Plan 8-8-8 From Outerspace!

[GaryChildress]

OK. So here's a kind of alternative history of US cruiser building 1922-1945. Please let me know what you think.

No treaties are in effect to retard cruiser development, and no Gread Depression to constrain budgets as the major powers compete with each other to see who can build the biggest baddest navy.

So I have the US starting out in 1922 with the Omaha class light cruisers as was historical. In the late 1930s they get reboilered and the funnels are reduced from 4 to 2 in order to make room for float planes. In the late 1920s the US experiments a little with the 8" gun on their cruisers, with the timid Pensacola class. 1930 sees more development on the 8" gun. The Northampton class is a vast improvement on the Pensacolas with much more firepower. After laying down the Northamptons there's a kind of short sabbatical in which the 10" gun cruiser is developed, this being in response to a cruiser race among the major naval powers. First the US pumps out the New Orleans class. These being somewhat unsatisfactory, due to the size of the hull which limited the guns to twin turrets. So then the Brooklyn class "large cruisers" are built incorporating a larger hull in which tripple 10" turrets can be mounted. Finally when WW2 breaks out in Europe in 1939, the first of the Baltimore class is laid down as a response to the increasing hostilities. Also in 1939 the first Cleveland class "escort cruisers" with enhanced AA capability are laid down. As it becomes more and more apparent that aircraft are going to play a major role in the war, the AA capability of the Clevelands is enhanced while building. Finally in 1940 the US comes up with a medium cruiser design to augment fleet escort operations, this time with fast loading twin 8" guns instead of the twin 6" DP guns developed for the Clevelands.

What do you guys think? Does a progression from smaller and smaller guns and hulls to larger and larger ones make more sense? This is followed by wartime production of small, cheap "escort type" cruisers to fill in gaps.



Of course thanks as always go to the AE team for their superb art from which my own alterations are derrived.

[JuanG]

My first thought is that the designs themselves look sound, some of the larger ones (New Orleans, Brooklyn, Baltimore) are starting to get really big, which means quite a bit of resources for their construction.

In particular, the 12 x 12in Baltimore is probably looking at a displacement in the 30,000+ ton range, so I'm a little doubtful about the ability to produce 12 of them during the war while still presumably building carriers and battleships. Remember that a ship this size is going to be on a slipway for close to 2 years - if you've got 3 being built every year that is 6 capital sized slipways that aren't available for CVs or BBs (yes, even the larger ones - BBs are going to have higher Cb's and so will have much more displacement on the same length).

I'd suggest either toning down the build numbers (and this goes for several of the prewar ones too), or else look at downsizing them a little. Everything post Northampton is starting to push into the 20,000ton range and thats some serious ship - to avoid this either the gun counts need to go down, the armour needs to be thinner, or they need to be slower.

I have some thoughts on how this could be achieved, but you probably have a better idea of what the vision for the US fleet here is than I do, so its better if you come to your own conclusions on how to solve these issues.

There is also possibly room for an interwar 6in or 8in 'scout' cruiser - this could be a potentially interesting design, with a focus on firepower and AA capability with reduced armour, intended as a CL/DD killer. As said though, its dependent on the exact goals of the fleet.

Also, 1943 seems a little early for an autoloading 8in gun - '44 or '45 is probably more reasonable assuming technology is slightly ahead of historical (OTL Des Moines was commissioned in '48).

[Terminus]

It looks sound. Like the old protected cruiser-light cruiser-armoured cruiser progression.

The "heavy" cruiser will never exist in this timeline. You could call them first class cruisers, I suppose.

[DOCUP]

nice work Gary.

[GaryChildress]

I trimmed down the production numbers of the larger cruisers and also shortened the Baltimore class a little bit. This new chart leaves the US with 22 first rate cruisers and 10 "escort" types in 1941.

[oldman45]

I spent sometime this afternoon reading, I am not sure about your theory. We had many armored cruisers after WWI with 10" guns, why are you building 8" cruisers in 1928? Is this because of the UK Hawkins Class? Without the treaties forcing countries to scrap their armored cruisers why would they? Why would they build any "large cruiser" after WWI. It would seem to me that there would be light/colony cruisers and armored/battle cruisers.

One other thing I thought about, without the treaties, would the US upgrade the defences in the PI, Guam, Wake, and Midway?

