|
Post by bcoopactual on Jul 28, 2018 8:11:32 GMT -6
I asked this question in the Treaty Battleships Facebook group but I wanted to ask it here as well
The Washington Naval Limitation Treaty had the provisions for signing nations to begin new construction of battleships in 1931 to be commissioned in 1934. For example, the US could build two battleships not to exceed 35,000 Standard Tons or carry larger than 16 inch guns. They would then decommission and dispose of USS Florida, USS Utah and USS Wyoming. Same with the British, two battleships started in 1931 and when commissioned in 1934 they would dispose of HMS Iron Duke, HMS Marlborough, HMS Emperor of India and HMS Benbow. Japan could build one new battleship with Kongo being disposed of when it was completed. (The French and Italians were on a slightly different schedule beginning in 1927 and had reserved the right to use their allowed tonnage as they saw fit as long as they didn't exceed the individual or total tonnage limits).
This was mostly stalled and pushed back five years by the 1930 London treaty but supposing the London treaty falls through and the Washington treaty is carried through to its end, what do you think the early 30's battleships would have looked like? There's no requirement to go back to 14 inch guns so I'm wondering for the US would they build scaled down 1920 South Dakotas or perhaps a slower version of North Carolina. (I'm assuming propulsion technology wouldn't allow the actual North Carolina/1939 South Dakota designs to just be pushed up)
And what do you think the British and Japanese would have done? How would the French and Italians react if the Italians had to respond to new British construction and the French had to react to that?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 28, 2018 9:56:35 GMT -6
I asked this question in the Treaty Battleships Facebook group but I wanted to ask it here as well The Washington Naval Limitation Treaty had the provisions for signing nations to begin new construction of battleships in 1931 to be commissioned in 1934. For example, the US could build two battleships not to exceed 35,000 Standard Tons or carry larger than 16 inch guns. They would then decommission and dispose of USS Florida, USS Utah and USS Wyoming. Same with the British, two battleships started in 1931 and when commissioned in 1934 they would dispose of HMS Iron Duke, HMS Marlborough, HMS Emperor of India and HMS Benbow. Japan could build one new battleship with Kongo being disposed of when it was completed. (The French and Italians were on a slightly different schedule beginning in 1927 and had reserved the right to use their allowed tonnage as they saw fit as long as they didn't exceed the individual or total tonnage limits). This was mostly stalled and pushed back five years by the 1930 London treaty but supposing the London treaty falls through and the Washington treaty is carried through to its end, what do you think the early 30's battleships would have looked like? There's no requirement to go back to 14 inch guns so I'm wondering for the US would they build scaled down 1920 South Dakotas or perhaps a slower version of North Carolina. (I'm assuming propulsion technology wouldn't allow the actual North Carolina/1939 South Dakota designs to just be pushed up) And what do you think the British and Japanese would have done? How would the French and Italians react if the Italians had to respond to new British construction and the French had to react to that? It would be question if even some battleships were built. Beginning of 30s the great depression decrease possibilities quite a lot, I do not think British would be builidng anything.
We can think that there is no monetary limits.
In this case I think that would build ship more balanced thus less armor (KGV was in reality better protected than contemporary ships except Yamato) and better guns. It is question how much speed they will request and this I do not know.
US will prefer probably ships similar what was build almost decade later with may be slower speed.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 28, 2018 11:01:01 GMT -6
I would recommend that you bring up the economic problems after the 1929 Crash. The Hoover administration did raise spending, but how much of that would have been in defense spending need investigation. However, the issue of military spending does affect the Naval building expenditures.I would expect that the North Carolina class battleships probably would have been the archetypal battleships in the period that you are discussing. That’s my personal belief, with the South Dakota’s following up. The real issue is how would the carrier construction affect that building program.
I have some books on this period, the General Board and the economics of the period, that I can research and provide some incite.
I would suggest that you include in your discussion, the economics and social aspects of this period.
