HMS Exeter

[m10bob]

This pic was taken off Sumatra in 1942



General characteristics

Displacement: 8,390 tons standard
10,410 tons full
Length: 540 ft (160 m) p/p
575 ft (175 m) o/a
Beam: 58 ft (18 m)
Draught: 17 ft (5.2 m)
Propulsion: Eight Admiralty 3-drum water-tube boilers
Parsons geared steam turbines
Four shafts
80,000 shp
Speed: 32¼ kts (30½ kts full load)
Range: 1,900 tons oil fuel, 10,000 nmi (20,000 km) at 14 knots (26 km/h)
Complement: 630
Armament: as built:
6 x BL 8 inch (203 mm) L/50 Mark VIII, twin mounts Mk.II
4 x QF 4-inch (101.6 mm) Mk.V guns, single mounts HA Mk.III
8 x 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) L/50 Mk.III Vickers machine guns, quad mounts Mk.I
2 x triple tubes for 21 inch (533 mm) torpedoes
war modifications:
6 x BL 8 inch (203 mm) L/50 Mark VIII, twin mounts Mk.II
8 x QF 4-inch (101.6 mm) Mk.XVI guns, twin mounts HA/LA Mk.XIX
8 x QF 2 pdr (40 mm) L/39 Mk.VIII, quad mounts Mk.VII
2 x 20 mm Oerlikon, single mounts P Mk.III
2 x triple tubes for 21 inch (533 mm) torpedoes
Armour: Main belt
3 in
2½-1 in enclosing bulkheads
Lower deck
1¼ in over machinery
1½ in over stearing gear
Magazine box citadels 5-1 in
Transmitting Station 1 in
Turrets
1 in face, rear, crown
2½ in base
1 in barbette
2 in hoist

Aircraft carried: Initially two catapults and aircraft
By 1939 one Supermarine Walrus floatplane, one catapult

[castor troy]

I always wondered why the British had so small secondary armament. What was the reason for this when other nations went with lots of 5 inch secondary armament.

[DuckofTindalos]

The Exeter had no secondary armament. She had a primary battery, an AA suite, and torpedoes. That's it.

[Capt. Harlock]

I always wondered why the British had so small secondary armament. What was the reason for this when other nations went with lots of 5 inch secondary armament.

Nearly all of the British "heavy" (8-inch gunned) cruisers were built under the limits of the inter-war naval treaties. They were also built under considerable financial restrictions. The four-inch guns were in fact secondaries: they were dual-purpose guns meant for use against both aircraft and smaller ships such as MTB's.

The "Exeter" class especially was an attempt to build smaller and cheaper cruisers. (Note the generally thin armor.) The designer, Sir William Berry, drew up the plans in the late 1920's, when nobody realized how many AA guns would be needed to deal with the threat of carrier and land-based aircraft.

The Americans dealt with the problem of limited space and weight by going all the way up to the Treaty limit of 10,000 tons, using welding instead of riveting, and above all, removing the torpedo tubes from their heavy cruisers. Other nations dealt with the problem by making their cruisers oversize and then lying through their teeth about the displacement.

[wdolson]

The Royal Navy had an especially difficult issue with cruisers under the treaty.  They had a world wide empire to maintain and needed a large navy to do it.  They built small, light CAs so they could build more of them to cover more territory.

The US had much less ocean to cover and I believe their treaty limts were equal to Britain's, so the US could build larger CAs, just fewer of them.

Bill

[Fallschirmjager]

I would love if someone would do a full AE conversion mode under the premise that the WNT was never signed or ratified and then proceed to map out a realistic world where the treaty never exsisted and design navies around that.

[RevRick]

Bring on the Tillman Battleships...EGAD!!!

[Historiker]

24 16in Guns on one battleship... yeah! [&o]

[DivePac88]

As has been discussed the York/Exeter class were an attempt to build more 8inch cruisers at a cheaper unit price that the preceding Norfolk class County type 8inch cruisers. Unfortunately they didn’t work out that much cheaper sacrificing one a two gun 8inch turret, and two torpedo tubes to keep the size/weight down. But the main drawback that came with the limited size was that the oil fuel bunkers on Exeter only carried nineteen hundred tons, compared to three thousand four hundred tons on the County class Kent.

[Dili]

They have a very good range with that 1900t if what is written here is true (converting 10000nm to 20000km doesn't make it very trusty)

[DivePac88]

ORIGINAL: Dili

They have a very good range with that 1900t if what is written here is true (converting 10000nm to 20000km doesn't make it very trusty)

I have always thought that York’s and Exeter’s range was officially overstated, for the reason that their stated range is only 500miles less than a County class. It just doesn’t add up when you look at the machinery and size of these cruisers, that they would have around the same range of a large treaty cruiser.

[Dili]

Yep 1900t get nearer about 6000nm than 10000nm.

[dorjun driver]

Geez. What's that, about 1190 gallons per hour?  In "economy" mode...

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

I would love if someone would do a full AE conversion mode under the premise that the WNT was never signed or ratified and then proceed to map out a realistic world where the treaty never exsisted and design navies around that.

Great minds think alike. I have often wondered what the navies of the world would have looked like by 1939 with no treaty.

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: stuman

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

I would love if someone would do a full AE conversion mode under the premise that the WNT was never signed or ratified and then proceed to map out a realistic world where the treaty never exsisted and design navies around that.

Great minds think alike. I have often wondered what the navies of the world would have looked like by 1939 with no treaty.

