"Orange Dawn"

[FDRLincoln]

I am going to work on a scenario called "Orange Dawn," which will be an expansion of the 1926-1930 SuperDreadnought scenario. I am doing this for my own enjoyment basically, but the scenario would no doubt benefit from the input of others, and if enough people are interested perhaps we could post it somewhere.

Orange Dawn takes the SuperDreadnought scenario and asks, "what would the naval building programmes of the 1920s looked like absent a Washington Treaty, with an arms race between Japan, the US, and Britain leading up to war in 1926?

Ideas for the British and French
Would the Brits have built the 18inch gun N3 battleship to go with the G3 battlecruisers already in the game?
Building additional units of the Hawkins class heavy cruiser seems possible for trade protection.
There are plenty of DDs left over from WW1. I think shipbuilding would have concentrated on the CA, BB, and BC categories, but maybe I am wrong. What do you guys think?
Given tensions in the area, it seems possible to me that the French would upgrade their Indochina fleet somewhat, adding some additional destroyers or subs at least.

Ideas for the Americans
The game already includes an 18inch version of the South Dakota. I have already designed an 18inch version of the Lexington class as a counterpart.
The US cruiser force is obsolete. Would additional or improved Omahas be built? What about a heavy cruiser to replace the old armored cruisers? Without Washington Treaty limits to worry about, what would get built?

Ideas for the Japanese
Two additional units of the Kii class seem probable. How about the No. 13 battlecruiser design?
The heavy cruiser question pops up here, too. Historically, the first of the 8inch Japanese Washington cruisers were built by this time but are not in the game. Also the experimental light cruiser Yubari.

Just throwing out some ideas.

[Terminus]

Heavy cruisers definitely seem like a good idea. There's block obsolesence across the board.

[FDRLincoln]

Exactly.

My thinking right now is this.

The first "modern heavy cruiser" is in many ways the Hawkins class, built right at the end of WW1. In real life, the Washington Treaty 8inch, 10,000 ton CA limits were designed to fix the Hawkins type as the upper limit of cruiser development. But without the treaty, obviously this would not have happened.

I can see US and certainly the Japanese building their own Hawkins-like ships around 1923-1924, something like 8 in guns, 10,000-12,000 tons, but things would escalate from there. What would CA development look like by 1927 without the treaty limits? 10inch guns? 14,000 tons? It can't get much bigger than that for reasons of cost....make it too big and it is a defacto BC in terms of manpower and fuel costs.

[Tankerace]

I can see US cruisers using 8 or 10 inch guns (both types used on the previous ACRs). In my mind, if the US continued building cruisers (even with the treaty the first CA wasn't completed until 1929), they would either by enlarged Omahas, with about 8 eight inchers (in two turrets, and four in sponsons four at each end, two per side). My guess is speed would be about 27-knots, about 12,000 tons. Armor would be heavier than the Omahas, but still not on par with the ACRs.

Part of me wanted to create new designs based on plausible history, but I felt at first to keep it historical (i.e. known classes and known designs) before moving on.

Japanese cruisers would almost be three of four stacked ships, probably enlarged Sendai's. I'd guess 7.5 or 8 inch guns, mounted in single mounts.

[FDRLincoln]

I completely agree with the design decision not to include your own conjecturals beyond the ones already included. It would be impossible to please everyone.

But with the editor, we're free to imagine.

It should be noted that I'm not looking for uber-designs of 20inch gun monstrosities. We want stuff to be reasonable, if conjectural.

[FDRLincoln]

I worked up a quick Springsharp profile for this ship. I did this real fast so there could be mistakes.

