The March of Heavy Cruisers

[mycophobia]

Hi all, since we can never have enough matching threads I thought I’d like to raise a topic that interest me. I am curious what you all think will happen to the development of heavy cruiser( or rather, treaty cruisers) if Washington treaty never came into effect.

As in rtw1 we already see that ships build along the line of later treaty cruisers are in a very awkward place between BCs and light cruiser. Being quite expensive yet easy prey for the common place BCs, but at the same time rtw does like to put BC in pretty much every fight. Obviously without a treaty we likely won’t see the 10000 ton/8in gun cruisers as there will be incentive to go into a cruiser race, but it seems from there they very easily escalate into BC territory.

So I am curious whether:
A, if an intermediate class of ship between light and battle cruiser will become relevant in absence of Washington naval treaty and how will it look like.

B, within the scope of rtw2 game will you see yourself building such ships in absence of treaty limit?

[desdinova]

I never found a use for 8"-gunned cruisers in RTW1, but 5" and 6"-gunned 'light' cruisers (light/heavy referring to armament, I love large light cruisers bristling with guns) are extremely good, and I imagine they'll be even better when anti-air becomes necessary.

[director]

I would think that we would see a 're-think' of the pre-WW1 armored cruiser, something heavier than a Treaty cruiser (12-15,000 tons) with 8" to 9.2" main armament and sufficient armor to stand off a 6"-gunned cruiser. The real question is what the navies of the day would use them for, since what we know as a 'Treaty' cruiser was just a result of building immediately up to the maximum limits of 10,000 tons and 8" guns, not a ship-type that developed in response to a need.

1) Britain would build mostly light 'trade protection' cruisers with a small number of CAs for hunting down CLs on commerce-raiding duty. These would resemble 'County' class ships but with better armor, and might go up to the 9.2" gun.
2) The United States might build a few, but only a few, as all funds would be earmarked for dreadnoughts. If they built a 'cruiser-killer' it might resemble a 'Baltimore' with an additional 8" triple turret.
3) France would resume the construction of large, fast, heavily-armed and armored CAs for commerce-raiding.
4) Italy would build a couple because France.
5) Assuming there were still limitations on capital ships, Japan would build as many large, powerful heavy cruisers as possible (as they historically did).

[mycophobia]

Oct 22, 2018 20:46:12 GMT -6 director said:

I would think that we would see a 're-think' of the pre-WW1 armored cruiser, something heavier than a Treaty cruiser (12-15,000 tons) with 8" to 9.2" main armament and sufficient armor to stand off a 6"-gunned cruiser. The real question is what the navies of the day would use them for, since what we know as a 'Treaty' cruiser was just a result of building immediately up to the maximum limits of 10,000 tons and 8" guns, not a ship-type that developed in response to a need.

1) Britain would build mostly light 'trade protection' cruisers with a small number of CAs for hunting down CLs on commerce-raiding duty. These would resemble 'County' class ships but with better armor, and might go up to the 9.2" gun.
2) The United States might build a few, but only a few, as all funds would be earmarked for dreadnoughts. If they built a 'cruiser-killer' it might resemble a 'Baltimore' with an additional 8" triple turret.
3) France would resume the construction of large, fast, heavily-armed and armored CAs for commerce-raiding.
4) Italy would build a couple because France.
5) Assuming there were still limitations on capital ships, Japan would build as many large, powerful heavy cruisers as possible (as they historically did).

I am proceeding with the presumption that Washington naval treaty simply does not exist at all. In the case where only battleship are limited I can certainly see people builds progressively bigger CAs to whatever the line is drawn between them and battleships. 

Britain certainly have reasons to build at least some intermediate sized ships for the reason you mentioned, but at the same time I feel if the other nations are not building significant amount of these CAs for raiding then Britain can simply build more BC or repurpose existing ones. As for France I understand that was their pre-ww1 approach to resort to raiding tactics but is that still the same sentiment post war? 

