No Naval Treaties Art

[Shark7]

Question for JWE:

Given the absence of the treaties, do you think that the scout cruisers (CLs) would have also been up-gunned to larger caliber main guns?

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Absent the treaty, there is no such thing as a CA. Ca is nothing but a response to the Treaty in an attempt to develop a 'teensy weensy" BC kinda substitute thing. It has absolutely no Mission whatsoever, not even today. It is a useless shibolith, pure and simple.

Cruisers have two sparate sources of provenance. The Brit view has them very long legged to service a far flung empire. The French/Italian view is a bit more Mediterranian and sees them as fleet scout units and destroyer leaders. Six of one, half dozen of the other. HP/wt ratios. Physics. 3rd grade mathematics. Want guns, then less armor. Want armor, then less guns. Want either armor or guns, then way less endurance. Want armor, guns and endurance, then lots more money and displacement.

According to theorists cruisers may have been useless but, in reality, didn't cruisers play a HUGE role in the Pacific war? Had any one side been without cruisers, the other would have surely dominated the war. Battleships were just too few and too precious to be of as much use. In many battles cruisers carried the day. Battleships mostly saw action in large amphibious or carrier operations but didn't cruisers do a lot of the rest of the work?

[GaryChildress]

Without the arbitrary, sharp divide between 8" and capital ships I would think there would be more of a continium from the smallest calibers to the larger. Here's a Japanese lineup, starting with small 6" gun cruisers all the way up to 12". From there it would be on to capital ships.

[Shark7]

Are these going to be available as 'game ready', or will I need to put them onto the backgrounds myself? Just curious as more than one of these would be very useful to me.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
According to theorists cruisers may have been useless but, in reality, didn't cruisers play a HUGE role in the Pacific war? Had any one side been without cruisers, the other would have surely dominated the war. Battleships were just too few and too precious to be of as much use. In many battles cruisers carried the day. Battleships mostly saw action in large amphibious or carrier operations but didn't cruisers do a lot of the rest of the work?

Of course. T's comment was regarding cruisers in a world without the Treatys. Obviously War-II Navys were developed as a result of the Treatys. One side builds an 8" cruiser, then the other side builds one just because. They did not exist before the Treatys and after the war they disappeared. IMO the CA was a Treaty imposed cheap substitute for a BC. Only reason to build one is because everybody else is building them, and the Treaty says you can't build the stuff that's really worthwhile.

My comments were in response to Shark and the T discussing the provenance and development of cruiser type vessels before the artificial limitations imposed/allowed by the various Naval Treatys. Cruiser type vessels had an intrinsic worth to the various Naval powers, depending on the missions that those naval powers had to fulfill. In the absence of the Treatys, cruisers should likely develop according to existing Naval doctrine and to the best understanding of contemporary national Naval mission structures.

[ny59giants]

I'm reading "Kaigun" and from my understanding of the Japanese viewpoint, they were looking for a modern Jutland to decide things in the Pacific. So without any post WWI treaties, would they just built bigger and bigger BBs and some DDs as escorts?? Could WWII been fought without many cruisers of various sizes in the mix??

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I'm reading "Kaigun" and from my understanding of the Japanese viewpoint, they were looking for a modern Jutland to decide things in the Pacific. So without any post WWI treaties, would they just built bigger and bigger BBs and some DDs as escorts?? Could WWII been fought without many cruisers of various sizes in the mix??

They would have still had their light scout cruisers (IE the Destroyer Leader Types like Tenryu, etc). The 8-8 plan had provisions for additional very light cruisers in it.

The 8-8 plan envisioned 8 BBs, 8 BCs, with light scout cruisers to lead the groups of DDs and to actually scout. Also, it seems that Ryujo was planed pre-WNT, and would have possibly had a sister or possibly even 2.

I'd have to go back through all my material again, but IIRC there were 4 additional Sendai class cruisers that were cancelled: Ayase, Minase, Otonase, and one unnamed.

I at one point had a fairly decent list of the cancellations, I might have to try to dig that back up.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
According to theorists cruisers may have been useless but, in reality, didn't cruisers play a HUGE role in the Pacific war? Had any one side been without cruisers, the other would have surely dominated the war. Battleships were just too few and too precious to be of as much use. In many battles cruisers carried the day. Battleships mostly saw action in large amphibious or carrier operations but didn't cruisers do a lot of the rest of the work?

Of course. T's comment was regarding cruisers in a world without the Treatys. Obviously War-II Navys were developed as a result of the Treatys. One side builds an 8" cruiser, then the other side builds one just because. They did not exist before the Treatys and after the war they disappeared. IMO the CA was a Treaty imposed cheap substitute for a BC. Only reason to build one is because everybody else is building them, and the Treaty says you can't build the stuff that's really worthwhile.