USS President, United States Heavy Battle Scout laid down 1924

Displacement:
43,079 t light; 46,161 t standard; 48,511 t normal; 50,391 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
875.00 ft / 875.00 ft x 107.00 ft x 31.00 ft (normal load)
266.70 m / 266.70 m x 32.61 m x 9.45 m

Armament:
8 - 18.00" / 457 mm guns in single mounts, 2,916.00lbs / 1,322.68kg shells, 1924 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread
16 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1924 Model
Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 25,056 lbs / 11,365 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150
4 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 9.00" / 229 mm 595.75 ft / 181.58 m 12.41 ft / 3.78 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 105 % of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.00" / 51 mm 568.75 ft / 173.36 m 29.03 ft / 8.85 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 10.0" / 254 mm 5.00" / 127 mm -
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.75" / 44 mm, Conning tower: 12.00" / 305 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Electric motors, 4 shafts, 181,291 shp / 135,243 Kw = 30.99 kts
Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,231 tons

Complement:
1,633 - 2,124

Cost:
£15.376 million / $61.504 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 3,132 tons, 6.5 %
Armour: 7,647 tons, 15.8 %
- Belts: 2,810 tons, 5.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,222 tons, 2.5 %
- Armament: 1,085 tons, 2.2 %
- Armour Deck: 2,186 tons, 4.5 %
- Conning Tower: 344 tons, 0.7 %
Machinery: 5,971 tons, 12.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 26,328 tons, 54.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,433 tons, 11.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
60,395 lbs / 27,394 Kg = 20.7 x 18.0 " / 457 mm shells or 7.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.51
Metacentric height 11.2 ft / 3.4 m
Roll period: 13.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 66 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.27
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.19

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.585
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.18 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.58 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 32.54 ft / 9.92 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 20.71 ft / 6.31 m
- Mid (50 %): 20.71 ft / 6.31 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 20.71 ft / 6.31 m
- Stern: 20.71 ft / 6.31 m
- Average freeboard: 21.66 ft / 6.60 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 110.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 158.3 %
Waterplane Area: 67,521 Square feet or 6,273 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 286 lbs/sq ft or 1,396 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.76
- Longitudinal: 1.67
- Overall: 1.69
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

[Alikchi2]

On the N3s: I've heard that there's some evidence that the Admiralty dreamed up the N3 design more as a threat than a realistic building exercise.

Just found the quote in question -

vi. It is apparent that the UK could not have afforded the N3’s as well as the G3’s under the fiscal and economic policies pursued by the British governments of the 1920’s and 1930’s. This was because of internal party political reasons, an unwillingness to increase the tax base, and because of foreign policy decisions and results. British foreign policy was successful in maintaining peace until 1931in Europe and the Far East.
vii. There are historical indications that the N3’s may have been paper tigers whose release by the British Government was very carefully timed, and that the US Government, particularly Secretary of State Charles Hughes, was successfully frightened by them into calling the conference. This is not a conclusion that I expected.

[Akos Gergely]

Hi guys,

I do not have WPO yet, but I'm planning to get it ASAP. I'm a real big never-were fan and I think YOu can get some ideas on my forum over at:

http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/index. ... 72d5cf2416

(Alikchi knows it already !)

Also, I'd recommend Mr. Norman Friedman's Illustrated Design Histories books for some "real-never-were" ideas. As a sidenote You should include some more early CVs as well, just to spice things up a bit (e.g. in Friemdan's CV book there is a very nice cage mast carrier based on a Lex class CV hull, with plenty of 6" guns as well!- and take this from a hardcore dreadnought fan ....)

I have some exceptionally rare stuff on japanese No.13. projects, versions, some of them really cool looking (with quad 16" turrets etc).

What about including some of the design alternatives leading up to G3/N3? There are plenty of variations...

Cheers,

Akos

[FDRLincoln]

I know that website and visit there frequently. Some really good stuff.

[Mike Scholl]

Most of this seems to ignore economic reality. IRL, the ONLY power left in the world that could afford another "Dreadnought Race" was the US (at least until 1929). The Japanese Military knew this as well as anyone, which is why they accepted the Washington Treaty. Once the Treaty was in place, then they could bitch about how they had been "robbed"---but the fact is they needed it as much or more than anyone. They did the same thing after the Russo-Japanese War. The nation was on the verge of bankruptcy, and needed the Treaty of Portsmouth probably even worse than the Russians did---but as soon as it was safely signed the Military could start blustering about how they were winning and the Politicians had robbed them.

