Why when the older ships will do for coal ships, without any WNT they simply slowly repalce ships and as they age out they go to second class stations?Could a “colonial battlecruiser” remain coal-fired and leave oil for the battleships of the Home and Atlantic units?
I dont agree colonial is mostly hunting AMC and weaker warships that have been out of dock for ages slowing them down and the risk of being left behind in a 1 v 1 is far less than in a large fleet action against a peer enemy? The home fleet will be transitioning to new oil fast battleships QE+....
Available at practically any harbour from stocks held by coal merchants under GB control....Makes sense with Welsh anthracite on hand
I would agree. Oil serves better in foreign stations. Coal is local to Britain and easy to move to main ports, for North Sea and Eastern Atlantic duties coal serves fine.
So why historically was it the other way round?I would agree. Oil serves better in foreign stations. Coal is local to Britain and easy to move to main ports, for North Sea and Eastern Atlantic duties coal serves fine.
I doubt it gets to full rivalry mode but the USA will venture out into global trade and asset its pride, the RN is the only yardstick so the antagonism is there plus Japan is a mild threat in Asia to annoy the USA. What I see is no ingredients to bring the USA and UK together with a reduced German footprint the UK is the only threat to Monroe.I kind of like the “go it alone” idea where an Entente is signed, the Russian Convention is agreed but Britain remains aloof from entanglements.
As to America, bar actual shooting PoDs, I just can’t see the necessary enmity building between the Anglo-Saxon nations (or the exchequer approving the sums required!) to militarily challenge the United States.
I would think the heavy cruiser is only a fleet screen type and as you say rare. Light cruisers to patrol foreign stations with a BC in the lead to overmatch the cruisers of all comers, especially older armored cruisers lurking.It seems prewar thst Britain was moving towards some kind of détente with Germany. Both sides were on relatively good terms, and there were talks of splitting up the Portuguese Empire between themselves.
This, imo seemed to be a prediction of the threat of an industrialsed russia.
Back on track however one must consider pre the Anglo-German arms race the royal navy was spread worldwide in the "world police" strategy so we'll likely see a good few pre dreadnoughts sitting as China Station for quite a while
With dreadnoughts I think we may see something again similar to the ironclads and pre dreadnoughts, escalation in gun size, improvement in armour scheme and quality before panning out in a "standard" 15 to 16" 28 to 30 knot fast BB with all or nothing, with incremental improvements.
If battlecruiser development starts, and indeed continues after the fast battleship comes into play we probably see some interesting development there, something with smaller guns than the BBs but decent armour and high speed.
Britain will likely focus on large numbers of smaller cruisers, eg the C's and D's. Heavy cruisers will probably be rare enough, filling a niche role and outclassed by battlecruisers.
I doubt it gets to full rivalry mode but the USA will venture out into global trade and asset its pride, the RN is the only yardstick so the antagonism is there plus Japan is a mild threat in Asia to annoy the USA. What I see is no ingredients to bring the USA and UK together with a reduced German footprint the UK is the only threat to Monroe.
But the USA still obsessed over it and let paranoia rule. How often did they assume Germany might invade or plan for an invasion from Canada? The issue is the USA has rather ill defined enemies and weak strategic goalposts. In truth it has little to fear but must find someone to play bad guy. We saw how Japan became that, a role they almost embraced but how much was self fulfilling prophesy? Without WW1 the UK is the next biggest investor and trader in the Americas, to the USA it will look nefarious and suspect.OTL it wasn’t the case though, as Britain pretty much enforced Monroe for the Americans, didn’t they?
I'm not saying the RN would be slower to innovate per say, possibly even faster. Ultimately battleships pan out size wise at about 40 to 50k tons. After that you're building something too expensive to build in large numbers and so you'd reach a "standard" battleship type, similar to the "standard" pre dreadnought, with advancements instead made in fire control, armour, gun range and accuracy etc.I would think the heavy cruiser is only a fleet screen type and as you say rare. Light cruisers to patrol foreign stations with a BC in the lead to overmatch the cruisers of all comers, especially older armored cruisers lurking.
The RN still needs the best BB best just not in such numbers unless Russia goes whole hog on getting a big show piece navy. You may be right though, without the German up ante the RN might be slower to innovate.
You are over thinking the cruiser element. In the context of fleet units part of the point of Battle cruisers is strategic mobility.Cruiser killers are very useful to a world spanning maritime empire.
Pretty much because there was very little oil storage anywhere. This was a serious issue and one of the outcomes from Beatty's post war investigation:So why historically was it the other way round?
And why would they build new oil ships for the less demanding colonial stations rather than the more demanding home threat?
Perhaps without the naval arms race and the need to overmatch the HSF's scouting forces, the battlecruiser as we know it might not exist. Instead the RN might follow the route that the Germans expected them to take and produce a 'dreadnought' version of their armored cruisers similar to the direction the Blucher was going in. An all 9.2 in gun ship, mounting four to five twin turrets and capable of around 25 knots.
I think that the USA would continue building a decent fleet. Note that the USA was using all or nothing before Britain--and with no Jutland, Britain might not go with it for a bit yet. At closer range, where secondary guns come into play more, there's a beter case for not going with all or nothing.
The USA is flexing its industrial muscles, and a serious leet is a sign of a great power...
Good point.For what it’s worth I don’t think the RN would move to AoN until after *WWI or some analogous conflict.
Fisher’s “cost cutting tour” was his first stint as 1SL. It was affected by the Arms Race, but was also a personal vision of his. It’s his second stint as 1SL that is likely butterflied and therefore the “extreme” battlecruisers.
Would that be for the next generation beyond the QE and R classes? Say by 1920 ITTL.