|
Post by aeson on Aug 16, 2017 16:08:24 GMT -6
I was under the impression that the South Dakota (1920)-class battleships were to have a belt of 13.5-8 inches, which would have made them slower but better protected than a proposed 25kn fast battleship with a 12-8" belt unless the region of maximal belt thickness is considerably greater on the fast battleship than on the South Dakota design, or unless the superior protection that you're thinking of is in areas other than the belt armor.
I'm inclined to agree. The 1921 Imperial Conference essentially decided that the maintenance of the Anglo-Japanese alliance was not worth tension with the USA, and as mentioned there were already some suspicions of and concerns over Japanese intentions in the Far East, in part due to the Japanese demands upon China during the First World War.
The Lexington and Saratoga, and possibly one or two others, were probably too far along for rebuilding the ships from a 9:1 length:beam ratio to a 7.5:1 beam ratio to be economically viable. Limited up-armoring may have been possible, but significantly increasing the armor protection above that which the vessels' structures were designed to handle creates its own issues and the deck and belt armor of the Lexington design settled upon for construction is barely half what would have been put on a fast battleship designed at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 16, 2017 16:27:53 GMT -6
I was under the impression that the South Dakota (1920)-class battleships were to have a belt of 13.5-8 inches, which would have made them slower but better protected than a proposed 25kn fast battleship with a 12-8" belt unless the region of maximal belt thickness is considerably greater on the fast battleship than on the South Dakota design, or unless the superior protection that you're thinking of is in areas other than the belt armor. I'm inclined to agree. The 1921 Imperial Conference essentially decided that the maintenance of the Anglo-Japanese alliance was not worth tension with the USA, and as mentioned there were already some suspicions of and concerns over Japanese intentions in the Far East, in part due to the Japanese demands upon China during the First World War. The Lexington and Saratoga, and possibly one or two others, were probably too far along for rebuilding the ships from a 9:1 length:beam ratio to a 7.5:1 beam ratio to be economically viable. Limited up-armoring may have been possible, but significantly increasing the armor protection above that which the vessels' structures were designed to handle creates its own issues and the deck and belt armor of the Lexington design settled upon for construction is barely half what would have been put on a fast battleship designed at the same time. Yes, it was less than the South Dakota's. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 17, 2017 8:48:50 GMT -6
Am I wrong in thinking that part of the problem with the battlecruiser concept is that they eventually wanted it to do too many things. Lord Fisher wasn't really a "how" guy, like "how are we going to use this effectively?" He seems to have been more of a technical, "this is the ship we can and will achieve and it is superior to anything built before." I'm reading the excellent (IMO) Andrew Gordon's The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command and I just got to the part on Lord Fisher so maybe I'll have to modify my opinion. Roles they were tasked to play: Hunt down and sink smaller, slower armored cruisers and later on, heavy cruisers. Fight other battlecruisers acting as raiders or attacking your own smaller cruisers. Scout for the battlefleet and prevent the enemy's scouts from doing the same. Support the battleline as a fast division during the main engagement. The requirements for those are significantly different to mind. Hunt down and sink smaller, slower armored cruisers and later on, heavy cruisers.
Very fast speed. (The armored cruisers were relatively slow because they used reciprocating engines but once cruisers shifted to turbines their speeds would increase sharply and the battlecruisers would have to match/exceed) Weapons larger than your projected enemies so you can outrange them but not necessarily fully battleship sized weapons. Armor only sufficient to protect against your expected opponents, not necessarily your own guns. The Invincibles and the Deutchland/ Alaska/ B-65 would all generally fit in here. They are expensive but not as expensive as a full sized battleship/battlecruiser like the QE's or Hood. Fight other battlecruisers acting as raiders or attacking your own smaller cruisers. Scout for the battlefleet and prevent the enemy's scouts from doing the same.Similar requirements. Fast speed to range ahead of the battleline and match enemy battlecruisers but not necessarily as fast as a light cruiser. You need to be able to drive off light cruisers attempting to scout for the enemy but not necessarily run them down and sink them. Guns and armor have to be balanced assuming that the enemy will do the same. So if both sides are carrying 12 inch guns, your armor needs to provide good protection from 12 inch guns. Here is where the Alaska design fails (I'm not as familiar with the B-65 or Deutschland). The Alaska's, in common with most Anglo-American battlecruiser designs, had very limited protection against their own caliber weapons. So if they run up into something their own size and firepower, they are in trouble. I think the German battlecruisers worked well in this role based on the battle of Jutland. [Edit - But the German battlecruisers tended to be more expensive than their equivalent generation German dreadnoughts so that's something to consider.] Support the battleline as a fast division during the main engagement.Here you need a few knots (3-4) better than battleline speed. Weapons and armor need to be heavier than any other role since the ship is likely to target and be targeted by battleships. For this I think it was aeson and rimbecano who promoted the idea to me that neither the Anglo or German idea was optimal. They proposed that the battlecruiser have both full battleship armor and caliber of weapon. Speed would be increased by shipping fewer weapons. So essentially take your battleship design, remove one turret and use the weight and space saved to increase speed as much as you can within roughly the same displacement. The other option is building a significantly larger displacement or building a true fast battleship once technology allows. They were persuasive enough that I'm going to try it in my current game when I get to that time. Previously, I've always built German style battlecruisers. Trying to build one ship that can fill all roles is maybe possible but would be horribly expensive because you would need the guns and armor of a fast battleline division ship but the extra speed to hunt down heavy and possibly light cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 17, 2017 10:37:06 GMT -6
No, I don't think you are. I'd add that this is to some extent a holdover from the thinking with regards to the large armored cruisers (e.g. the American Tennessee, the Japanese Ibuki, or the British Minotaur) of the later part, and to a lesser extent of the first-class cruisers generally, of the predreadnought era, which were intended for much the same purposes as the battlecruisers which followed - hunting down and destroying lesser cruisers, scouting for the battle line, and providing effective fire support to the battle line should the need arise - and which were what the battlecruisers were initially intended to defeat.
