Hijacking Gary's two threads into one

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Nope. The only nation to have their armoured cruisers see combat wisely retired them.

Looking at Conways, I've noticed that not many navies built A/Cs after 1906. There's like a whole mess of them dating from 1895-1906 and then virtually zippo, nada. If the AC was worth building at all then it looks to me like there would have been some replacements built during WW1, but almost none were.

Wasn't the "Armoured Cruiser" pretty much superceeded by the "Battlecruiser"?

[DuckofTindalos]

Not "pretty much", entirely.

[oldman45]

Mike, I think the Hawkins started the idea of what a "new" cruiser would be in the future. I would go out on a limb and say the BC replaced the AC

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Mike, I think the Hawkins started the idea of what a "new" cruiser would be in the future. I would go out on a limb and say the BC replaced the AC

I believe the British (and almost everybody else) considered the "Hawkins Class" to be an abberrition. It's true claim to fame came with the Washington Treaty, where a special clause had to be added to allow the Brits to keep these brand new ships..., thus creating the Heavy Cruiser and the subsequent "CA race" with BB construction restricted.
.

[oldman45]

It was, but after it was put in the treaty, everybody started building ships along those lines. Much better of course. [;)]

[DuckofTindalos]

The Hawkins class was built specifically to fight German commerce raiders. The Grand Fleet battlecruisers were too few and to valuable to spread out all over the place and the light cruisers had neither the legs, firepower or survivability to do the work.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not "pretty much", entirely.

But there weren't really many BCs built after WW1 either. There were a few "large cruisers" or "cruiser killers" built like the Scharnhorsts, Alaskas and Dunkerques but not much in the way of true BCs like Hood or Invincible et al. And this despite the fact that there were cruisers galore. Of course maybe it's because of the treaty limitations, if you're going to build something big, might as well go all out and make it a BB instead of a BC.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

It was, but after it was put in the treaty, everybody started building ships along those lines. Much better of course. [;)]

True..., but that was because they couldn't build BB's under the Treaty. Remove the Treaty, and the CA becomes far less inviting.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not "pretty much", entirely.

But there weren't really many BCs built after WW1 either. There were a few "large cruisers" or "cruiser killers" built like the Scharnhorsts, Alaskas and Dunkerques but not much in the way of true BCs like Hood or Invincible et al. And this despite the fact that there were cruisers galore. Of course maybe it's because of the treaty limitations, if you're going to build something big, might as well go all out and make it a BB instead of a BC.

What really killed the Battlecruiser concept was the ability to build FAST Battleships. It was no longer necessary to skimp on armor or armament to achieve speed.

[oldman45]

I think we are at the point where we need to discuss the mission that each country is building its navy and specific ship classes for.

[DuckofTindalos]

Here's the starting list, based on peacetime AND wartime requirements in Asia as of 1/1/22:

UK: Scouting, Destroyer Leader, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties.

US: Scouting, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties.

France: Scouting, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties, Commerce Raiding.

Netherlands: Trade Protection, Colonial Duties, Destroyer Leader, Scouting.

Japan: Scouting, Destroyer Leader, Commerce Raiding, Trade Protection.

Open for discussion. Remember that the Japs had no torpedo attack doctrine back then.

[oldman45]

You beat me to it, but I like what you started with. I know that Gary wanted the Germans and Italians but I think the best thing is to work up to them say 1935 for the Germans and tie the Italian building to the French and British presence in the Med.

[DuckofTindalos]

"Colonial Duties" should be taken to mean showing the flag around the area in question and deterring other powers from muscling in on the territory.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Here's the starting list, based on peacetime AND wartime requirements in Asia as of 1/1/22:

UK: Scouting, Destroyer Leader, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties.

US: Scouting, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties.

France: Scouting, Trade Protection, Colonial Duties, Commerce Raiding.

Netherlands: Trade Protection, Colonial Duties, Destroyer Leader, Scouting.

Japan: Scouting, Destroyer Leader, Commerce Raiding, Trade Protection.

Open for discussion. Remember that the Japs had no torpedo attack doctrine back then.

So for missions we basically have:

1. Scouting
2. Trade protection
3. Commerce Raiding
4. Colonial Duties
5. Destroyer Leader

So next I suppose it would be useful to sort out what some characteristics are that make a ship most suitable for each of these missions? My guess would be something along these lines:

1. Scouting - high speed, long range
2. Trade protection - long range, large numbers
3. Commerce Raiding - high speed, heavy armament, long range
4. Colonial Duties - long range
5. Destroyer Leader - high speed

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Alright, I'm happy to pull together lists like this for each of the 3 major powers;

I've added a few notes:

2x OB Kearsarge (11500t, 2x2 13in/35, 16kts, 337mm / 70mm, 1900)
Totally obsolete due to superimposed turrets - Kearsarge was converted into a craneship before the Treaty was even proposed.

3x OB Illinois (11600t, 2x2 13in/35, 16kts, 337mm / 70mm, 1901)
All decommissioned in advance of treaty

3x OB Maine (12600t, 2x2 12in/40, 18kts, 279mm / 64mm, 1902)
2 of 3 due to decommission, 1 in reserve

5x OB Virginia (15000t, 2x2 12in/40, 19kts, 279mm / 76mm, 1906)
Seriously compromised by superimposed turrets, all due to decommission

6x AC Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh (13700t, 2x2 8in/40, 22kts, 152mm / 38mm, 1905)
San Diego sunk by mine 1918

4x AC Tennessee/Memphis (14500t, 2x2 10in/40, 22kts, 127mm / 38mm, 1906)
Memphis wrecked 1916

To be laid down;
5x BB South Dakota (43200t, 4x3 16in/50, 23kts, 343mm / 89mm)
Should be 6

4x BC Lexington (43500t, 4x2 16in/50, 33kts, 178mm / 57mm)
Should be 6

[dwg]

Under construction:
5 x BB/CV Normandie (25230, 3x4 13.4in/45, 21kts, 300mm / 50mm) - I'm thinking these would make a nice class of CVs

One set of turrets is missing (factory taken by Germans), so they can complete a maximum of 4 as battleships

[dwg]

Battleships: Colossus, Monarch, Thunderer, Ajax, Centurion, King George V, Benbow, Emperor of India, Iron Duke, Marlborough, Barham, Malaya, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite, Ramilies, Resolution, Revenge, Royal Oak, Royal Sovereign.

