WI:WNT allowed 15,000 ton Heavy Cruisers?

Since I am doing the carriers, I thought, why not get ideas on what the 'treaty' CA's might have looked like, had they been allowed the tonnage to mount 8" guns and be armored against same. So what do you all think?

Could we perhaps get a subdivision of CL, limited to 6" guns and armored against same? And what would such ships be like and what would their likely displacements have been?
 
Since I am doing the carriers, I thought, why not get ideas on what the 'treaty' CA's might have looked like, had they been allowed the tonnage to mount 8" guns and be armored against same. So what do you all think?

Could we perhaps get a subdivision of CL, limited to 6" guns and armored against same? And what would such ships be like and what would their likely displacements have been?

For the Brits I think you might see a "Heavy Town" CA with 3 or 4 Triple 8" slightly larger than HMS Belfast - the design is already better armoured than most contemporary Cruiser designs - so the extra weight would be for the new guns

For the Americans - something like a heavier more armoured New Orleans with 4 not 3 Triples 8" guns and a few more Twin 5"

As for the Germans and Japanese - as Built :p
 

Insider

Banned
The problem with Japanese designs is that they clearly had one eye on their future use as spaceships mounting FTL drives and planet destroying superweapons....hence why they so often failed as actual surface warships.
are you talking about the same cruisers that had many times beaten their enemies in surface engagements and fell to submarines and superior airforce??
 
The last of the breed, the US Baltimores and the Prinz Eugen, were close to 15.000 and represent two versions of balanced CA designs.
The Baltimore is close to the ideal under 15.000t CA design. Most navies would probably reduce AA a bit and keep TT, but apart from that its a matter of national preferences.
 
Are the tonnage quotas of the 1930 London Naval Treaty increased by 50% to allow for the cruisers built in the 1920s being 50% larger.

According to Morris in Cruisers of the Royal and Commonwealth Navies the specification for the County class was eight 8" guns, a speed of 33 knots and high freeboard for good seakeeping. He says that a balanced design with these characteristics would turn out at 13,000 tons.

To get it down to 10,000 tons the designers had to fit less powerful (and lighter) machinery for a maximum speed of 31 knots and cut out most of the armour.
 
Last edited:
Are the tonnage quotas of the 1930 London Naval Treaty increased by 50% to allow for the cruisers built in the 1920s being 50% larger.

According to Morris in Cruisers of the Royal and Commonwealth Navies the specification for the County class was eight 8" guns, a speed of 33 knots and high freeboard for good seakeeping. He says that a balanced design with these characteristics came would turn out at 13,000 tons.

To get it down to 10,000 tons the designers had to fit less powerful (and lighter) machinery for a maximum speed of 31 knots and cut out most of the armour.
For the tonnage total, lets go with:

1 The navies get either 50% more total cruiser tonnage in WNT and the follow ups, or
2 The navies get historical tonnage limits, but with the stipulation that a balanced CL design (I still need to know that that might be) are, like the CVL's, free.
 
Ok, so as a continuation of the ideas of unlimited 15,000 ton carriers rather than 10,000 ton being the loophole that allows them "not to count", and also never being closed, what could we see on a lesser displacement than 15,000 tons for balanced CL designes?

I would throw out for discussion the thought of 10,000 ton light crusiers being built in unlimited numbers, but capped with 6" gun size. The problem is, I have no idea if that is too much tonnage, or not enough if we start talking about 4 (triple) turret designes.

For me, I would rather have the 'treaty crusier' CA's be easily more powerful, both in terms of 8" guns, armored protection, and total tonnage, than their smaller brethern. So what would a good CL limit be, so that it is clearly outclassed by the CA, but is allowed in unlimited numbers?
 
are you talking about the same cruisers that had many times beaten their enemies in surface engagements and fell to submarines and superior airforce??

Yes and they also fell to cruisers and destroyers and I can find not one action in which they triumphed due to superior design but several in which vessels were lost because of design flaws.