I will caution you that this does not always produce results which are particularly more satisfactory than those obtained with Anglo- or German-style battlecruisers, especially early in the game when you have neither very many nor very heavy guns even on your dreadnought battleships. However fast and well-protected the ship is, a 6x12" broadside is never going to be very satisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 17, 2017 10:53:30 GMT -6
No, I don't think you are. I'd add that this is to some extent a holdover from the thinking with regards to the large armored cruisers (e.g. the American Tennessee, the Japanese Ibuki, or the British Minotaur) of the later part, and to a lesser extent of the first-class cruisers generally, of the predreadnought era, which were intended for much the same purposes as the battlecruisers which followed - hunting down and destroying lesser cruisers, scouting for the battle line, and providing effective fire support to the battle line should the need arise - and which were what the battlecruisers were initially intended to defeat. I agree with the both of you as well.
One of the things with the Alaska-Class Large Cruiser is by that time, battleship guns had become so big that I don't think that anyone would have tried to have her stand in the line of battle with her 12 inch guns. However with them, they had the problem that, being designed as cruiser killers, the ships they were supposed to hunt down and sink had been sunk or rendered ineffective by the time they were ready. It would have been cool to see how they would have turned out as Guided Missile Cruisers (a conversion was suggested for them)
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 17, 2017 10:59:24 GMT -6
I will caution you that this does not always produce results which are particularly more satisfactory than those obtained with Anglo- or German-style battlecruisers, especially early in the game when you have neither very many nor very heavy guns even on your dreadnought battleships. However fast and well-protected the ship is, a 6x12" broadside is never going to be very satisfactory. I was worried about that a little for the 12 inch armed generations of BC already but thanks for the headsup. It's when my dreadnoughts move up to 14 and 16 inch guns that I'm going to really try to put the idea into practice because previously, I've stayed at 12 and 14 inches for my battlecruisers when my dreadnought generations move up in caliber.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 17, 2017 16:26:57 GMT -6
Just some "quick" thoughts. With the development of mines, torpedoes and submarines, the first mission of the battle-cruisers went away although they were successful at the Battle of the Falklands. The second went away with the seaplane tender, carrier and aircraft. I think the use of the Engadine showed the way on that second mission. As to the third, there was ample evidence from Jutland that the battle-cruiser had no business being in the main fleet as it was not armored well enough for it. This happens a lot in technology throughout the early and middle 20th century. By the time the all big gun armored cruiser was conceived, funded and built, technology had made it obsolete or at least, unneeded. I am reasonably certain that post-war battle-cruisers, without the Washington Naval Treaty or maybe a modified version of it, would have caused the battle-cruiser to morph into the fast battleship. It just makes perfect sense. Economics and war-weariness I believe would have still limited naval shipbuilding. Let's all keep in mind one vital bit; naval arms races do not and have not started wars. There are a host of other reasons but not naval arms races.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Aug 17, 2017 18:39:08 GMT -6
It seems that even without the Washington Naval Treaty the BCs were headed that way - the Amagi and G3 battlecruisers designed by the IJN and RN were as I recall not too far removed from being fast battleships; the Lexingtons would probably have come out on the short end of a slugging match with either one of those designs.
