AH challenge--battleships...

Grey Wolf said:
Actually I wasnt being sarcastic

Does anyone else remember a comic strip type of story that had a powerful navy of another world, the translation of its writing by experts of space adventurers from Earth...maybe Triton in the title ? Not completely sure. It had an influence on me

Grey Wolf

It sure must have. But a battleship/carrier hybrid twice as long as a Nimitz class carrier essentially merging the full capabilities of an Iowa-class BB with a CVN would probably displace at least 200,000 tons and be the largest moving structure ever built by man. Pretty cool SF concept but unlikely to be built.
 
NapoleonXIV said:
I've often wondered why we build floating airports rather than design an airplane that can easily take off and land at sea. I mean, it is right there.

Think of an aircraft carrier without the deck. It puts in and picks up its planes from the water. It might have a catapult at one end, or not. It stores its planes belowdecks and handles them through cranes that lift the aircraft to elevators either on the superstructure or in the side. The decks are mainly free for AA weapons and the big guns that most BB lovers are so enamored of. A little better armor below the water, some depth charges on all that freed up deck space and even submarines might think twice.

Yeh, I realize its probably very dangerous and cumbersome to fish a plane and its pilot from the ocean, but improved methods and machinery might make it routine. As I understand it, carrier landings are not a walk in the park even now.

Again you have compromises - this time with the airplanes. No flying boats or floatplanes can come close to matching the performance of their land-based equivalents. Such a ship could not remotely fulfill the offensive functions of an aircraft carrier, so why add the planes. But if you really wanted such a ship, I'd experiment with huge deep-draught catamaran battleships which launch and retreive their seaplanes between hte twin hulls under the center section.
 
I have an idea, what if a F-14 had a system so that when it hit the water big airbag inflated on the sides? That would fit nicely in the Catamaran idea.
 
Guys, a little help here. I remember an AH, "The Shiloh Project" or something like that, set in a world where the CSA won the Civil War. By 1975 the world had stratified into two hostile power blocs. One was jointly led by the USA and Tsarist Russia, with China as a secondary member and the Japanese Empire being added following its conquest by the USA. The other included the British Empire, French Third Republic, CSA, Empire of Brazil and Imperial Germany.

Airpower was extremely basic, with dirigibles still in fashion, and a crackpot named Arthur C Clarke speculating on rockets that could leave the atmosphere. (Why, they all ask). Instead, gigantic battleships rule the waves, weighning in at 100,000 tons each with 30" guns, and the Anglo-dominated 'Line' of 50 is the major deterrent to a confrontation with the US and Russia. Alas, the US just conquered Japan through a new weapon. a single one of which destroyed Yokahoma.

Anyone want to guess what the weapon is?
 
I've got a copy of "The Shiloh Project" and know, tho I've never read the entire thing through, that it was the US using an atomic shell that your getting at.
 
Hybrids...

se no need for hybrids, the carrier culd still be an important partof fleet, bt I want the battleship to stay as well.
I see some definate potential with first the widespread development of radar and proximity fused AA, and laser AA later on, would render aircraft less effective.
If the war ithe Pacific is somehow avoided, then there will not have been any great fleet actions since Jutland, so nothing will be certain--and does the military ever discard something which hasn't been proven obsolete?
 
NapoleonXIV said:
I've often wondered why we build floating airports rather than design an airplane that can easily take off and land at sea. I mean, it is right there.
Whats smoother:
the open ocean or the deck of an aircraft carrier. There's your answer.


Maybe if we mess around with Pearl Harbor a bit, we could prolong the battleships' carreers. Put the carriers in battleship row, and the battleships out to sea. We lose most of our carriers, and have to focus on our battleships. The battleships stay the main part of the fleet, with the carriers used to carry interceptors to defend the fleet from air attack.

Rocket munitions would also help, giving the BB's more firing range.
 