As always, great art work Gary!!

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I spent sometime this afternoon reading, I am not sure about your theory. We had many armored cruisers after WWI with 10" guns, why are you building 8" cruisers in 1928? Is this because of the UK Hawkins Class? Without the treaties forcing countries to scrap their armored cruisers why would they? Why would they build any "large cruiser" after WWI. It would seem to me that there would be light/colony cruisers and armored/battle cruisers.

One other thing I thought about, without the treaties, would the US upgrade the defences in the PI, Guam, Wake, and Midway?

As always, great art work Gary!!

OK. So that pretty much puts me back at square one. What do you think I ought to create for the 1920s cruisers?

[GaryChildress]

How about something like this in 1924?

The Tennessee class armored cruisers only had 2 x 2 10" guns with a max speed of 22 kts. So might the US have increased the speed, armor and armament of their armored cruisers to look something like this? Let's say this ship has 4 x 2 10" guns, max speed of 30 kts or so and a bit more armor. Length would be 660 ft as opposed to the mere 504 ft of the Tennessee class.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I spent sometime this afternoon reading, I am not sure about your theory. We had many armored cruisers after WWI with 10" guns, why are you building 8" cruisers in 1928? Is this because of the UK Hawkins Class? Without the treaties forcing countries to scrap their armored cruisers why would they? Why would they build any "large cruiser" after WWI. It would seem to me that there would be light/colony cruisers and armored/battle cruisers.

One other thing I thought about, without the treaties, would the US upgrade the defences in the PI, Guam, Wake, and Midway?

As always, great art work Gary!!

OK. So that pretty much puts me back at square one. What do you think I ought to create for the 1920s cruisers?

I think of the 8in cruisers as bridging a gap between the Omaha style scout cruisers and follow on designs with larger guns.

A lot of the proto-sketches for the Pensacola were explorations of this idea, well before any treaties were in effect.

The AC follow-ons with 10in or larger guns do also make sense, so one thing you could do while keeping the lineup otherwise similar is to insert a class of 4-6 ships in the early 20's as direct follow ons to the AC concept, maybe with 3x2 10in/50 guns or something like that.

This makes them credible successors to the Tennessee class AC's, which had 2x2 10in/40s. Coupled with a higher speed (maybe 28-30 knots vs 22 on the Tennessee) and redesigned protection, and these could become the forerunners for a new standard of post-WW1 AC's across the world. The pause between them and a followup in the early 30s can be explain by the USNs desire to develop its scouting capabilities in the form of lighter cruisers and possibly CVs. In that case I'd maybe look at 'lightening' the Northampton class a little to moreso resemble the Pensacola 'scout cruiser' (maybe drop armour to 120 belt, 55 deck and 100 tower).

Here is a good source for WW1 and post-WW1 USN cruiser studies;
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/albums/s584-cr.htm

Everything up to S-584-178 is pre-treaty.

[oldman45]

I like that JuanG, but I think we have to consider why the cruisers are being built. Once we establish the mission statement, I think it might be easier to see the development over the decades. The US might build lights, keep the AC's and build nothing but an even more modern Tennesse or BC's of some sort.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I like that JuanG, but I think we have to consider why the cruisers are being built. Once we establish the mission statement, I think it might be easier to see the development over the decades. The US might build lights, keep the AC's and build nothing but an even more modern Tennesse or BC's of some sort.

True enough. Another important factor is that development does not happen in a vacuum - very much will be influenced by trends occurring elsewhere.

At the very least, any 'next generation' AC will take some lessons away from WW1;
Foremost is the need for more speed. The QE's are capable of 24 knots, and the new BC's are all in the 28-30 knot region. Being able to keep up with/run away from these is probably desirable, lest they suffer Blucher's fate. For this reason alone the pre-WW1 AC's are at the end of their lifespan as frontline ships - I could see them doing patrol duty in the Philippines or elsewhere, but apart from that their days are numbered.

Secondly, as these are cruisers and intended to fulfill those roles (as opposed to forming part of a battleline), I do not believe in a massive growth in terms of firepower to be likely (at this stage anyway - a 'cruiser building race' could possibly result in the interwar era if the various powers try to one-up eachothers designs, but I do not find it likely for the early 20s designs). This is firstly due to economics, and secondly due to the fact that putting a capital sized battery on a cruiser is going to tempt the admiralty into thinking it has a place in a battleline when it does not. More likely is an increase to 6 or 8 guns (meaning an accurate salvo can be fired with half the guns, along with more straightforward firepower), along with a possible increase in gun length (for increased ranges and penetration).