Addendum: I have used Springsharp to design a North Carolina class battleship Dated 1934.
North Carolina, USA Battleship laid down 1934
Displacement:
44,740 t light; 48,067 t standard; 57,549 t normal; 65,134 t full load
Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(739.38 ft / 730.00 ft) x 108.25 ft x (35.50 / 39.63 ft)
(225.36 m / 222.50 m) x 32.99 m x (10.82 / 12.08 m)
Armament:
12 - 16.00" / 406 mm 45.0 cal guns - 2,065.46lbs / 936.88kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
4 x Triple mounts on centreline, evenly spread
20 - 5.00" / 127 mm 50.0 cal guns - 66.16lbs / 30.01kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1934 Model
10 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 26,109 lbs / 11,843 kg
Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 474.50 ft / 144.63 m 12.49 ft / 3.81 m
Ends: 6.00" / 152 mm 255.48 ft / 77.87 m 12.49 ft / 3.81 m
Upper: 8.00" / 203 mm 474.50 ft / 144.63 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 10.00 degrees (positive = in)
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 12.0" / 305 mm 6.00" / 152 mm 15.0" / 381 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm 3.00" / 76 mm 5.00" / 127 mm
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 5.00" / 127 mm
Forecastle: 5.00" / 127 mm Quarter deck: 5.00" / 127 mm
- Conning towers: Forward 12.00" / 305 mm, Aft 12.00" / 305 mm
Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 154,446 shp / 115,216 Kw = 28.00 kts
Range 17,450nm at 18.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 17,068 tons
Complement:
1,857 - 2,415
Cost:
£22.769 million / $91.076 million
Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 4,359 tons, 7.6 %
- Guns: 4,359 tons, 7.6 %
Armour: 17,512 tons, 30.4 %
- Belts: 5,144 tons, 8.9 %
- Armament: 5,608 tons, 9.7 %
- Armour Deck: 5,990 tons, 10.4 %
- Conning Towers: 771 tons, 1.3 %
Machinery: 4,443 tons, 7.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 18,426 tons, 32.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 12,809 tons, 22.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
93,595 lbs / 42,454 Kg = 45.7 x 16.0 " / 406 mm shells or 5.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.19
Metacentric height 7.7 ft / 2.4 m
Roll period: 16.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 57 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.89
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.32
Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a round stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.718 / 0.728
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.74 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 27.02 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 30.00 %, 35.00 ft / 10.67 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: 10.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Quarter deck: 30.00 %, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m, 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Average freeboard: 30.60 ft / 9.33 m
Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 65.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 198.0 %
Waterplane Area: 64,358 Square feet or 5,979 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 116 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 212 lbs/sq ft or 1,036 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 1.96
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jul 28, 2018 17:01:53 GMT -6
The real issue is how would the carrier construction affect that building program. Yes, the Great Depression would always be a cloud hanging over hypothetical no London treaty scenario. Without it, is there the economic impetus for Japan to sign the treaty? If Japan doesn't, and there was a lot of resistance to it (it ended up being one of the catalysts for the military takeover of the Government if I recall), then won't the US and then Britain have to respond? In regards to aircraft carriers, the Washington treaty specifically divided BB tonnage and CV tonnage, there was no provision for using one for the other, building all CVs for example. There was actually a strict schedule for like the next ten-twelve years about how many battleships can be built and which ones have to be scrapped when they are completed. I guess a nation could choose not to build those ships but building more than the schedule wouldn't be allowed. I agree that a North Carolina-type is more likely than going back to a scaled down 1920 South Dakota. When you are limited to 35,000 tons, three turrets is much more efficient than four.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 28, 2018 17:25:48 GMT -6