One possible timeline: Kaiser Wilhelm II has a riding accident in 1913. His sucessor is far less happy with the potential line-up for what is to become WW1 and offers Great Britain a fleet treaty like the treaty of 1935: Germany restricts its Hochseeflotte to 40 % of what Great Britain has. They even scrap two ships already half-build.
They also hint that Germany can not hold to the colonies in the Pacific so that they will choose whom to give them: Either the Brits or the Japaneese.
Great Britain accordingly scales back it`s support for the Entente. When WW1 comes, Germanies main thrust doesn`t go into France, but into Russia. Since France attacks Germany in the Elsass and are handed a defeat as in OTL Great Britain lacks proper motivation to enter WW1.
In 1915 the Battle of Biskay between the Hochseeflotte and the French Navy is highly decisive: A Danton-class "Predreadnought" (actually build after Dreadnought but still with only 4 main guns and a lot of medium calibres) cannot stand up to a "Nassau" save an "Ostfriesland". Germany declares a Blockade against France according to International Law. This hurts France a lot since they are dependent on several imported materials. This battle and it`s aftermath are seen as the validation of Mahans theories and interest in battleships, already high increases again. Great Britain and the US are either unhappy with the "imbalanced" Continent or angered at the loss of trade. They negoiate a peace in the West which leaves Frances territories mostly intact. In the East Russias troops collapse as in OTL but earlier. Without Lenin in Russia the Bolshewik revolution is taken over by Trotsky. His doctrine of World-wide revolution makes Russia the new bogeyman of the West. Germany erects two puppet states: Poland and the Ukraine. Since both have territorial claims against each other and fear Russia they have to accept German help whether they like it or not.
In the post-war world a new naval race threatenes,especially since everybody just "knows" how important battleships are. Yet when the public realises how many dead there are with so few actual gains for either side, public pressure ensures that there is a new naval treaty. It gives the US and GB the largest fleets, Japan and Germany can build up to 70 % of that and France is forbidden to build anything above 10.000. The real difference between the OTL Washington treaty is that there is no tonnage limit for the battleships-only a fleet total.
In Germany the SPD (The Socialists) cash in on their help in Parliament in the war and parlamentarian reforms give the "Reichstag" a lot more power. The class election system is also abolished.
The new post-war battleships build by most powers tend to be much bigger then OTL ones. Since the treaty states they have to last at least 20 Years their builders try to make them somewhat "modular" so that new components can be retrofitted. The submarine threat is not seen ad valid as in OTL since the great submarine capaigns of 1915 and 1917 never happened. Likewise aircraft aren`t seen as much as a threat as now.
Since Germany is mostly worried about a war with two essentially "land" powers nor (France and Russia) they try to raise the worth of they battlefleet for such engagements. When the new battleships with 15" guns are build they develop a sabot system to fire their old 11" and 8" shells from them. That raises the range to more than 40 miles eventually. This system is of course copied around the world and the Japanese find naval fire support highly usefull in their campaigns against China. This agains raises the worth of Battleships in many eyes. Britain developes radar and fits it to it`s Battleships. Since it is far harder to keep this a secret in peacetime with no real threat it is adopted by other nations sooner or later.
During a fire-support mission near Nanking JSN battlewagons are attacked by Russian-made light bombers. While no real damage happenes this highlights the need for air defence. Two developement happen: More guns, especially when the USN revives the Gatling gun and light carriers build on Cruiser hulls equipped with fighters and and spotters.
In 1940 Russia and whats left of China ally themselves. They succed in throwing the Japaneese forces out of China. With new vigor the alliance they try to make up for the Russia`s losses in WW1 and in 1942 attack the Ukraine. The war that comes from that is mostly a land affair and no new funds are available for warship construction. The war ends with a lot of East Europe in ruins and a victorious but weakened West.
When the first SAM`s are developed they are overrated as in OTL (Great Britain at one time considered that no new manned interceptors where necessary) and quickly retrofitted to the battlewagons-usually at the expanse of a main turret or two.
While these missiles probably weren`t as good as claimed, their successors certainly lived up to the specs.
Given that the new battlewagons were quite sucessfull in the Sues crisis as well as during the unrests in the Middle east (The lastest guns have ranges for up to 200 kilometers with guided shells) no one even thinks about scapping those monsters.
Example for a modern times battleship:

Tirpitz II: 90.000 tons dive nuclear + gas turbine
6 18" guns in two tripple turrets, smoothbore
2 fixed guns firing at an angle of 40° 30 inch smoothbore
3 VLS systems for SAM and ground attack missiles
15 "Torhueter" short range defence systems (short-range missiles and 30mm guns)
about to be retrofitted with railgun AAM

Armour several layers of high tensile steel and 2 gen Ceramics.

This ship is usually accompanied by several Anti-air and Anti sub cruisers. The Red Chinese Air force attacked this group during the Formosa Crisis. Once.

This is my second try at a timeline and english is not my first language, so please have mery with a newcomer, will ya <G>
 
Roland Wolf said:
This is my second try at a timeline and english is not my first language, so please have mery with a newcomer, will ya <G>
Hehe, and have merry with you we shall, Roland, but mercy? No!! :D Nah, sorry, just kiddin'! ;) I believe your command of english is way better than mine, so have no worries! People btw tend to be nice about things like poor language as long as the posting holds some merrit!