[KingMississippi]

It is alternate history. It is based on fictional events. Maybe the economic good times of the early twenties increased the level of funding for the naval procurement and construction. Believe there would have been a way to continue the naval race.

[Cmdrcain]

All Interesting ides...

Still if one wishs one could within reality but also going ahistorical , tinker with things a bit..

Like, Suppose no WW I, Tensions mounted, but the trigger doesnt get pulled, however during and after the high time (1914-1919) plenty of building goes on, we hit the 1920's ith it still tense and Expanding Building going on, since theres no WW I
Yet... Theres no economic damage and so all the time with things tense all are building and expanding..

And WWI occurs in 1920's... with the Twist that Japan is on Germanys Side...

Plausiable?

[Alikchi2]

Just going to quote a source I trust, I have no real opinion on the subject:

As to Japan being able to afford the 8-8-8 programme, this particular scenario was based upon better than historical economic growth. Even so, however, I don't believe that there is any doubt that the Japanese could have built their programme (earthquake aside). The best analogy I could use is the Soviet Union. Their heavy defense spending was unsustainable in the long term, and was ultimately one of the major factors behind their economic collapse - however it took decades before the house of cards collapsed. In the short term, given the nature of the Japanese regime, I have yet to see a convincing argument that they couldn't have seen the 8-8 programme through.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
And WWI occurs in 1920's... with the Twist that Japan is on Germanys Side...
Plausiable?

Minor problem. The Anglo-Japanese Pact of 1902 was killied by the Washington Treaty. The Japanese were quite up-set by this clause, the British weren't that enthused, but the US pushed it through. No Washington Treaty, and the Japanese are on Britian's side. And gobbling up German possessions in the Pacific just as they did historically in WW I.

[Mike Scholl]

Maybe you could speculate that the US joins Germany ("Baron von Stueben.., we are here!") The Brits would have to be pretty fumble-fingered with their blockade enforcement and propaganda---and the Kaiser and his cronies would have to keep their mouths shut (a lot more). But you could probably come up with something. Make for a better war as well...

[FDRLincoln]

I thought about the economic aspect of setting up an Orange War in the 1920s, and yes, from a purely determinist/historical view there are problems. But...

1) this is a game and
2) this is a game, and
3) the powers, drawing on the "lessons" of the Great War, decide not to invest heavily in land armies but invest in seapower instead, since the huge Anglo victory at Jutland "proves" Mahan's ideas that seapower is what matters.
4) part of the reason the US has relatively weak cruiser forces is because the money was going into building dreadnoughts, and Congress wouldn't provide funding for both.
5) this is a game!

[Cmdrcain]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
And WWI occurs in 1920's... with the Twist that Japan is on Germanys Side...
Plausiable?

Minor problem. The Anglo-Japanese Pact of 1902 was killied by the Washington Treaty. The Japanese were quite up-set by this clause, the British weren't that enthused, but the US pushed it through. No Washington Treaty, and the Japanese are on Britian's side. And gobbling up German possessions in the Pacific just as they did historically in WW I.

So.. No WW I, and Japan refutes the 1902 Pact, amid rising Tensions in exchange Germany allows Japan To occupy their possessions, in exchange Japan-Germany have a pact and That places Japan threatening British Pacific possessions if Britain-Germany go to War...

Consider , Germanys Pacific islands are far and Germanys not well equipted to hold them but Japan is... Germany gains a Partner who threatens the British...
This puts Japan at odds more Vs USA and Britain...

Really, when you get into Ahistorical matters anything goes.

Back in that time things could have gone many ways, USA could have as one pointed, supported Germany...

You could even say there was a Mini-War where Japan-Germany fought, Germanys islands were overrun, and then a peace made as it was just too far for Germany to go for a lengthy war... in 1900's and then by 1920's... Japan-Germany get together , after all it is plausible given how after WWI despite Japan taking Germanys Islands, they made the Axis pact.

Then theres simply the alternate world where Germany never occupied those pacific islands... but Japan did [:D]