My comments were in response to Shark and the T discussing the provenance and development of cruiser type vessels before the artificial limitations imposed/allowed by the various Naval Treatys. Cruiser type vessels had an intrinsic worth to the various Naval powers, depending on the missions that those naval powers had to fulfill. In the absence of the Treatys, cruisers should likely develop according to existing Naval doctrine and to the best understanding of contemporary national Naval mission structures.

So, to the best of your reckoning, do you think there would have been just a few light scout cruisers and then a jump straight to BCs from there? Would cruisers not have come in different sizes and guns ranging from Leander scale to Alaska class? Would there not have been a continuum from smaller to bigger or would anything less than a battleship be seen as a waste of time and therefore not worth building?

I'm no expert on the matter but I would think that as soon as someone builds a 6", 8", 10" or whatever size cruiser, whether it be for commerce raiding or trade protection, I would think the likely response by other navies would be to build something similar to counter it. If there is a role for a puny destroyer, then I would think there would be a role for just about everything between it and a battleship. Of course I could very well be wrong, and it won't be the first time I've been wrong about something.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Are these going to be available as 'game ready', or will I need to put them onto the backgrounds myself? Just curious as more than one of these would be very useful to me.

As a quick fix, here's a cumulative collection of what I've been working on. You are welcome to use whatever you want. Really most all of them are doctored AE art anyway. You'll just need to add them to backgrounds. I'm sort of in the middle of working on some stuff for some classes I'm taking and don't have the time at the moment to put them all on backgrounds. Hope this helps.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Question for JWE:

Given the absence of the treaties, do you think that the scout cruisers (CLs) would have also been up-gunned to larger caliber main guns?

Don’t see why not, cruisers were jacks-of all-trades. After War-I the Brits designed a trade-protection cruiser with bigger guns; up-gunned regular cruiser but longer, more displacement , bigger winkie. Was the Hawkins class.

Nothing special, just longer and more displacement to handle the larger guns and retain the speed/endurance characteristics of cruiser. But no more armor. Hawkins was a regular gal with testosterone injections. Actually, the same thing could be said for the early Treaty 8” Countys, or Pensacolas; big guns, no protection.

Cost of a warship, does not follow just the gun caliber. There is the cost of armor for an immunity zone against a similar caliber. Ok, you buy armor, but the cost is speed, endurance, and habitability, on a hull size.

Ok, so you increase hull size and up the HP (recover speed and endurance) and add a deck (recover habitability). Now you got a larger, more vulnerable hull that needs more armor … you get the picture. So if you are going to do all that, as well as the Naval ordnance research stuff for a new gun, I have a perhaps more efficient, cost effective approach, in the absence of a Treaty.

A gazillion missions for cruiser-type vessels, of differing sizes. Small ones for DD leaders and showing the flag at St Helena garden clubs. Medium ones for fleet scouting/interdiction, and showing the flag at Marseilles garden clubs. Big ones for trade-protection/interdiction and showing the flag at Kiel.

Was I First Lord, I would keep the cruiser classes small, maneuverable, long-legged, habitable, and able to function in a command capacity. Over that, I would intuit a Deutschland-type ship: guns, armor, size, endurance, speed.

Ok, so some cruisers have 8” guns, so what? It works for their mission, but they are not true 8” warships by any stretch of the imagination. But why waste your time building a “few” true 8” warships, on a pathetically small hull disposition, when you can build an admittedly smaller number but proportionally more capable bunch of “bad boys”, for the same money?

Hijacked this thread enough. That’s my take, and I’m sticking to it.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Hijacked this thread enough. That’s my take, and I’m sticking to it.

Actually it isn't hijacking the thread since it is on the topic of the absence of naval treaties. I welcome any and all speculation on what navies would have built without treaties so that I can make some art work for them.

[oldman45]

In response to the 11" raiders, I would suspect nations would build faster BC's with 14"+ guns.

I wonder if the US would have gone with an Atlanta type AAA cruiser?

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Also, who says that no naval limitation treaty automatically means a building boom? Lots of people lacked lots of money in those days.

There undoubtedly were major fiscal constraints, but if you read through 'Nelson to Vanguard', there seem to have been a bunch of occasions in which the UK, arguably with the most straitened finances, was seriously looking at significant extra construction. In the absence of the treaties it just takes one nation to decide* it needs to modernise its navy (or create jobs, or keep powerful campaign contributor's shipyards busy) to trigger an arms race no matter the financial consequences. Look at late-Cold War Era Russia - massive building programmes, and then suddenly everything changes and even though the military outlay goes away the economy collapses. Not having any money doesn't stop deficit spending plans.

*And Japan might have preferred the treaty option, but had decided on 8+8 if that didn't happen, which would have forced at a minimum the US and UK to respond, and all three sides responsed would ramped up tension in the Pacific, further increasing the likelihood of additional construction.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
given no WNT, in all probability the CA as we know it would not exist. ...
The idea of trying to stuff as much stuff on a 10000 ton hull only happened because of the WNT and LNTs.