It's actually a rather clever ATL, you've put together - my cadeau! Don't know if the POD holds, but no matter, we get damnable big battleships at the end. I must admitt that battleships seems so intimidating compared to carriers, don't know why, though.

Best regards!

- Mr.Bluenote.
 
I must admitt that battleships seems so intimidating compared to carriers, don't know why, though.

Carriers are just a big ship with a flat top. BattleShipps have all these impressive looking GUNS sticking up out of them.
 
"Tirpitz II: 90.000 tons dive nuclear + gas turbine
6 18" guns in two tripple turrets, smoothbore
2 fixed guns firing at an angle of 40° 30 inch smoothbore
3 VLS systems for SAM and ground attack missiles
15 "Torhueter" short range defence systems (short-range missiles and 30mm guns)
about to be retrofitted with railgun AAM"

Well, that a fairly impractical warship. One doesn't need both nuclear and gas turbine engines. "Two fixed guns etc..." that certainly looks like a reincarnation of the USS Vesuvius, the dynamite cruiser - nothing came of that design. If you have a VLS the need for the 18in guns is practically done away with. A 12in gun would be perfect for shore bombardment in support of a marine or troop landing. Any hardened defenses that aren't put out of action by a 12in shell get a missile.

Theres alot of holes in your ATL, enough that the German blockade of France would be unattainable by the Germans.
 
David S Poepoe said:
"Tirpitz II: 90.000 tons dive nuclear + gas turbine
6 18" guns in two tripple turrets, smoothbore
2 fixed guns firing at an angle of 40° 30 inch smoothbore
3 VLS systems for SAM and ground attack missiles
15 "Torhueter" short range defence systems (short-range missiles and 30mm guns)
about to be retrofitted with railgun AAM"

Well, that a fairly impractical warship. One doesn't need both nuclear and gas turbine engines. "Two fixed guns etc..." that certainly looks like a reincarnation of the USS Vesuvius, the dynamite cruiser - nothing came of that design. If you have a VLS the need for the 18in guns is practically done away with. A 12in gun would be perfect for shore bombardment in support of a marine or troop landing. Any hardened defenses that aren't put out of action by a 12in shell get a missile.
Theres alot of holes in your ATL, enough that the German blockade of France would be unattainable by the Germans.


The nuclear/turbine engine combo wasn`t meant to make sence. Some real world ships had such design oddities and I wanted one to make the ship look "real" the inspiration for that came from the "Kirovs" with their nuclear/oil drives and the WW1 Battleships from Germany which lacked a drive for their center shaft since their engines weren`t developed in time.
The fixed guns were modeled on the Bull "Superguns" as well as the VGAS guns for the plannes DCX destroyers. They have very long barrels (Dr. Bull claimed that with a 4-stage RAP the Iraqui gun could have placed a 250 kg payload in LEO) They would be for shore bombardment, where a turret is less necessary, and would be guided, so that adjustments for range and azimuth could be made by the shell rather than by gunlaying.
The calibre for the other main guns was meant more for the anti-ship than for an anti-shore role. With the Dreadnoughts from other nations around instead of the unchallenged superiority of the USN as in OTL they would be necesasary.
You wouldbeed a lot of missiles to kill a ship as well protected as that so guns might still be a better option. Of course they are not invulnerable, but the carriers of today aren`t either. They are still thought off as usefull.



Naval history net gives the numbers of French Dreadnoughts in 1914 as 4, Great Britain as 34. If Germany would serve the proposed treaty it would have 13 "Linienschiffe". More than enough to win a battle with the French fleet alone. While the surviors of such a battle could not blockade by themselves, they could lend backbone to a closer blockade by cruisers and even Destroyers. Larger French convoys at least would be held at unacceptable risks, especially if Germany would use the Zeppelins as spotters.
I also meat for the US and Great Britain to move for an armestice relativly soon.
 
