Warships that should never been built?

[McPherson]

Royal Sovereigns

Did a little looking at the Dreadnought Project and in Friedman.

Smokeless brown powder that threw a fuse defective soft nosed 570 kg shell against US Harvey plate on an Indiana?

Permission details
This work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain.
This is because it is one of the following:

1. It is a photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957; or
2. It was published prior to 1970; or
3. It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created prior to 1970.

HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply)
More information.
See also Copyright and Crown copyright artistic works.

Same again.

From a gun on a hoodless open barbette no-less with a British Coles type hoist system?

The plate on these turkeys was compound armor. What that means is hardened steel over Iron. NTG if hit with steel shells. Shatters like glass.

1204. Compound armor.-Thus resulted a new type of armor-the compound type-the two principal examples of which were the Wilson Cammel compound plate in which an open-hearth steel face was cast on top of a hot wrought iron back plate, and the Ellis-Brown compound plate in which a steel face plate was cemented to an iron back plate by pouring molten Bessemer steel between them. In both these processes, which were English, the plates were rolled after compounding. For the next ten years there was no especial development in armor manufacture other than minor improvements in the technique of manufacture, and great competition and controversy existed as to the relative quality of all-steel and compound armor. The all-steel armor was a simple steel of about .30 per cent to .40 per cent carbon, while the steel face of the compound armor contained between .50 per cent and .60 per cent carbon. These two classes of armor, their comparative value depending largely on the skill with which they were made, were approximately 25 per cent superior to their wrought iron predecessor, that is to say- a 10-inch all-steel or compound plate would resist the same striking energy that a 12.6-inch iron plate would withstand.

The Americans were leaners. How did the Royal Sovereigns do as gun platforms?

Brown, David K. (1997). Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860–1905. London: Chatham. Pp124-125

Summary: Hood rolled like a drunk, Resolution was no better. Repulse was fitted with bilge keels which meant the sailors did not get as seasick in a swell, but that did not entirely solve the stability problem. Whole class had to be back-fitted with bilge keels because the hull form was as screwed up as the Indianas. Maybe, just maybe = to an Indiana as a gun platform in a calm sea.

The Indianas had poor secondary armament layout, but the guns could be worked. The RS's had 4 of their 10 x 1 ea 15.2 cm guns unworkable in a swell as the guns' positions washed out.

So. the Royal Sovereign class, a whole ship class that never should have been built.

If it is 4 Royal Sovereigns and a couple of contemporary British torpedo boats against Schley. Even if it is Fisher, I'll TAKE those odds and predict British disaster.

 

[Athelstane]

So. the Royal Sovereign class, a whole ship class that never should have been built.

Well, again - you could make a good argument for MOST warships built before 1906.

If it is 4 Royal Sovereigns and a couple of contemporary British torpedo boats against Schley. Even if it is Fisher, I'll TAKE those odds and predict British disaster.

Well, the first problem is that wouldn't be just four Royal Sovereigns, save for a fluky circumstance or very good luck for Schley. The RN could field as much 8 Royal Sovereigns (which were already being relegated to second division status), Renown (already on the West Indies station, with Fisher on board), and 9 Majestics, without even bothering with anything on the China Station or older ironclads. The British would lead with the Majestics. On top of that, a couple dozen cruisers. A bliddy tidal wave of steel.

And against that, Schley would have...well, one legit first line battleship (Iowa); two coastal defense battleships (unless the RN is polite enough to wait for Oregon to make its way around Cape Horn) which are even more obsolete than the Sovereigns, and which could barely swing their 13" guns around without risk of capsizing the ship; and maybe, if Schley has them on hand and is desperate enough, Texas and Maine, which are even older and didn't belong in a proper line of battle even when they were launched.

And then there's the men: Schley was capable enough, but the RN's crews and officers had simply spent more time at sea, more time maneuvering and operating together in squadrons. For all of the Royal Navy's weaknesses (which were fretting Fisher already), it was still the class of the world in 1898. It would swamp the Americans by sheer numbers, just as it had in 1813-14.

I could see Schley getting lucky if he stumbles across a pair of Royal Sovereigns, unescorted. But then Fisher or Rawson (or whoever the Admiralty puts in charge of the main fleet) would just swamp him and force him back to port. Hopefully a defensible port - though come to think of it, the less said about American coastal defenses in 1898, the better....

And of course if the war drags on into 1899-1900, the RN can start throwing Canopuses and Cressys into the mix. OTOH, Toronto and Montreal would probably be in American hands by that point, and one would hope that sanity would prevail for both sides sooner than that. Each had bigger fish to fry.

