Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

Because 12" isn't enough to really scare enemy battleships yet it denies tonnage to the battle line. It's great to have as a scout to punch through the enemy's screen, but not at the cost of hobbling your own battle line.

Now, I agree that 16" is too much - I only mentioned it because I remembered that there was a triple 16" turret available and the demands of tonnage and sufficient guns for spotting favours two triple turrets. These things are using battleship tonnage and must be capable of harming enemy battleships - and 12" just doesn't cut it.
The problem with that line of thought is that as soon as you have a ship that can threaten a Battleship it is meant to be used against a battleship. Any ship built to 23000 tons that is meant to fight a Battleship is going to be limited in and not really able to match it. The 2 forward turret layout is good for preserving weight in armour so you can have a thicker belt say, thing is that is very vulnerable to both turrets being taken out by a single enemy salvo or even a single hit. then your ship is useless until at least one turret can be brought back online.

The big advantage of a fast 12" or even 13.5" ship is scouting for the battlefleet. That role is still of vital importance right now, yes over the Next decade the aircraft carrier will take on that role but as things stand that's the role of a battlecruiser. I'm advocating for the best way I see for the royal navy to spend the tonnage in a way that suits their doctrine and thinking within the confines of this story and OTL thinking from this time period that is likely to be similar here. My actual advice would be rebuild the battlecruisers you have to carry out the raiding and scouting role and spend all your tonnage on Battleships, ignore the light battleship its a dead end. Actually thats a lie, my actual advice to this alt RN would be to use the 23000 ton limit to build large aircraft carriers backed up by large, 40000 - 42000 ton fast Battleships but that wont happen. At least the 12" ships I suggested will be useful support to a carrier with all the AA I put on the second design at least.
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
The problem is when you’re building a 12” cruiser killer is why bother? If you’re only looking at killing cruisers and scouting, then a good 8” ship will suffice. The extra weight needed to make a 12” viable is wasted weight when everything you want to achieve can be achieved with a good 8” ship.

There’s a reason only one navy bothered with 12” cruiser killers and barely bothered at that.
 
Theoretically, the RN could build 2 LBB's one year, and then a 42000 tonner the next year with the 7000 tons left over, then 2 more LBB's, and another 42000 tonner.
 
The problem is when you’re building a 12” cruiser killer is why bother? If you’re only looking at killing cruisers and scouting, then a good 8” ship will suffice. The extra weight needed to make a 12” viable is wasted weight when everything you want to achieve can be achieved with a good 8” ship.

There’s a reason only one navy bothered with 12” cruiser killers and barely bothered at that.
The problem is with a good 8" cruiser hunting another good 8" cruiser you are setting up a fair fight that you might well lose. You are relying on having better training and personnel to overcome your opponent. The point of a 12" cruiser killer is to set up a completely unfair fight that you are going to win.

Only the US built any cruiser killers in OTL (the Alaskas), because they were banned by the treaties until they were overtaken by carrier tech, although I think the Japanese thought about them.
 
If you are looking at a “Cruiser Killer” why not use the 9.2” guns the UK has? If ever there was a gun which fought successfully over its weight that is it. This would accomplish a few other things:
1. Not worry other powers you were trying to cheat.
2. Keep tonnage down to beused in a real BB or true BC
3. Be an excellent flag for those ports that don’t rate a BB or BC in them, but would still have umph.
4. Should be a good ship to run down raiders and Q ships.
5. Lastly, no Admiral in his right mind would put it in the line with the regular BB and/or BC. Some would look at the gun size alone on a 12” armed ship and try using them in the line.

The US could use the 10” variant of the land based gun.
 
Last edited:
If you are looking at a “Cruiser Killer” why not use the 9.2” guns the UK has? If ever there was a gun which fought successfully over its weight that is it. This would accomplish a few other things:
1. Not worry other powers you were trying to cheat.
2. Keep tonnage down to beused in a real BB or true BC
3. Be an excellent flag for those ports that don’t rate a BB or BC in them, but would still have umph.
4. Should be a good ship to run down raiders and Q ships.
5. Lastly, no Admiral in his right mind would put it in the line with the regular BB and/or BC. Some would look at the gun size alone and try using them.
I agree that it is an interesting gun choice, but IIRC any ship* that has guns over 8" is classed as a capital ship, not a cruiser. If a ship has 8" or smaller guns, it can be counted as a cruiser. Any ship with larger guns, is a capital ship and uses tonnage that could go for larger and more useful ships.

*did we ever find out if monitors are allowed? Were the British ones grandfathered as existing ships with no more allowed, or is there a monitor category with no more than one twin capital turret and no other guns over 5"?
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
The problem is with a good 8" cruiser hunting another good 8" cruiser you are setting up a fair fight that you might well lose. You are relying on having better training and personnel to overcome your opponent. The point of a 12" cruiser killer is to set up a completely unfair fight that you are going to win.
The Royal Navy will assume they have better training and personnel. Simply having 12” guns doesn’t guarantee you’ll win the fight - it’s an advantage, for sure, but it’s not decisive on its own.