The qualities of Japanese crews is another matter and the strategic situation that at least in the first part of the war allowed the IJN to operate at some advantage adds further explanation for their victories despite and not because of lacklustre design.
 
Ok, so as a continuation of the ideas of unlimited 15,000 ton carriers rather than 10,000 ton being the loophole that allows them "not to count", and also never being closed, what could we see on a lesser displacement than 15,000 tons for balanced CL designes?

I would throw out for discussion the thought of 10,000 ton light crusiers being built in unlimited numbers, but capped with 6" gun size. The problem is, I have no idea if that is too much tonnage, or not enough if we start talking about 4 (triple) turret designes.

For me, I would rather have the 'treaty crusier' CA's be easily more powerful, both in terms of 8" guns, armored protection, and total tonnage, than their smaller brethern. So what would a good CL limit be, so that it is clearly outclassed by the CA, but is allowed in unlimited numbers?

Well you are kind of defeating the object if CLs show up in unlimited numbers but...the British would have liked much smaller light cruisers because they wanted swarms to patrol the Empire and make life awkward for pirates (in peace and war) and commerce raiders (in war time).

The main reason I can see for raising the treaty limits on heavy cruisers is actually to allow the smaller powers more meaningful warships so you would need more of them to turn up in Washington and have some strategy to overcome the fact that the Great Powers held pretty much all the cards.

Though I suspect the Brits might be won over in return for a 5k ton limit on light cruiser or thereabouts.
 
United States Navy

The USN would build 15,000 ton versions of the 18 CA and 9 CL that they built between the wars in the real world.

USS Wichita would effectively be an enlarged Baltimore (i.e. 15,000 tons against thirteen and a bit thousand). The Brooklyn class would have the enlarged Baltimore hull, machinery and protection, but have a main armament of fifteen 6" in five triple turrets and a secondary armament of twelve 5" in six twins, effectively a "Super Cleveland."

I think that at least the first 4 the Atlanta class would still be built because they were intended to lead the destroyer squadrons and replace CL4 to CL13.

I'm assuming that the 1936 Treaty keeps the cruiser limit at 15,000 tons instead of reducing it to 8,000 tons. Therefore more enlarged Baltimores would be built instead of the Baltimore of OTL and more Super Clevelands in place of the Clevelands of OTL. I don't think that it would alter the number or design of the Alaska, Newport News or Worcester class that were built.

All I have read about the Cleveland class ships says that they were cramped and overloaded, which although they displaced 10,000 tons was a legacy of the 8,000 ton limit imposed under the 1936 Treaty. Therefore the Baltimore based Super Clevelands in this timeline should be more successful ships.

Two Baltimores were converted to Boston class guided missile cruisers IOTL and ITTL the slightly larger hull would allow them to carry more missiles, more guidance radars and/or flagship facilities.

Three Baltimores were given even more radical rebuilds to Albany class guided missile cruisers. Again the slightly larger hull would allow a heavier armament and/or better flagship facilities.

Six Cleveland class were converted to guided missile cruisers along the lines of the Boston class. However, the smaller hull meant they could only carry one missile launcher and fewer guidance radars. The Super Clevelands of this timeline could be rebuilt to Boston or even Albany standard.

In the 1960s the equivalent the equivalent of a FRAM I refit was planned for all of these ships. It would have included the fitting of NTDS and the faults in their unreliable first-generation guided missile systems cured.

Only two ships received the refit IOTL. This was due to the cost, the Vietnam War and the age of the ships. However, if the ships have better armaments and make better flagships more of them would be refitted as it was more cost effective.
 
Imperial Japanese Navy

IIRC the Japanese built 4 heavy cruisers that were similar to the British Exeter and York. Presumably they would be 50% greater in displacement and mount nine 8" in three triple turrets.

Then they built 8 ships mounting ten 8" which officially displaced 10,000 tons, but actually displaced nearer 13,000 tons. Therefore ITTL they built 8 ships mounting the same armament on 15,000 tons, which would be more balanced. Or they would build eight ships that officially displace 15,000 tons, but were actually larger and mount fifteen 8in in five triple turrets.

