Alternate warships of nations

[Captain Seafort]

If the Type 13 class battleships had been built by Japan, what would have been the French, British, and US response shipwise?

UK: G3 would be a tough nut even for a Type 13 to crack, N3 would be far harder but the Type 13 would obviously be able to control the range. I suspect the response would effectively be an 18"-armed G3 (either enlarged to give 3x3 or same design with twin turrets).

US: God knows. The Lexingtons were death traps, the South Dakotas were underarmoured for the early 20s, and the US stuck with 23kts as battleline speed for a very long time (even up to the early designs for the 1930s SDs). They might just go for an improved SD with 18" guns and better protection.

France: Collapses into a sobbing mess. Four years of grey-clad squatters in their industrial heartlands, followed by the Hundred Days offensive grinding its way through said heartlands, left them utterly incapable of any large-scale warship construction for a decade.

 

[Lascaris]

UK: G3 would be a tough nut even for a Type 13 to crack, N3 would be far harder but the Type 13 would obviously be able to control the range. I suspect the response would effectively be an 18"-armed G3 (either enlarged to give 3x3 or same design with twin turrets).

US: God knows. The Lexingtons were death traps, the South Dakotas were underarmoured for the early 20s, and the US stuck with 23kts as battleline speed for a very long time (even up to the early designs for the 1930s SDs). They might just go for an improved SD with 18" guns and better protection.

France: Collapses into a sobbing mess. Four years of grey-clad squatters in their industrial heartlands, followed by the Hundred Days offensive grinding its way through said heartlands, left them utterly incapable of any large-scale warship construction for a decade.

Nevertheless the French were playing with a 450mm gun design of their own apparently. The likely French reaction doesn't start being built before 1930 or so at the earliest I suppose, unless money that went to heavy cruisers OTL go to the new battleships. Which likely DOES happen in Japan, Britain and the US, the budget for the new battleships got to be coming from somewhere.

Now what I wonder is what's the Italian answer if everyone else is building 450-460mm gunned ships. Can Italian industry design a comparable gun in the first place?

 

[Captain Seafort]

Nevertheless the French were playing with a 450mm gun design of their own apparently.

They were doing a lot of design work, to ensure that they had a starting point when the country had recovered enough to do something, but they were looking at 1925 as the earliest possible date for laying down anything, and that might have been optimistic.

The likely French reaction doesn't start being built before 1930 or so at the earliest I suppose, unless money that went to heavy cruisers OTL go to the new battleships.

It's not just about money, but infrastructure, which was almost all in the north east and had been reduced to mud and rubble. Rebuilding that sort of heavy industry sufficiently that it could build battleship-scale guns and armour plate was a much bigger job than rebuilding it to heavy cruiser scale. Look at the fact that even in the early 30s the Dunkerques were rather on the small side for capital ships.

Now what I wonder is what's the Italian answer if everyone else is building 450-460mm gunned ships. Can Italian industry design a comparable gun in the first place?

They could design something (the Caracciolos could probably have matched or overmatched anything completed up to 1920 except Hood), but the Italians were in almost as much trouble as the French - hence why they couldn't finish any of the Caracciolos or even refit Leonardo da Vinci.

 

[Count of Crisco]

But is such a small 30 foot steamer even possible in that era ? Or it’s too small to accommodate a steam engine ?
And if so what can it carry a couple revolver cannons and machine guns ?

There were very small ships powered by steam engines in the period, size isnt really an issue.

Either a modern reproduction or else restored period vessel on modern trailer.

So it could be done. But the real issue is what that engine can do in terms of speed and range. Such a small ship is probably not going to be going anywhere fast, and likely wont have much room for armament, though a torpedo is not out of the question.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Even the motor gunboats of WW2 were nearly 70 feet long and didn’t carry more than a 2-pounder and some machine guns.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

UK: G3 would be a tough nut even for a Type 13 to crack, N3 would be far harder but the Type 13 would obviously be able to control the range.

The N3 design would be reworked to increase the top speed and increase the elevation of the main guns.

It probably wouldn't be need though as Japan goes bust trying to complete their building program.

 

[Thoresby]

UK: G3 would be a tough nut even for a Type 13 to crack, N3 would be far harder but the Type 13 would obviously be able to control the range. I suspect the response would effectively be an 18"-armed G3 (either enlarged to give 3x3 or same design with twin turrets).

The N3 design would be reworked to increase the top speed and increase the elevation of the main guns.