Generally speaking, it does seem that with the introduction of small-tube boilers and more efficient vessel designs (all-or-nothing armor, reducing the number of turrets to 3 or 4), the speed advantage of the battlecruiser was lost. HMS Hood in 1941 was two knots slower (granted, partially due to poor upkeep) than her more heavily-armored adversary at the Denmark Strait, and the Iowas could probably outrun any battlecruiser ever built or designed.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 17, 2017 18:52:33 GMT -6
It seems that even without the Washington Naval Treaty the BCs were headed that way - the Amagi and G3 battlecruisers designed by the IJN and RN were as I recall not too far removed from being fast battleships; the Lexingtons would probably have come out on the short end of a slugging match with either one of those designs. Generally speaking, it does seem that with the introduction of small-tube boilers and more efficient vessel designs (all-or-nothing armor, reducing the number of turrets to 3 or 4), the speed advantage of the battlecruiser was lost. HMS Hood in 1941 was two knots slower (granted, partially due to poor upkeep) than her more heavily-armored adversary at the Denmark Strait, and the Iowas could probably outrun any battlecruiser ever built or designed. Good observation and that is why I said that technology had essentially moved quicker than the development of the battle-cruiser. The battle-cruiser was an interim step in the development of the fast battleship.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 17, 2017 19:10:18 GMT -6
I'd agree with assessing the G3-class battlecruiser design as being close to a fast battleship, but the Amagi-class battlecruisers' armor is a bit thin for it to make a decent approximation of a fast battleship at a maximum belt thickness of 9.8" and a maximum deck thickness of 3.7".
I will just say that I am of the opinion that we should exercise caution when drawing conclusions based upon the performance of fairly old ships against much newer ships, even when they appear fairly comparable on paper as Bismarck and HMS Hood do. While I generally agree that the speed advantage of the battlecruiser would most likely have largely disappeared by the 1930s-1940s if not earlier, we don't have any battlecruisers aside from the American Alaskas or things like the Japanese B65- or German O-class proposals to base that on, and I'd point out that the USN was considering giving up some of the speed that the Iowa-class battleships had with the planned Montana-class ships. I don't know how far along design work ever got on them, but there's a proposed 35kn 3x2 20" British battlecruiser (HMS Incomparable) dating to 1915, and a proposed 35kn 3x2 15" Nazi German battlecruiser (O-class). I think that the Admiralty decided that HMS Incomparable was a bit of a white elephant even while Fisher was still in charge, though, and Nazi Germany never really got anywhere with its planned capital ships after the Bismarck and Tirpitz.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 17, 2017 20:20:15 GMT -6
The problem with the designation of battle-cruisers after WW1 as Fast Battleships is that there was essentially no real definition in specification. The Fast Battleship would lead a group of ships, not within the main battle fleet, to attack trade and disrupt it. When read that, you say, "well that is the same definition or mission as the battle-cruiser". This is true. What is a "fast battleship". Is it a battleship with a minimum of 25 knots? Is it a battleship with a minimum of 10 inches of armor above the waterline reducing down below to the second deck to around 8 inches. What is it? It's great to criticize a ship for not being "standard" but there is no standard.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Aug 17, 2017 20:33:24 GMT -6
I'll note that the G3s were considered at a time when the British were considering 18" guns for their next generation battleships, so I'd be more inclined to rate them as German style BCs than fast battleships.
As to how the Lexingtons would have fared compared to Hood, I'll note that in WWII, it was determined by the USN that British propellants were much less stable than American propellants, and that Seydlitz suffered a much larger propellant fire at Dogger Bank than Lion did at Jutland, but Seydlitz was not lost despite the fire spreading into the magazines, whereas it is generally agreed that Lion would have been lost had her magazines for Q turret not already been flooded.
Now, that's not to say that I'd ride one of the Lexingtons into battle: there's a reason that I sacrifice gun count rather than armor for BCs in RTW, but there's the possibility that the Lexingtons were adequately armored for the flash sensitivity of US powder.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 17, 2017 20:44:25 GMT -6
oldpop2000 I always enjoy discussing/debating with you, as you always provide interesting information and food for thought. I agree that Japan was not going to keep her Alliance with Britain, primarily due to the opposition of the Commonwealth nations (Australia was particularly vehement). However since we were postulating a world where the Washington Treaties did not come to pass, I felt that it was at least worthy of consideration. Though even with the Washington Treaties not happening, I'd still agree that the alliance was most likely dead in the water, as the 1921 Conference revealed deep misgivings about it on the part of the Dominions, and the British would have prioritized their relationship with the dominions over that of their alliance with Japan (they had to try to keep the Empire united). However I still felt it worthy of consideration, at least as a remote possibility. Even if it had lasted though, since the war we postulated was sparked by the Japanese invading Manchuria, the British (even in the unlikely event that they still were allied) would probably not felt obliged to declare war on the U.S, as it would have been a hostile act on the part of Japan that caused it, much like in 1905 with the Russo-Japanese War, when Japan declared war on Russia, and attacked the Russian fleet 3 hours before war was declared.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 17, 2017 21:34:55 GMT -6
Heh Heh, even my lectures? Thanks, it makes the research all the more worth it. So, here is one for you. It's about bankrupting the enemy.(The name of an excellent book by Edward S. Miller)
We all have a belief that the Japanese attacked the US because of our resistance to their movement into East and southern Asia along with the South Pacific. You know that on July 26th 1941 we embargoed oil to the Japanese. We had supplied them with 80% of their oil, so it was a big deal to them. But there was more to it. The Roosevelt administration invoked a little known 1917 law. Specifically, Section 5(B) of that act, I will provide the name later. Here is how this worked.