 

[McPherson]

Uhm, you know something? Not that they did not know it... The British would be crazy to come within the ranges of the Endicott system. Those guns were pre-registered.

 

[Athelstane]

Uhm, you know something? Not that they did not know it... The British would be crazy to come withinthe ranges of the Endicott system. Those guns were pre-registered.

The Endicott System was actually a very good coastal defense system.

Problem was, a lot of it still wasn't in commission yet in 1898...

For example, the plan called for Boston to be defended by six fortifications. But only one of the Endicott forts was ready and activated in 1898 - Fort Banks. (Though perhaps those four M1890MI 12" mortars might be enough to keep the RN well out to sea anyway.) Sadly, there's nothing left today of Fort Banks today but a trash yard and a plaque...

It does look like there was just enough in place to defend the Norfolk area and the Chesapeake, so that might be a good place for Schley to find refuge, if he could manage it.

(Fun fact: Endicott's daughter Mary married Joseph Chamberlain. That marriage might be under severe strain in this scenario....)

 

[phx1138]

The Barbels. Somebody didn't realize nuclear was the future...

And the Mackerels. Somebody didn't realize Gatos were the future...

I completely concur on the K-boats. I'll raise you:

M-1 & Surcouf. WTF were they thinking?
Edit:

As for Yorktown surviving all that was required was for her screening destroyers not falling asleep and letting I-168 through

I'd say just putting her under tow ASAP. That way, she's miles away from I-168, which never even makes contact.

Can we pet it tho?

Just don't feed it. (It's already got to go through your trash. )

 

[sts-200]

I'll nominate a group of ships that were in fact reasonably good, but could have been rather better.

RN S-Z class Emergency war programme destroyers.
Built on a J/K-class hull, but with a variety of lighter armaments.

The reasons for that are quite rational - they were needed ASAP and used what was already designed and what guns/mounts could be produced.
However, with just a little imagination, the hulls and machinery could have been updated (the DNC wanted to do it) and the armament made a little more standard (and better).
Nothing wrong with the J-class, but the hull used a relatively early form of longitudinal framing, and less welding than was possible by 1939/40. We're not going to see US-style plant, but the machinery could have been an incremental improvement (as was done on RN cruisers of the period), while a bit more 'top down' pressure on the rapidly-expanding armaments industry could have seen a half-decent 4.7" or 4.5" gun and mount deployed on all the ships.

A sensible combination of those design and manufacturing changes could have made the ships better, while not necessarily delaying them or making them any more expensive.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I'll nominate a group of ships that were in fact reasonably good, but could have been rather better.

RN S-Z class Emergency war programme destroyers.
Built on a J/K-class hull, but with a variety of lighter armaments.

The reasons for that are quite rational - they were needed ASAP and used what was already designed and what guns/mounts could be produced.
However, with just a little imagination, the hulls and machinery could have been updated (the DNC wanted to do it) and the armament made a little more standard (and better).
Nothing wrong with the J-class, but the hull used a relatively early form of longitudinal framing, and less welding than was possible by 1939/40. We're not going to see US-style plant, but the machinery could have been an incremental improvement (as was done on RN cruisers of the period), while a bit more 'top down' pressure on the rapidly-expanding armaments industry could have seen a half-decent 4.7" or 4.5" gun and mount deployed on all the ships.

A sensible combination of those design and manufacturing changes could have made the ships better, while not necessarily delaying them or making them any more expensive.

I am going to be slightly controversial here and this does hurt to say as I think they were some of the nicest looking DDs ever made and served the Andrew well.

But here goes

Deep breath - checks distance to sand bagged trench.

Don't build the Tribal class - build a class similar to the JKLs as their layout of weapons was more useful and their machinery layout was also better

Ducks into aforementioned trench

 

[sts-200]

I am going to be slightly controversial here and this does hurt to say as I think they were some of the nicest looking DDs ever made and served the Andrew well.

But here goes

Deep breath - checks distance to sand bagged trench.

Don't build the Tribal class - build a class similar to the JKLs as their layout of weapons was more useful and their machinery layout was also better

Ducks into aforementioned trench

Good job you're suggesting replacing them with even better-looking ships...

 

[TennesseeDave]

The Italian battleship Caio Duilio was outdated when it was launched in 1913.

Caio Duilio

Italian battleship Duilio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[McPherson]

The Barbels. Somebody didn't realize nuclear was the future...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzushio-class_submarine

One of the deadliest modern submarine forces on the planet has subs that trace their origins lineally to the Barbels. From Uzushio===> Soryu.

And the Mackerels. Somebody didn't realize Gatos were the future...