An issue for the Britain is the size of infrastructure. The global nature of the RN meant they were loathe to build anything that they couldn't dock in Home waters, the Mediterranean and the Far East and that led the Admiralty to set a cap of 800 feet for the design work that led up to the N3 and G3 though they eventually relaxed that to 860 feet, the length of the final G3. If the RN is going to build a larger ship as a successor to the G3's and N3's in response foreign ships it is going to require serious expenditure on new docks at the key fleet bases of the Empire.

 

[Driftless]

An issue for the Britain is the size of infrastructure. The global nature of the RN meant they were loathe to build anything that they couldn't dock in Home waters, the Mediterranean and the Far East and that led the Admiralty to set a cap of 800 feet for the design work that led up to the N3 and G3 though they eventually relaxed that to 860 feet, the length of the final G3. If the RN is going to build a larger ship as a successor to the G3's and N3's in response foreign ships it is going to require serious expenditure on new docks at the key fleet bases of the Empire.

^^^ By this list, the only US docks in excess of 800'/244m were the West Coast docks at San Francisco and Bremerton, WA. If the dock length was a ship construction issue for the British, was it also for the USN?

 

[Gokbay]

^^^ By this list, the only US docks in excess of 800'/244m were the West Coast docks at San Francisco and Bremerton, WA. If the dock length was a ship construction issue for the British, was it also for the USN?

The thing is that the US only has to deal with Continental US, Hawaii + maybe Guam and Manila

You'll note that the British docks are only those in Britain.
But Britain also has to house these ships (and have some repair capacity etc) in Gibraltar, Malta, Alexandria/Suez, Singapore, possibly Ceylon, maybe some other places as well on top of Britain.

 

[Thoresby]

^^^ By this list, the only US docks in excess of 800'/244m were the West Coast docks at San Francisco and Bremerton, WA. If the dock length was a ship construction issue for the British, was it also for the USN?

The thing is that the US only has to deal with Continental US, Hawaii + maybe Guam and Manila

You'll note that the British docks are only those in Britain.
But Britain also has to house these ships (and have some repair capacity etc) in Gibraltar, Malta, Alexandria/Suez, Singapore, possibly Ceylon, maybe some other places as well on top of Britain.

As Gokbay says the constraint for the RN is they need to duplicate their naval facilities far more than any other power meaning that an increase in ship size costs them far more. By the interwar period they had basically given up on having capacity for their biggest ships at every naval base, the new goal was to have two big docks in home waters, one big one in the Med (the floating one at Malta) and one big one in the Far East (thus the massive spending on Singapore). Cylon, Gib, Alex were all in the nice to have but can't afford to category.

That's one of the reasons why Britain was so keen on the Washington Treaty structure, it didn't just save them from spending a shedload on new ships, it also saved them from a massive infrastructure spend and while the other powers could do Keynesian infrastructure spending by building new docks in San Diego or Toulon British spending on new docks would be on distant colonial outposts like Malta or Singapore.

 

[edgeworthy]

An issue for the Britain is the size of infrastructure. The global nature of the RN meant they were loathe to build anything that they couldn't dock in Home waters, the Mediterranean and the Far East and that led the Admiralty to set a cap of 800 feet for the design work that led up to the N3 and G3 though they eventually relaxed that to 860 feet, the length of the final G3. If the RN is going to build a larger ship as a successor to the G3's and N3's in response foreign ships it is going to require serious expenditure on new docks at the key fleet bases of the Empire.

The list can be updated in 1918 to this ...

Royal Navy Dockyards and Research, 1914-18

including Royal Naval Dockyards and Research Establishments

www.naval-history.net

And in the interwar years, add the additional Dry docks built in Esquimalt, Singapore and Southampton. And the Floating docks at Malta, Southampton and Singapore.
All capable of handling a G3. Or historically HMS Hood.

(Esquimalt, Southampton and Singapore could handle RMS Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth. 1031 by 118ft)

 

[Thoresby]

The list can be updated in 1918 to this ...

Royal Navy Dockyards and Research, 1914-18

including Royal Naval Dockyards and Research Establishments

www.naval-history.net

And in the interwar years, add the additional Dry docks built in Esquimalt, Singapore and Southampton. And the Floating docks at Malta, Southampton and Singapore.
All capable of handling a G3. Or historically HMS Hood.