Given the economic realities, probably not too different. After all, the parties to the Washington treaty were willing to agreed to limitations because nobody could really afford to build the ships that had been planned. But, to speculate a little:

Some, but probably not all, of the ships that were canceled by the treaty would have been completed. But there probably wouldn't have been much beyond that for a while.

Nelson and Rodney maybe would have been completed as G3 battlecruisers instead of as 23 kt battleships, with maybe two additional G3s completed (Howe and Anson?). The UK probably could not have afforded to build any of the N3 battleships. By the late 1930s, they might have gone for something like the Lion class instead of the KGVs.

Japan probably could have completed the two Kaga class battleships and the four Amagi class battlecruisers (assuming Amagi was destroyed by an earthquake as happened historically). That means, though, that they wouldn't have Kaga and Akagi as aircraft carriers. It also means that the Kongos and the other older battleships wouldn't have been rebuilt.

The US would probably want something to match the speeds of the British G3 and the Amagi class, and the Lexington class battlecruisers with their weak armor weren't up to the job. They would have to give up a turret compared to the South Dakota (BB-49) class to make room for the increased power plant, so you end up with something similar to the historical South Dakota (BB-57) class.

Considering that the USN and Japan both had fairly strong interest in aircraft carriers, I could see two of the Lexingtons and two of the Amagis converted to carriers, as they were historically.

So, by 1941, the UK would probably have 4 G3 class battlecruisers instead of the KGV class battleships, with maybe a couple of Lions building. Japan would have 2 Kaga class battleships and 1 or 2 Amagi class battlecruisers, with Yamato and Musashi building, but with the Kongos and the other older battleships receiving only minor upgrades. The US would have USS Washington as the fourth Colorado class, probably 4 BB-49 class 23 kt battleships, 2 Lexington class battlecruisers, and probably a couple of BB-57 class or Iowas building, with more on the way.

[wdolson]

More important than the big iron, without treaty limitations, all countries would have built whatever they wanted as far as cruisers went.  The UK would have had full size cruisers and the US CAs would have had better protection.

Britain never put much interest in fleet carriers, so they probably wouldn't have developed any 100+ air group carriers.  The Fleet Air Arm was a victim of political infighting and got very little attention between the wars.  What they did have at the beginning of the war was hopelessly obsolete and they only got any reasonable kind of air power when they started buying American lend lease aircraft.

Japan and the US may have ended up locked in a carrier building race.  The airdales in both navies were at odds and on the short end of the stick with the big gun admirals, but more attention was paid to naval aviation than in the rest of the world's navies. 

Without treaty limitations, the US may have built the Ranger as an experiment, but it probably would have had better protection.  The Wasp class wouldn't have existed.  It was built to fit into treaty limitations and many compromises were made.  I don't know what the Yorktowns would have looked like.  The Navy had experience with the Lexington class and while there were some limitations, the big carriers had advantages over the smaller Yorktowns.  The Yorktowns may have been closer in size to an Essex, but without the deck edge elevator.  The deck edge elevator (which dramatically enhanced aircraft handling) was introduced with the Wasp.  About the only advantage the Wasp had over the Yorktowns.

I would expect the Essex class to come along about the same time as they did, starting before the war started.  I'm sure the US would have had at least 4 30s built fleet carriers, probably all the same class or similar.

In Japan, the Akagi would have been the starting point for future carrier designs.  She had speed and was roomy enough for a large air group.  The Kaga was a compromise design and was kind of slow for a fleet carrier.  The Hiryu and Soryu would almost certainly have been bigger carriers.  Due to Japan's industrial capacity, they may have been a bit smaller than the Akagi to save on steel.  The Shokaku and Zuikaku probably would have been built on the same schedule as history.

If the US had become more agressive at building carriers and had built the Yorktowns closer to Essex size, the Japanese may have panicked and either built the Hiryu and Soryu bigger, sped up the Shokakus, or built more fleet carriers (which probably would have delayed the Yamatos).  Many of the ships they built as auxiliaries and passenger liners with the intention of converting them to carriers when war broke out may have been built as carriers.

If the Japanese had built all those auxiliaries as carriers, it would have set off a panic in the US and the US would have built more.

The problem with these what if scenarios is dependant on how each side responds to the other uping the ante.  Britain's main focus was on the German navy which probably would not have been much bigger than it was regardless of what the British did.  Germany was a continental power and their navy was a secondary consideration to their army.  The British may have had some heart burn if the Italians tried to up the ante, but the Italian economy probably couldn't have sustained much more ship building than it did.

The two players who may have been piling the chips higher and higher are the US and Japan.  The US may not have had the political will to build more, but the industrial capacity was not a serious issue.  In Japan, their industrial capacity would have been a factor.  If they built something different, or scaled up some ship, something else probably would have suffered.  This is especially true in the 30s.  They probably had some spare capacity in the 20s.  But anything built in the 20s would have been more obsolecent by 1941.

Bill

[Fallschirmjager]

I really am interested in what kind of ships the North Carolinas, Essex's and Baltimores would have looked like. They were really in a sense 'first generation' ships since they were the first to be built unshackled by the treaty. If there was no WNT then they would have been 2nd generation ships and much more interesting.

[Dili]

The Italians build their ships as an answer to the French not British . In whole scheme of things i think it is probable that the carrier aviation will be delayed a bit. With no limits in cruisers, more resources will be spent there and probably some programs will be made earlier. This also depends if Washington Treaty was a possibility but in the end there was no agreement or there wasn't simply any discussions at all. That two options bring different outlook.