|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 20, 2020 11:54:25 GMT
Steve
Japan is in a fair bit of trouble in the 1920s. In the 1930s, they are in a better place economically, but are still limited to perhaps 4 battleships at a time, or a maximum of 8 ships (given 4.5 years for completion). The British, if there isn't the contraction of armour plate and gun pit capacity in the 1920s, can go at 6 ships at a time and work a bit faster without breaking the bank or, in one of the more ridiculous points that comes up on a certain other website and particularly from a moderator, leading to a communist revolution in Britain in the 1920s or 1930s.
70,000t is beyond the point of diminishing returns unless the infrastructure is in place; there are some additional limits as to where such ships can operate. If the bottleneck of docks can be dealt with, then steel is cheap. There are practical limits to metallurgy and optimal employment; an example I remember from Warships Projects is the difficulty of forging armour thicker than 16" and another would be the curve of diminishing returns for naval guns beyond 18". 16" isn't necessarily a ballistic sweet spot.
The G3s would not be as threatening, but sometimes the purpose of a fleet is to be threatening and to beget a response. By making older ships definitively obsolete, it removes them from the equation of fleet numbers and the potential for a 'Golden BB' in any potential fleet battle. The qualitative edge of 8 G3s is useful, but is it going to result in opposing fleets shrinking by their very existence and making them spend beyond their means (Japan) and their preferences (USA)?
Singapore did cost a lot over time. I don't have my books with me in my current exile, but it may not have cost the same amount if built quicker, paradoxically. There wouldn't be a need to support 70,000t ships. If the I3 battlecruiser design is taken as a baseline, the belt bumped up to 14 or 15" inclined , then we'd be looking at a ~56,000t ship with 9 x 18", very good armour and 29-30 knots.
The only easy way I can figure on getting enough docks built is an extended naval arms race pre-WW1 creating the circumstances for extended investment over a decade. After the war, the purse strings tighten up a bit.
Simon
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 20, 2020 13:28:43 GMT
There wouldn't be a need to support 70,000t ships. If the I3 battlecruiser design is taken as a baseline, the belt bumped up to 14 or 15" inclined , then we'd be looking at a ~56,000t ship with 9 x 18", very good armour and 29-30 knots. This might be useful: Macej from Warships1/NavWeaps did an I3 with internal layout  I have to say, that turtle deck armor layout shown in the 'end on' view worries me... Regards, |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 20, 2020 14:08:02 GMT
I don't view it as optimal either. The overall positioning of the amidships turret, whilst it allows for a concentrated armour belt, does give some issues with tactical arcs for gunfire engagements, among other issues.
If a larger ship can be afforded, a more traditional ABXY or ABX turret arrangement has some advantages in my view.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 20, 2020 15:14:51 GMT
I don't view it as optimal either. The overall positioning of the amidships turret, whilst it allows for a concentrated armour belt, does give some issues with tactical arcs for gunfire engagements, among other issues. If a larger ship can be afforded, a more traditional ABXY or ABX turret arrangement has some advantages in my view. I think you're correct on that, and I would say that's why the RN abandoned that kind of concentrated layout after O3/ Nelson. Long ago on the NavWeaps Design board, (repeated here) I mentioned that kind of layout is acceptable for a battleline combatant. But as time goes on and tactical considerations become more important, a conventional layout like you mentioned would be more desirable. The conventional layout still works in the battleline, but in a tactical situation like the one mentioned in the referenced thread, the conventional layout works much better than the concentrated armament. My thoughts, |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 20, 2020 15:41:36 GMT
Most certainly. I remember the topic coming up on Warships Projects and possibly on Navweaps as well back ~15 years ago. The G3/N3 layout works for a particular time and a particular purpose based on the circumstances of the Royal Navy in the aftermath of the Great War. The most versatile design of that particular generation was probably the K2s, although for a ship that size, I'd want an increased armour belt, even if it is inclined.
I tend towards a personal preference for four twins over three triples for a similar reason, in that the loss of a turret represents noticeably less loss of overall firepower and, in the case of losing the aft turret of an ABX ship, doesn't shut off one whole arc of gunfire.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 21, 2020 12:08:11 GMT
There wouldn't be a need to support 70,000t ships. If the I3 battlecruiser design is taken as a baseline, the belt bumped up to 14 or 15" inclined , then we'd be looking at a ~56,000t ship with 9 x 18", very good armour and 29-30 knots. This might be useful: Macej from Warships1/NavWeaps did an I3 with internal layout I have to say, that turtle deck armor layout shown in the 'end on' view worries me... Regards,
Interesting, fast and powerful but that belt looks a bit limited. There seems to be no real protection for the secondary magazines for the rearmost turrets so a hit there could be very dangerous. Not sure what the G3 had off the top of my head as its main belt didn't go that far but presumably there was something.