The Japanese held liquid assets in our Federal Reserve in the form of US dollars in our banks and gold bars. These were used to purchase imports and to service their small overseas debts. However, on July 26th, all of that became illiquid. All their assets were frozen and this isolated Japan economically from the outside world, voided its monetary assets, both the money on hand and in the foreseeable future. The Dutch and the British did likewise. This meant that consent to buy strategic goods in the US or any country that exported for US dollars revoked. All that was left was their colonies and conquered regions. Japan was now bankrupt in the truest sense of the word. They had three choices: suffer economic impoverishment, accede to US demands to yield its territorial gains or go to war with the US. We know the answer and the result.
This information is from Bankrupting the Enemy: The Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor, Introduction.
Now this is very interesting and that act, abbreviated as TWEA or the Trading with the Enemy Act could have been used any time, especially after the 1932 Chinese problems. This act did not extend to just enemies, but ALL foreign countries and entities which gave the US government a tremendous hold and control of the finance in the world where the dollar was the supreme medium of exchange.
It's hard to see how the Japanese had a real fighting chance in the world if we did not like their attitude.
As an aside, I just wanted with my other post to present facts that might show a different viewpoint, your view is not entirely without merit.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 17, 2017 21:37:58 GMT -6
Here is the G3 Battlecruiser in Springsharp: G3, Great Britain Battleship laid down 1921 Displacement: 49,479 t light; 52,970 t standard; 56,985 t normal; 60,198 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (859.38 ft / 856.00 ft) x 106.00 ft x (35.80 / 37.40 ft) (261.94 m / 260.91 m) x 32.31 m x (10.91 / 11.40 m)
Armament: 9 - 18.00" / 457 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,940.86lbs / 1,333.95kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1921 Model 3 x Triple mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread 16 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 108.93lbs / 49.41kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1921 Model 8 x Twin mounts on side ends, evenly spread Weight of broadside 28,211 lbs / 12,796 kg
Armour: - Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg) Main: 14.0" / 356 mm 556.40 ft / 169.59 m 12.35 ft / 3.76 m Ends: 11.0" / 279 mm 299.58 ft / 91.31 m 12.35 ft / 3.76 m Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 556.40 ft / 169.59 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max) Main: 17.0" / 432 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 14.0" / 356 mm 2nd: 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
- Box over machinery: 8.00" / 203 mm Forecastle: 8.00" / 203 mm Quarter deck: 3.00" / 76 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 8.00" / 203 mm, Aft 8.00" / 203 mm
Machinery: Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, Geared drive, 4 shafts, 157,011 shp / 117,130 Kw = 30.00 kts Range 7,000nm at 17.00 kts Bunker at max displacement = 7,228 tons
Complement: 1,843 - 2,397
Cost: £13.031 million / $52.125 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement: Armament: 4,491 tons, 7.9 % - Guns: 4,491 tons, 7.9 % Armour: 17,728 tons, 31.1 % - Belts: 7,113 tons, 12.5 % - Armament: 5,497 tons, 9.6 % - Armour Deck: 4,607 tons, 8.1 % - Conning Towers: 510 tons, 0.9 % Machinery: 5,407 tons, 9.5 % Hull, fittings & equipment: 21,854 tons, 38.4 % Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,506 tons, 13.2 % Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability: Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship): 86,177 lbs / 39,089 Kg = 29.6 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 4.9 torpedoes Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.20 Metacentric height 7.6 ft / 2.3 m Roll period: 16.1 seconds Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 37 % - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.89 Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.03
Hull form characteristics: Hull has a flush deck, a normal bow and large transom stern Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.614 / 0.621 Length to Beam Ratio: 8.08 : 1 'Natural speed' for length: 33.54 kts Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 % Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 27 Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 6.00 degrees Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length): Fore end, Aft end - Forecastle: 20.00 %, 32.18 ft / 9.81 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m - Forward deck: 30.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m - Aft deck: 35.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m - Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m - Average freeboard: 30.17 ft / 9.20 m
Ship space, strength and comments: Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 74.2 % - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 217.3 % Waterplane Area: 70,094 Square feet or 6,512 Square meters Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 % Structure weight / hull surface area: 227 lbs./sq. ft. or 1,106 Kg/sq. meter Hull strength (Relative): - Cross-sectional: 0.94 - Longitudinal: 1.63 - Overall: 1.00 Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space Excellent accommodation and workspace room
|
|