Thirdly, in as a result of the above, we will likely see slightly more armour on these vessels than their predecessors. They will also likely benefit from the lessons of WW1 and Jutland in terms of their armour layout.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
OK. So that pretty much puts me back at square one. What do you think I ought to create for the 1920s cruisers?

It was really the ban on BB construction imposed by the Washington Treaty that pushed nations into expanded construction of CA's/CL's. Without it, the primary role for cruisers would have remained commerce raiding/protection and scouting, neither of which required particularly heavy armaments. So I would say modest size vessels with good range and endurance and mostly 6" armament.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: oldman45
One other thing I thought about, without the treaties, would the US upgrade the defences in the PI, Guam, Wake, and Midway?

It was certainly something the Japanese feared, which is why they demanded this article in the treaty. I would guess that the PI would certainly have been included in the upgrades that occurred between the wars. Guam's location made it pretty much indefensible, and the limited size of Wake and Midway would have made any major improvements unlikely.

[GaryChildress]

How about something like this:

The US starts out with the Omaha class, then builds 4 new "armored cruisers" to improve on the Tennessee class. Instead of 2 x 2 10" these have 4 x 2 10". They're still a little slow at 29 kts, so the class proves somewhat unsatisfactory and is abandoned after 4 ships. Next the US decides to experiment with some scout cruisers of the 8" type. These have less armor but more speed at 32kts. However, the first 8" cruisers mount only 4 x 2 guns as well. So the next evolution is to triple turrets for the 8" cruisers, starting with the Northampton class scout cruisers which prove to be relatively successful. So 10 are commissioned. Thinking that they are safe in the scout cruiser department the US next turns its attention back to the armored cruiser concept with the Brooklyn Class of 6 ships with 4 x 3 11" guns. The 11" has a little more range and hitting power than the 10" and the speed is better on these but still the US doesn't quite get the results it wants. But the class is pushed through at 6 ships in response to foreign designs. Finally in 1939 the first of the Baltimore class 12" cruisers are laid down and completed during the war. In late 1940, seeing lessons learned from the use of naval air power early in the war, the US also begins a parallel program of AA cruisers mounting 6" DP guns and a heavy secondary armament of 5" DP guns. This is succeeded by a class of auto loading 8" ships starting to appear in 1944.

So we see the simultaneous evolution of both the armored cruiser concept and the scout cruiser concept as they unfold leading up to 1939. When war becomes more evitable the US starts really pumping out ships.

[oldman45]

Why the 11" gun? We already have a 12", 14" and 16" in production. I have not gone back and reviewed the entire thread, what are your thoughts on a battlecruiser as the logical replacement to the AC?

[GaryChildress]

These are supposed to cheaper and easier to produce alternatives to battlehips. There will be battleships in the scenario as well and they have their purpose to fight in the battle line. Taking a relatively small ship and plopping a 14" gun on it would probably lead to stability problems in a broadside I would think. These are also supposed to have good speed so the beam is going to be a bit less than could be. As far as the 11", the rationale I had was that the Brooklyns are a bit smaller than the Baltimores and to get triple turrets onto it would probably require slightly smaller guns. But I also wanted the guns to be a bit better than the 10" on the New Orleans class.

I'm just thinking the navy is going to produce many different sized ships to carry out different functions. I just don't forsee a navy where every ship is either a battleship or else a destroyer. There are going to be "in betweens" to cover other responsibilities.

Here is the layout of the fleet divided into 3 cruiser classes:

1. Escort cruisers for trade/convoy protection.
2. Scout cruisers for locating the enemy fleet and also can be used in commerce raiding to out gun the escort cruisers.
3. Armored cruisers large and powerful enough to more or less fight on their own. Sort of a "light battleship" designed to fight when and where battleships aren't available.

So the cruisers could be divided into the following classes:

[JuanG]

Again, 4x3 11in, 32 knots and that protection is a lot of ship - probably closing on 30,000 tons normal at first estimate (I can run a detailed sim if you'd like). At this point you might as well accept that it will be a full fledged battlecruiser, mount 8x14in or 8x16in on it and accept the 10,000tons or so more it will take, in return for being a full on capital ship.