The real issue is how would the carrier construction affect that building program. Yes, the Great Depression would always be a cloud hanging over hypothetical no London treaty scenario. Without it, is there the economic impetus for Japan to sign the treaty? If Japan doesn't, and there was a lot of resistance to it (it ended up being one of the catalysts for the military takeover of the Government if I recall), then won't the US and then Britain have to respond? In regards to aircraft carriers, the Washington treaty specifically divided BB tonnage and CV tonnage, there was no provision for using one for the other, building all CVs for example. There was actually a strict schedule for like the next ten-twelve years about how many battleships can be built and which ones have to be scrapped when they are completed. I guess a nation could choose not to build those ships but building more than the schedule wouldn't be allowed. I agree that a North Carolina-type is more likely than going back to a scaled down 1920 South Dakota. When you are limited to 35,000 tons, three turrets is much more efficient than four. Here is something that might interest you. Have you heard of the Tillman Battleships? Here is a link which has external links and an actual drawing of a Tillman Battleship. myplace.frontier.com/~wellsbrothers/Battleships/TillmanBB.htmlThe economic and social issues associated with another Naval Race are extensive, and will affect how and what size battleships are constructed. Any discussion of virtual history about the failure of the two Naval treaties must include these two issues.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jul 28, 2018 22:17:13 GMT -6
The Tillman battleships are interesting thought experiments but are twice the individual allowed tonnage of of the Washington Treaty and some of the designs exceeded the 16 inch gun limit as well. No chance of them ever being built with or without the treaty. Too expensive.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 29, 2018 8:10:15 GMT -6
The Tillman battleships are interesting thought experiments but are twice the individual allowed tonnage of of the Washington Treaty and some of the designs exceeded the 16 inch gun limit as well. No chance of them ever being built with or without the treaty. Too expensive. That is true, but they are interesting for some of the players of RTW and RTW2. They may want to try one of these and see the results.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Sept 24, 2018 1:48:57 GMT -6
The Tillman battleships are interesting thought experiments but are twice the individual allowed tonnage of of the Washington Treaty and some of the designs exceeded the 16 inch gun limit as well. No chance of them ever being built with or without the treaty. Too expensive. If you're to believe what some sources say about those studies, they actually started as more or less a practical joke. Been a long while since I read about those, but if I recall the story well, the whole thing began because of Washington having to pass ever-growing fundings for ever-growing in size battleships with each successive class at the request of the navy. Political infighting around those ships was heavy and after long years of going through it (each time the Navy needed a new class, it obviously had to get funded, so the whole process was restarted), some politicians were getting quite jaded and tired of the whole story repeating itself yet again. So it seems that someone (some say Senator Tillman himself, others that it was someone in his staff), out of pure frustration, seemingly said something along the lines of "we should save the Navy all those intermediate steps and design the biggest battleship we can with as many of the biggest guns as we can load on it, so they don't come back in two years with yet another slightly larger ship they want to fund!"... Or something along those lines, with quite a bit of swearing here and there included Seems the joke got real though, because in 1916 Tillman made a request in the Senate (the wording of the speech induces to think it was tongue in cheek, yet some says it was not so much) for the Comittee of Naval Affairs to present them a battleship design of the maximum size and displacement, with the maximum ammount of armor and guns possible...etc etc etc, and tell them what it'd cost so the Senate could just give the navy the ultimate battleship so that the Senate wasn't forced to waste more time in the future in the long debates the request for funds that each new class caused and could focus on more important stuff instead (hey, its what he said, more or less, don't look at me that way! XD) That what was in due time called the "Maximum" battleship, the request had so many "maximums" written into it. And made in jest or not, the request was heeded and the "Tillman Battleships" sketches were the result. I'm not sure I buy into the whole origins story (it was not the first time Tillman made a request like that, IIRC in 1913 he had already done something similar, just less bombastic), but who knows...we all know politicians and how crazy their ideas and motivations can be at times. One thing is for sure: those ships were never intended to be built, but more of a study of what would be feasible if things as cost (or making any sense) weren't relevant, within the constraints on size and draft imposed by what the the Panama canal locks could handle.
|
|