So that's the same number of hulls, but 50% larger and 50% heaver main armament.

The 1930 Treaty allows them 162,000 tons of heavy cruisers, which is absorbed by twelve 8" ships already built.

The 1930 Treaty does not automatically increase their tonnage for six inch cruisers by 50%. However, it does give them enough tonnage to build the Mogami and Tone classes to an (official) 13,000 ton design instead of the "floppy hull" 8,500 design of the real world. The main armament would be originally be twenty 6" in five quadruple turrets, but the first 4 would be rearmed with fifteen 8" in five triple turrets and the last 2 would be completed with the new armament.

A larger tonnage limit for cruisers does not necessarily alter the design of the Agano class and Oyodo because like the Alaska class they were intended to lead the destroyers.
 
I was in silly mode when I wrote it but feel free :D
I too remember Star Blazers.:D

Well you are kind of defeating the object if CLs show up in unlimited numbers but...the British would have liked much smaller light cruisers because they wanted swarms to patrol the Empire and make life awkward for pirates (in peace and war) and commerce raiders (in war time).

The main reason I can see for raising the treaty limits on heavy cruisers is actually to allow the smaller powers more meaningful warships so you would need more of them to turn up in Washington and have some strategy to overcome the fact that the Great Powers held pretty much all the cards.

Though I suspect the Brits might be won over in return for a 5k ton limit on light cruiser or thereabouts.
Well, the actual reason I had was that I keep hearing that the 'treaty cruisers' were not 'balanced' designs, so I wanted a set of treaties that would preserve the 8" gunned ships, but allow for the extra tonnage to make them a bit more well rounded.:) As for the 5k limit, I personally think that is a no go, but then what do I know? Can you give a few possible designs that could have been built to such limits, still be long ranged and balanced? What I don't want is a 15x6" gunned CL
that is 2/3 of the tonnage of the CA. How about if the treaty limit was set for the CL's at somewhere between 6-8,000 tons, would that work to get balanced, ocean going ships, in unlimited numbers, that would still never be able to challenge a CA on even terms?

I would even say a 7,500 ton cap, but would much rather have a nice, even 8,000 tons to work with.

So everybody, what potential designs for the CL's, and what tonnage cap?
 
The USN would build 15,000 ton versions of the 18 CA and 9 CL that they built between the wars in the real world.

USS Wichita would effectively be an enlarged Baltimore (i.e. 15,000 tons against thirteen and a bit thousand). The Brooklyn class would have the enlarged Baltimore hull, machinery and protection, but have a main armament of fifteen 6" in five triple turrets and a secondary armament of twelve 5" in six twins, effectively a "Super Cleveland."
Ok,m I think I finally get what your were saying, and that is the USN would have two different CA designs, one with 9x8" and the other with 15x6"? Interesting indeed, I wonder how that would play out among other navies?
 
Ok,m I think I finally get what your were saying, and that is the USN would have two different CA designs, one with 9x8" and the other with 15x6"? Interesting indeed, I wonder how that would play out among other navies?

I haven't looked it up, but I think Wichita was the Brooklyn hull and machinery with a different main armament.

Similarly, the Baltimore design was an enlarged Cleveland class hull with a different main armament.

I hope that is clearer.
 
This all ignores the fact that the British wanted more cruisers because of their large empire and were the ones pushing for a lower tonnage per ship in order to be able to spread a limited amount of tonnage over more ships.
 
This all ignores the fact that the British wanted more cruisers because of their large empire and were the ones pushing for a lower tonnage per ship in order to be able to spread a limited amount of tonnage over more ships.
In fact, the Royal Navy cursed the Hawkins class, since they proved to be the thin end of the wedge that the Americans could use to get 10,000-ton cruisers. The USN wanted 10,000 tons/8 inches for big, long-ranged cruisers in the Pacific. The RN considered the Hawkins class to be a step in the wrong direction and had no intention of building more cruisers of that size class until forced in that direction.
 
Top