Steve
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 21, 2020 13:06:17 GMT
Interesting, fast and powerful but that belt looks a bit limited. There seems to be no real protection for the secondary magazines for the rearmost turrets so a hit there could be very dangerous. Not sure what the G3 had off the top of my head as its main belt didn't go that far but presumably there was something. Steve
Hi Steve, Not sure if this will work, but Macej's G3 i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag69/mchonic/Ships/G3_preliminary_zps6xk2uhjf.pngI think the reason the RN went so heavy in main battery magazine protection was the several thousand of the finest sailors in the world on the bottom of the North Sea after Jutland. They were going to make sure that never happened again, even if the culprit was improper handling. They weren't going to take a chance on a penetrating hit. Of that design series, I think K2 and K3 were the world-beaters. For a battleship, L2 and L3 were the best in my opinion. (Recall in that design series, Battleships go forward from L to O, battlecruisers backward from K to F, the number is the number of guns in the main battery turret. The Roman Numeral designs, LII and LIII, had all turrets at the main-deck level, no superfiring) Again if it will work, BC Renown's fantastic image of K2 smg.photobucket.com/user/BCRenown/media/Never%20Weres/nw-K2-BC.png.html?sort=3&o=16I do think once the treaty came around, F2 and F3 were missed opportunities, but they can be seen here www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/f2-and-f3-battlecruisers-t8627.htmlRegards, |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 21, 2020 13:16:54 GMT
Most certainly. I remember the topic coming up on Warships Projects and possibly on Navweaps as well back ~15 years ago. The G3/N3 layout works for a particular time and a particular purpose based on the circumstances of the Royal Navy in the aftermath of the Great War. Simon, I maintain, in a battleline, the all-forward or G3/N3 doesn't make much difference. But as things progress, it becomes less practical, especially with treaties meaning less capital ships, and less likelihood of a classic battleline engagement. Capital ships operating singly, or in twos or threes makes the layout less practical, and all aspect fire becomes more important. I think that's a reason the RN abandoned the layout for its treaty designs. I agree on K2, and K3 for that matter. I think the Admiralty should have looked at sinking money into docks as well as new construction to eliminate future restrictions on size, but the Exchequer again rears his ugly head. There's only so much money to go around. I think L2 and L3 could give Yamato and Montana a fight, despite their age over the newer designs. I have a similar feeling, but it's more towards balanced firepower for and aft. The USN's Standards practiced this, but American battleship design didn't get back to it until the Montanas in the Treaty (Treaties?) Era... My thoughts, |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 21, 2020 16:12:25 GMT
Interesting, fast and powerful but that belt looks a bit limited. There seems to be no real protection for the secondary magazines for the rearmost turrets so a hit there could be very dangerous. Not sure what the G3 had off the top of my head as its main belt didn't go that far but presumably there was something. Steve
Hi Steve, Not sure if this will work, but Macej's G3 i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag69/mchonic/Ships/G3_preliminary_zps6xk2uhjf.pngI think the reason the RN went so heavy in main battery magazine protection was the several thousand of the finest sailors in the world on the bottom of the North Sea after Jutland. They were going to make sure that never happened again, even if the culprit was improper handling. They weren't going to take a chance on a penetrating hit. Of that design series, I think K2 and K3 were the world-beaters. For a battleship, L2 and L3 were the best in my opinion. (Recall in that design series, Battleships go forward from L to O, battlecruisers backward from K to F, the number is the number of guns in the main battery turret. The Roman Numeral designs, LII and LIII, had all turrets at the main-deck level, no superfiring) Again if it will work, BC Renown's fantastic image of K2 smg.photobucket.com/user/BCRenown/media/Never%20Weres/nw-K2-BC.png.html?sort=3&o=16I do think once the treaty came around, F2 and F3 were missed opportunities, but they can be seen here www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/f2-and-f3-battlecruisers-t8627.htmlRegards,
Those links work fine, at least for me but then I'm a member of the site in the last case, as you can see from whom made the 1st comment to your thread. 
Since you like the K2/K3 so such does that mean you prefer the 18" gun to a 16" or even 16,5" which IIRC was initially considered for the initial G3 designs? As I said in the discussion above I think there are advantages in Britain not being the 1st to push to 18" [in that case relating to the N3's] but wondering what you think might have happened if we had gone with one of the K designs?