As you correctly pointed out I feel there isn't a particular "need" for the an intermediate class between CL and BC outside of dedicated cruiser killer for countries that can afford them. In our history CA as a more disposable class of ships see a lot of action and use, but I wonder if their role can be adequately covered between BCs and CLs had the nation been given the option to continuing building battle crusiers(To my knowledge all major power besides Italy are building or planning to build BCs in the 20s, and outside of the British Hawkins and Japanese Furutaka there is no movement to enlarge or significantly up gun from current CL designs).

[alexbrunius]

Yeah, without any treaties in place I don't see CA/Heavy Cruiser having a roll either. They are not big or well armored enough to be immune against Light Cruisers and their small size makes them unsuitable even for a meaningful amount of 8" guns.

Battlecruisers of 15-25'000 ton with 9-12" guns and greater speeds & armor seems to be the logical ship taking it's place in the 1920s. Fast enough to catch raiders or raid themself, or run away from the enemy Battleline as needed.

[steveh11]

In RTW1 I sometimes, in late game particularly, find it useful to build some Long/Extreme range cruisers both as Raider-Hunters or as raiders themselves.  Provided I can keep the cost down to less than half a contemporary BC and the speed at least a knot above those I think this is fine - not always easy if you also want them to be able to decisively take on CLs as well, but if you get the right techs it's do-able.  I see no reason for this not to be the case in RTW2 as well...


...though it depends on the definitions involved.  In RTW1 CLs are limited to 8000 tons.  In RTW2 I would simply call them cruisers had I the choice.

[dorn]

Oct 23, 2018 4:29:05 GMT -6 steveh11 said:

In RTW1 I sometimes, in late game particularly, find it useful to build some Long/Extreme range cruisers both as Raider-Hunters or as raiders themselves.  Provided I can keep the cost down to less than half a contemporary BC and the speed at least a knot above those I think this is fine - not always easy if you also want them to be able to decisively take on CLs as well, but if you get the right techs it's do-able.  I see no reason for this not to be the case in RTW2 as well...


...though it depends on the definitions involved.  In RTW1 CLs are limited to 8000 tons.  In RTW2 I would simply call them cruisers had I the choice.

I usually build protected and light cruisers in period 1905-1910 within budget of 17M. After ability to build double turrets for light cruiser it goes up. However I cannot see how 30M cruiser could be better for the price, not even you mentioned cruiser with costs almost half of BC.
The main principle of these cruisers are broadside around 6 guns. So tonnage and costs difference comes from speed and armor. However 1-2 knots difference between ships in fight is usually not important and the budget is usually large enough to design reasonable protection. 

8000 tons of limitation for CL in RTW1 is not so much issue as limiting them to 3" belt as it means that you cannot have enough armor to protect cruisers against their own guns. Even in 20s I do not build cruisers with 8.000 tonnage as there just too expensive and give me advantage vs. cruisers within 5-6000 tons which I do not need.

[Airy W]

Oct 22, 2018 20:46:12 GMT -6 director said:

3) France would resume the construction of large, fast, heavily-armed and armored CAs for commerce-raiding.

I thought that France decided that submarines were the future not heavy cruisers? Or was that post naval treaty?

Who would they use the cruisers against? With the US and UK submarines are more affordable. The German fleet is very small. Against Italy or the Soviet Union they would want sea control and geography means the threat of enemy raiders isn't huge. Japan maybe? Was France worried about conflict with Japan? The South American navies were so old and slow that I would think light cruisers would work as well as heavy ones.

[tc27]

I had a game where the 10,000 ton and 8" limit came into force as a treaty around 1916.

Having already built a number of BCs I did not construct any heavy cruisers - a few years later when war broke out my vintage BCs racked up hundreds of easy VPs by sinking the multitude of AI CA's. Refitting my existing BCs with new engines and fire control easily kept them in the game.

With no treaty I rarely build CAs outside the first few years of the game - they are simply to vulnerable to BCs for the money invested and like the armoured cruisers at Jutland they have no business in a fight between dreadnoughts.

[director]

@airy W - my speculation was based on past French doctrine (I know, which one, right?), on their limited naval budgets and on a cruiser's shorter construction time compared to a capital ship.

If I have the money, I build some fast, powerful and long-ranged CAs and put them on raider status. They sometimes run into small enemy light cruisers with unfortunate results for the enemy. I rarely put BCs on raiding unless I want to go hunting for enemy raiders, and I never put my BCs outside a supplied area for more than one turn.

