful class cruisers of the 1890s.

David

I was thinking mainly of Jutland although its probably not that good an example as both BC squadrons sought to avoid combat with BBs. However there were some nasty incidents, including when one of the I class got caught at close range by the German fleet.

Steve
 

BlondieBC

Banned
One Question, was Britain a big importer of oil in the 1920s? If Britain and Japan have to import over 60% of its oil in the 1920s, Could they function if the Ottoman Empire (if it still around in the 1920) Embargo the oil to Britain and Japan once the war starts (or even before the war starts)?

Yes, from Kuwait and Anglo-Persian Oil (Now BP). Anglo-Persian was founded by the British when they started using oil in there main battle fleet. The British took their profits in terms of free oil, to make Naval expenditures look lower.

Japan received a lot of oil from the Dutch East Indies, so i think they be ok too.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
In 1939 the UK's oil supplies were from:

46.2% from Venezula, Trindad etc.
30.8% from the British Middle East
19.2% from the US
(the remainder from Romania)
 

67th Tigers

Banned
67th Tigers

What I meant is that traditionally, at least for the dreadnought period before then, the RN went for heavier shells with hence greater hitting power. Also lower muzzle velocity because the extra time in flight was mitigated by the reduced barrel wear.

If they had gone with that same philosophy for the Nelson's the 16" shell used would have been somewhat heavier than the 2048ib you mentioned and the velocity lower. Can't remember the details but at least as heavy as the comparable US 16" shell I think.

Steve

The UK 12" round was slightly lighter than the US (850-860 lbs vs 870 lbs). The 13.5" was obviously slightly lighter than the US 14" (1,250-1,270 lbs vs ca. 1,400 lbs). The UK 15" was 1,938 lbs in this period (all ammunition types), whereas the UK 16" was slightly lighter than the US (2,048 lbs vs 2,110 lbs).

With the exception of the 12", the US guns all used heavier charges than the UK guns giving greater MV (in the 12" there were similar). US claims of greater barrel life have to therefore be questioned. In fact the RN had much greater standards of accuracy for their guns, and so simply replaced them sooner.

In fact the USN doesn't seem to have placed much weight on accuracy of fire. The 14" guns in twin turrets often gave spreads of ca. 8% of range, whilst the 14" triples gave spreads of 12%. This means that in combat the majority of the US battleline would hit simply by chance. The 16" twins of the Colorado gave much improved performance of about 2%, which was typical (actually quite high but acceptable) for RN guns. From the accurate Colorado guns things got worse, the triple 16/45 was not good, and the triple 16/50 on the Iowas was abysmal until they adopted improved propellents and procedures ISTR during the Vietnam War.

This shows at Surigao Strait. Firing at a wounded battleship under radar control at ca. 20,000 yards the West Virginia hit a grand total of once (and the round did not detonate), whilst the five other US battleships did not hit with their main guns at all (a total of one hit by a malfunctioning round out of 285 heavy rounds). Yamashiro was sunk by being torpedoed four times, not by US gunfire.
 
Top