In search of better Cherry tree's 'or' what the Navies of the world could have built Post WNT

[Cryhavoc101]

So their has been various discussions recently around the various vessels planned, in some cases laid down and either scrapped or converted either side of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty.

This resulted in either existing partially completed hulls being converted to Aircraft carriers, scrapped or planned vessels 'cut down' to conform to the agreed 35,000 ton dry maximum weight limit and 16" gun limits.

I'm going to start with the NelRods or the O3 design in what I think might have made a better ship

So the obvious 2 improvements for me would be:

More power - a 4 shaft arrangement with at least 100,000 SHP

Use of 15" guns rather than the flawed 16" guns or 16" guns that were an evolution of the highly successful 13.5" and 15" rather than taking the wrong lessons taken from the German guns that fired a lighter but faster shell.

With 3 x 3 x 15" MKII gun turrets instead of the 16" guns the turrets can be slightly smaller and therefore lighter as well as the internal machinary also maginally lighter allowing for extra weight to be used for the ships machinary.

In addition the NeRods were completed slightly over 1000 tons under the allowed 35,000 ton limits again allowing for well over 1000 extra tons for the additional machinary

Possibly allowing for at least a speed of 28 knots

I would still expect issues with the guns due to the more complicated interlocks and ther eis likely to be the same issues with dispersion but by using an existing known shell type barrel wear will be as good as the earlier 15" armed vessels.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I'm guessing on the US side there would be the original S Dakota class design. Can any experts tell us how different those would have been from the later design built sixteen years later? Then there is the question of if the Lexington & Saratoga would have been altered cruisers, or something else entirely

 

[Jellico]

The 16"/45 Mk1s were probably a design that had to happen. Wire round guns were pretty much at the end of their development cycle and built up guns were coming back. It was time to experiment a bit and try something new. We learn from out mistakes.

Someone is going to mention a 6 gun fully armoured battle cruiser Nelson. Probably too much hindsight in that one.

I would look at removing Argus and Eagle as experimental as C&G come on line. Use the tonnage to get a pair of purpose built but flawed carriers before Ark Royal.

Try and extend out the County builds. Too many too soon for no clear threat annoyed Treasury.

 

[Zheng He]

I would look at removing Argus and Eagle as experimental as C&G come on line.

I wonder if you could get the French to buy Eagle (instead of converting Bearn) and the Dutch to buy Argus?

 

[jsb]

Can any experts tell us how different those would have been from the later design built sixteen years later?

They are totally different classes,
12 v 9 guns and different layout, protection, engines etc

 

[Driftless]

I would look at removing Argus and Eagle as experimental as C&G come on line.

I wonder if you could get the French to buy Eagle (instead of converting Bearn) and the Dutch to buy Argus?

While the French had their own historic naval aviation, a knock-on for the Dutch would be what planes are flown from the former Argus. Home grown Fokkers, Koolhovens, ???; or British/American? Whiffie modelers are stirring at the thought....

 

[jsb]

I'm going to start with the NelRods or the O3 design in what I think might have made a better ship

Someone is going to mention a 6 gun fully armoured battle cruiser Nelson. Probably too much hindsight in that one.

Na with total hindsight you lay down the keel (or at least 1" of it) very quickly before you sign the WNT....

Then you simply sit thinking slowly for a bit and once Lex gets converted ask USN if you can use the modification allowance like they did, yes (N&R get 3,000t+3000t extra) or no (please scrap or rebuild Lex/S) up to you USN?

Build a cut down G3/O3 design with a bit more testing with 41,000t and no threat from 18" guns you should be able to get 9 big guns and 28-30Kn with full protection.

 

[jsb]

I wonder if you could get the French to buy Eagle (instead of converting Bearn) and the Dutch to buy Argus?

Sales are banned by WNT?

 

[Zheng He]

Sales are banned by WNT?

I thought they couldn't transfer ships to navies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since they are all still kind of sort of part of the Royal Navy but what precludes selling ships outright to third party countries like France or the Netherlands (or Brazil for that matter)?

 

[jsb]

I thought they couldn't transfer ships to navies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since they are all still kind of sort of part of the Royal Navy but what precludes selling ships outright to third party countries like France or the Netherlands (or Brazil for that matter)?

Actually the opposite, all the Empire is considered one entity so swaps are simply like moving from US Atlantic to Pacific fleet, sales to third nations are banned.

Article XVIII
Each of the Contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by gift, sale or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the navy of any foreign Power.

 

[Jellico]

Na with total hindsight you lay down the keel (or at least 1" of it) very quickly before you sign the WNT....

Then you simply sit thinking slowly for a bit and once Lex gets converted ask USN if you can use the modification allowance like they did, yes (N&R get 3,000t+3000t extra) or no (please scrap or rebuild Lex/S) up to you USN?