Wonder how a F3 would have done instead of Hood at Denmark Straits. If there had been the mistake of OTL which meant Holland's force had to close rather than crossing the German T as planned it would have been less damaging with a F3 as that could have fired all the main guns and if FC upgraded and with radar it might have been a tough match, even with the weight advantage that Bismarck had.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 21, 2020 16:20:10 GMT
Hi Steve, Not sure if this will work, but Macej's G3 i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag69/mchonic/Ships/G3_preliminary_zps6xk2uhjf.pngI think the reason the RN went so heavy in main battery magazine protection was the several thousand of the finest sailors in the world on the bottom of the North Sea after Jutland. They were going to make sure that never happened again, even if the culprit was improper handling. They weren't going to take a chance on a penetrating hit. Of that design series, I think K2 and K3 were the world-beaters. For a battleship, L2 and L3 were the best in my opinion. (Recall in that design series, Battleships go forward from L to O, battlecruisers backward from K to F, the number is the number of guns in the main battery turret. The Roman Numeral designs, LII and LIII, had all turrets at the main-deck level, no superfiring) Again if it will work, BC Renown's fantastic image of K2 smg.photobucket.com/user/BCRenown/media/Never%20Weres/nw-K2-BC.png.html?sort=3&o=16I do think once the treaty came around, F2 and F3 were missed opportunities, but they can be seen here www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/f2-and-f3-battlecruisers-t8627.htmlRegards, Those links work fine, at least for me but then I'm a member of the site in the last case, as you can see from whom made the 1st comment to your thread. Since you like the K2/K3 so such does that mean you prefer the 18" gun to a 16" or even 16,5" which IIRC was initially considered for the initial G3 designs? As I said in the discussion above I think there are advantages in Britain not being the 1st to push to 18" [in that case relating to the N3's] but wondering what you think might have happened if we had gone with one of the K designs?
Wonder how a F3 would have done instead of Hood at Denmark Straits. If there had been the mistake of OTL which meant Holland's force had to close rather than crossing the German T as planned it would have been less damaging with a F3 as that could have fired all the main guns and if FC upgraded and with radar it might have been a tough match, even with the weight advantage that Bismarck had. Steve
Checking this nice place called Shipbucket it has a nice thread called Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships, i see a lot RN drawings there, the G3 looks nice but so do the other designs posted there.  |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 21, 2020 17:00:12 GMT
Those links work fine, at least for me but then I'm a member of the site in the last case, as you can see from whom made the 1st comment to your thread. Since you like the K2/K3 so such does that mean you prefer the 18" gun to a 16" or even 16,5" which IIRC was initially considered for the initial G3 designs? As I said in the discussion above I think there are advantages in Britain not being the 1st to push to 18" [in that case relating to the N3's] but wondering what you think might have happened if we had gone with one of the K designs?
Wonder how a F3 would have done instead of Hood at Denmark Straits. If there had been the mistake of OTL which meant Holland's force had to close rather than crossing the German T as planned it would have been less damaging with a F3 as that could have fired all the main guns and if FC upgraded and with radar it might have been a tough match, even with the weight advantage that Bismarck had. Steve
Steve, Yup, you were in on that thread. I really need to post some of the comments Irishopinon (John) made in an offline conversation in there as well. I think that if we're going to sail into the Seas of the Giants, K2/K3 and L2/L3 would be better suited to future developments. That said, at the time no one is thinking of a super-heavy round like the USN developed for so many guns in the 1930s. The 16.5in is interesting, especially with Imperial Germany considering a 42cm for future fast battleships before the end of World War I. The only ways to get more firepower is a caliber increase or increase the number of guns of the same caliber. I think the destructive power of the individual gun is more important. For example, with would Renown be better with 9 x 13.5in or 6 x 15in? Think of her in action against Vittorio Veneto or Bismarck.... The same for Hood with 8 x 15in or 12 x 13.5in? I think if we have F3 available for Denmark Strait, Prince of Wales stays in the yard. I think a fully worked up F3, with 15in/45 guns with any teething problems (if any) worked out in the last 14 years would make all the difference. Hood sails with F3 Rodney and after the destruction of the former, the latter goes on to cripple Bismarck. If not sinking Bismarck herself, the F3 puts the Home Fleet into position to do so closer to Greenland than France. Checking this nice place called Shipbucket it has a nice thread called Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships, i see a lot RN drawings there, the G3 looks nice but so do the other designs posted there. Lordroel, That thread is by Hood from the BC board, NavWeaps, WesWorld and of the late Warship Projects 3.0. I thought he was a member here as well.... His drawings show the differences in layout very well for the assorted pre-treaty concepts. As an aside, Hood recently announced his first book over on the BC board www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/the-admiralty-and-the-helicopter-t8895.htmlRegards gents, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 21, 2020 17:26:01 GMT
Those links work fine, at least for me but then I'm a member of the site in the last case, as you can see from whom made the 1st comment to your thread. Since you like the K2/K3 so such does that mean you prefer the 18" gun to a 16" or even 16,5" which IIRC was initially considered for the initial G3 designs? As I said in the discussion above I think there are advantages in Britain not being the 1st to push to 18" [in that case relating to the N3's] but wondering what you think might have happened if we had gone with one of the K designs?