Somewhere I commented why I thought the Mackerels were a good idea, if for no other reason, they emulated a German U-boat. (...Those Marvelous Tin Fish: The Great Torpedo Scandal Avoided. Current contributor.).

I completely concur on the K-boats. I'll raise you:

Yeah, but convince the JAIBOS on Combined Fleet of that one? Even Parshalls and Tully did not and do not weigh properly the disadvantages of the power ratios on those boats vis a vis American and British boats and the underwater maneuver edge the allied boats had.

M-1 & Surcouf. WTF were they thinking?

M-1, I think the British RN were stoned on Mary Jane. Might explain some of the Curiosities, the RAF interwar and the FAA, too.

Surcouf was probably a more elaborate (and ridiculous) version of Argonaut and Nautilus. At least it "might" operate conventionally.

Yorktown.

I'd say just putting her under tow ASAP. That way, she's miles away from I-168, which never even makes contact

I'm aware of the oft cited argument. There were structural issues (Coral Sea damage with added Midway damage) that made immediate towing out "problematic." Details matter. A competent ASW CAP and some luck was probably the only thing that could have saved her.

 

[HMS Warspite]

Perhaps it has been menioned somewhere but there is a very strange submarine design of 1913: The British K-class steam powered submarine!

This design of high speed submarine, capable of steaming with the battlefleet, was of such a poor design, it could not stay at the surface as a gunnery platform, though designed to do so. Her freeboard was far too low for that purpose, or she would have to slow down that much, it no longer could operate in her designed fleetsupporting role. While under water, it had to use electrical power from her electrical generator, which only had a poweroutput of 600KW, which charged on the surface. Steamboilers were use on the surface, which would demand charging up while surfacing leaving the boat dead in the water for some time before enough power could be generated to move the vessel. Surfacing, or diving required 30 minutes to complete!!!

No surprise this class was plagued by failures when the first was completed in 1916. Of the 17 completed 7 were lost by accidents, 2 of them during the Great War, though not due to enemy action. The surviving vessels were scrapped from 1921 on, though a few unfinished vessels on stock were rebuild as part of the M-Class submarine cruiser type.

 

[1Big Rich]

The Barbels. Somebody didn't realize nuclear was the future...

In defense of the Barbels:

Diesel boats still had work to do when the Barbels were laid down. And for the next couple decades diesels would be quieter than nuclear boats in most conditions; the RAN's Oberons for example were closely tied to Australian Special Forces operations because they were so quiet. And the Barbels were an attempt at an armed boat with the now-universal teardrop hull form (the revolutionary Albacore being a test platform and unarmed).

Also, the Barbels were completed with their bow planes on the hull. The resulting noise from waterflow over the bow planes saw them moved to the sail, resulting in the Skipjacks being designed with their bow planes at the sail, a place they would remain on US subs until the Flight III Los Angeles class.

Finally, with the demise of the Barbels, the USN nuclear boats had no diesel submarines to practice against, and in 2005 leased the Gotland from Sweden for a year, then two years, to practice ASW against a diesel opponent.

Speaking of the Gotlands, Halland is supposed to have won 'duels' with both a French SSN and an American SSN during exercises in 2000.

My thoughts,

 

[SsgtC]

In defense of the Barbels:

Diesel boats still had work to do when the Barbels were laid down. And for the next couple decades diesels would be quieter than nuclear boats in most conditions; the RAN's Oberons for example were closely tied to Australian Special Forces operations because they were so quiet. And the Barbels were an attempt at an armed boat with the now-universal teardrop hull form (the revolutionary Albacore being a test platform and unarmed).

Also, the Barbels were completed with their bow planes on the hull. The resulting noise from waterflow over the bow planes saw them moved to the sail, resulting in the Skipjacks being designed with their bow planes at the sail, a place they would remain on US subs until the Flight III Los Angeles class.

Finally, with the demise of the Barbels, the USN nuclear boats had no diesel submarines to practice against, and in 2005 leased the Gotland from Sweden for a year, then two years, to practice ASW against a diesel opponent.

Speaking of the Gotlands, Halland is supposed to have won 'duels' with both a French SSN and an American SSN during exercises in 2000.

My thoughts,

They also pioneered several features that are now common on subs (combining the attack center, control room and conning tower into one compartment for instance). If nothing else, they were useful as "proof of concept" boats that helped shape the US submarine force for decades

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Perhaps it has been menioned somewhere but there is a very strange submarine design of 1913: The British K-class steam powered submarine!