Missing Erin and Agincourt

Under construction
Battlecruiser: Hood (added)

Carrier: Furious (under reconstruction from large light cruiser)

Cruisers: Frobisher, Emerald, Enterprise
Missing Raleigh

Being laid down in 1922

Battleships: Nelson and Rodney
Nelson and Rodney were a post-Washington Treaty design, in 1920 the RN was intending to lay down the 4 N3 class battleships and the 4 G3 class battlecruisers.

Cruiser: Adventure
Actually a minelayer

[JuanG]

I've put my comments in bold to distinguish them, didn't want to have like 10 quotes in one post.

Of note is that my list is as is at 1/1/1920. This means anything decommissioned after that is still listed. Likewise, the 'to be built' is ONLY ships that will be laid down by the end of 1920.

ORIGINAL: dwg

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Alright, I'm happy to pull together lists like this for each of the 3 major powers;

I've added a few notes:

2x OB Kearsarge (11500t, 2x2 13in/35, 16kts, 337mm / 70mm, 1900)
Totally obsolete due to superimposed turrets - Kearsarge was converted into a craneship before the Treaty was even proposed.

Kearsarge was used as a training ship in 1919, only decommissioned for conversion in May 1920.
Kentucky was also used as a training ship, decomissioned in May 1920.


3x OB Illinois (11600t, 2x2 13in/35, 16kts, 337mm / 70mm, 1901)
All decommissioned in advance of treaty

All 3 still in reserve at the beginning of 1920.


3x OB Maine (12600t, 2x2 12in/40, 18kts, 279mm / 64mm, 1902)
2 of 3 due to decommission, 1 in reserve

I made an error here, should be 2x OB Maine, as 1 already decommissioned (Missouri in Sept 1919), 2 in reserve.


5x OB Virginia (15000t, 2x2 12in/40, 19kts, 279mm / 76mm, 1906)
Seriously compromised by superimposed turrets, all due to decommission

But none decommissioned as of 1/1/1920.


6x AC Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh (13700t, 2x2 8in/40, 22kts, 152mm / 38mm, 1905)
San Diego sunk by mine 1918

Thank you, missed that.


4x AC Tennessee/Memphis (14500t, 2x2 10in/40, 22kts, 127mm / 38mm, 1906)
Memphis wrecked 1916

Likewise.


To be laid down;
5x BB South Dakota (43200t, 4x3 16in/50, 23kts, 343mm / 89mm)
Should be 6

Massachusetts only laid down 4/4/1921.


4x BC Lexington (43500t, 4x2 16in/50, 33kts, 178mm / 57mm)
Should be 6

Lexington and Ranger only laid down in 1921.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: dwg

Battleships: Colossus, Monarch, Thunderer, Ajax, Centurion, King George V, Benbow, Emperor of India, Iron Duke, Marlborough, Barham, Malaya, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite, Ramilies, Resolution, Revenge, Royal Oak, Royal Sovereign.

Missing Erin and Agincourt

Under construction
Battlecruiser: Hood (added)

Carrier: Furious (under reconstruction from large light cruiser)

Cruisers: Frobisher, Emerald, Enterprise
Missing Raleigh

Being laid down in 1922

Battleships: Nelson and Rodney
Nelson and Rodney were a post-Washington Treaty design, in 1920 the RN was intending to lay down the 4 N3 class battleships and the 4 G3 class battlecruisers.

Cruiser: Adventure
Actually a minelayer

It was my understanding that we were doing this as of 1922 (which others have done).

I excluded the Erin and Agincourt because they paid off in 1922. The Hood was in service at this time. The Nelson and the Rodney was laid down at the same time. The Raleigh was lost in a grounding in August of '22, and the Adventure was a cruiser-minelayer.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: dwg

Battleships: Colossus, Monarch, Thunderer, Ajax, Centurion, King George V, Benbow, Emperor of India, Iron Duke, Marlborough, Barham, Malaya, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite, Ramilies, Resolution, Revenge, Royal Oak, Royal Sovereign.

Missing Erin and Agincourt

Under construction
Battlecruiser: Hood (added)

Carrier: Furious (under reconstruction from large light cruiser)

Cruisers: Frobisher, Emerald, Enterprise
Missing Raleigh

Being laid down in 1922

Battleships: Nelson and Rodney
Nelson and Rodney were a post-Washington Treaty design, in 1920 the RN was intending to lay down the 4 N3 class battleships and the 4 G3 class battlecruisers.

Cruiser: Adventure
Actually a minelayer

It was my understanding that we were doing this as of 1922 (which others have done).

I excluded the Erin and Agincourt because they paid off in 1922. The Hood was in service at this time. The Nelson and the Rodney was laid down at the same time. The Raleigh was lost in a grounding in August of '22, and the Adventure was a cruiser-minelayer.

Pretty sure we started off as 1920, Gary did the French and Germans as 1922 since they were fairly static.