[gornik]

"Heavy" cruiser is design I use in nearly every RTWI game. CL can't grow larger than certain displacement, enemy often use them for raiding, so as colonial Power I need some ships to deal with them without risk of sinking/heavy damage (so not another CL). I feel wrong to build "second class BC" for this purpose, as war adversity at one day may throw them in full fleet battle - in battleline with 16" monsters! So I use CA class for this purpose. They usually have at least 16Kton displacement, 28-30 knots, 6" AON main armour, 12 4"-5" secondaries and as many 8"-10" guns as possible (depending from what guns have +1 quality). Normally they are colonial stationers, and in fleet battle they form scouting force - heavy enough to push away Cls, too hard to be crippled with one BB salvo. Of course, there are very few of them - even for richest countries I never built more than 3-4.
I also have idea to concentrate at smaller CA, making them "heavy light cruisers" with max possible 7"-8" broadside and limited protection instead of "regular CL", but still never used it.

[axe99]

There is an interesting article on RN trade protection cruiser designs between 1905 and 1920 in Warship 2018. Being pre-Washington the options focussed on the 6", 7.5" and 9.2" gun, but there were more than a few serious designs (resulting in the 9,750t displacement Hawkins class, laid down well before the Washington Treaty was a thing), so I'd expect for trade protection these cruisers would have developed regardless of the treaty - but without the treat I imagine if potential raiders had kept increasing in size, that the cruisers to hunt them would have as well, so while it's all counterfactualling, and rife with potential for getting it wrong, my bet would be they would have existed, but they would have increased in size, and they would have remained a thing unless raiders became so big they required battle-line capable ships to counter (which would be some pretty expensive raiders - but then there were the Scharnhorsts).

My guess for where it would have ended would have been once it became feasible for enough aircraft at sea on enough decks/catapults to make surface raiding a losing proposition strategically.

[aeson]

Oct 22, 2018 13:36:31 GMT -6 mycophobia said:

So I am curious whether:
A, if an intermediate class of ship between light and battle cruiser will become relevant in absence of Washington naval treaty and how will it look like.

As I see it, there are three main things which could've triggered the emergence of a type of cruiser similar to what we know as the heavy cruiser and would likely or certainly have been present in the absence of the Washington Naval Treaty:

- The British Hawkins-class cruisers which were laid down 1916-1917, the first of which commissioned 1919 (if you don't count Cavendish/Vindictive, which commissioned as an aircraft carrier/cruiser hybrid 1918 and was rebuilt to more or less the original design in the 1920s). The American Omaha- and British Emerald-class light cruisers might also have contributed to the development of a 'heavy' cruiser type in the absence of the Washington Naval Treaty, as they're rather larger than the typical WWI-era 6" cruisers, which tended to be around 4000-6000 tons. The Japanese Furutaka-class heavy cruisers, laid down in 1922 not long after the end of the Washington Naval Conference, look to me like a second step in the direction of the emergence of a 'heavy' cruiser without the Washington Naval Treaty; they were designed at least partly in response to the British Hawkins and American Omaha classes, and came soon enough after the conference that I'm not convinced that they would've been significantly different in the absence of the conference or the resultant treaty.

- Whatever Treaty of Versailles-'compliant' ships Germany might've built in the 1920s and 1930s. If they were cruiser-type ships similar to the historical Deutschland class, they could've provoked the other powers to build similar ships even if a 'heavy' cruiser type hadn't emerged in response to the British Hawkins class or the relatively large Omaha- and Emerald-class light cruisers.