That's ignoring the Hawkins class. The Treaty cruisers are a convergence on an existing design rather than a solely new concept, equally the Atlantic concepts that preceded the Hawkins show that they are the result of a trend, not a one-off. Atlantic B3 with 8 7.5" on 7400t sounds awfully like a proto-Treaty Cruiser, but is a pre-WWI design. Combine the Atlantic and Hawkins concepts with post-war turret development and even without the treaties you end up with something that looks awfully like a County, or any other Treaty Cruiser.

I'm specifically not saying that other navies would necessarily have gone for similar designs, but the RN's manipulation of Treaty Cruiser limits towards the Hawkins certainly suggests it is a sweet spot for RN requirements and I've seen suggestions the US General Board was seriously fixated on Hawkins as a model threat driving the battlescout designs that eventually fed through into the US interwar cruisers.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: dwg

ORIGINAL: Shark7
given no WNT, in all probability the CA as we know it would not exist. ...
The idea of trying to stuff as much stuff on a 10000 ton hull only happened because of the WNT and LNTs.

That's ignoring the Hawkins class. The Treaty cruisers are a convergence on an existing design rather than a solely new concept, equally the Atlantic concepts that preceded the Hawkins show that they are the result of a trend, not a one-off. Atlantic B3 with 8 7.5" on 7400t sounds awfully like a proto-Treaty Cruiser, but is a pre-WWI design. Combine the Atlantic and Hawkins concepts with post-war turret development and even without the treaties you end up with something that looks awfully like a County, or any other Treaty Cruiser.

I'm specifically not saying that other navies would necessarily have gone for similar designs, but the RN's manipulation of Treaty Cruiser limits towards the Hawkins certainly suggests it is a sweet spot for RN requirements and I've seen suggestions the US General Board was seriously fixated on Hawkins as a model threat driving the battlescout designs that eventually fed through into the US interwar cruisers.

True, and IIRC the Japanese Furutaka class was a direct response to Hawkins.

I think JWE is more on target as the 'cruisers' would be more like the Panzerschiffs, specifically made to raid with not a lot of staying power versus anything that could effectively shoot back.

As far as building trends, no doubt they'd have evolved into something not unlike, but also not like the treaty cruisers...the main difference being no limit on displacement leading to either more armor, more guns, more range or more speed; even a combination of all of the above. Like I argued earlier, no treaties you probably end up with 13-15k ton cruisers bery much like the Japanese CAs. The aircraft carrier was coming treaties or no as well...Vindictive, Langley, Hosho...all built prior to the treaties, the treaties just made them far more important than a ship to carry spotter aircraft for the fleet.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Question for JWE:

Given the absence of the treaties, do you think that the scout cruisers (CLs) would have also been up-gunned to larger caliber main guns?

That's something the US General Board looked at when trying to decide how to respond to the Hawkins, and we're talking everything from the relative sanity of an Omaha with 4x2x8", to things like Design 160, an Omaha mounting 2x1x14", or Design 141, a 27,000 ton, 4x2x16" battlescout, but ultimately they settled on just plain Omahas.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

the main difference being no limit on displacement leading to either more armor, more guns, more range or more speed; even a combination of all of the above. Like I argued earlier, no treaties you probably end up with 13-15k ton cruisers bery much like the Japanese CAs.

Treaties may remove absolute limits, but they don't necessarily mean the men from the Treasury give you the budget to fully exploit that freedom. I'm not sure the RN would be allowed to fully exploit a no-Treaty world. I don't know enough about the politics of other nations to venture an opinion.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
I think JWE is more on target as the 'cruisers' would be more like the Panzerschiffs, specifically made to raid with not a lot of staying power versus anything that could effectively shoot back.

I think it depends on what navy you are talking about. The Panzerschiffs were designed from the ground up as commerce raiders. Not a role the Royal Navy had much need for. Undoubtedly cruisers would have gotten larger without the 10,000 ton limit (most Axis CA's got larger even with it), but "bigger for the sake of bigger" is more or less self-defeating. The more resources you tie up in each individual unit the fewer units you can afford overall..., and as the Battle of the River Plate showed the real answer to "bigger" is "more".

[Shark7]

Well for an answer to the whole 'bigger for the sake of bigger' argument I can really only say 1 word...Tillman...or rather the 'maximum battleship'.

Granted this came more from the one senator that was tired of the Navy always needing new toys, and the navy never wanted the ships, but the fact that the designs are on paper is a testament to completely over-doing something. [:D]

Can't say that it wouldn't be fun to see one of the designs in game though. [;)]

[LoBaron]

Gentlemen, thank you for that interesting read! This is what I call a thread hijack
with style!

This forum really only comes second when compared to the really good books
on WWII/naval/air stuff out there, and its often a close call. [&o]