Secondly - why the move to 11in? I think a longer 10in with a heavier shell is probably more in line with USN thinking, or alternatively a move to 11in and then to a longer 11in with a heavier shell. Putting 3 types of different gun with different ammo into service for 3 classes seems fairly counter to the USN's successful policy of standardization of munitions, atleast compared to Japanese or British efforts.

Its hard to say since I don't know what your plans for the RN or IJN are, but to me it seems like the CB designs 'escalate' too quickly. While some is warranted for the wartime class, what about adjusting the Brooklyn to be 3x3 10in/55 with a new shell, and the Baltimore becomes 4x3 10in/55 or 4x2 12in?

[traskott]

I like the three concepts of cruiser Gary Childress has developed, although it's true the last CBs are very impressive. 12 x 12'' is a lot of firepower, enough to sink almost every ship expect "modern" BBs...They looks like truly BCs: Big, fast, powerful guns...and unable to stand a "good" 14'' on the deck.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Why the 11" gun? We already have a 12", 14" and 16" in production. I have not gone back and reviewed the entire thread, what are your thoughts on a battlecruiser as the logical replacement to the AC?

The 11” gun was a dog’s breakfast. Obsolete, and not very good when new.

In a non-treaty world:

I would introduce the 15”/45 Mk II, and 14”/45 Mk VII, for Great Britain in 1935; the 15” for new construction (KGV, etc..) the 14” for replacement of existing systems. For “hunter cruisers”, I would complete development and introduce the 12”/50 Mk XIV in 1933. Inter-war “battle cruisers” would get the new 14”/45 Mk VII. Design and construction of these was highly superior to existing systems, but the Treaty slowed/halted their development.

[aside] The British tested 16” and 18” guns in the 1920s, concluded 18” wasn’t worth the hassle, took a chance on the 16”/45 Mk I for the Nelson class, concluded they made a big mistake and wrote it off. That was even before the treaty, so without a treaty the results would have been exactly the same and so, Brits shouldn’t get 16”/18” guns (reason was shell metallurgy/design).

The US 12”/45 Mk 5s were ok, but not great shakes; nowhere near the Brit 12”/50 Mk XIV. The 12”/50 Mk 8 wasn’t thought of or designed till 1939, so no high-velocity, super-heavy, capability till 1943/44. The 12”/45 Mk 5 was good enough for “hunter cruisers”, but not for anything else.

The 14”/50 Mk 11 was a good weapon, equivalent to GBs 14”/45 Mk VII. Tube and breech of the 14”/45 were redesigned over the years until capable of shooting super-heavy projectiles at high velocity. A good workman gun. Designed in 1930.

The 16”/45 Mk 8 was also a good weapon. The same comments relating to the 14”/50 apply. The 16”/50 Mk 3 was a bit problematic. As designed for the Lexington class BCs, and SoDak class BBs, they wouldn’t fit on the Iowa design, forcing BuOrd to develop the 16”/50 Mk 7. In a non-treaty world, the 16”/50 Mk 7 would not exist.

[aside] The US invested a bit more in shell metallurgy and could deliver a bit more kinetic energy at the point of contact. When one considers super-heavy rounds, woof!!

During “peacetime” nobody is rushing to produce a plethora of guns; that takes time, money, materials, and imperitive. In a non-treaty world, one works with what one gots, in the context of the mission. One does not go from War II results and work backward; one goes from 1919 and tries to work forward.

Hope this helps your thought process, Oldman.

JWE

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Secondly - why the move to 11in? I think a longer 10in with a heavier shell is probably more in line with USN thinking, or alternatively a move to 11in and then to a longer 11in with a heavier shell. Putting 3 types of different gun with different ammo into service for 3 classes seems fairly counter to the USN's successful policy of standardization of munitions, atleast compared to Japanese or British efforts.

Agree completely. Both the 10" and 11" were utterly obsolete and useless. USN knew this and went with upgrages to the 12"/45s, but had no requirement for a hi-V 12" gun, at the time. One could argue that the 12"/50 could have been brought up earlier, but it had a totally different barrel and breech design and wasn't compatible with 12"/45.

Would like to have your thoughts on this. JWE