- Assuming that the US would have had a cruiser program in the 1920s without the Washington Naval (which I think likely, as the USN's only modern cruisers in the early-1920s were the ten Omahas; the next-most-recent cruisers, the three Chester-class scout cruisers, were more than ten years older, considerably smaller, and fairly slow by 1920s cruiser standards), I expect that the cruisers which would've been built would have been relatively large and heavily armed; the US wanted relatively large cruisers for Pacific operations, and would have wanted such ships with or without the Washington Naval Treaty. Also, the US, unlike any other signatory of the 1922 Treaty of Washington, 1930 Treaty of London, and 1936 Treaty of London, exclusively laid down Treatymax or near-Treatymax cruisers while the Treaties were in effect, and even after the expiration and abrogation of the Treaties, the US laid down and commissioned just 11 cruisers (the eight Atlantas of the late-US interbellum/early-war period and the three Juneaus of the late-war/post-war period) which were not among the largest of their type in the world. Unless the cost of hypothetical capital ship construction programs precluded it, I don't think that USN cruisers would've been much, if any, smaller in the absence of the naval limitation treaties; more likely, I think, is that they would have been less numerous.

I personally believe that a heavy cruiser type would've emerged in response to at least one of the above causes, rather than the Hawkins-class cruisers being a unique or nearly-unique anomaly while other cruisers mostly remained relatively small cruisers fairly directly descended from the WWI-era light cruisers. I suspect that it would've started out around 10,000 tons in the early 1920s, because that's where the Hawkins class and hypothetical Versailles-compliant German cruisers/panzerschiffe/'pocket battleships' would have been, probably initially with ~8x8" guns because that's what the British Hawkins class had, growing gradually over the historical Treaty period until they reached ~20,000 tons some time in the 1940s, in much the same way as the smaller group of light cruisers grew more or less gradually from about 5,000 tons in the First World War period to about 10,000 tons in the Second World War period, rather than being locked to 10,000 tons (standard) throughout the Treaty period and then growing to 20,000 tons in the space of about 5 years after the end of Treaty period as occurred historically, with a pressure to increase the size of the ship to surpass earlier ships of the type and a pressure to keep the size of the ship down to avoid having to compete with similarly-expensive battlecruisers. I don't think that the type would be as prevalent as it was historically, and some of the poorer naval powers (in particular Italy, maybe also France) might not have built any such ships due to the expense of the hypothetical capital ship programs. I'm less certain how the gun armament would've gone; on the one hand, as can be seen from the dreadnought/battlecruiser arms race from about 1905 to 1920, there is a tendency for successive classes of major warships to have increasingly-heavy armaments, but on the other hand, as can be seen with the cruisers in the same period, the armament may remain more or less constant when it's heavy enough for the role that the ship will serve in.

B, within the scope of rtw2 game will you see yourself building such ships in absence of treaty limit?

If it's like Rule the Waves, then I might build a handful every now and then, mostly if the computer's built a bunch and I feel the need for more economical counter than additional battlecruisers (not that the late-game CAs that I build get matched up against the computer's late-game CAs anything like often enough for me to feel that they were an effective use of funds, though that's quite possibly a deployment issue; I don't want them matched up against battlecruisers, so I station them in areas where I don't expect battlecruisers to be, and it turns out that the computer doesn't usually station a lot of ships outside home waters), but probably won't build many. Rule the Waves tends to incentivize having a decent number of large battlecruisers, a decent number of smallish cruisers, and nothing in between, and unless that changes in Rule the Waves 2 I really can't see myself building ships of an intermediate type in Rule the Waves 2 much more than I do in Rule the Waves.

I also have idea to concentrate at smaller CA, making them "heavy light cruisers" with max possible 7"-8" broadside and limited protection instead of "regular CL", but still never used it.

I used a series of ~6,500-8,000t 6" CA-second class cruisers designed for service in home waters for most of a Germany game. Seemed to work reasonably well; they usually went 2:1 with the large first class cruiser CAs and 1:1 with the second class cruiser midsize-large CLs and small first/second class cruiser CAs, and seemed much less likely to encounter battlecruisers than the more typical large first class cruiser CAs. That said, there were a couple Baltic engagements against Russia where I felt like I might've had some cruisers if I'd had some CL-second class cruisers instead of CA-second class cruisers.

The requirement to have a 3.5" or heavier belt on a <8,100t 6" CA was slightly irritating for the early-generation CA-second class cruisers since 3" or maybe even 2.5" would've been adequate at that stage of the game, but on the other hand it kept the armor relevant later in the game. A 7" or 8" CA would've been able to cut back on the belt armor somewhat, though the greater weight of the guns might be enough to offset the weight saved on the belt armor.