But note the number of 850 foot docks and the paucity of docks bigger than that. If you want Britain to react to the Japanese building No. 13 by building an enlarged G3 you need to spend over OTL on large docks.

 

[naraic]

Just judging by German destroyers it seems like 4 inch was not common until after 1914

While it can be easy to use the word destroyer to make compare with other nations most period sources would not refer to German small ships as destroyers. Instead they would be referred to as torpedo boats.

The distinction is valuable and helps explain why German ships of the time period were so undergunned. German torpedo boats were essentially somewhere between half and two thirds the size of British destroyers, the had twice as many torpedoes, an extra knot or two of speed and much weaker guns.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

If the Type 13 class battleships had been built by Japan, what would have been the French, British, and US response shipwise?

Assuming through magic that the Japanese can afford this. Response would be in 1926, No. 13 assuming no delay between the launch of the Amagis and laying down of the Kiis followed by no delay between the launch of the Kiis and lay down of the #13 would be laid down in Dec 1924, realistically lay down would be in late 1925 or early 1926 given there would be delays.

France: No response, they aren't planning on fighting Japan on their own and their dockyards are limited enough they needed to build the Richelieus in 3 pieces and the Dunkerques in two, not to mention they are broke and need to fund a huge army

UK: Possibly no response. Any response would be in 1926, following a financial crisis in 1925 and with a general strike in that spring. Now 4 G3's could have been afforded without raising taxes based on projections I've seen on this site, if the RN also built 4 N3's, well we have higher taxes going into 1926 and trying to raise taxes again in that year might not be politically possible. If politically possible are limited by dockyards so probably a modified and improved G3, maybe keeping the 16", maybe going 3x2 or 2x3 18"

US: Without the WNT the US would have already been funding 2 new battleships a year in 1923 or so. Those would have been either an improvement on the SoDaks or a new design inspired by them 23 or 25 knots. So response would be a Design D esque battlecruiser, 12 16" guns, 30 knots, 12" belt, 5" deck on 54,500 tons with turreted secondaries, probably substantially improved given 7 years improved tech between 1919 and 1926

Of course this assumes that after seeing what the US was building in 1923 the Japanese keep going with a modified version of scheme K (which somehow gained an inch of belt armor and a half inch of deck armor while losing 1500 tons of displacement compared to the preliminary design) rather than basing it on one of the more powerful schemes like H, I, L or M with 14 or 16 16" guns or 10 or 12 18" guns

 

[Monk78]

While it can be easy to use the word destroyer to make compare with other nations most period sources would not refer to German small ships as destroyers. Instead they would be referred to as torpedo boats.

The distinction is valuable and helps explain why German ships of the time period were so undergunned. German torpedo boats were essentially somewhere between half and two thirds the size of British destroyers, the had twice as many torpedoes, an extra knot or two of speed and much weaker guns.

why did the Germans opt for such lighter guns ?

did German prewar destroyers too carry twice as many torpedos I thought it was only 4 per ship

 

[naraic]

why did the Germans opt for such lighter guns ?

did German prewar destroyers too carry twice as many torpedos I thought it was only 4 per ship

The Germans opted for lighter guns because they were building lighter ships. Their goal was to be faster and to rely on torpedoes.

I'm not going to speak to the amount of reloads ships were carrying but the heavier British destroyers laid down in 1912 had 2 torpedo tubes while the lighter German torpedo ships laid down in 1912 had 4 torpedo tubes.

 

[Eternity]

why did the Germans opt for such lighter guns ?

did German prewar destroyers too carry twice as many torpedos I thought it was only 4 per ship

For capital ships the Germans preferred to reduce gun calibre and increase armour thickness while maintaining speed. I believe that their gun penetration power was on par with the next size up British guns however, which made them better on paper (Same gun penetration, thicker armour & same speed on same displacement). ie German 11.1" is comparable to British 12", German 12" is comparable to British 13.5". Dunno if that would have worked for the German 15" however. We never got to see that in action as far as I remember.

 

[Gokbay]

I think some WW1 German Torpedo Boats/Destroyers carried 6 torpedoes for 4 torpedo tubes.

 

[Monk78]

I think some WW1 German Torpedo Boats/Destroyers carried 6 torpedoes for 4 torpedo tubes.

From class 1898 onwards to 1911 types it seems like it’s 3 tubes with 5 torpedoes

 

[CV(N)-6]

From class 1898 onwards to 1911 types it seems like it’s 3 tubes with 5 torpedoes

From which it goes to six tubes.