Roland Wolf said:
The nuclear/turbine engine combo wasn`t meant to make sence. Some real world ships had such design oddities and I wanted one to make the ship look "real" the inspiration for that came from the "Kirovs" with their nuclear/oil drives and the WW1 Battleships from Germany which lacked a drive for their center shaft since their engines weren`t developed in time.
The fixed guns were modeled on the Bull "Superguns" as well as the VGAS guns for the plannes DCX destroyers. They have very long barrels (Dr. Bull claimed that with a 4-stage RAP the Iraqui gun could have placed a 250 kg payload in LEO) They would be for shore bombardment, where a turret is less necessary, and would be guided, so that adjustments for range and azimuth could be made by the shell rather than by gunlaying.
The calibre for the other main guns was meant more for the anti-ship than for an anti-shore role. With the Dreadnoughts from other nations around instead of the unchallenged superiority of the USN as in OTL they would be necesasary.
You wouldbeed a lot of missiles to kill a ship as well protected as that so guns might still be a better option. Of course they are not invulnerable, but the carriers of today aren`t either. They are still thought off as usefull.



Naval history net gives the numbers of French Dreadnoughts in 1914 as 4, Great Britain as 34. If Germany would serve the proposed treaty it would have 13 "Linienschiffe". More than enough to win a battle with the French fleet alone. While the surviors of such a battle could not blockade by themselves, they could lend backbone to a closer blockade by cruisers and even Destroyers. Larger French convoys at least would be held at unacceptable risks, especially if Germany would use the Zeppelins as spotters.
I also meat for the US and Great Britain to move for an armestice relativly soon.

Most German WWI capitals had 4 shafts, so I haven't got an idea where you came up with them having a center shaft. Your politics of 1914 are also offbase. The Anglo-French Entente had the British dealing with defending the North Sea and the Channel, while the French would handle the Mediterranean. The British, even if neutral, would probably deny the Germans access through the Channel.

Also, the Kaiser, either Wilhelm II or Wilhelm III (his son), can not simply undo laws of the Reichstag, let alone engage in any matters of foreign affairs. The size of the High Seas Fleet is set by law, the famous Navy Laws of 1900 and 1902 (I'm a little unsure about the years since I'm not bothering to look the stuff up).
 
David S Poepoe said:
Most German WWI capitals had 4 shafts, so I haven't got an idea where you came up with them having a center shaft. Your politics of 1914 are also offbase. The Anglo-French Entente had the British dealing with defending the North Sea and the Channel, while the French would handle the Mediterranean. The British, even if neutral, would probably deny the Germans access through the Channel.


Also, the Kaiser, either Wilhelm II or Wilhelm III (his son), can not simply undo laws of the Reichstag, let alone engage in any matters of foreign affairs. The size of the High Seas Fleet is set by law, the famous Navy Laws of 1900 and 1902 (I'm a little unsure about the years since I'm not bothering to look the stuff up).

The "Prinzregent Luitpold" is the ship I had in mind as to the unpowered shaft. I copied the following:
The decision to replace a turbine set in a battleship with a propulsion diesel was made in December 1910. The impetus to this resolution had been a spontaneous decision by Admiral von Tirpitz on January 15th, 1910, to equip a capital ship with an "oil" (i.e. liquid fuel) main engine. Many senior officers were aghast at this proposal, as the new turbines on board Germany's battleships had at this point still not been extensively tested. The thought of placing two new propulsion technologies on board a major warship was considered by conservative officers to be gangerously irrational.

Tirpitz's line of reasoning was based on an influential study submitted to him in December 1909 by the Konstrukteurdepartement of the Reichsmarineamt (RMA). This study was titled "Denkschrift betreffend Verwendung von Verbrennungsmotoren zum Linienschiffsantrieb" ("Memorandum on the Use of Internal Combustion Engines for Capital Ship Propulsion"). The basic findings of this document were that significant savings in both space and weight could be obtained by substituting IC engines in place of steam propulsion plants.

For a given weight of fuel it was thought that a ship with IC engines would have 3-4 times the range of a ship with boilers and either turbines or triple-expansion engines. The engine-building firm MAN even guaranteed a fuel useage rate of 0.2kg/SHP -- one quarter that of coal/steam plants. In addition, it was noted that the lack of boilers would greatly cut down on the huge number of engineroom personnel needed to man the big ships, and the cleaner engine exhaust gases would be much less visible to an enemy observer than the masses of dark stack smoke produced by coal burners. Also, re-fueling would be much faster and simpler and would eliminate the periodic coaling exercise hated by crews. Lastly, the RMA calculated that IC main engines would cost approx. RM140/SHP -- about RM30/SHP cheaper than the turbine sets then being procured for the Imperial Navy...therefore potentially lowering the price of a 28,000SHP battleship by RM840,000!

