No Naval Treaties Art

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: 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]

As I stated above it isn't a hijack if it is on topic and this thread is all about speculation on what warship design would have been without treaties. If no one gives me any ideas then I can't really do much in the way of art for them.

[John 3rd]

This has been a VERY useful discussion. Like some of the ideas brewing within it.

[JWE]

Well, seems that nobody minds much, so here's my straw-man.

Japan develops her cruisers (using Yubari concepts) into something like the Aganos (IJN doctrine and mission). I would think trip turrets would work best because the Japanese liked deck space for air ops and also wanted their cruisers to be a C3I boat for squadron support (IJN doctrine and mission). So perhaps trips for A and X, a twin for B. Oyodo was a panic driven abortion, but was a good hull to put a gnarly Agano on.

Japan wasn't looking to do commerce raiding with warships, nor did she (at the time) have any need for trade-protection warships, so the money saved from the "Heavy Cruiser" program could go into a modern 8/8 fleet program. Which opens the door to:

Brits had a history of doing trade-protection, and developed the Hawkins as a counter to 170mm raiders. Had no armor to speak of, just the ability to reach out and touch someone. Think the Brits would likely twin out the guns and up the displacement so as to give a "true" trade-protection cruiser with a big winkie. Other Euro nations had a history of doing commerce-raiding; mostly with big guns (6"-7") on trade-carriers, but sometimes with warships. So one must consider that aspect, when addressing the RN doctrine and mission thingy.

The rest is a matter of "mission creep". I got a cruiser with an 8" gun; ok, You'll build a raider with a 10" gun. Ok, so I build a "cruiser" with legs, and speed, and size, with 12" guns and tell the wannabes to "c'mon and get some!" You won't need many. I'm thinking about the nominal major out-stations, and can see a division (2) of these at every important station.

Now, the US is a different matter. They don't have the trade patrol imperitives like the UK, they do have some of the fleet protection and squadron C3I imperitives as Japan, but not as intensive. So what does the US do? Especially in response to a "real" big gun cruiser. And what does Japan do? Any why? And how is doctrine and mission defined to make use of these big boys? And how does the redefined doctrine and mission define the characteristics of the vessels.

$hit don't happen in a vacuum. I have no answers, just a straw-man and questions.

Ciao. J

[oldman45]

I agree that nothing happens in a vacuum, so my take is the old what comes first question. For the sake of argument, lets have the commerce raiding country's building their raiders along the lines of the pocket battleships. 2 or 4 turrets, 4 to 8 guns 10" - 12", 28kn speed and good range/endurance. None of the battleships of the day will be able to catch it. Since we have no cruisers out there because there is no treaty the UK has to either design a "cruiser" that can handle this new threat or build conventional BC's. There is also the option to build a new class that is cheap and they can build a dozen or so to cover all the far flung stations.

[GaryChildress]

What would a no treaties artwork thread be without the Japanese 8-8 plan?

[DuckofTindalos]

If you're taking what-if requests, how about a reconstructed HMS Hood? Only three main battery turrets (triple instead of twin), aft deckhouse extended to cover the space left by removed X turret, and a bridge superstructure similar to the Warspite (i.e. boxy/castle-like).

[Shark7]

Here's another good what-if since we are discussing what happens with no Naval treaties:

How many of the older ships (IE the pre-WWI) would stay nominally in service into the WWII era?

Of course they would likely be re-rated as training vessels or coastal defense ships, but is there a chance some of the newer ones would have been retained to fill various roles?

[oldman45]

I would like to see some of the older US BB and Brit BB's too.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

If you're taking what-if requests, how about a reconstructed HMS Hood? Only three main battery turrets (triple instead of twin), aft deckhouse extended to cover the space left by removed X turret, and a bridge superstructure similar to the Warspite (i.e. boxy/castle-like).

I think Hood looks a lot better with 4 x 2 instead of 3 x 3. Here's a couple versions of Hood and G3 and N3 designs too.

[DuckofTindalos]

I'll take those? Can I have the .bmps, please?

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'll take those? Can I have the .bmps, please?

Here they are...

EDIT: Again I have too many of these things and not enough time to put them all on backgrounds right now so I'll let you all do the honors.

[GaryChildress]

Here's some backgrounds for them.

[traskott]

Thanks !!!! I will end having a Ship-Wikipedia of Ships... hehehehehehe [:D]

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: 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".

But what would the ship be which could take down a panzerschiffe...
If you speculate a battle cruiser, how many do you have to build to protect enough shipping lanes to support the economy, and what does this take out of battleship construction.

If you want to have fun, get hold of Zim's ancient game Action Stations, and take a Baltimore up against the Graf Spee solo!

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: RevRick

ORIGINAL: 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".

But what would the ship be which could take down a panzerschiffe...
If you speculate a battle cruiser, how many do you have to build to protect enough shipping lanes to support the economy, and what does this take out of battleship construction.

Mike Scholl does have a point, but he's looking at things from a future perspective. In a rational what-if, one must think in terms of a 1920s perspective, going forward.

@Shark; 'Cruisers' are cruisers; Mission for 'cruisers' compels a moderate sized vessel with long legs and sufficient gun power to be a flotilla leader or provide local protection for trade, as well as doing tactical Fleet scouting. There's some really nasty algorithms for deciding whether they are 6" or 8", but my money's on the 6", for a number of reasons.

Big (heavy) cruisers are a different story. Everybody knew what everybody else was doing, so if anybody came up with a gnarly gun cruiser, somebody would counter, and the paradigm would eventuate into a Panzerschiff model.

@Mike Scholl; Not to say that panzerschiffe were great, just that the model was rational, off a blank slate. If someone could come up with a "raiding/hunting" cruiser, in the non-treaty world, wouldn't someone else come up with a "raider/killer" design? I think so. Thus, I believe that a non-treaty world would eventuate "heavy" cruisers as large, high endurance, moderately armored, moderately big gunned, 'hunter/killer' vessels. I would spend some money to develop high-velocity, long-range, capability.

But that's just me.

[ed] it would be kinda fun to give two sides the same number of shekels and see how they can invest it: guns, ships, R&D, you know... think you would be surprised. Wouldn't mind being First Lord of somewhere in a situation like that.

[oldman45]

Like it was pointed out in the other thread, mission, mission, mission!

If we put the pacific in a vacuum and design 3 navy's to operate there; US, Britain, and Japan.

We create a start date of 1920. Now lets have some fun [:)]

[DuckofTindalos]

Think that should go on a thread of its own. Also, we can't put it in a vacuum.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Like it was pointed out in the other thread, mission, mission, mission!
If we put the pacific in a vacuum and design 3 navy's to operate there; US, Britain, and Japan.
We create a start date of 1920. Now lets have some fun [:)]

Bingo!! If I had my way there would be a setup phase where people could do what they please within a box constraint. It would be player A vs player B as First Lord, much like the econ model. But that won't happen in the present game. But in a thoughtful mod environment, it could happen. Righteousnes for righteousness sake, is a good thing. So how does righteousnes play? Ooh, good question. Not easy to answer. Have some answers, but they aren't appropriate here.
[ed] but yeah, mission, mission, mission. [;)]
Ciao. John

[DOCUP]

That sounds interesting guys.  I would love to be a fly on the wall if you guys decided to do that.

[traskott]

USA and Japan are "easy" because as they were natural enemies if one build X, the other would build 2X, but Britain had to think on the Italian, German, French fleets, in order to develop a naval building program... If Germany would build 6 Bismarcks, GB would build 6 G3/N3, but if Germany launched 250 U-Boats, GB would build LOT of DDs and only a few BBs...I think u got the idea