This design of high speed submarine, capable of steaming with the battlefleet, was of such a poor design, it could not stay at the surface as a gunnery platform, though designed to do so. Her freeboard was far too low for that purpose, or she would have to slow down that much, it no longer could operate in her designed fleetsupporting role. While under water, it had to use electrical power from her electrical generator, which only had a poweroutput of 600KW, which charged on the surface. Steamboilers were use on the surface, which would demand charging up while surfacing leaving the boat dead in the water for some time before enough power could be generated to move the vessel. Surfacing, or diving required 30 minutes to complete!!!

No surprise this class was plagued by failures when the first was completed in 1916. Of the 17 completed 7 were lost by accidents, 2 of them during the Great War, though not due to enemy action. The surviving vessels were scrapped from 1921 on, though a few unfinished vessels on stock were rebuild as part of the M-Class submarine cruiser type.
View attachment 519766

 

[Crowbar Six]

Apart from being much cheaper is it not that in a CW setting the might well be used to move troops from UK to Germany (potentially via F/B/N) or Denmark or Norway that would not require much if any opposed landings just landing on the many available beaches/concrete slipways/jetty's and they could be under UKAD air cover and even helicopter range for much of the time?

British Amphibious doctrine does not include forced opposed landings against serious opposition Normandy style, instead it relies on more of an indirect approach against light opposition. They were not intended to deploy alone, they would have an escort and the purpose of the heli-deck was to allow movement of personnel and crossdecking of supplies and stores, later there were Commando carriers which carried large numbers of troops but could not directly land vehicles or tanks so LSL's are required to get them ashore.

 

[phx1138]

the Japanese were ballsier...- and while they certainly had sea lift - it was no were near that of the UK and USA but look at what they managed to achieve on multiple occasions early (Pac) war and over such a huge area.

IJN at no place in the Pacific for the duration managed a contested landing against a force that hadn't been overwhelmed, first.

Japan, in Normandy, would have limped home in defeat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzushio-class_submarine

One of the deadliest modern submarine forces on the planet has subs that trace their origins lineally to the Barbels. From Uzushio===> Soryu.

And if you're Israel, Italy, Ukraine, or South Korea, in close quarters, it makes sense. Fighting in blue water, they're a waste of steel.

Somewhere I commented why I thought the Mackerels were a good idea, if for no other reason, they emulated a German U-boat.

And in that, again limited, environment, you make a good case. My own argument (in the same place) was (is), USN should have been concentrating on the high-profit patrol areas.

Yeah, but convince the JAIBOS on Combined Fleet of that one?

Not my ambit.

I'm aware of the oft cited argument. There were structural issues (Coral Sea damage with added Midway damage) that made immediate towing out "problematic." Details matter. A competent ASW CAP and some luck was probably the only thing that could have saved her.

Noted. I don't disagree on ASW. Do you disagree any tow (even as slow as 2kt) was out of the question? IMO, she didn't have to be far away.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I am going to be slightly controversial here and this does hurt to say as I think they were some of the nicest looking DDs ever made and served the Andrew well.

This is a forum, some controversy is required for debate.

But here goes

Go on.

Deep breath - checks distance to sand bagged trench.

Oh don't be so mellow dramatic, we aren't that thin skinned.

Don't build the Tribal class

What did you just say about my babies?! *cracks knuckles* That trench isn't going to save you.

 

[phx1138]

I'm surprised that no one has suggested the Flower Class Corvettes yet.
...An updated version of the WW1 Flower Class Sloops would probably have been better.

I would note (for the RCN ships, anyhow) two hurdles. Canada was incapable of producing gyroscopes, so the need, & provision, would have to be recognized fairly early in the process. (It wasn't OTL.) And Canada was incapable of operating DDs at all, so a ship nearer DD spec may be impossible. (IDK what the limit is, so it may be surmountable.)

There's also an issue of crewing. A sloop would seem to want more officers, & RCN was already at full stretch in that regard (at least, early in the war); that would need addressing. (I've wondered about RN ships turned over to RCN control, crews & all, possibly with RCN trainees aboard.)

With these provisos addressed, I'd agree: a *Flower of about 1500 tons, with a pair of 4" & Hedgehog, & capable of nearer 20kt than 16, from the off, would have been a better call than OTL.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_M-class_submarine. Quite apart from the fact they were death traps I just don't see the logic in the world's most powerful navy showing the rest of the world how to sneak past its fleet to bombard the UK with heavy artillery.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

IJN at no place in the Pacific for the duration managed a contested landing against a force that hadn't been overwhelmed, first.

Kota Bharu landings?

Granted they would not want to repeat it!

Japan, in Normandy, would have limped home in defeat.

So would any one else apart from the RN and USN