[director]

aeson - when you say, "even after the expiration and abrogation of the Treaties, the US laid down and commissioned just 11 cruisers" you leave me quite confused. What happened to the 'Cleveland' and 'Baltimore' classes, not to mention the late-war giants like 'Des Moines' and 'Worcester'?

I agree with your point that RtW makes CAs a bad investment by almost never including them in a mission. They are really too expensive to just swing around their anchors on colonial stations yet, compared to light cruisers, they are seldom allowed to fight.

That said, if I have the money I will build a small-ish CA in the late game with something like 9x8" guns, decent speed and armor. And I have built some 'big ones', including a 'poclet battlecruiser' with 12x8" or 9x10" guns, but they're mostly 'prestige ships'.

[aeson]

Oct 23, 2018 22:22:42 GMT -6 director said:

aeson - when you say, "even after the expiration and abrogation of the Treaties, the US laid down and commissioned just 11 cruisers" you leave me quite confused. What happened to the 'Cleveland' and 'Baltimore' classes, not to mention the late-war giants like 'Des Moines' and 'Worcester'?

You missed the end of that sentence, which should perhaps have preceded the parenthetical - "which were not among the largest of their type in the world." The Clevelands, Baltimores, Worcesters, Fargos (if you count them separetely from the Clevelands), and Oregon Citys were laid down and completed after the expiration and abrogation of the treaties, but they were either the largest or among the largest ships of their type at the time. The Atlanta and Juneau classes, by contrast, were more or less in the middle, or perhaps on the low end, of the tonnage range smaller group of light cruisers built in the late-interbellum, Second World War, and post-war period, and if you're inclined to just lump all cruisers armed with 6" and lighter guns into a single "light cruiser" category as was done by the 1930 Treaty of London they're quite a ways towards the low end of the light cruiser size range by the time they were built.

That said, if I have the money I will build a small-ish CA in the late game with something like 9x8" guns, decent speed and armor. And I have built some 'big ones', including a 'poclet battlecruiser' with 12x8" or 9x10" guns, but they're mostly 'prestige ships'.

For me, the problem with building smallish late-game CAs is that I don't really feel that they have a purpose. Countering the computer's light cruisers can be done well enough by my own light cruisers, fulfilling foreign station requirements can in general be more economically done using old CLs and maybe old CAs if I still have any in service (or maybe small old capital ships, if I have a station with a high enough tonnage requirement) than by building ships specifically for the purpose, and - while it depends on what you mean by 'smallish' - my feeling is that a smallish 8" CA is unlikely to be much better against the computer's late-game CAs than a large late-game CL would be, because I don't see it having the armor to resist 9" or 10" gunfire much better than a typical late-game 6" CL (it'd have some advantage, because 8" guns wouldn't be as badly out-ranged by 9" or 10" guns as 6" guns would be, and 8" guns would penetrate the typically-inadequate armor of late-game CAs sooner and at longer range than 6" guns would, but I don't see it being enough to matter; whether a smallish 8" CA or a large 6" CL, I'd probably want about two of them to counter one of the computer's typical late-game 9" or 10" CAs).

That said, I've been experimenting with 28kn 2x3x11" 10,000t CAs loosely based on the Deutschland-class cruisers/panzerschiffes/'pocket battleships' lately. Haven't yet managed to get them into combat with anything that could actually test their capabilities (I've only had them in one engagement over four games, and it was against an AMC, though to be fair I've never yet built more than about six of them before the mid-1940s and I don't think I've ever laid one down before the very-late-1920s), but I keep half-hoping and half-dreading* that I'll have one for a fight against one of the computer's typical late-game 10" CAs.

*Their belt and deck armor is in my opinion rather inadequate; it's difficult to get 28 knots, a zone of immunity against 10" shells on the main battery turrets, and a halfway decent 4" secondary battery on 10,000 tons until very late in the game, and as a result they tend to have belt and deck armor fairly comparable to that of contemporary CLs. Unfortunately, increasing the nominal displacement above 10,000 tons results in them being reclassified as battlecruisers by the game.