According to Griessmer, another reason for Tirpitz to follow this course was to turn the technological tables on the Royal Navy, which had surprised the Imperial Navy through its rapid large-scale adoption of marine turbines. Tirpitz thought that Germany's substantial lead in the design and development of large diesel engines would lead to a strategic advantage that the British could not easily duplicate (Tirpitz was adamant on this issue, and made many enemies in industry when he forcefully prevented MAN from licensing its diesel engine technology to Vickers in what would have been a very lucrative deal).

The RMA signed a contract with MAN on February 13th, 1910, to develop a diesel engine that could propel a capital ship. Initially this was to be a 3-cylinder 6,000HP demonstration model, to be followed (following successful testing) by a 6-cylinder 12,000HP prototype. Although the initial engine was completed in the spring of 1911, serious technical problems plagued the development project and caused a "series of disappointments". It was not until April 1917 that the large engine successfully passed its tests and was declared ready for shipboard use. On pages 114-115 of Gerhard Koop's book "Von der NASSAU- zur KOENIG-Klasse" ("From the NASSAU- to the KOENIG-Class", Bernard & Graefe, 1999) there are pictures of PRINZREGENT LUITPOLD's massive engines under construction.

The long delays meant, as we all know, that P-L went to sea with her central engineroom unused and her middle shaft alley empty and welded shut. The advanced plans to equip the follow-on KOENIG class with central diesel propulsion engines were scrapped, and construction contracts were re-written to add a third turbine set instead. P-L's performance rivalled that of her sisters...her 14 boilers and twin Parsons turbines produced a remarkable 38,751SHP that drove her at 21.7 knots (one explanation for her speed is that she carried two three-bladed 4 meter-diameter propellers, while her sisters only carried 3.75 meter-diameter screws).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[and a follow-up posting:]

My interpretation of this issue is that Admiral von Tirpitz' embrace of diesel propulsion for battleships was primarily driven by a financial (as opposed to a tactical or operational) impetus. The spiraling cost of capital ships was putting inexorable pressures on Tirpitz in his increasingly difficult dealings with the appropriations committee of the Reichstag. The advertized economic benefits of diesel engines in regards to their superior (lower) acquisition cost and operating costs vis a vis the traditional boiler/turbine system seemed paramount in his calculations to pursue this direction. While one can laud Tirpitz for his visionary initiative in ordering the development of large diesel engines for capital ship propulsion, in hindsight this seems primarily to have been a cost savings measure.

On the other hand, the internal RMA opposition to diesels was not simply the reactionary response of a conservative clique of closed-thinking admirals. Many leading German naval architects did not agree that over-sized internal combustion engines were yet a mature enough technology upon which to drive large warships. They were skeptical of the claims of their more enthusiastic colleagues in regards to potential space and weight savings to be derived.

These opponents pointed out that the large diesels on the drawing boards of MAN were so tall that they would penetrate through the standard armored deck arrangement being designed into all Imperial German Navy battleships of the day. In addition, the wholesale elimination of coal bunkers in the future meant that the entire battleship underwater protection scheme would have to be completely re-thought. This faction claimed that this meant that *additional* armor -- both horizontal as well as below the water line -- might in fact have to be added to ships, thus obviating the proclaimed weight savings.


As for the Kaiser, foreign policy and laws:

The foreign policy of the German Empire was formulated by the Kaiser and the Imperial Gouvernment. The Reichstag didn`t come into it. It had mostly budgetary powers, like the US Congress (With the place of the Senate taken by the Upper house and in part again the Kaiser.) So yes, a new Kaiser would have the power to change foreign policy quite drastically.
If a new Kaiser would have changed his mind about the Fleet and foreign policy he would have found the necessary allies in the Reichstag, especiaaly since it was that didvided and the largest faction, the SPD already against such high military spending.
I assume that as soon as Great Britain remained neutral despite the start of the fighting the pre-war arragements would fly out of the window-like the Paris agreements.
All in all I would have liked a somewhat earlier POD to make such change more likly, but it is not ASB materiel.
There is also the question whether the Brits would have detected the German fleet in a high speed transit (especially at night) given that the main Fleet basis were far to te North at that time. With far better communications, motivation and technics, not to mention a far higher force ratio the Royal Navy couldn`t prevent the Transit of Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen the other way around in 42.
 
3 vs 4 shafts--looked it up

Regarding the posts on the number of shafts on High Seas Fleet ships, I just looked it up in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships. ALL of Germany's dreadnoughs had 3 shafts, although Prinzregent Luitpold lacked a deisel for the centre shaft.
All of the Battlecruisers had 4 shafts.
 
Top