Build a cut down G3/O3 design with a bit more testing with 41,000t and no threat from 18" guns you should be able to get 9 big guns and 28-30Kn with full protection.

Hehe. That was a nice revised G3 in the WNTR.

 

[Zheng He]

Actually the opposite, all the Empire is considered one entity so swaps are simply like moving from US Atlantic to Pacific fleet, sales to third nations are banned.

Thanks, I didn't know about not selling to third parties. I knew the British could sell/transfer ships to Empire navies but they still counted against their tonnage (that would be too obvious of a loop hole).

 

[jsb]

That was a nice revised G3 in the WNTR.

Do you (or anybody) have the link or copy of it I lost a copy of it?

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Thanks, I didn't know about not selling to third parties. I knew the British could sell/transfer ships to Empire navies but they still counted against their tonnage (that would be too obvious of a loop hole).

The British system of pendant numbers/ flags superior and flags inferior was also designed so that a ship's number wouldn't change if it was swapped from the Royal Navy to one of the Imperial/Commonwealth navies, nor would it have to be changed if it was swapped between commonwealth navies.

For example, the destroyer HMS Hero (H99) was built in Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1936, and transferred to the RCN in 1943, and renamed HMCS Chaudiere, but retained her pennant, as there would be no repeats nor any other need to change it.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

So their has been various discussions recently around the various vessels planned, in some cases laid down and either scrapped or converted either side of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty.

This resulted in either existing partially completed hulls being converted to Aircraft carriers, scrapped or planned vessels 'cut down' to conform to the agreed 35,000 ton dry maximum weight limit and 16" gun limits.

I'm going to start with the NelRods or the O3 design in what I think might have made a better ship

So the obvious 2 improvements for me would be:

More power - a 4 shaft arrangement with at least 100,000 SHP

Use of 15" guns rather than the flawed 16" guns or 16" guns that were an evolution of the highly successful 13.5" and 15" rather than taking the wrong lessons taken from the German guns that fired a lighter but faster shell.

With 3 x 3 x 15" MKII gun turrets instead of the 16" guns the turrets can be slightly smaller and therefore lighter as well as the internal machinary also maginally lighter allowing for extra weight to be used for the ships machinary.

In addition the NeRods were completed slightly over 1000 tons under the allowed 35,000 ton limits again allowing for well over 1000 extra tons for the additional machinary

Possibly allowing for at least a speed of 28 knots

I would still expect issues with the guns due to the more complicated interlocks and ther eis likely to be the same issues with dispersion but by using an existing known shell type barrel wear will be as good as the earlier 15" armed vessels.

I actually played around with a Nelson in an alt-Washington scenario (same ratios, but 650 000 max fleet tonnage for GB and USA, 16" main gun limit but no per-ship maximum tonnage between 1922 and 1927, building moratorium between 1927 and 1937, 44 000t max thereafter), and my result was the "Q3". In this scenario, the RN built 4 G3s to a slightly modified design (30' longer to put more space between the midships turret and superstructure, a higher bow, and machinery remaining at 180 000shp rather than 160 000) but slightly less armour.

Basically, while the G3 was a great design, the Exchequer's office objected to the cost of a second set of 4, and the other nations balked upon finding out that the G3 weighed in at 48 000t compared to 44 000t for the Amagi and Lexington classes, 42 000t for the South Dakota and 40 000t for the Tosa class battleships. The result was a class of 4 ships measuring 40 000t to being the cost and average tonnage down, while not being second-class ships at the outset as the Revenge class was.

The Q3 was a modified, cut-down N3, measuring 740' long x 106' wide, and displacing 40 000t standard. The 3 x 3 16" guns (I figure it would be a mistake that would be repeated) were all forward of the superstructure, plus extra space not needed for 18" guns and armour against the same cleared the room for 4 shafts, and machinery about half of what the G3s carried, and with the help of a large transom stern and at the expense of some maneuverability, could achieve 28 kn.


This got me thinking... could this be cut down about 5 000t to OTL Washington size? Perhaps 2 Richelieu style quad turrets instead of 3 trips, (but which guns to use?) but where else would you save the weight? You could go from reaction to impulse turbines (much better power-to-weight ratio, but worse low-speed fuel efficiency and more maintenance intensive), but that would run contrary to RN practice.

 

[Jellico]

Do you (or anybody) have the link or copy of it I lost a copy of it?

I only vaguely saw the original project. I since managed to get the .docx overview. I have no idea if there is another version that covers the non-Empire nations in more detail. I have had to .zip it to convince AltHistory to upload it.

 

[merlin]

I've been wondering recently about the G3/N3 designs - both were as a result of WW1 experience and studying German designs, both had the main armament concentrated forward.
To comply with WNT rules the 'Nelrods' compromised on speed, saving weight by using less power, the armament arrangement also meant the ship could be shorter, than a conventional design - again saving weight.
In the event the slower speed didn't hamper the 'Nelrods' effectiveness. So why did follow on ships revert to conventional designs?