Wonder how a F3 would have done instead of Hood at Denmark Straits. If there had been the mistake of OTL which meant Holland's force had to close rather than crossing the German T as planned it would have been less damaging with a F3 as that could have fired all the main guns and if FC upgraded and with radar it might have been a tough match, even with the weight advantage that Bismarck had. Steve
Steve, Yup, you were in on that thread. I really need to post some of the comments Irishopinon (John) made in an offline conversation in there as well. I think that if we're going to sail into the Seas of the Giants, K2/K3 and L2/L3 would be better suited to future developments. That said, at the time no one is thinking of a super-heavy round like the USN developed for so many guns in the 1930s. The 16.5in is interesting, especially with Imperial Germany considering a 42cm for future fast battleships before the end of World War I. The only ways to get more firepower is a caliber increase or increase the number of guns of the same caliber. I think the destructive power of the individual gun is more important. For example, with would Renown be better with 9 x 13.5in or 6 x 15in? Think of her in action against Vittorio Veneto or Bismarck.... The same for Hood with 8 x 15in or 12 x 13.5in? I think if we have F3 available for Denmark Strait, Prince of Wales stays in the yard. I think a fully worked up F3, with 15in/45 guns with any teething problems (if any) worked out in the last 14 years would make all the difference. Hood sails with F3 Rodney and after the destruction of the former, the latter goes on to cripple Bismarck. If not sinking Bismarck herself, the F3 puts the Home Fleet into position to do so closer to Greenland than France. Checking this nice place called Shipbucket it has a nice thread called Royal Navy Interwar Captial Ships, i see a lot RN drawings there, the G3 looks nice but so do the other designs posted there. Lordroel, That thread is by Hood from the BC board, NavWeaps, WesWorld and of the late Warship Projects 3.0. I thought he was a member here as well.... His drawings show the differences in layout very well for the assorted pre-treaty concepts. As an aside, Hood recently announced his first book over on the BC board www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/the-admiralty-and-the-helicopter-t8895.htmlRegards gents, Sorry 1bigrich , at this moment we have no member named Hood here. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 21, 2020 17:42:12 GMT
Sorry 1bigrich , at this moment we have no member named Hood here. Maybe I'm thinking of the alternatehistory.com forums... Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 21, 2020 17:47:41 GMT
Sorry 1bigrich , at this moment we have no member named Hood here. Maybe I'm thinking of the alternatehistory.com forums... Regards, I think you might be right. Also do you know what French ore Italian ships where canceled due the Washington Naval Treaty, i know about the American,British and Japanese ships that where cancelled, but not the French ore Italians if they had any ships being build ore planned to be build. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 21, 2020 18:53:21 GMT
I think you might be right. Also do you know what French ore Italian ships where canceled due the Washington Naval Treaty, i know about the American,British and Japanese ships that where cancelled, but not the French ore Italians if they had any ships being build ore planned to be build. I'll have to consult my sources for the French and Italian programs, but as I recall, France's 1913 program was suspended by the war. Those plans include the Normandie battleships (12 x 13.4in/34cm) and I think the Lyon battleships (16 x 13.4in/34cm). The latter were cancelled by the war but the Normandies were still on the stocks when the treaty was signed. IIRC, it had been decided they would be too expensive to complete such an old design at the end of World War I (1918? 1919?), but they were not formally cancelled until the 1922 program. Recall too that the French Parliament balked at spending money on capital ships several times in the 1920s until finally approving funds for Dunquerque. Italy had the four Francesco Caracciolo class battleships, a 1913 design laid down in 1914, on the stocks from the war, but none were completed. IIRC, only Caracciolo was launched, and was eventually sold for merchant service but wound up being scrapped. There were some plans to convert her to a carrier in the 20s. I do not think Caracciolos nor Normandies were mentioned by the Washington Treaty in 'ships to be disposed of' nor 'ships to be retained', so I don't think the treaty can be blamed for the demise of either class. My thoughts, |
|