The point of a 12” cruiser killer is it weighs an awful lot more than a good 8” cruiser and is somewhat of a waste when it isn’t killing cruisers. It’s a bigger ship that needs a bigger crew and therefore costs more to run every year it’s in service. Which in peace time means it will be viewed as a waste of resources.

Build a good 8” ship and train the crew to a high standard. Build more 8” ships in total and force the enemy to build more in response or dominate their 7.5”/6” cruisers and win the fight that way.
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
If you are looking at a “Cruiser Killer” why not use the 9.2” guns the UK has? If ever there was a gun which fought successfully over its weight that is it.
I think there was a discussion on 9.2” armed battlecruisers earlier on in this thread, but I might be getting my TLs mixed up.

IIRC, it basically came down to the fact a 9.2” armed ship is more or less the same size and weight as a 12” armed ship so you may as well build for the bigger guns.
 
I could possibly see the RN not bothering and instead using the entire allocation of tonnage to continue to build 42000 tonners and rely on 8" county class

This LBC class has made an already fraught and confusing decision making process even more so LOL
 
The problem is when you’re building a 12” cruiser killer is why bother? If you’re only looking at killing cruisers and scouting, then a good 8” ship will suffice. The extra weight needed to make a 12” viable is wasted weight when everything you want to achieve can be achieved with a good 8” ship.

There’s a reason only one navy bothered with 12” cruiser killers and barely bothered at that.
A few reasons. Firstly its role isn't primarily cruiser killing, its just what it is required to do in order to fulfill its purpose. The purpose of the ship would be, commerce/anti commerce raider activities and scouting for a battle-fleet. The main opposition in those tasks will be cruisers so being able to quickly deal with them is beneficial. You also the have the fact other navies are building ships in this class so some counter is needed. You cant rely on 8" ships to fight the Columbia's say. Then you have the fact that a well built ship with 12" guns can be a lot more durable than a cruiser, that makes a mission kill of the ship a lot less likely. Finally for the Royal Navy you have the fact that they need a lot of cruisers building smaller cheaper 6" cruisers en mass supported by 12" ships might make more sense.

I imagine Part of the reason the ships weren't built OTL is that most navies couldn't for Treaty reasons.

Thing is I kind of agree with you. If the Royal Navy are going to make use of the 23000 ton limit then a 12" battlecruiser makes the most sense. Thing is I don't think the exemption really makes sense for the Royal Navy. There were some ways that the clause might have made sense but that time has passed with other navies getting their first. Now the best option for the Royl Navy is to go full fast battleship say 40000 tons. You keep Hood, Howe, Renown and Repulse as Battlecrusiers to fulfil the above role and slowly replace the slower Battleships. That way you get the best possible battleships whilst having far better commerce raiders/scouts. The battlecruisers will need to be rebuilt at some point but that's OK as newer more powerful engines will replace some of the speed they have lost by being bulged etc.
 
I could possibly see the RN not bothering and instead using the entire allocation of tonnage to continue to build 42000 tonners and rely on 8" county class

This LBC class has made an already fraught and confusing decision making process even more so LOL
You already have 4 good Battlecruisers in Hood, Howe, Renown and Repulse. They can do the job whilst you can also build more 6" cruisers. They will need rebuilding at some point but that's fine. Better more powerful engines increase the speed.
 
You folks might find this interesting, behold British Napkinwaffe!

Slightly more solid than a napkin, given that they apparently tested the thing.
I'd love to know what their guidance/targeting mechanism was, given that not even the most ravingly optimistic inventor could believe that a 1920s autopilot could hit something the size of a ship.

(I also loved the "Kettering Bug" which is linked off that page - when the rev counter reached a number corresponding to the distance to the target, it retracted the bolts attaching the wings....)
 
Probably similar to the Bug, its not an anti-ship weapon but more a land attack weapon. You launch a volley of them at a hostile naval base and you're gonna hit something with enough fired.
 
I have found in one of this in my library, a curious, if not prophetic, thing for the thread, maybe some of you already knew about, but anyway. By the way, @sts-200 this is you're design of inspiration for the LBB?

An excerpt quoted from´Italian Battleships of WWII´
...
The rebuilt Dorias are partly the inspirations for the story's Vesuvios, yes.

As to the light battleship category itself, no, that was a way of fiddling the numbers between the US and UK, with the numbers chosen to exclude anything that might have been seen as 'reasonably modern' in 1921.
Now, of course, that's coming back to bite...
 
You already have 4 good Battlecruisers in Hood, Howe, Renown and Repulse. They can do the job whilst you can also build more 6" cruisers. They will need rebuilding at some point but that's fine. Better more powerful engines increase the speed.
And Rodney isn't exactly slow either and Furious is around albeit in need of rebuild as soon as the treasury will allow it. This being said 6 fast capital ships isn't nearly enough to cover the world as WWII showed, especially since that's not really enough hulls to cover rebuilds and in wartime damaged or lost ships
 
Last edited:
The problem with such an idea is getting the treasury to pay for such an extensive and thus expensive refit on a brand new ship especially when the older capital ships actually need refits to keep going
Doesn’t have to be a refit as such. Just have the work carried out “towards the end” of the build, whilst the ship is still in the dockyards.
Or as a grossly extended part of the normal process of remedying defects found during trials.
 
Top