How different, would the KGVs and indeed Lions have been if they were design as per Nelrods with forward turrets rather than fore and aft!?
And, would any other nation have followed them?

 

[Zheng He]

I've been wondering recently about the G3/N3 designs - both were as a result of WW1 experience and studying German designs, both had the main armament concentrated forward.
To comply with WNT rules the 'Nelrods' compromised on speed, saving weight by using less power, the armament arrangement also meant the ship could be shorter, than a conventional design - again saving weight.
In the event the slower speed didn't hamper the 'Nelrods' effectiveness. So why did follow on ships revert to conventional designs?

How different, would the KGVs and indeed Lions have been if they were design as per Nelrods with forward turrets rather than fore and aft!?
And, would any other nation have followed them?

Didn't both sets of French twins have the main armament forward, granted in two quad turrets instead of three triples?

 

[jsb]

In the event the slower speed didn't hamper the 'Nelrods' effectiveness. So why did follow on ships revert to conventional designs?

Officially the risk that a single mine would flood all the magazines, that or they just didn't like them and the change from just post war to after a long peacetime? For example they also gave up on transoms for speed from G3 until Vanguard.

 

[jsb]

I'm going to start with .....what I think might have made a better ship

Charles Evans Hughes and Arthur James Balfour and others are sitting in a room in Washington feeling happy they have nearly completed negotiating the treaty that will save the world from a potential arms race.
But Balfour has in part of his mind the fact that he is about to sign up to a treaty that will mean GB will have to build 2 more expensive battleships for the RN.
Somebody has a sneaky idea and passes it to him quietly, why not ask if we to can save a bit of money, after all that's the idea of the treaty isn't it?

What about if we restart the revised admirals? Using the scrap 15inch guns we have already paid for even if that means that we might have to go slightly over 35,000t would that not be reasonable after all look at Hood herself she is huge but you all realise that she isn't really much stronger for that. (and USN/IJN already has the plans for her)

So agree to 8x15" and an exemption to the 35,000t limit to let the "Hood semi-sisters" be completed.......

Then build this,

Spoiler: Stats G4

G4, GB RN Battleship 1922 laid down 1923

Displacement:
37,472 t light; 39,300 t standard; 42,280 t normal; 44,664 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(853.32 ft / 850.00 ft) x 106.00 ft x (27.00 / 28.21 ft)
(260.09 m / 259.08 m) x 32.31 m x (8.23 / 8.60 m)

Armament:
8 - 15.00" / 381 mm 42.0 cal guns - 1,636.38lbs / 742.25kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1923 Model
2 x Quad mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
16 - 4.70" / 119 mm 45.0 cal guns - 50.00lbs / 22.68kg shells, 240 per gun
Quick firing guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1919 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, aft evenly spread
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, aft deck aft
1 raised mount - superfiring
16 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 39.0 cal guns - 2.01lbs / 0.91kg shells, 150 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1923 Model
2 x 2 row octuple mounts on sides, aft deck forward
2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 13,923 lbs / 6,315 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 13.0" / 330 mm 360.00 ft / 109.73 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: 2.00" / 51 mm 200.00 ft / 60.96 m 10.00 ft / 3.05 m
290.00 ft / 88.39 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 65 % of normal length
Main Belt inclined 10.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 16.0" / 406 mm 9.00" / 229 mm 14.0" / 356 mm
2nd: 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 6.00" / 152 mm
Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 6.00" / 152 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 4.00" / 102 mm, Aft 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 133,298 shp / 99,440 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 7,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5,364 tons

Complement:
1,473 - 1,916

Cost:
£9.181 million / $36.725 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2,229 tons, 5.3 %
- Guns: 2,229 tons, 5.3 %
Armour: 13,387 tons, 31.7 %
- Belts: 3,637 tons, 8.6 %
- Armament: 2,672 tons, 6.3 %
- Armour Deck: 6,921 tons, 16.4 %
- Conning Towers: 157 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 4,455 tons, 10.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 17,001 tons, 40.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,808 tons, 11.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 0.9 %
- On freeboard deck: 200 tons
- Above deck: 200 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
86,707 lbs / 39,329 Kg = 51.4 x 15.0 " / 381 mm shells or 5.8 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 7.7 ft / 2.4 m
Roll period: 16.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.59
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.51

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.608 / 0.615
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.02 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.47 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 30.00 %, 38.00 ft / 11.58 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Aft deck: 15.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Quarter deck: 25.00 %, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m, 28.00 ft / 8.53 m
- Average freeboard: 29.20 ft / 8.90 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 61.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 250.6 %
Waterplane Area: 69,207 Square feet or 6,430 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 123 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 187 lbs/sq ft or 914 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.41
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather